I’m really hoping that they will continue R&D on the algae oil and go back to it once all of the previous issues are corrected.
I’m sure they intend to, but why does it matter to you?
Assuming that you’re asking me, it goes back to when Rob was saying that eventually he wanted to source all of Soylent’s ingredients from algae in photobiorector facilities. It could potentially be extremely efficient, reducing cost, waste, resources, etc.
I don’t have a dog in this particular fight… but not sure what made you think this, it’s 37 grams, a third of 2.0’s calories are from carbs.
Thanks for pointing that out, my bad. It’s a typo. I meant to put “9 grams of total sugars,” which was the topic I was addressing.
I guess I’m looking for more precise information which is what you are giving me. I think the small amount of fructose should NOT bother me as I have it early in the day. I don’t use or add any sugars or salts what-so-ever to anything I eat or drink. I was completely vegetarian and careful with carbs - no bread or pasta.
I ran into a problem stemming from too much protein - my own doing. I’m looking for a replacement for protein shakes.
I mix the whole bag of powder to only make 48 ounces. I then put this into ‘2’ 24-ounce shaker bottles and have one bottle - one day and the second bottle the second day. I have half the bottle for breakfast and the other half for lunch.
I’ll have whole organic fruit or vegetables for a snack in between and then a bowl of cheerios with frozen raspberries for dinner.
I work 6 days a week in a physically active job so I’m not idle.
I’ve gained 14 pounds since starting this 2 months ago?
I don’t know where I’m going wrong.
Thank you for inquiring, I appreciate that.
The only reasons for weight gain that I can imagine are…
1.) Eating too many calories.
2a.) Coming off of a no/low carb diet and your body adjusting poorly.
2b.) Insulin resistance can create a need for less carbs due to the effects produced within the body from the condition.
3.) Having consumed too few calories for a prolonged duration. Thus slowing your metabolism down.
If you’re doing 500 calories for breakfast, and then 500 calories for lunch, you’ll be at 1000 calories not including dinner and snacks. A single serving of Cheerios (3/4 cup) with a single serving of skim milk (1 cup) is about 200 calories and a whole bowl is probably double or triple that. Add in some snacks in the form of fruit (I doubt it exceeds 200 calories) and you’re doing approximately 1700 calories a day (which doesn’t seem unreasonable).
I’m not sure what your height/weight/age is, but punch those numbers into this calculator and it should give you an idea of how much you need to lose weight. The general rule of thumb is to not go below 8x your body weight in calories.
(The activity level on the calculator can be misleading/inaccurate. So unless you’re working out like an athlete every day, the “every day” option wouldn’t be right for you. Similarly, 1-3 times a week is the only option above rarely and that doesn’t make sense from a day to day perspective. Thus, the most accurate way to calculate is to use “base metabolism” if you’re not active, and “rarely” if you are active outside of exercise. Furthermore, you can use other online calculators to determine how many calories you burn during exercise if you so desire, but generally you won’t burn enough to need to micro manage like that.)
I’m trying to think of other factors that might be at play, but I’m drawing a blank. Without knowing more it’s hard to say.
Now this sounds reasonable when I see it in writing. I’ve been sick for 3 weeks with that nasty cold going around and put my back out. So after work, I had to be idle to rest. I hadn’t been walking or exercising as usual.
Geez, amazing how a minor change can throw everything off kilter.
I think I just need time for my system to adjust and pay more attention to the actual caloric intake vs exercise.
You have no idea how much it helps seeing this through the eyes of others - in writing.
Thank you so much!
[quote=“SoyVegas, post:25, topic:27253”]Assuming that you’re asking me, it goes back to when Rob was saying that eventually he wanted to source all of Soylent’s ingredients from algae in photobiorector facilities. It could potentially be extremely efficient, reducing cost, waste, resources, etc.[/quote]It was meant for you, but I messed that up. Rob did talk about bioreactors that everyone could have in their own home to make Soylent on demand, but I doubt they’ll get anywhere near that goal any time soon, they first need to get past it making customers sick. I had an idea for a mushroom-based alternative that I believe might be easier to do. Other issues, like a home-grown source of B12 might be a better priority.
Mushrooms, algae, or any other similar source that would greatly diminish the need for space and other resources and have a vastly lower environmental impact than factory farming is exactly what I’m waiting for. It’s inevitable; the only question is how soon it will be used.
Can anyone name a food that doesn’t make some people sick? I am sometimes made sick by water. I think that the answer to “this makes some people sick” is warning labels.
The only problem I have with fungus based food is that they produce CO2. We have enough of that floating around these days. The benefit of algae is it would make oxygen. As far as B12 goes you could either GMO the algae (not happening anytime soon) or include it in the algae’s food (could happen today). As much as we all seem to love the idea of some kind of self sustaining algae colony life just doesn’t work that way. We would need to feed the algae raw materials so they could make more of themselves. So at that point why not just add the stuff we need that they can’t make for us.
I think this is where “the dose makes the poison” comes into play. At least one person has even died just from drinking too much water too quickly.
But either way – probably not. There are all sorts of odd diseases that make people intolerant to more than the tiniest amount of stuff that’s common in a lot of food. The best anyone can do is create a food that most people aren’t sensitive to.
[quote=“horsfield, post:34, topic:27253, full:true”]The only problem I have with fungus based food is that they produce CO2. We have enough of that floating around these days. The benefit of algae is it would make oxygen.[/quote]CO2 isn’t a real issue. Unless you also want it to double as a biocoil, I don’t see the point. (although I have considered making one, because reasons.)
[quote=“horsfield, post:34, topic:27253, full:true”]As far as B12 goes you could either GMO the algae (not happening anytime soon) or include it in the algae’s food (could happen today). As much as we all seem to love the idea of some kind of self sustaining algae colony life just doesn’t work that way. We would need to feed the algae raw materials so they could make more of themselves. So at that point why not just add the stuff we need that they can’t make for us.[/quote]I think that’s one of the big issues with the use of algae that bothers me. You do need input to get output. Paying for ingredients to add to a biorector would essentially defeat the whole point of it, so the most obvious solution is to use human fertilizer & essentially complete the circuit. Separating the Soylent from the waste to a satisfying degree just seems like a logistical nightmare compared to plants, animals or fungi. I just end up imagining a septic tank with edible algae in it.
It invokes the phrase “don’t shit where you eat” as literally as I can imagine.
Except it’s a greenhouse gas.
Except man-made global warming isn’t real. If it were actual pollution, It’d be a real issue.
Write a book about it and post it elsewhere.
Putting aside the climate change denial nonsense, this is actually not a problem. Biologically sourced CO2 is intrinsically carbon-neutral. The CO2 the fungus is releasing is sourced from plant matter it’s using as food, and that plant matter sourced its carbon from the atmosphere. It’s a closed loop; there is no surplus carbon being released. If the fungus didn’t release the CO2, then bacteria/mold/bugs would have eaten it and released the same CO2.
As a rough analogy, think of a big fish tank with an elaborate water filter. The filter takes water from the fish tank, processes it, then pours it back in. That filter is constantly pouring water into the fish tank, but it’s never going to cause the water level to rise; it’s not adding any new water.
Cattle is a small problem, they’re still carbon-neutral, but a significant amount of their waste is released as methane, which is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. It’s a temporary problem though, because methane will slowly break down into CO2 in the atmosphere.
Big-problem CO2 is sourced from fossil fuels. This is the stuff that’s causing the water level to rise in our fish tank. It was originally from biological sources, but it’s been buried and out of the cycle for hundreds of millions of years. Coal for instance came from trees 400 million years ago. Trees were brand new back then, and no life forms had evolved the ability to eat wood, kinda like how right now nothing can eat plastic. It was a totally foreign material that could not rot. It could be broken down physically, but that doesn’t release the carbon. So we had vast forests across the earth that would suck carbon out of the atmosphere, grow old, die, fall down, and just lay there, slowly getting buried under sediment. Slowly locking away carbon as the earth cooled.
I guess this was a pretty long-winded way to say mushroom-based CO2 is just peachy.
Hey look at that. I learned something.