Monday, 16 December 2019

On meal replacement powders

Hunting and gathering food has been one of the most time consuming tasks for majority of human existence.
Agriculture and Industrialisation minimized the effort for a nice dinner dramatically.
In times were time is scarce, meal replacement powders are a somewhat just logical step to this development.

Welcome to the world of meal replacement powders!

First off: What are those powders exactly?
Well, they are mix of several ingredients such as soy, oatmeal, vitamins and minerals, which should
cover your daily need for nutrients. Often they are also purely vegan or at least vegetarian.

You just need to dissolve those powders into water or milk, like a regular protein shake to have a full meal.
There are many companies, which sell such products and often you can even subscribe to those, so you will receive your weekly dosage of food.

Usually these companies have products very similiar to each other, since the basic recipe is open source.
They all derives from a product called: Soylent, which was developed by Rob Rhinehart, a software developer short on time, creating his very own solution to this problem.

These powders are normally in the price range of 6€-10€ per day. Expensive if you cook your own meals, cheap compared to eating in a restaurant.
And this brings me to the moments when those powders make the most sense: When you are traveling or on a business trip for example.
In that case, these are a cheap and also very fast way of eating and I discovered their value during my time consuming and work-filled days when I had to work in a foreign country.
When it comes to the brand, I have found JimmyJoy® to be my choice, since I live in Europe.
They usually deliver fast and their product tastes good to me, while being easy to digest.
If you want to give it a try, save some money viá this link*:
(http://i.refs.cc/YTboEn7m?smile_ref=eyJzbWlsZV9zb3VyY2UiOiJzbWlsZV91aSIsInNtaWxlX21lZGl1bSI6IiIsInNtaWxlX2NhbXBhaWduIjoicmVmZXJyYWxfcHJvZ3JhbSIsInNtaWxlX2N1c3RvbWVyX2lkIjoxNTE3NTI0OTV9)

During these days, I hardly would find a moment to eat something and the last thing you want, is getting a food poisining, because you ate at some restaurant you didn´t know.
But it´s also of great value when wandering for example, since these powders don´t need any cooling and are quite energy dense, as they come in bags of around 500 grams for a daily portion.
All you need, is a shaker and some water to prepare your meal.
My only friends, when I was working abroad
Another idea is using it for dieting and loosing weight, since it is very easy to track all your calories.
This is actually the main concept behind a lot of liquid meals, which promise you to loose weight.
A strategy that all of the so called formula diets use.

Nevertheless there is a common question, people asked me about it:
What happens to your digestive system, when consuming such products?
A concern, I faced when first using such a product a while back. After 3 days of consuming those meal replacement powders straight, I have had quite a bad time.

People describing this phenomena, are easy to find, when searching the internet on this topic.
I really don´t know what exactly caused this in my case, but as the recipes get changed quite a lot over time and also vary from company to company,
I must say, that when I tried meal replacement powders a few months later by a different company, I didn´t encounter any problems at all.
Going to the toilet was just as normal as when I was eating regular food.
I guess this was mainly due a different recipe.

So far so good, but how does it taste?
First off: Using (soy)milk gives it a better flavour than using water.
Usually vanilla, chocolate, banana provide a nice taste, the more exotic it gets, the weirder it tastes.
The neutral ones weren´t quite my cup of tea, as they are not really neutral but taste much like an odd cousin of oatmeal.
Overall such drinks can be compared mostly to protein powders in terms of taste as well as viscosity.

One may raise an eyebrow over, if this is healthy or not.
And the answer is: we don´t know, since there hadn´t been any long-term research conducted on this.
However it´s propably safe for temporarily usuage. Many people have checked their blood after a longer liquid diet of this sort and mostly nothing really got out of hand, but it is important to keep in mind, that these weren´t medical studies.
(https://jimmyjoy.com/blogs/jimmy-joy/this-guy-ate-plenny-shake-for-6-months-and-had-his-blood-tested-afterwards)
Also the recipies vary a lot from company to company, resulting in very different results of course.

Additionaly it needs to be mentioned that, we don´t fully understand what our body really needs to
stay healthy, especially when it comes to secondary metabolites and micronutrients.
I was quite astonished, when I found out chromium to be on the list of ingredients but apparently scientists think it could be needed for the human body for a while now. (https://academic.oup.com/jn/article-abstract/123/4/626/4724422?redirectedFrom=fulltext).
Another factor which comes into play, is that there are differences in vitamin requirements for each individual based on body composition, physical activity, overall fitness, age, heritage etc.
So the nutrients given in such products could not be sufficent to everyone.
One of the reasons I wouldn´t recommend to live on liquid meals alone and prefer a more versatile, more "natural" diet.

Another point that I saw mentioned very often as an disadvantage, is that, eating itself
is a social undertaking, it has been since day one. From the stone age to the present.
If you just drink a shake in like 3 minutes you can´t participate on that.
Of course this is not a problem if you are not able to, like on a business trip. But it´s a point needs addressing.

You can save on this hassle, when using meal replacement shakes.
Also often pointed out by others, is that, you start missing the taste of real meals and feel a desire to eat something "real".
From my personal experience this is mainly a problem when being in a calorie deficit. Because this will result in gravings for such things, this didn´t really happen to me, that much when I was having just enough calories through these shakes however.
But I assume this problem also occurs if you actually have free time to think about this and walk by several restaurants.

So in short, what is my opinion on meal replacement shakes?
It´s a nice for situations, where time is a big factor and quite a healthy one, compared to the alternative of Junk Food for example.
Also it´s a good idea to loose or gain weight.
Altough not a permanent solution when it comes to eating, as our knowledge regarding our nutrient requirements grows, we might see more meal replacement shakes and they grow more normal.

*This is a ref-link which provides me some income for the blog and you potentially save yourself some money.
If you think, this is a bad idea or the link is broken or whatever, let me know!

Saturday, 16 November 2019

Saving ressources in the digital world

Handling our resources with care is something we do in our daily lives.
We recycle our waste and try to avoid unnecessary trash in the first place.
But when it comes to the internet, we still display medieval behavior, maybe even worse, after all, we don´t want to offense our fellow medieval people.

Obviously I am not talking about recycling data or bits and bytes, but rather our general idea of how we use data and how poorly we manage our resources in this context. Part of the reason I have put up this blog is sparked by this idea.

Vlogging is one of these examples: Many Vlogs are at their core, a person talking into a camera.
There is no advantage in producing a video for most of these cases. As the script is already written in most cases, it would be much better to just release a blog entry.
It´s more convenient the critics might say. I disagree. You just release your script, done!
Videos require a camera, editing, uploading huge chunks of data, all of which takes much more resources, than just a regular blog.

According to Youtube® itself, every minute 300 hours of video are uploaded. If we assume the average video to be of 720p quality, this is ~ 200 Terabyte of data every hour or ~1700 Petabyte of data each year.
If we assume an average hard disk to be of 1 Terabyte, Youtube® alone needs about ~1.7 million hard drives each year.
Flooding the internet with such amounts of data is omnipresent and has a very real impact on the
economy and the environment.
In fact it´s one of the reasons Youtube® is not profitable as of now. At least partially because so many videos require huge server parks.
The fact, people uploading their videos in ever increasing quality makes this even worse.
Uploading a podcast as a video, containing mostly stock footage in 1080p 60 fps is simply a waste of resources for example.
While Youtube® remains mostly resilient to good advise and is eager to burn more and more money, the average person could change this, by using the resources suited to its purposes.
Not to help Google, but in order to act responsible, especially in terms of environmental aspects.
Releasing a video to share your opinion is simply Overkill (https://amzn.to/2CS18iY*) most of the time.

To illustrate my point I have compared the size of a video, I had made a while ago and compared it to the size of audio only and text only.
The difference is enormous:

Format|Size             
.txt(UTF-8) = 9 kb
mp3@64kbit/s =1960 kb
mp4@720p 30fps = 318000 kb

So the .txt file is ~217 times smaller than the audio file, while the audio file still is ~162 times smaller than the video.
Compared to the video, the text file is ~35000 times smaller. Translated to hard drives, this is a lot!
Here is a small picture to give you a visual idea, how this compares:


As can be seen, a video is a true waste in comparison to anything else.

Shitposting is another topic, I want to address here. Browsing random videos on Youtube® proves my point. Many of them are of no great value or at very least don´t require a whole video to be made.
Before we loose ourselves in a discussion what is true value, I would just suggest to delete videos, which haven´t been seen for a certain amount of years. Since then, they aren´t of any value to their audience anymore.
This is only one example of how to get rid of old data but I think a lot of companies would save themselves a lot of trouble by deleting old files every now and then. 
This would allow for much greater efficiency and resource savings.
Therefore it might be required to change laws regarding archiving data, in favour of companies. Even better if we are able to get rid off some
useless laws in the process.

Of course reducing the amount of shitposting by ourselves is a big factor itself and the one I approve of the most.
The problem is, that shitposting can be profitable as well, which is probably why most people still upload huge chunks of data. This is maybe one of the rare occasions an european law regarding the internet actually has proven somewhat useful. 
Since the european union forces its individuals to hand out an imprint for non private content, it is somewhat harder to profit from shitposting.
When you are no longer anonymous, you are less likely to post questionable content. Nevertheless this tickles my Orwellian sensors and I am no proponent of this idea.

The senseless data collecting is another problem, we face. Facebook®, Google® and other companies are collecting so much data, it boggles the mind.
According to Forbes, we are producing 2.5 quintillion bytes of data per day. A large chunk of this is attributed to personal data collection.
While some of this data produces a certain value, for example Google® now predicts future influenza waves, much of the collected data is most likely worthless.
It gets mostly collected in case there will be a possible use in the future for it. This is somewhat understandable.
But having direct insight into this process, I can tell, companies are collecting and transmitting data which doesn´t have any use at all.
This is why I hope developers might take care of this point. They are often directly in charge of what kind of data gets transmitted and/or collected.
One example on this are data tracking solutions in the internet of things: Usually they transmit a lot of data, which is not needed for a given process.
On some point, this often causes problems in terms of storage and bandwidth, so keep this in mind!
Especially when up scaling, relatively small data packages with unnecessary content become your nightmare in this field.

The same applies for website design and advertisement management. Many websites these days are bloated, full of scripts and the advertisement banner is a high quality video. Be aware, that everyone visiting your website will multiply the amount of the data transmitted and processed.
Here the content providers, such as me, should consider these factors.
Simple measures could be sufficient to overcome this problem:

-Keep it as static as possible on your website
-Only allow advertisements, not using much space such as links and small pictures and gifs
-Avoid scripts and cookies as much as possible
-Keep your design simple and minimalist
-Use links to the original source instead of providing the same information on your website
-make use of compression, by using Dithering or use some nice ASCII-art like this:
'(OvO)'   <----Look, an owl!
-maybe considering self-hosting with minimal equipment, like this:

Applying some of this into the world of commercial websites, it might be a good idea to create an ISO-standard for resource friendly website design.
Taking this a step further would include general resource friendly standards for the digital economy.
Companies then could improve their public image by this and also potentially save resources and money.

Another possibility to reduce our energy and resource consumption could be, to use a different way of accounting for data transmission.
Currently a lot of private contracts regarding internet connections are bound to download and upload speeds.

Maybe future offerings should be bound to maximum download and upload sizes as well. This could provide an incentive to reduce data transfer and possibly make internet contracts much cheaper. For example I have found out, that most of the time I really don´t need more than 100 mb of data per month to be transmitted viá the mobile network. Everything else, I do viá Wi-Fi and even that is mostly under 2 GB a month.
Taking this a step further, it might be a good idea to be able to restrict the upload and download speeds as well and make everything configurable.
Congstar® for example allows for flexible tariffs on their mobile data contracts.
It is possible to up- or downsize your monthly data transfer volume and as a result your price changes accordingly. If you use up more, than your current limit, then your connection will be slowed down to a lower speed.
A possible win-win situation for providers as well as the consumer, since both are able to save resources.
Pay for what you actually use, seems an viable option for providers and users as well in this case.

For more details on speed limits for the internet also see this blog:

As nearly always, everyone is in charge in questioning his or her behavior on this topic, as it affects us all and the environment around us.
Creating awareness and educating on it is the first step in making a change. Although not a fan of creating more laws and ISO´s, the latter could help in bringing a more sustainable mindset into the economy. In fact companies could profit from a more careful mindset on this issue, as well as the customer and the environment.

Further reading and sources:

*Advertise reference link. If you purchase the product here, I will receive a small revenue.

Saturday, 26 October 2019

Steroid abuse is not okay!

The definition of a fit and healthy body is everpresent in our society: The action star with the big biceps,
the muscular round shoulders of fitness models on various magazines and the comic book heroes.
Their very physique should resemble strength and health, when it isn´t.
False and unachievable body types have found their way into the mainstream.

How can I be sure, those body types are unobtainable?
There is a rule of thumb, providing an overview of how much muscle mass is possible for a natural Bodybuilder. It is heigth in centimetres minus 100 and you get the weight somebody can achieve with a bodyfat level of roughly 5%.
So for a guy 180 cm tall, it is therefore 180-100 and you end up at 80 kg (+- 2-3kg for body structure). That is, if you are doing everything right.
Not really much. Modern bodybuilders for instance are usually 20-40 kg heavier than this formula allows.

Normally they use PED´s (Performance enhancing drugs) in the gram per week range.
In professional bodybuilding those individuals don´t have to care, since there is no testing done.
This has led to people taking huge quantities of PED´s since the '60´s in those fields.
While bodybuilders should represent healthy individuals, those people are often in a terrible health condition due their substance abuse.
People like Rich Piana, Andreas Münzer and Dallas McCarver sadly underline this position.

Steroids and alike are not only present in bodybuilders these days, but more or less everywhere.
Many actors are completely roided up when displaying action heroes, youngsters trying to impress on instagram with their big muscles and you can find completely unrealistic examples of male bodies in action figures for decades now.

This leads to many problems I want to point out here:
First of all, it is creating fatal images of how a fit body looks like.
People are viewing this as naturally achievable and then expect this to be the rule. It distorts the public image of what an fit individual is and thus leads to some expecting people to look something akin to a modern Arnold Schwarzenegger, not knowing such looks is the result of huge amounts of steroids.
Youngsters going to the gym aim to achieve such looks and then fail. The next step is either to get depressed and give up or to give the needle a try.
Not knowing what they are doing to their bodies.

Youtube videos proclaiming advice for safe use can be found in an instant. The problem is: Many side effects of steroid consumption are only visible if a
doctor explicitly searches for them or even worse: when it´s already too late.
There is no such thing as safe usuage for steroids. Unless a doctor monitors you at any given time, you can´t be sure, it didn´t already damage your body.

Normally I would say it´s the problem of the consument, but not so here.
If somebody destroys his or her body on purpose, there is someone who has to pay for it, in this case all the other health insurance participants. Smoking is an addiction, overweight is also somewhat understandable in our society, but taking steroids is being stupid on purpose.
If I would be a dictator, would I try "law-and-order"? No, but it´s needed to teach our kids in school on this issue. A study in germany found out that 24% of all men going to the gym on a regular basis, admitted having experience with anabolics.
While weightlifting is a nice sport and can easily improve your overall health, the dangers of drugs as well as the danger of false role models in this context, need to be mentioned and thaught, in school, as well as in the gym.
But not only that. It creates potentially harmful ideas of an healthy body, akin to those of skinny or super size models.
Many people aren´t aware of the fact, that a body like Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime, is not achievable without steroids and that a healthy body looks more or less like a normal, untrained one, in comparison to a (modern day) bodybuilder.

Creating awareness on what a healthy body look would therefore profit us all.



Paper on steroid abuse (German):
http://d-nb.info/981343554/34