I’m wondering if the new enzyme in Soylent 1.1 (alpha galactosidase) might raise the glycemic index? It makes sense considering it will break up the complex carbs in the oats. I used some in my 1.0 yesterday and noticed what felt like a sugar rush after eating it. I never had a sugar crash though, just sustained energy, so that’s a good sign. I didn’t find anything on wikipedia about this, but I did read somewhere online that alpha galactosidase might not be good for diabetics.
Werent enzymes add to aid in digestion? If what you said is true, then i think the dosage needs to be adjusted a little bit. It will also probably reduce the other mentioned issues with 1.1 ( if the enzymes are a cause of it).
No dosage has nothing to do with it. It makes sense that it might raise the glycemic index, because it breaks down the carbon chains before they get to the digestive track further down.
I drank some more Soylent 1.0 with the alpha g added (two separate glasses) and didn’t experience any sugar rush these times.
Bean Assist comes in capsules and makes it easy to add to the Soylent. Haven’t had any unusual gas, neither has the lady.
Two more enzymes were added. Also you added it to the glass of soylent while in 1.1 it was added presumably to the powder which means the enzymes were in it for a longer time. So the role of them cant be ruled out until all three are tested for it. In theory, them breaking down the fiber too could lead to the sugar rush as fiber also prevents this exact sort of thing among its many other functions. So the role of them in this should be explored and there dosages should be adjusted. Ofcourse all of this is based on the assumption that xanthum gum or gum acacia hasnt been reduced or eliminated. But if they were…that might be partly responsible too for all the mentioned issues with 1.1. By saying they should explore i mean they should test it on beta testers assuming they have them, not on us.
Your logic looks good - breaking down a complex carb earlier will cause faster uptake, which is an increase in glycemic index.
However, we’re still talking about a mixed-macro product - you’re still getting fats, proteins, and ample fiber in the same mixed meal, so the GI effect of a slight change in simple sugars is heavily masked. It’s so small, it may not even be measureable on the GI scale.
Did you miss the part where i said three enzymes (which do the same thing) were added. I described one, doesnt mean the others dont do it.
I’ve had more of the Soylent 1.0 with the A-G added to the powder before adding room temperature water. It then sat in the fridge overnight for soaking. No big sugar rush, so the first time was just a fluke I guess. I think I drank too much yesterday though because I had about 60 minutes of Soylent gas today, but it wasn’t terrible. (I probably drank about 700 calories worth.) Looking forward to the 1.1 with the proteases added in.
I was replying to Zenman, not to you.
I stand by what I said as accurate; the enzyme that was added will only make a vanishingly small difference in the total amount of glucose in the bloodstream. Bear in mind that the bulk of the carbohydrates in the maltodextrin and the oat flour are already easily digested, and provide a ton of carbs. You’re not going to change the flow rate of a river with a couple of buckets.
Also, the 1.1 announcement post said they added four enzymes, not three. Only the alpha-galactosidase is relevant here. The other three are proteases and don’t impact the carbohydrates/sugars; proteases cleave proteins, which are unrelated to a “sugar rush.”
The enzyme that cleaves fibers too plays a part in it. As fiber slows down rapid absorption of everything else. And whats the fourth enzyme that was added? if i remember correctly only three were mentioned. Also, i did not say only the enzymes alone could be responsible, xanthum gum ‘if’ skipped/reduced could also be playing a part.
What’s the fourth enzyme? If you told me which three you remembered, I could tell you what the fourth one is, but I don’t feel like I work for you, even though you seem to act as if I do. It bothers me.
Firstly, they did not add an enzyme that cleaves fiber.
Secondly, they actually actually added many enzymes, not three or four: one enzyme that cleaves several sugars (alpha galactosidase) and three sources of proteases. Those three sources of proteases probably contain more than three proteases. Regardless, proteases cleave proteins, not fiber (which is a complex carbohydrate.)
Lastly, if you’re going to make claims or contradict me, please just check your own facts. The announcement is way over here:
@Zenman, the effect may be bigger than I thought, if you are diabetic (or pre-diabetic?) and very sensitive to sugars.
I came across a reference that:
If you are taking the drugs acarbose (Precose) or miglitol (Glyset) for treatment of diabetes, use of alpha-galactosidase may decrease their effectiveness.
These drugs suppress your natural production of alpha-galactosidase in order to reduce sugar uptake, and taking Beano (or alpha-galactosidase) provides what the drug is trying to decrease.
(NYU Langone Medical Center)
I don’t know if we’re talking about an effect that only applies for diabetics, or if we’re talking about an effect that applies for everyone, but which is only significant for diabetics. Either way, the effect on the GI of the food is not “vanishingly small,” as I earlier thought.
I merely asked you a question. If you dont want to answer it fine. And from the announcement( you posted)…two sources of proteases not three sources of proteases. Acid-stable protease is one ‘source’ , fungal proteases is another source. Also you said from the announcement they said they added four enzymes and now you say more than four.
Interesting stuff @MentalNomad. I had 500 calories of 1.0 this morning with A-G and felt great, no sugar crash. Rosa Labs has been silent on this issue, I’m guessing they’ve already researched it and found it to not be a problem. They even included this in the 1.1 release announcement linked to above, so they’re aware of the mechanics: “The resulting product of the enzyme’s action is simple carbohydrates such as galactose and sucrose which are readily metabolized.”
No, Julio Miles posted it on behalf of Rosa Labs; it’s an official statement, not one of my posts. I merely linked to it to make it as easy as possible for you and other readers to check the facts.
“Acid-stable protease” is not a source, it’s a description. Same for “fungal protease;” it describes the kind of source (funguses), but doesn’t tell you the specific source. The three sources of proteases they reference are Aspergillus niger, Aspergillus oryzae, and Aspergillus melleus. Just FYI, all three of these, and all species of Aspergillus, are funguses (molds). The non-protease enzyme, alpha galactosidase, is also sourced from an Aspergillus fungus. So it’s fungus, fungus, fungus, fungus, all around.
Right. When I realized that I misspoke, I tried to correct it. From their announcement, they added one non-protease enzyme plus at least three (but perhaps more) proteases. That means at least four enzymes.
The first enzyme is alpha galactosidase, which is an enzyme that cleaves certain sugars.
The second enzyme is a protease from Aspergillis niger; they described this one as “acid-stable.”
The third and fourth enzymes are in the “blend of proteases” from two other funguses, Aspergillus oryzae, and Aspergillus melleus. Rosa Labs refers to “proteases” from these two sources, but we don’t know if it’s two, five, or ten enzymes - it’s a “blend.” The two molds likely produce many, many enzymes. I suppose it depends on how they culture, collect, and refine the product. So this is at least two, but perhaps many, additional enzymes…
I’m just trying to be accurate.
Regardless, the point here is this: only one of the added enzymes has relevance when talking about carbs.
Here’s the relevant portion of the Rosa Labs announcement, for handy reference:
Its all semantics, english isnt my first language. When i said ‘you posted’ i meant…the link you posted.