I’m a fairly well read old man, and I’ve never heard it explained like that. Bravo.
[quote=“Geatian, post:41, topic:27253”]Big-problem CO2 is sourced from fossil fuels. This is the stuff that’s causing the water level to rise in our fish tank.[/quote]If the earth warmed a few degrees, the temperatures near the poles would warm slightly, making it easier to grow plants & among other things that’d make the poles more comfortable. Near the equator, the temperature & water levels would remain almost exactly the same, but the humidity & rainfall would noticeably increase, since the water would absorb that extra heat. This added rainfall & humidity would make droughts less of an issue & make living near the equator generally more pleasant.
If the earth cooled a few degrees, which it seems to be doing due to a natural cycle, living near these extremes is only going to get harder. Carbon Dioxide needs to stop being mistaken for actual pollution.
The info about maltodextrin generally is good, but I’d note that that was a post from 2013 while formulas were still being developed. They didn’t actually end up using tapioca maltodextrin in any version of Soylent they sold, as far as I’m aware - tapioca maltodextrin is comparatively very expensive. (Search for it on Amazon and you’ll see for yourself how much more it costs.)
Being sick and putting your back out can make a much bigger difference than most people realize. They don’t just cut back your overt activity - like going out or exercising - they also cut back things like NEAT. That’s Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis. It encompasses everything from doing housework and yardwork, to simply having more bounce in your step and burning more calories while puttering around doing minor things, to just being fidgety and bouncing your knee while listening to music, to rolling around more while in bed. All of these things can be suppressed while you’re sick and while you have back pain, leading to fewer calories burned.
Many people are rudely surprised at weight gain after recovering from a back injury. The influence on activity is pervasive and we don’t realize it while it’s happening.
A lot more than one. Dozens of cases have been fatal. Lately, the cases getting more notariety are people drinking a large amount of water to combat dehydration due to use of drugs (such as MDMA/Ecstasy.) When partiers develop hyponatremia and pass out on a couch, they may not get immediate medical attention, which makes their odds worse.
Runners in a marathon, on the other hand, tend to get immediate assistance when they pass out, so if it’s due to excess water, they’re very unlikely to go untreated and die.
There are somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 cases per year in the US, but very few cases are fatal.
Good post on carbon cycle! Yes, while fungi do liberate carbon from carbonaceous material (dead plants), they are part of the net-neutral carbon cycle. I’d add that fungi turn out to be crucial components of terrestrial plant life: fungi release important minerals and nutrients from dead matter and also from minerals in rocks and soil which are then usable by plants. Fungi also are better at absorbing water than plant roots - even the finest plant roots are enormous compared to the fine threads of fungus. We forget, sometimes, that the little mushrooms we see on the surface for a day or two are just the fruiting bodies of the fungus; the majority of the body of a fungus is the threads that have been growing in the soils for months and years, and they’re critical to the health of the soil for plants.
Fungi give minerals and water to plants… and get sugar from the plants.
We’ve only recently been learning the depth of the symbiotic relationship between plants and fungi… for example, some successful trees give half or more of their produced sugars to funguses, through their roots! And the funguses will give back some of the sugar to trees that are having a hard time and need extra sugar during times of stress. We’ve long known that trees can support each other with nutrients, but we’ve only recently learned that this particular exchange is largely fungus-mediated.
It’s way cool stuff - Radiolab did a good episode on it just last year: http://www.radiolab.org/story/from-tree-to-shining-tree/
On the subject of trees, though - I don’t think you’re accurate in saying that early trees, when dying, would lie around, failing to rot. The microbiome is much faster to evolve than complex organisms - a life cycle can be days or hours. Tree-eating specialists can easily evolve over the lifespan of a single tree.
Also, we have abundant evidence that the primary plant/animal source of bio material in the formation of petroleum reserves is ancient algae. Organic matter from productive watery areas adds up much more quickly than dry matter like terrestrial plants.
Ah, yes, the “pretend most things were better despite all the indications otherwise” approach.
I’ll agree that there are climate alarmists who over-exaggerate the degree of harm we can expect and how quickly we can expect it… but those alarmists are very much the minority in science and in public policy.
But for each of those radical alarmists, there seem to be several deniers pretending that there is no likelihood of harm, or even that climate change will be a boon. This is every bit as wrong as the eco-extremists.
Sorry, now you’re spouting outdated nonsense. That particular nonsense was popular until about 2012, because there was an extended lull in the rate of temperature rise. It looked like this:
And critics and skeptics of the science of climate change claimed this showed that the scientific consensus was wrong, or that if CO2 were causing warming, it was being countered by a “natural cooling cycle.”
In fact, the subsequent years proved that to be absolutely false:
If you go look at the climate-hoax sites talking about the issue, you’ll see that they always stop their charts at around 2012. Reality, on the other hand, has progressed all the way to the year 2017, and has proven them to be completely and utterly wrong.
So, in summary, isomaltulose is OK to use as an ingredient.
Oh, wait, did we drift off-topic?
Forgot to quote my source - NASA/GISS. Here’s the complete chart.
(I’ve added a handy arrow to point to the flat section that the climate change deniers said was proof that global warming ended.)
Can you like/direct me to where it says what type of maltodextrin they’re using? It seems like Rob was aware of how expensive tapioca maltodextrin is, but was going to use it anyways.
My assumption would be that if they were using the most expensive maltodextrin available, they would put ‘tapioca maltodextrin’ rather than just ‘maltodextrin’ on the nutritional information.
Confirmation from Conor would be good.
@MentalNomad the Earth has undergone massive temperature shifts over the billions of years that it has existed and the hundreds of millions of years that it has held life. Saying that natural cycles are “nonsense” is nonsense. It would be lovely if everything stayed exactly the same forever, but that’s not how anything works. Snowy places will become deserts, ocean floors will become mountains, and temperatures and coastlines and everything else will tango as they always have.
Whilst this is true, it is also undeniable that the rate of change we have witnessed in the last hundred years or so is both a) far faster than anything we’ve seen from any other equivalent length time period, and b) linked closely with an increase in carbon emissions.
Yes, the earth goes through natural cycles of heating and cooling but no, that doesn’t mean we aren’t contributing or aren’t at fault.
MentalNomad isn’t saying that natural cycles are nonsense, he’s saying that the statement paraphrased “the earth seems to be cooling right now due to natural cycles” is nonsense. And it is definitely nonsense.
It might be accurate to say the earth would be in a cooling cycle right now, if not for Anthropogenic Global Warming. I remember reading something to that effect in a study before; it may or may not be accurate. But that’s not what Dias said.
In any case, the problem isn’t that the climate is changing. This happens all the time. The problem is that it’s changing so quickly!
It heats, it cools, sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly. The only thing it doesn’t do is stay the same. All without any help from us. So now, after billions of years, we may be contributing to what is already happening? Yawn. Not sure what any of this has to do with isomaltulose.
“I’m worried about using Isomaltulose as a main carb”
Goodbye original topic, I’ll miss you!
Look, it really is a huge pain in the ass when someone’s all “climate change is stoopid and you’re stoopid and who cares what practically all scientists say?” But remember, when a person starts pulling out climate change denial talking points in a totally unrelated topic, it is bait.
Don’t take it! Just ignore it and continue talking about the topic (or subtopic) as if we live in a world where climate change is a real thing that human activity is really impacting. Because we do! And it is! And asking questions about CO2 generated by plant sources is a totally reasonable thing to do, as is a full-on explanation of the natural carbon cycle (super informative, by the way).
That’s the stuff.
I agree. Not because any of the many sides of this issue are invalid, but because almost all of them are off topic.
Rapid climate change is associated with mass extinctions. From a nihilistic point of view, boredom is probably the appropriate response.[quote=“synapticsmith, post:54, topic:27253”]
Goodbye original topic, I’ll miss you!
Sorry, I’m a hungry fish.
…Hungry for Soylent! Isomaltulose makes my mitochondria dance! (after being converted to ATP through a long process involving several complex chemical reactions, obviously)
Actually, I don’t think this thread has been about isomaltulose since like the 2nd post, where it was pointed out that maltodextrin is actually the main carb in Soylent.
Thanks for linking to information about every single example of rapid climate change that occurred due to absolutely no input from humans. From a reactionary point of view, panic is probably the appropriate response.
Oh, nature will go on just fine, regardless. One species suffers or dies, another (perhaps a new one) emerges and thrives. We’re just talking about screwing things up for the humans.
That’s capturing my gist nicely; thanks.
Sigh. You’re right. Mea culpa.
You’re absolutely right. I was weak. Discourse even provides a great feature for that - creating a linked topic. They’ve hidden that inside the “link” option, but it’s still there.
Of course, if I made that reply via linked topic, it would probably (rightfully) be flagged as off-topic, and deleted.
I apologize for my part in the thread jacking.
A more carbon-neutral Soylent appeals to people who want to be carbon-neutral consumers, for whatever reason… Those same people tend not to be needlessly afraid of genetic engineered plant development, so it makes sense for Soylent to use GMOs. People who who want an engineered food are more likely to respect science and engineering, so it makes sense for Soylent to pay some attention to the concerns considered valid by that market. It also makes sense for them not to be needlessly afraid of components like isomaltulose or fructose, when the scientific research makes clear there’s nothing to fear on those counts when used appropriately.
Look, I brought it back on topic!
What were some of the complaints about the algae. I loved the idea, and I think that version 1.4 I used to drink had algae in it. I just put in for an order of 1.8 and I was surprised to see Soy listed so boldly on here.
Some people were reacting strongly to the algae, like a food allergy.
Some were developing it even after having it many times.
It wasn’t a lot of people, just a few, but enough to cause concern.
And then their algae supplier overreacted and refused to sell to Rosa Labs anymore.
If and when they decide they want to try algae again, it will probably have to be with a different supplier.