American Parkour Forum

Fitness and Training => General Fitness => Diet => Topic started by: Charles Moreland on December 09, 2007, 03:35:33 PM

Title: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Charles Moreland on December 09, 2007, 03:35:33 PM
Stumbled upon this little ditto:

http://nutritionresearchcenter.org/healthnews/?p=140

Quote
Don’t drink cola if you want to be healthy. Consuming soft drinks is bad for so many reasons that science cannot even state all the consequences. But one thing we know for sure is that drinking Coke, as a representative of soft drinks, wreaks havoc on the human organism. What happens? Writer Wade Meredith has shown the quick progression of Coke’s assault.

The main problem is sugar. It’s an evil that the processed food industry and sugar growers don’t want people to know about. Even dietitians, financially supported by sugar growers and sugary product manufacturers, are loathe to tell us the truth.

When somebody drinks a Coke watch what happens…

    * In The First 10 minutes: 10 teaspoons of sugar hit your system. (100% of your recommended daily intake.) You don’t immediately vomit from the overwhelming sweetness because phosphoric acid cuts the flavor allowing you to keep it down.
    * 20 minutes: Your blood sugar spikes, causing an insulin burst. Your liver responds to this by turning any sugar it can get its hands on into fat. (There’s plenty of that at this particular moment)
    * 40 minutes: Caffeine absorption is complete. Your pupils dilate, your blood pressure rises, as a response your livers dumps more sugar into your bloodstream. The adenosine receptors in your brain are now blocked preventing drowsiness.
    * 45 minutes: Your body ups your dopamine production stimulating the pleasure centers of your brain. This is physically the same way heroin works, by the way.
    * >60 minutes: The phosphoric acid binds calcium, magnesium and zinc in your lower intestine, providing a further boost in metabolism. This is compounded by high doses of sugar and artificial sweeteners also increasing the urinary excretion of calcium.
    * >60 Minutes: The caffeine’s diuretic properties come into play. (It makes you have to pee.) It is now assured that you’ll evacuate the bonded calcium, magnesium and zinc that was headed to your bones as well as sodium, electrolyte and water.
    * >60 minutes: As the rave inside of you dies down you’ll start to have a sugar crash. You may become irritable and/or sluggish. You’ve also now, literally, pissed away all the water that was in the Coke. But not before infusing it with valuable nutrients your body could have used for things like even having the ability to hydrate your system or build strong bones and teeth.

So there you have it, an avalanche of destruction in a single can. Imagine drinking this day after day, week after week. Stick to water, real juice from fresh squeezed fruit, and tea without sweetener.
Primary Source: by Wade Meredith
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Patrick Holten (Denver Family) Flux Freerunning on December 09, 2007, 04:44:12 PM
Wow, thank you for this, actually I had stopped drinking soda as of 3 days ago so this encourages me even more.  Also, finally I have some hard facts to tell fat people to stop downing soda faster than a lost nomad without his camel! It is truly disgusting, like really fat kids down soda so fast they should puke from the overwhelming sugars, but instead I almost puke from watching them drink it in that way, freakin fat lazy americans!  Actually there are other scientific studies that have been done, that say any foods, drinks, like soda, that spike your blood sugar then drop it down, shorten you life span by 10+ years, so eat foods that burn clean and last long, with no spikes. (exactly, don't drink spike energy drink, I know you were thinkin it!)
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Muhammad on December 09, 2007, 04:57:10 PM
I stopped drinking soft drinks more than six months ago from fear of the heavy sugar content, but I wasn't aware of the phosphoric acid and it's effects. That was very informative. Thank you.

And to think, Coke got it's name from the coca leaves they used in the production of this beverage back in the early 1900's, because adding coca or cocaina gave it more of a kick.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: michiganparkour on December 09, 2007, 05:06:18 PM
..as I'm reading this i'm eating Mcdonald's and drinking coke. Coke got its name because the put actual cocaine in the drink when it was first invented. And it was green. Ive been trying to stop drinking pop and all most soft drinks it just i cant stand Gatorade, Poweraid or any other drink like that and pop is easy to get. And a fun web site i stumbled onto http://www.energyfiend.com/death-by-caffeine/
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Muhammad on December 09, 2007, 05:11:57 PM
this is a thing called water.. you might try it. i have heard good reports on it.. ;p
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: michiganparkour on December 09, 2007, 05:13:27 PM
lol true but i cant stand water...i feel like im going to puke when i drink water
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Patrick Holten (Denver Family) Flux Freerunning on December 09, 2007, 05:23:52 PM
I stopped drinking soft drinks more than six months ago from fear of the heavy sugar content, but I wasn't aware of the phosphoric acid and it's effects. That was very informative. Thank you.

And to think, Coke got it's name from the coca leaves they used in the production of this beverage back in the early 1900's, because adding coca or cocaina gave it more of a kick.

 I'm pretty sure everybody knows that.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Muhammad on December 09, 2007, 07:04:07 PM
you're pretty sure, or are you absolutely sure? i would save the "duh" for use in cases where you are absolutely sure :p
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Patrick Holten (Denver Family) Flux Freerunning on December 09, 2007, 07:22:24 PM
you're pretty sure, or are you absolutely sure? i would save the "duh" for use in cases where you are absolutely sure :p

What? I never said "duh"? come on now, cause I am positive that everybody knows that, absolutely 'cough' 'cough' thus the name coca-cola.  But what-evs I guess you could say the average Algonquin man wouldn't know that. ;)
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Muhammad on December 09, 2007, 08:40:15 PM
LOL. Yes, I see you are enjoying the benefits of our newly granted powers of EDIT.. ;D
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Patrick Holten (Denver Family) Flux Freerunning on December 09, 2007, 09:31:27 PM
LOL. Yes, I see you are enjoying the benefits of our newly granted powers of EDIT.. ;D

Did you smite me for that? Come on now, I'll smite you back, I'll do it, i swear.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Muhammad on December 09, 2007, 09:51:55 PM
no, I rarely ever smite anyone. You have to do something really seriously offensive to get me to push that button.

you know, smite is more powerful if you hardly ever use it.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Laurie Jennifer on December 10, 2007, 12:40:23 AM
i smited someone once.  i felt so bad.  i think i gave them at least 2 karmas.  and i haven't smited anyone sense.  so, there's my confession. 
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Holland Wilson on December 12, 2007, 02:12:05 PM
I'm a Dr. Pepper addict. Fortunately, the cravings can be sated by fruit juice (apple, orange, cherry or smoothies are the best,) so I'm trying to replace my Dr. Pepper habit with a (slightly more expensive >.>) fruit juice habit. So far it's gone well, except for this week, which is finals week, so I'm making an exception.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Muhammad on December 12, 2007, 02:55:49 PM
i smited someone once.  i felt so bad.  i think i gave them at least 2 karmas.  and i haven't smited anyone sense.  so, there's my confession. 

I think it would be cool if the smite application was altered so that anyone who used it, would also smite himself in the process.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Charles Moreland on December 12, 2007, 10:57:23 PM


I think it would be cool if the smite application was altered so that anyone who used it, would also smite himself in the process.

or just remove it and only have applause?
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Muhammad on December 13, 2007, 09:12:53 AM
no, it would be more fun to see who the cruel and guilty are! LOL
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Jake Meyer on December 15, 2007, 11:41:25 AM
I would want to know what I was smited for.  I would hate to be a jerk and not even realize it!  Do you suppose the average A-hole knows what they are or just think the problem is with everyone else?

Back to the thread at hand...  I read another thread on the soda topic and just got back from dumping out my pop and getting a glass of water.  The positive power of peer pressure!  ;D


edit for spelling.  I'm a terrible speller (spellor) whatever.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Muhammad on December 15, 2007, 07:42:46 PM
Don't worry about the smites guys.. I have tons of them, and I never say anything mean to anyone. I am really easy to get along with and keep a positive attitude all the time, with the exception of some occasional dry humor once in a while. I think some people give me my smites just because they are prejudiced. Nothing I can do about it, so I don't worry. Everyone one here knows how I really am. They should too, as much I post on here LOL.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Yixin (pronounced ee-shin) on December 16, 2007, 04:54:48 PM
What I like about soda is the burn in the back of my throat when I drink it. My drug of choice is usually Dr. Pepper, but I can make do with Perrier or other forms of carbonated water.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Samuel96 on December 26, 2007, 03:21:39 PM
"Did you know that *cough cough if you leave a nail in coke for *cough 4 days it will disappear? *cough thats why I don't drink coke *cough cough I drink death drinks.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Alex Melusky on January 02, 2008, 03:14:34 AM
im definetly gonna try to stop drinking soda now. i  like water so i guess thats good  :P
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Steve Low on January 02, 2008, 10:28:08 AM
"Did you know that *cough cough if you leave a nail in coke for *cough 4 days it will disappear? *cough thats why I don't drink coke *cough cough I drink death drinks.

That's incorrect. But biodegradable stuff like apples will dissolve extensively.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Laurie Jennifer on January 04, 2008, 02:01:10 PM
Thanks to "StumbleUpon," I found the following site.

I'm not really sure I agree with all of their choices as really being any healthier, but any of these could be a good intermediate step for those of you who are still having a hard time kicking the soda habit:

Soda Alternatives (http://www.revolutionhealth.com/healthy-living/food-nutrition/recipe-central/ingredient-swap/soda-pop-spritzer?msc=A69202)
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: chipset on January 04, 2008, 10:11:40 PM
Kombucha ftw!
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: ursasmaller on January 06, 2008, 08:01:48 AM
I kicked the soda habit by giving my water a good squirt of lime juice.  Gives it enough flavour that I could stand it, but it's not really sweet.... after drinking it after a few workouts, it was so refreshing that I no longer wanted soda.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: John [sss24] Chadwell on January 06, 2008, 07:05:01 PM
I'm have also gave up soda and it is hard-being 14 and surounded by temptation
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Neon Camouflage on April 25, 2009, 05:03:36 AM
Wow, I knew it was bad, but didn't know it did all that. I cut out most of it, except for a can or so a day, but now that's gone too.

I really feel bad for my friend, he drinks about 20 Mountain Dews a day. His body is officially addicted to the caffeine, his doctor said so.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: tombb on April 25, 2009, 08:31:56 AM
Sorry to say this to the Charles of 2007, but the linked discussion is just silly marketing hype reversed, choices of words aimed at turning perfectly normal processes into something that seems scary or disgusting.

The same list and sequence of effects are what you would get from tea+honey+lemonjuice (caffeine, sugar, acid) and are perfectly ok responses, what you should be concerned about is just not taking too much sugar in general, from soft drinks or other sources.
 
For example, -all- food and drinks -always- naturally cause release of dopamine.
But as that article states, "This is physically the same way heroin works, by the way." So I guess the implication is that any food or drink is as bad as heroin... Run away kids!

Also, the claim that "You don’t immediately vomit from the overwhelming sweetness because phosphoric acid cuts the flavor allowing you to keep it down" is another ridiculous statement. There are plenty of just as sweet soft drinks without any phosphoric acid, for example various sweet teas, and nobody has any problem -not- vomiting left and right while drinking something that tastes good.
I don't really like sodas or soft drinks much myself, but there's no need for any mystery chemicals to prevent me from throwing up if I had to drink one... And as far as the "overwhelming sweetness" from that amount of sugar well diluted in a large amount of liquid, obviously it's not good but it's not some weird oddity, if you enjoy chocolate you can easily and deliciously consume way more sugar (also, it's not 100% of your recommended daily amount of carbohydrates) without feeling "overwhelmed".

So again my point is that all the 'reasons' listed in that link are extremely bogus reasons.

There are actual valid reasons for not drinking drinks with a lot of unnecessary sugar in them and they are mostly that if you really wanted to get those many calories you could have eaten something way more delicious and/or nutritious, and that really drinking water or at least a diet drink would have been a much better choice. Plus the usual old-but-true rule of cutting down your refined sugars and empty calories. There is no need to try to scare people with absurd arguments that might appeal to the uninformed and fearful.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Andy Animus Tran on April 25, 2009, 08:34:15 AM
On the contrary, tomb, I think that scare tactics is just what this gluttonous and poisoned nation needs.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: swap01 on April 25, 2009, 08:50:45 AM
What about slurpees? I love slurpees ;D
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Vinny Pellegrini on April 25, 2009, 09:20:52 AM
i drink a case of coke a day. and i don't plan on stopping anytime soon. i LOVE coke. ESPECIALLY in can form.

metal is yummy.


Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Chris Salvato on April 25, 2009, 12:39:06 PM
not only have we resurrected a really old thread but now it is being polluted :(
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Shawn Meilicke on April 25, 2009, 03:49:46 PM
lol, the smite thing would be cool

but i gave up pop altogether (except Dr. Pepper, it would be committing the 8th deadly sin if i stopped, lol,semi-inside joke) and i feel more energetic and i seem to think straighter, but, then again, i stopped drinking pop about three days before starting parkour, so idk which one is causing this

(i drink DP about once a day, sometimes less, and its usually less than twenty ounces, though i bought a 2liter today because we ran out of juice and water (we have a 5-gallon water cooler) so i might be drinking a lot in the next few days
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Chris Salvato on April 25, 2009, 03:51:29 PM
hate to break it to you, man, but you haven't given up soda if you still drink Dr. Pepper.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: tombb on April 28, 2009, 02:30:34 AM
What about slurpees? I love slurpees ;D
Slurpees are fine, just like sodas, just keep in mind they are basically sugar and water which is not all that great for you, so treat it like a piece of cake you take occasionally just to make your life more interesting.
They also have diet slurpees which is much better for you for the same reasons diet sodas are better for you than regular, no sugar so it's basically water/ice with some flavor.
but i gave up pop altogether (except Dr. Pepper...
(i drink DP about once a day, sometimes less...
Again diet version would be better since it's again sugar and water otherwise... but anyways it's only about as bad as drinking orange juice (same amount of sugar) except you don't even get the benefits of other nutrition/vitamins.
It's really more of a problem when people start drinking it always in place of water which is a bad idea, equally so for diets and orange juice.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: KC Parsons on April 28, 2009, 05:45:41 AM
It's really more of a problem when people start drinking it always in place of water which is a bad idea, equally so for diets and orange juice.

This is oftentimes the case.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Charles Moreland on April 28, 2009, 10:57:27 AM
Putting aside the fact that this was one of my earlier posts, and I've grown and learned significantly more than the 2007 "me", I'll go ahead and respond to a few things here.

First off, I disagree with both Tombb and Animus on their points. While sodas may not seem so bad to you Tom, their influence in keeping the average American overweight or unhealthy is definitely much more than you give credit to. Maybe it's hard to imagine not being as educated a person as you currently are, or perhaps as disciplined when it comes to sugary "delicacies," but a decent handful of people I know as well as clients simply do not have the capacity to "just drink one" just like they don't have the capacity to "just have one slice of cake every so often." They have their daily soda ALONG with their daily slice of cake, pizza for dinner, ice cream before bed, and potato chips at every snack.

Sodas/sugar is definitely addicting and their constant influence, bringing in all those extra calories that would otherwise be replaced by 0 (water) adds up. You'd be amazed at how easy it is to help someone make their way back to proper health and fitness just by taking out liquid calories.

The article doesn't put it this way though, and on that I agree. Sodas, after taking away all the other extrinsic variables on why they should not be a part of our society, are not some sort of devil. They definitely are not healthy, but neither is chocolate or ice cream. Yet when you ask someone how much chocolate or ice cream they consume a day compared to how many sodas, the amount of soda will almost surely be higher (sometimes by huge margins). Putting back in the extrinsic variables, soda companies are now big business with their own agendas/lobbyists, spurred on the emergence of worse drinking habits like "energy drinks", and have had a huge influence on the downfall of our environment - not only through their own doing, but also through such venues as bottled water which is NOTHING but a complete waste of resources. But this is a completely different topic, and at the risk of having this turn into a huge environmental debate, I'll keep this to just personal nutrition.

This agreement with your stance on the article, Tom, brings me to Animus. I disagree specifically because of Tom's point that scare tactics are never an appropriate way to make beneficial change. Scare tactics often times will skew knowledge to make a point more dramatic and produces misinformation to battle misinformation. This simply isn't appropriate.

Heading back to you quick, Tom, how is a diet coke any "better" than a regular? Is it a lesser evil? No. You get 0 calories, sure. But along with those 0 calories comes just another set of problems. Many diet sodas still come with aspartame. I won't even delve into the research on aspartame because it flip flops more than egg debates and the research out there looks a lot like early tobacco/cigarette research.

However, what about the psychological issue that comes with a diet coke? Why recommend diet sodas when we know the effect sugar addiction has? Do you know something that I don't? If so please say so, because although there are no calories in a diet coke, the "taste" is there. How can you help someone fight sugar addiction by having them replace their regular drink with a diet, take away the calories and keep the taste? This seems similar to a discussion on the CrossFit boards where people were attempting to make a healthier "pancake" but keep the good taste. After a lot of discussion someone finally hit the nail on the head and made it clear that a pancake has "cake" in its name! If you're going to eat a pancake, eat one with shit tons of butter and drop some crazy maple syrup on it, and by all means enjoy it to the very last bite. But don't try and make a treat a healthier option because it doesn't work. Either eat the pancake or eat your fresh brown eggs with spinach. Have your soda or suck it up and drink some water. I fail to see your logic here when it comes to soda and being a healthy individual.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: tombb on April 28, 2009, 01:51:55 PM
Putting aside the fact that this was one of my earlier posts, and I've grown and learned significantly more than the 2007 "me", I'll go ahead and respond to a few things here.

First off, I disagree with both Tombb and Animus on their points. While sodas may not seem so bad to you Tom, their influence in keeping the average American overweight or unhealthy is definitely much more than you give credit to. Maybe it's hard to imagine not being as educated a person as you currently are, or perhaps as disciplined when it comes to sugary "delicacies," but a decent handful of people I know as well as clients simply do not have the capacity to "just drink one" just like they don't have the capacity to "just have one slice of cake every so often." They have their daily soda ALONG with their daily slice of cake, pizza for dinner, ice cream before bed, and potato chips at every snack.

Sodas/sugar is definitely addicting and their constant influence, bringing in all those extra calories that would otherwise be replaced by 0 (water) adds up. You'd be amazed at how easy it is to help someone make their way back to proper health and fitness just by taking out liquid calories.

The article doesn't put it this way though, and on that I agree. Sodas, after taking away all the other extrinsic variables on why they should not be a part of our society, are not some sort of devil. They definitely are not healthy, but neither is chocolate or ice cream. Yet when you ask someone how much chocolate or ice cream they consume a day compared to how many sodas, the amount of soda will almost surely be higher (sometimes by huge margins). Putting back in the extrinsic variables, soda companies are now big business with their own agendas/lobbyists, spurred on the emergence of worse drinking habits like "energy drinks", and have had a huge influence on the downfall of our environment - not only through their own doing, but also through such venues as bottled water which is NOTHING but a complete waste of resources. But this is a completely different topic, and at the risk of having this turn into a huge environmental debate, I'll keep this to just personal nutrition.

This agreement with your stance on the article, Tom, brings me to Animus. I disagree specifically because of Tom's point that scare tactics are never an appropriate way to make beneficial change. Scare tactics often times will skew knowledge to make a point more dramatic and produces misinformation to battle misinformation. This simply isn't appropriate.

Heading back to you quick, Tom, how is a diet coke any "better" than a regular? Is it a lesser evil? No. You get 0 calories, sure. But along with those 0 calories comes just another set of problems. Many diet sodas still come with aspartame. I won't even delve into the research on aspartame because it flip flops more than egg debates and the research out there looks a lot like early tobacco/cigarette research.

However, what about the psychological issue that comes with a diet coke? Why recommend diet sodas when we know the effect sugar addiction has? Do you know something that I don't? If so please say so, because although there are no calories in a diet coke, the "taste" is there. How can you help someone fight sugar addiction by having them replace their regular drink with a diet, take away the calories and keep the taste? This seems similar to a discussion on the CrossFit boards where people were attempting to make a healthier "pancake" but keep the good taste. After a lot of discussion someone finally hit the nail on the head and made it clear that a pancake has "cake" in its name! If you're going to eat a pancake, eat one with shit tons of butter and drop some crazy maple syrup on it, and by all means enjoy it to the very last bite. But don't try and make a treat a healthier option because it doesn't work. Either eat the pancake or eat your fresh brown eggs with spinach. Have your soda or suck it up and drink some water. I fail to see your logic here when it comes to soda and being a healthy individual.
Charles, it seems we agree on a lot, probably we agree on more things than we disagree on.
Even on the uselessness and environmental waste cause by bottled water as you know those are both points I repeatedly made recently (http://www.americanparkour.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,159/topic,16589.msg195732/#msg195732).
And it seems we agree that a big problem is that people don't think about liquid calories in general and drink it like water, with sodas admittedly being easier to drink in larger quantities, but I have seen people just switching to drinking large amounts of apple juice, grape juice and orange juice instead and then wondering why they kept gaining weight and/or developed type2 diabetes.

Now on the issue we kinda disagree on, there's like 3 levels mixed in: 1) effect in moderation on well-informed individuals, 2) opinions and effects on society as a whole, and finally 3) whether diet is any better.
1) Starting with the easiest one, it seems you agree with me that if you follow basic simple ancient rules of moderation, balance and understanding what you are eating, there is nothing wrong in having an occasional soda, glass of orange juice or even a piece of cake. In fact as an adult and human being I think it's important to be able to learn balance and moderation and still not deprive yourself of at least small occasional tastes of the more interesting parts of being human too.
2) Now, on the whole society impact, I see your point but I am divided on the subject. On one hand, something that is easy to drink, widely available and slightly addictive like most sweet good-tasting things, does cause problems and it's easy to point the finger at it. But to me the real problem is the underlying poor nutritional education, bad habits passed down in families, and incorrect perceptions and assumptions. Even if you made sodas illegal to people under 50 years old, I would expect that the apparent soda problem would just shift to something else, because again they are not really the underlying problem, just the scapegoat of the moment.
3) As far as diet sodas, in moderation you really don't have the issue of addiction because you don't even enter a sort of dysfunctional range where hormones and other things start going out of control, and then the question is, if it tastes the same (which to me personally does taste the same), and since you were just drinking it in combination with some dishes because the taste meshed well, then why take the extra refined sugars and empty calories? So I would say again in a normal moderation case you are still better off using diet sodas instead of normal sodas and get those same calories somewhere else (like from balanced meals).
And if we talk about people who already drink sodas like water (i.e., too much), we are already in agreement that it's not a good situation just like people taking too much of anything. For some of them, it might be easier to just cut out all sodas 'cold turkey'-style, if that is easier for them, but that's not the only option like it might be for a recovering alchoolist (reminds me of a certain south park episode (http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103677)). And yes I think if they didn't reduce the amount of sodas they drank every day they would still be better off at least drinking diet sodas instead, they would still need to learn to take things in moderation soon anyways, but taking huge amounts of refined sugars out of the picture and replacing them with much smaller doses of calorie-free sweeteners is still much better than no change at all. And I would even say if you had to drink 10 glasses a day of apple juice or 10 glasses of diet soda, you should go for the soda (although of course the even better option would be to change that 10 to 1 and go with either drink).

Now, as far as artificial sweeteners and possible health risks, especially compared to most other standard food ingredients, perhaps it might be a good idea for you to actually start a new topic on it, with your best evidence and claims you really thing sound legitimate and well supported, and we can discuss them better there. Science generally doesn't flipflops because it's not what draws premature definitive conclusions (ecept social science studies and population correlations I guess, but those should really come with a disclaimer anyways), it's often that all direct lab evidence and studies are accurate but they are sometimes taken out of context or not understood in terms of how they really relate to the actual big picture and practical reality. Anyways, I think that's a separate discussion, but the main point for me is that moderation, variety and balanced good nutrition should always be the main issue, and if you start with that anything else like sodas, diet sodas, or orange juice are really perfectly fine to have.

(btw, I am sure you know this, but after your 2007 post was bumped to 2009 I jokingly said I disagree with your '2007' you specifically because I suspected that your position probably had improved and expanded closer to mine since then, and that I would imagine you would have made a much different/better post these days).
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Chris Salvato on April 28, 2009, 02:04:15 PM
I don't really have a place here -- and i don't really want one...

Your disagreements are mostly philosophical in nature so I don't really understand the point in continuing this, but thats not up to me...

With that said, I just want to point out this statement:

Science generally doesn't flipflops because it's not what draws premature definitive conclusions (ecept social science studies and population correlations I guess, but those should really come with a disclaimer anyways), it's often that all direct lab evidence and studies are accurate but they are sometimes taken out of context or not understood in terms of how they really relate to the actual big picture and practical reality.

That's not really true.  Sure, conclusions are drawn and often times they are right -- but to say that a conclusion is always right is a dangerous road to run down...

I suggest you look up the details of a "disease" called thymicolymphaticus...this is a great example of the shortcoming of the scientific method and jumping to conclusions about "fact" and "truth" as supported by data.  Data is great but a tool in the toolbox - not the end all of understanding.  There is always the nagging chance that a variable was overlooked...in the case of thymicolymphaticus it was poverty...

It may be enlightening to read an essay titled "Poverty's Remains" by Dr. Robert Sapolsky, Ph. D.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Shawn Meilicke on April 28, 2009, 02:16:53 PM
i looked up that disease with the first thing saying this:

Old term for a syndrome of supposed enlargement of the thymus and lymph nodes in infants and young children, formerly believed to be associated with unexplained sudden death; it was also erroneously believed that pressure of the thymus on the trachea might cause death during anaesthesia. Prominence of these structures is now considered normal in young children, including those who have died suddenly without preceding illnesses that might lead to atrophy of lymphoid tissue.

then it said its now synonymous with SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome)

just thought id put that here so other dont need to look it up
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Chris Salvato on April 28, 2009, 02:20:25 PM
Sort of.  SIDS still exists.  Thymicolymphaticus does not exist in medicine anymore thus is "Old World" because it was a disease of enlarged thymus glands that is not really pathological...but was thought to be based on the science of the time.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Shawn Meilicke on April 28, 2009, 02:24:16 PM
and thats why i never believe the internet, lmao

i guess it was still kinda right though

plus one for knida relevant for "mondofacto.com" lol
(i have firefox, when you put a word into the address bar it brings up a "good article" or will go to your default search engine...this time it brought that up)
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: tombb on April 28, 2009, 02:36:04 PM
I don't really have a place here -- and i don't really want one...

Your disagreements are mostly philosophical in nature so I don't really understand the point in continuing this, but thats not up to me...

With that said, I just want to point out this statement:

Science generally doesn't flipflops because it's not what draws premature definitive conclusions (ecept social science studies and population correlations I guess, but those should really come with a disclaimer anyways), it's often that all direct lab evidence and studies are accurate but they are sometimes taken out of context or not understood in terms of how they really relate to the actual big picture and practical reality.

That's not really true.  Sure, conclusions are drawn and often times they are right -- but to say that a conclusion is always right is a dangerous road to run down...

I suggest you look up the details of a "disease" called thymicolymphaticus...this is a great example of the shortcoming of the scientific method and jumping to conclusions about "fact" and "truth" as supported by data.  Data is great but a tool in the toolbox - not the end all of understanding.  There is always the nagging chance that a variable was overlooked...in the case of thymicolymphaticus it was poverty...

It may be enlightening to read an essay titled "Poverty's Remains" by Dr. Robert Sapolsky, Ph. D.
Actually, that is a clear example of my point, that science doesn't flip-flop on scientific tests. The problem in there again is that that again was a social study and population correlation.  An example of scientific test on it would have been to actually cause the condition in mice and then cure it with the information suggested by the current theory. That has been done for many things (for example when Africa didn't believe that AIDS was really a virus, with the famous clear-cut sequence of infecting an animal, extracting the agent from it passed through a microscopic filter and then showing filter size allowing or preventing next infection, plus now we can do other things like directly inhibiting or affecting the virus).

Again, scientific data does not change and there is no flip-flopping, only increasingly more refined and precise explanations and methods that still explain equally well ALL previous data. 
You only get the impression that things flip-flop when science and guessing get confused.  Epidemiology and surveys can still be ~scientific data but not to draw definitive conclusions, only to form useful initial guesses that can then be really tested with actual experiments and tests, not just statistics.  Any data from proper testing will still have to be explained by the correct theory, no flip-flopping about that, as any valid experiment is repeatable and will always give the same result each time under the same conditions.

It's like for diets, every person responds exactly the same way to it, when you factor in all the relevant parameters, like genetics, hormonal state, number of fat cells and muscle cells, etc. You could say "everybody is different so you can never predict things", but that's just false, everybody is the same once you know all the parameters, we all have the same basic biochemistry and spectrum of mutations and variables, and we can always predict things like "when you consume less than you burn, you will either lose weight or your body will try to adjust the amount you burn or the amount you consume, and we can predict which of the 3 will occur and in which order and amounts various hormones and other body responses will occur".
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Chris Salvato on April 30, 2009, 06:28:29 AM
Ehhh, i still disagree but won't go into a lengthy diatribe.

Just a short example:
We consistently tell people they should consume higher carb PWO because of better results as shown through studies X Y and Z.  What if X Y and Z only apply to peoploe between 15 and 30?  This is a common counfounding variable that is overlooked.  What is X Y and Z cover something else about human physiology all together -- maybe there is another neuropeptide or hormone or factor that comes into play within that window that can, for some reason, negate the benefits of sugars PWO.

To say anything with any degree of certainty is dangerous and always will be....

Scientific facts can't flip flop - of course not...but data is always wildly misconstrued even when we don't realize it.  Just look at the effects of testosterone...widely accepted to increase aggression but the mechanisms are subtle.  Science takes time (millenia we still havent even begun to invest in, yet) and saying it doesn't flip flop JUST because the very basic elements of basic science are proven is a dangerous pit to fall into, imho.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: tombb on April 30, 2009, 03:45:26 PM
Ehhh, i still disagree but won't go into a lengthy diatribe.

Just a short example:
We consistently tell people they should consume higher carb PWO because of better results as shown through studies X Y and Z.  What if X Y and Z only apply to peoploe between 15 and 30?  This is a common counfounding variable that is overlooked.  What is X Y and Z cover something else about human physiology all together -- maybe there is another neuropeptide or hormone or factor that comes into play within that window that can, for some reason, negate the benefits of sugars PWO.

To say anything with any degree of certainty is dangerous and always will be....

Scientific facts can't flip flop - of course not...but data is always wildly misconstrued even when we don't realize it.  Just look at the effects of testosterone...widely accepted to increase aggression but the mechanisms are subtle.  Science takes time (millenia we still havent even begun to invest in, yet) and saying it doesn't flip flop JUST because the very basic elements of basic science are proven is a dangerous pit to fall into, imho.
That's not how it works. Science proceeds in incremental steps, starting from the knowledge that covers more cases and then  further handling smaller less common situations, without ever flip-flopping.

Actual examples in science show how you can improve your knowledge and science/technology itself without changing or negating  previous results and solid conclusions.

Remaining inconclusive and saying who knows, everything is possible, is much worse than saying things that are fairly certain with certainty.
If you understand gravity, physics and solid objects, and you crashed into walls before you really should have a very good reason to think the next time you walk into a wall you might walk through it like a ghost.

A simple theory of gravity works and will -always- work for most situations with enough accuracy even without thinking about  black holes and bent spacetime. Science doesn't make unnecessary inferences, and as soon as you find situations that need  further explanation you improve things accordingly.

You can have an elementary understanding of electricity and design things with it even without quantum mechanics, like light  bulbs. If later on learn enough quantum electronics to be able to design DVD readers, computer memory etc, that will not  suddenly cause all lightbulbs in the world to stop working.
Or think of the difference between newtonian physics and relativity.  Obviously newtonian physics is technically incorrect, as  the results derived from it start to divert ever so slightly as you get closer to light speed and planetary masses. But it's  still close enough that everybody still uses it today even to build all sorts of things.

Plus really the rate of scientific progress in most fields is way higher than the millenia you mentioned, more like huge  advances every 10 or so years.  Just look at the progress of genetics, solid-state electronics, etc. We are talking about huge  increases in the amount of knowledge in less than 10 years (e.g., complete mapping of all genes for so many organisms where just  20 years earlier you could barely look at small pieces of DNA at a time).


Using your example, you could later find out that all the current physiology knowledge we have works between 1 and 80 years old  except for when you are exactly 37 or something weird like that (although again when you think at what mechanisms would cause  that, you should know it's not very likely). Yet unless you were exactly 37, you would still benefit from all the existing  knowledge.  Either way, if the effect is real and repeatable it's probably not hard to diagnose and understand exceptions when they actually happen, and account for them.
Specifically, PWO carb/protein intake HAS been tested with similar results on older people (a lot of tests are done on old people because exercise and nutrition are important ways to prevent osteoporosis etc).


The main point is that scientists are very clear about never confusing opinions and well-established facts and theories. That's why you have scientific journals like "current opinions in physiology/anything" to allow you to discuss possibilities and  theories that have not been conclusively been backed up by results and that might still be completely disproven as people try to  actually compare them.  In fact that's the main job for scientists, to find areas with open or unanswered questions.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Chris Salvato on April 30, 2009, 06:24:26 PM
Only skimmed but there are some problems with this whole discussion.

First off, we agree on most things and our only disagreement is one of philosophy.  Beliefs are much harder to changed than ideas...

Secondly, we are using two different definitions of science so this debate is apples-to-oranges. 

The definition I have been using:
"Science" - The scientific community and how it makes a good attempt to use and interpret data that is collected in experimental studies.

The definition you have been using:
"Science" - A collection of facts that are found through experimental methods and procedures.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: tombb on April 30, 2009, 11:22:33 PM
Only skimmed but there are some problems with this whole discussion.

First off, we agree on most things and our only disagreement is one of philosophy.  Beliefs are much harder to changed than ideas...

Secondly, we are using two different definitions of science so this debate is apples-to-oranges. 

The definition I have been using:
"Science" - The scientific community and how it makes a good attempt to use and interpret data that is collected in experimental studies.

The definition you have been using:
"Science" - A collection of facts that are found through experimental methods and procedures.
Chris, I concur,
but my main point is that even in your definition of "Science", the scientific community keeps very aware of the difference between what are temporary conjectures or standing opinions that are not fully tested, versus which aspects are fully supported and unlikely to change. We know what needs further testing, which tests would be required to conclusively prove it, and what evidence we currently have to base our decisions on.

It's usually only when it gets reported in non-scientific channels (media, politics, doctors trying to unnecessarily dumb-down things for patients or hype things for books they want to sell) that all the proper disclaimers and information about what we know for sure and what is still under investigation gets discarded.


This started from my suggestion that if Charles was interested in it he could start a thread looking at scientific data on sweeteners and that if he did I would help contribute in the discussion. 

My point there was that we would be looking at actual studies and results, not popular standing opinions, political committee decisions, or anti-industry hippie movements. In that context we would be under the definition of science that I used, and there would be no flip-flopping involved.
Each study would be another piece of the puzzle, any shortcoming of one study might be controlled for by some other study until either you reasonably covered all your bases -OR- you would know better which situation or detail is still unknown, which study would be needed to resolve it, and what is and isn't likely and how risks compare to other reasonable risks (there are risks and side-effects in everything, even water or vitamins, so it's important to put things into context, and also consider doses, alternatives, options etc).
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: MeKa360 on May 01, 2009, 04:23:55 AM
i stopped drinking soda long time ago

only powerade, milk, and water
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: KC Parsons on May 01, 2009, 06:26:19 AM
i stopped drinking soda long time ago

only powerade, milk, and water

Good stuff, it's always good to hear of someone who's been able to overcome the allure of those carbonated devils (I myself have problems time to time).

Next on the list:
Eliminate the powerade, add green tea :D
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: BearMills on May 01, 2009, 07:01:56 AM
Yeah Im addicted to soft drinks i always drank coca cola when i was little but finally my dad said you need to start drinking Diet so I started drinking diet and now i cant drink normal coca cola because it is T00 sugary and is disgusting... I am trying to break the habit i usually have around 2 cans a week... but normally 1....
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Shawn Meilicke on May 01, 2009, 03:34:06 PM
you know whats depressing, my step mom is a nurse

she drinks coca-cola like its water. and when my little (half) sister was a baby, she put coke in her BOTTLES!!!

parenting fail?!
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: edgey on May 01, 2009, 05:12:37 PM
Been soda free for 1 year and proud to be!

Though I have been thinking about on occasion having fresca, only on special occasions though
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Charles Moreland on May 01, 2009, 08:48:26 PM
This started from my suggestion that if Charles was interested in it he could start a thread looking at scientific data on sweeteners and that if he did I would help contribute in the discussion. 

Tom, I mean this with all respect, but I don't believe I've ever seen a thread started by you. In fact, for a good many pages, almost all of your recent responses are some form of critique. I don't imply this to be wrong in anyway, but if you think that a thread on (artificial) sweeteners would be beneficial, perhaps you should be the one to start it?

If you have all this knowledge, why wait for someone else to ask the question?
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: swap01 on May 01, 2009, 09:01:34 PM
Doesn't diet soda contain similar products to aspartame, that have the same effects?
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: tombb on May 01, 2009, 09:39:18 PM
This started from my suggestion that if Charles was interested in it he could start a thread looking at scientific data on sweeteners and that if he did I would help contribute in the discussion. 

Tom, I mean this with all respect, but I don't believe I've ever seen a thread started by you. In fact, for a good many pages, almost all of your recent responses are some form of critique. I don't imply this to be wrong in anyway, but if you think that a thread on (artificial) sweeteners would be beneficial, perhaps you should be the one to start it?

If you have all this knowledge, why wait for someone else to ask the question?
Charles, it's because if people already state something correctly, or if I already think their point are valid and I agree with them, then it seems unnecessary for me to post just to say "I agree", unless maybe they forgot to mention some useful detail and I feel I can contribute by adding that.  I think that's a reasonable way to go about it.

It's usually only when I see something that I think is incomplete or largely incorrect that I actually post, especially when I think that someone might genuinely want to know if they missed some important detail in their thinking or misunderstood something, like I did with things like milk for PKChiro or metabolic pathways for Chris, etc.

For things that seem to be popular myths and largely incorrect, like the way this thread started, I would hope someone else would intervene and set people straight (look how many people still only read the first post and just end up believing those crazy statements about soda being like heroin etc, I don't think you really want people to believe that nonsense).
But if nobody steps in to fix it (maybe because they think "hey, soda is not completely healthy anyways so it's ok to let people believe outrageous myths") then I sometimes post to fix those too (just like I did for things like HFCS or things like getting indigestion from eating more carbs than they are used to etc).

As far as making a post about sweeteners, I don't have much of a reason to start a topic, I don't think they are particularly bad in moderation and I think that's the conclusion everybody should derive from all the evidence.

It's the same reason why I didn't make a post saying overeating in general is the problem and there's nothing especially bad about McDonalds, and the same reason why I didn't start a post about "Tap water is ok and often better than bottled" but I showed that's the case with data and studies when people claimed the opposite, etc. 
Those are all the same conclusions I would expect everybody to reach and I normally imagine most people know already.

I suggested you should post just because it almost sounded like you thought differently and I would expect you would have a specific reason or study in mind that convinced you. 
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: MeKa360 on May 02, 2009, 10:13:25 AM
i stopped drinking soda long time ago

only powerade, milk, and water

Good stuff, it's always good to hear of someone who's been able to overcome the allure of those carbonated devils (I myself have problems time to time).

Next on the list:
Eliminate the powerade, add green tea :D

chill dude...

powerade  and determination is wat keeps me going.
i can never leave that drink   :P
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: KC Parsons on May 02, 2009, 11:46:40 AM
i stopped drinking soda long time ago

only powerade, milk, and water

Good stuff, it's always good to hear of someone who's been able to overcome the allure of those carbonated devils (I myself have problems time to time).

Next on the list:
Eliminate the powerade, add green tea :D

chill dude...

powerade  and determination is wat keeps me going.
i can never leave that drink   :P

Sure ya can. The fact that you feel like you need it should be a reason in itself to stop drinking it. :P
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Chris Salvato on May 02, 2009, 02:11:00 PM
i stopped drinking soda long time ago

only powerade, milk, and water

Good stuff, it's always good to hear of someone who's been able to overcome the allure of those carbonated devils (I myself have problems time to time).

Next on the list:
Eliminate the powerade, add green tea :D

chill dude...

powerade  and determination is wat keeps me going.
i can never leave that drink   :P

Sure ya can. The fact that you feel like you need it should be a reason in itself to stop drinking it. :P

I agree.

There is nothing to powerade aside from sugar and some electrolytes.  The fact that you feel you "need" something that is not a necessity for life is a sure sign that something needs to be changed.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: tombb on May 02, 2009, 03:02:22 PM
i stopped drinking soda long time ago

only powerade, milk, and water

Good stuff, it's always good to hear of someone who's been able to overcome the allure of those carbonated devils (I myself have problems time to time).

Next on the list:
Eliminate the powerade, add green tea :D

chill dude...

powerade  and determination is wat keeps me going.
i can never leave that drink   :P

Sure ya can. The fact that you feel like you need it should be a reason in itself to stop drinking it. :P

I agree.

There is nothing to powerade aside from sugar and some electrolytes.  The fact that you feel you "need" something that is not a necessity for life is a sure sign that something needs to be changed.

I wouldn't say that.

Aside from the fact that both sodas and something like powerade are ok in moderation, as they are both just water with some unnecessary sugar and in the case of powerade sugar and salt, I would assume he's drinking the powerade during/after workouts (since I think that's the point of that drink).

In that case, the sugar, salt and water are pretty much exactly what is best for his body at that point, and there is no risk of over-consuming it (unless he trained too often, and even then the sugar would just refill his depleted muscle energy stores and the salt and water would help restore what he sweated out).

He could do even better if he added also some fast-absorbing proteins and vitamins to the sugar, salt, water too after his workouts, but it sounds like he really enjoys that taste of that drink and it helps him stay motivated so good for him.

Plus it's just a wrong inference to say if you enjoy something and consume it on a regular basis you are addicted to it. That's just nonsense. I mean, there are people that are more predisposed to addictions, sure, and we all can occasionally pick up a few bad habits or get carried away, but if you said "I always enjoy drinking fresh water during workouts" that doesn't make you a water-addict or workout-addict. Same for "I like to have a nutritious meal after working out", or "My favorite breakfast starts with milk". It's only bad if it was not in moderation, if it was bad for him (which we already clearly established is not the case, again in moderation and at the right times), or if it interfered in other negative ways in his life.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Chris Salvato on May 02, 2009, 06:40:37 PM
if you feel like you need something that is a dependence.  Dependence is not desirable, especially in the diet.

"I need coffee to get through the day"
"I need that cigarette while I am in traffic"
"I need a powerade to train"
"I need to live in this house until I die, despite the fact that it is in a crime ridden neighborhood"

There are multiple levels to addiction and addiction to sugar is still being investigated and researched.  I wouldn't say its a sure sign of a "chemical dependence" or something of that nature but all you need is food and water.  Anything else is a psychological attachment.

Point is if you "need" something it is very good to examine the question "why do I need this" despite whether or not it is "good" for him.  Chances are we are not talking about solely post-workout here.

There is more to diet than nutrients.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: KC Parsons on May 02, 2009, 07:09:20 PM
I wouldn't say that.

Aside from the fact that both sodas and something like powerade are ok in moderation, as they are both just water with some unnecessary sugar and in the case of powerade sugar and salt, I would assume he's drinking the powerade during/after workouts (since I think that's the point of that drink).

In that case, the sugar, salt and water are pretty much exactly what is best for his body at that point, and there is no risk of over-consuming it (unless he trained too often, and even then the sugar would just refill his depleted muscle energy stores and the salt and water would help restore what he sweated out).

He could do even better if he added also some fast-absorbing proteins and vitamins to the sugar, salt, water too after his workouts, but it sounds like he really enjoys that taste of that drink and it helps him stay motivated so good for him.

Plus it's just a wrong inference to say if you enjoy something and consume it on a regular basis you are addicted to it. That's just nonsense. I mean, there are people that are more predisposed to addictions, sure, and we all can occasionally pick up a few bad habits or get carried away, but if you said "I always enjoy drinking fresh water during workouts" that doesn't make you a water-addict or workout-addict. Same for "I like to have a nutritious meal after working out", or "My favorite breakfast starts with milk". It's only bad if it was not in moderation, if it was bad for him (which we already clearly established is not the case, again in moderation and at the right times), or if it interfered in other negative ways in his life.

The examples you mentioned were all either
A) Necessary for life
B) Diet optimalities.

I think you missed the point.

There is more to diet than nutrients.
Amen.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: PillowFire on May 02, 2009, 07:14:56 PM
The only problem I have is the bad-labeling of sugar. Sugar is not the real problem. In fact, they don't even use sugar in coke, they use a synthetic syrup derived from corn that we all know as high fructose corn syrup. It has absolutely no advantage over sugar, and is worse in every way. But it's cheaper, and that makes a real difference on the mass-production scale. Real sugar is not bad for you when used properly as a sweetener. Anything can be bad if you use too much of it though, regardless of the substance.

On the topic of Coke, I watched a show where they did an experiment by soaking a Chickens liver in ordinary off the shelf coka cola and it disintegrated and was mostly dissolved within a day.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: KC Parsons on May 02, 2009, 07:24:06 PM
The only problem I have is the bad-labeling of sugar. Sugar is not the real problem. In fact, they don't even use sugar in coke, they use a synthetic syrup derived from corn that we all know as high fructose corn syrup. It has absolutely no advantage over sugar, and is worse in every way. But it's cheaper, and that makes a real difference on the mass-production scale. Real sugar is not bad for you when used properly as a sweetener. Anything can be bad if you use too much of it though, regardless of the substance.

On the topic of Coke, I watched a show where they did an experiment by soaking a Chickens liver in ordinary off the shelf coka cola and it disintegrated and was mostly dissolved within a day.
-A teaspoon of standard, granulated table sugar has 4g of carbohydrate, and is quite high on the GI/GL scale.
The problem is, even if you knew this and tried to modulate your amounts accordingly, you'd get no tatse out of it. The idea of sugar is to sweeten, and if to use sugar to the point to make something that isn't sweet sweet, well that's probably going to end up overdoing it. Besides, I can have some apple slices and get 6-8 grams of carbohydrates, and while high on the GI for real foods, compared to sugar it's much less.

That's not even stepping into the antioxidants, micronutrients, and hydration factor. Also, those same apple slices will fill you up much more than a 1.5-2 teaspoons of sugar.

Psychologically: you should enjoy the foods you're eating without needing to sweeten them. Having a need to sweeten what you're eating is a bad habit and will probably just lead to more sugar.

In general, it's just better to avoid it.




I love hearing those coke stories. I think they've done it with a nail and it took 2-3 days.
Although it makes me curious. I wonder if that same experiment would work with other pops....they're just stacking the cards to make coke look bad?
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: tombb on May 02, 2009, 11:23:16 PM
Chris and QMKC:
The term "need" is something used only by you two (QMKC and Chris) in this thread, to try to make anything sound a bit more pathological (notice neither I nor the original poster that sparked this side-discussion used that term).
But to use it too, certainly you don't -need- to warmup before a workout, and you don't -need- to have a balanced diet, but it's still less efficient not to do it, and avoiding both will have some negative effects.
If you are already taking something in moderation, as an ideal dietary choice for the situation (e.g., the powerade example after training, compromising a bit for taste preference too), that's a good thing and not in any way or level an addiction.

And life is not just about absolute necessities. For example if helping others every day makes your day brighter and more satisfying, or painting or composing music or even doing something like trying to get better at sports or parkour, go ahead and do it, it's not a psychological or chemical dependence despite the fact that it's obviously NOT  a) necessary for life NOR b) diet optimality (or life optimality, there are countless choices there)

If all you needed was food and water in your life, you would not be any worse off as a vegetative coma patient with a feeding tube. But luckily that's not the case.

PillowFire:
Sugar is a fundamental nutrient that our body even produces on its own all the times. It's only when misused that you run into problems. Sodas like coke are perfectly fine as well aside from having unnecessarily high levels of sugar. HFCS is not much worse than sugar really, there's a lot of older threads  (http://www.americanparkour.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,159/topic,14846.msg173215/#msg173215)
discussing this in detail

The examples of things dissolved in coke is another completely ridiculous thing. Lemon juice or vinegar are equally good or even better at dissolving all sorts of things, yet there's no reason not to consume them. 
And the whole idea behind tests of the sort is silly because things dissolve WAY faster in your stomach anyways. So aside from possibly helping slightly your digestion (as much as some lemon juice might), there is not much point in looking at the fact that coke or other sodas have a bit of added acidity for taste. Plus much of the acidity disappears quickly as it loses carbonation.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Chris Salvato on May 03, 2009, 03:46:54 AM
Tom, no offense, but based on your response it is very very clear that you have never worked with people who desperately need to lose weight or adjust their diet.  You are dealing with a highly addictive personality and something like "i can never leave that drink" is a sign that you need some self-examaination.

I have worked with dozens of people wanting to lose weight.  It is a pretty tell tale sign.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: KC Parsons on May 03, 2009, 05:33:45 AM
Chris and QMKC:
The term "need" is something used only by you two (QMKC and Chris) in this thread, to try to make anything sound a bit more pathological (notice neither I nor the original poster that sparked this side-discussion used that term).
But to use it too, certainly you don't -need- to warmup before a workout, and you don't -need- to have a balanced diet, but it's still less efficient not to do it, and avoiding both will have some negative effects.
If you are already taking something in moderation, as an ideal dietary choice for the situation (e.g., the powerade example after training, compromising a bit for taste preference too), that's a good thing and not in any way or level an addiction.

And life is not just about absolute necessities. For example if helping others every day makes your day brighter and more satisfying, or painting or composing music or even doing something like trying to get better at sports or parkour, go ahead and do it, it's not a psychological or chemical dependence despite the fact that it's obviously NOT  a) necessary for life NOR b) diet optimality (or life optimality, there are countless choices there)

If all you needed was food and water in your life, you would not be any worse off as a vegetative coma patient with a feeding tube. But luckily that's not the case.

PillowFire:
Sugar is a fundamental nutrient that our body even produces on its own all the times. It's only when misused that you run into problems. Sodas like coke are perfectly fine as well aside from having unnecessarily high levels of sugar. HFCS is not much worse than sugar really, there's a lot of older threads  (http://www.americanparkour.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,159/topic,14846.msg173215/#msg173215)
discussing this in detail

The examples of things dissolved in coke is another completely ridiculous thing. Lemon juice or vinegar are equally good or even better at dissolving all sorts of things, yet there's no reason not to consume them. 
And the whole idea behind tests of the sort is silly because things dissolve WAY faster in your stomach anyways. So aside from possibly helping slightly your digestion (as much as some lemon juice might), there is not much point in looking at the fact that coke or other sodas have a bit of added acidity for taste. Plus much of the acidity disappears quickly as it loses carbonation.

This is a forum about optimal nutrition for an athlete, specifically a traceur.
It's very good that he doesn't have an issue overconsuming soda, but to feel attached to powerade is still somewhat of a problem.

I didn't say that it's terrible and he's risking his life or putting himself in extreme conditions that will tear him apart.
Of course he'll be fine if he continues to drink it, but why not shoot for even better?

Why not replace your sugary Jif peanut butter with an all natural, nothing-more-than-peanuts if you can?
Why not replace the potatoes in your diet with more broccoli, green beans, and spinach?
Why not replace your decent Raisin Bran cereal with oatmeal, a more acceptable grain?

All of these are still fairly good choices of nutrition, but the idea is to shoot for optimal.
If nothing else, as traceurs, we tend to have a mentality that strives for perfection. Of course, we're never going to reach that, but it's about the journey not the destination (cliché aside).
And, since everyone's diet slips, even if only a little, planning for optimal will ensure that even with the suboptimal alterations, the diet is still extremely good.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: MeKa360 on May 03, 2009, 10:59:09 AM
yea,    powerade  had B-vitamins , electrolytes, and less surgar than soda

i will never give it up   >:( >:( >:(
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Lydia Cloak on May 11, 2009, 02:13:41 PM
I wondering if any of you have heard of the pops sweetened with Splenda. It's not that common yet, but they have Orange and Cream Soda so far. There may be Root Beer as well I think. So instead of sugar or aspartame they use Splenda which I believe is a natural sweetener with no preservatives (don't quote me on it). http://www.splenda.ca/about-splenda.aspx So yeah, I'm just curious if anyone else has tried it or has anymore information on it.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Shawn Meilicke on May 11, 2009, 02:24:35 PM
I wondering if any of you have heard of the pops sweetened with Splenda. It's not that common yet, but they have Orange and Cream Soda so far. There may be Root Beer as well I think. So instead of sugar or aspartame they use Splenda which I believe is a natural sweetener with no preservatives (don't quote me on it). http://www.splenda.ca/about-splenda.aspx So yeah, I'm just curious if anyone else has tried it or has anymore information on it.

ive heard sucralose is a carcinogen?
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: tombb on May 11, 2009, 05:41:21 PM
I wondering if any of you have heard of the pops sweetened with Splenda. It's not that common yet, but they have Orange and Cream Soda so far. There may be Root Beer as well I think. So instead of sugar or aspartame they use Splenda which I believe is a natural sweetener with no preservatives (don't quote me on it). http://www.splenda.ca/about-splenda.aspx So yeah, I'm just curious if anyone else has tried it or has anymore information on it.
It's not 'natural' but again that doesn't mean anything useful, you shouldn't look for foods that are "natural" or technologically improved"  or "full of wholesome goodness and love"... It's not natural because it's an isomer that doesn't really happen in nature, which is actually why it even works.
Similarly, "doesn't have preservatives" doesn't mean anything meaningful, because even vitamins and other healthiest things you can think of can actually be good food preservatives. Basically food preservatives are not a bad thing in themselves (definitely they are a good thing as food that's not well-preserved can kill you faster and in more horrible ways than anything else  ;) ).
Sometimes however they are unnecessary and some might have some small undesired side-effects if consumed in large quantities.
But yes, splenda/sucralose is fine, just treat it a bit like sugar anyways and take it in moderation, it will have less calories but if you still bake 50 cookies with it and then eat them all on the same meal you still didn't really fix the underlying problem.

ive heard sucralose is a carcinogen?
No, not in any meaningful way anyways, most vitamins can actually be carcinogens as well (e.g., vitamin A) at certain doses or in certain conditions. But the bottom line is that it's not and there's no known adverse effect in consuming it, just don't use it as a license to overeat or an excuse to avoid good nutrition and common-sense completely.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: JC* on May 11, 2009, 05:51:44 PM
I wondering if any of you have heard of the pops sweetened with Splenda. It's not that common yet, but they have Orange and Cream Soda so far. There may be Root Beer as well I think. So instead of sugar or aspartame they use Splenda which I believe is a natural sweetener with no preservatives (don't quote me on it). http://www.splenda.ca/about-splenda.aspx So yeah, I'm just curious if anyone else has tried it or has anymore information on it.

I hear splenda is much more worse than regular sweets!
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Lysander on May 11, 2009, 05:52:10 PM
I'm NOT drinking soda again. This all sounds extremely painful, yet pleasurable because it said that drinking soda is like taking heroine. But the thing is, why don't people drink alot of soda instead of taking heroine? According to this it says they both work the same way after an hour.
I wondering if any of you have heard of the pops sweetened with Splenda. It's not that common yet, but they have Orange and Cream Soda so far. There may be Root Beer as well I think. So instead of sugar or aspartame they use Splenda which I believe is a natural sweetener with no preservatives (don't quote me on it). http://www.splenda.ca/about-splenda.aspx So yeah, I'm just curious if anyone else has tried it or has anymore information on it.
It's not 'natural' but again that doesn't mean anything useful, you shouldn't look for foods that are "natural" or technologically improved"  or "full of wholesome goodness and love"... It's not natural because it's an isomer that doesn't really happen in nature, which is actually why it even works.
Similarly, "doesn't have preservatives" doesn't mean anything meaningful, because even vitamins and other healthiest things you can think of can actually be good food preservatives. Basically food preservatives are not a bad thing in themselves (definitely they are a good thing as food that's not well-preserved can kill you faster and in more horrible ways than anything else  ;) ).
Sometimes however they are unnecessary and some might have some small undesired side-effects if consumed in large quantities.
But yes, splenda/sucralose is fine, just treat it a bit like sugar anyways and take it in moderation, it will have less calories but if you still bake 50 cookies with it and then eat them all on the same meal you still didn't really fix the underlying problem.

ive heard sucralose is a carcinogen?
No, not in any meaningful way anyways, most vitamins can actually be carcinogens as well (e.g., vitamin A) at certain doses or in certain conditions. But the bottom line is that it's not and there's no known adverse effect in consuming it, just don't use it as a license to overeat or an excuse to avoid good nutrition and common-sense completely.

I've heard of people getting Splenda poisoning before. Makes they drowsy and irritable in many parts of the body.
splenda.worldwidewarning.net
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: KC Parsons on May 11, 2009, 07:10:08 PM
I'm NOT drinking soda again. This all sounds extremely painful, yet pleasurable because it said that drinking soda is like taking heroine. But the thing is, why don't people drink alot of soda instead of taking heroine? According to this it says they both work the same way after an hour.
I wondering if any of you have heard of the pops sweetened with Splenda. It's not that common yet, but they have Orange and Cream Soda so far. There may be Root Beer as well I think. So instead of sugar or aspartame they use Splenda which I believe is a natural sweetener with no preservatives (don't quote me on it). http://www.splenda.ca/about-splenda.aspx So yeah, I'm just curious if anyone else has tried it or has anymore information on it.
It's not 'natural' but again that doesn't mean anything useful, you shouldn't look for foods that are "natural" or technologically improved"  or "full of wholesome goodness and love"... It's not natural because it's an isomer that doesn't really happen in nature, which is actually why it even works.
Similarly, "doesn't have preservatives" doesn't mean anything meaningful, because even vitamins and other healthiest things you can think of can actually be good food preservatives. Basically food preservatives are not a bad thing in themselves (definitely they are a good thing as food that's not well-preserved can kill you faster and in more horrible ways than anything else  ;) ).
Sometimes however they are unnecessary and some might have some small undesired side-effects if consumed in large quantities.
But yes, splenda/sucralose is fine, just treat it a bit like sugar anyways and take it in moderation, it will have less calories but if you still bake 50 cookies with it and then eat them all on the same meal you still didn't really fix the underlying problem.

ive heard sucralose is a carcinogen?
No, not in any meaningful way anyways, most vitamins can actually be carcinogens as well (e.g., vitamin A) at certain doses or in certain conditions. But the bottom line is that it's not and there's no known adverse effect in consuming it, just don't use it as a license to overeat or an excuse to avoid good nutrition and common-sense completely.

I've heard of people getting Splenda poisoning before. Makes they drowsy and irritable in many parts of the body.
splenda.worldwidewarning.net

Sounds like an ambiguous situation. It's more likely drowsiness and irritability is from the common lack of sleep or lack of hydration throughout the day than from splenda....
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: tombb on May 11, 2009, 08:27:12 PM
I'm NOT drinking soda again. This all sounds extremely painful, yet pleasurable because it said that drinking soda is like taking heroine. But the thing is, why don't people drink alot of soda instead of taking heroine? According to this it says they both work the same way after an hour.
I wondering if any of you have heard of the pops sweetened with Splenda. It's not that common yet, but they have Orange and Cream Soda so far. There may be Root Beer as well I think. So instead of sugar or aspartame they use Splenda which I believe is a natural sweetener with no preservatives (don't quote me on it). http://www.splenda.ca/about-splenda.aspx So yeah, I'm just curious if anyone else has tried it or has anymore information on it.
It's not 'natural' but again that doesn't mean anything useful, you shouldn't look for foods that are "natural" or technologically improved"  or "full of wholesome goodness and love"... It's not natural because it's an isomer that doesn't really happen in nature, which is actually why it even works.
Similarly, "doesn't have preservatives" doesn't mean anything meaningful, because even vitamins and other healthiest things you can think of can actually be good food preservatives. Basically food preservatives are not a bad thing in themselves (definitely they are a good thing as food that's not well-preserved can kill you faster and in more horrible ways than anything else  ;) ).
Sometimes however they are unnecessary and some might have some small undesired side-effects if consumed in large quantities.
But yes, splenda/sucralose is fine, just treat it a bit like sugar anyways and take it in moderation, it will have less calories but if you still bake 50 cookies with it and then eat them all on the same meal you still didn't really fix the underlying problem.

ive heard sucralose is a carcinogen?
No, not in any meaningful way anyways, most vitamins can actually be carcinogens as well (e.g., vitamin A) at certain doses or in certain conditions. But the bottom line is that it's not and there's no known adverse effect in consuming it, just don't use it as a license to overeat or an excuse to avoid good nutrition and common-sense completely.

I've heard of people getting Splenda poisoning before. Makes they drowsy and irritable in many parts of the body.
splenda.worldwidewarning.net

Sounds like you didn't read the middle of the thread. The first page is a bunch of nonsense as we already discussed (http://www.americanparkour.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,159/topic,7269.msg195249/#msg195249)
There is nothing really wrong with soda, aside from the fact that water would be better and non-diet ones have too much unnecessary sugar (just like, say, cookies), and people tend to drink it like... water.

About splenda, again it's a matter of dosages. At normal dosages, and at high dosages, it still has essentially no adverse effects. At even much higher doses and for very extended periods of time it can start having adverse effects, so in that respect it's much like something like caffeine or real sugar.
For example, if you look at the wikipedia entry on it, basically the only real study that showed some potential problems found that if you take more than 17,000 (seventeen -Thousand-) packets of splenda a day, then continue doing that for more than a month, then you can see some negative effects. If you take less than 4000 packets a day however, in the same study, you are fine.
The bottom line is, don't take 4000 packets of -anything- a day, use moderation. If you want to have some tea with even 2 packets, twice a day, that's completely fine, and you are better off with splenda than sugar for those two packets still if you are on a diet since it has less of an impact on your body (insulin etc).
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Bret Coon on May 21, 2009, 02:30:59 PM
^ well from above research shows that aspartame causes cancer in small animals, splenda being a type of aspartame being should also be cancerous. there is a book on this somewhere i forget what its called at the moment, from the first page, research has been done that have been hidden from people because of all the negative results and only show the results from some groups that had the desired results

i will search later after i get back from practicing since i haven't practiced parkour in a few days
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Chris Salvato on May 21, 2009, 02:58:54 PM
^ well from above research shows that aspartame causes cancer in small animals, splenda being a type of aspartame being should also be cancerous. there is a book on this somewhere i forget what its called at the moment, from the first page, research has been done that have been hidden from people because of all the negative results and only show the results from some groups that had the desired results

i will search later after i get back from practicing since i haven't practiced parkour in a few days

splenda contains no aspartame so your argument has no legs here...
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: tombb on May 21, 2009, 03:01:36 PM
^ well from above research shows that aspartame causes cancer in small animals, splenda being a type of aspartame being should also be cancerous. there is a book on this somewhere i forget what its called at the moment, from the first page, research has been done that have been hidden from people because of all the negative results and only show the results from some groups that had the desired results

i will search later after i get back from practicing since i haven't practiced parkour in a few days
All of these statements are incorrect (splenda is not in any way a form of aspartame, aspartame doesn't cause cancer in animals, no matter how small, nor does splenda/sucralose, etc). 
I encourage you to read up and research more on the subject, starting from the points already discussed in the previous pages in this thread which you seemed to have missed.  And no studies have been "hidden from the public" any more than most hoax, urban legends or conspiracy theories where the government implanted microchips in everybody's teeth and money...
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Chris Salvato on May 21, 2009, 03:11:51 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3qFdbUEq5s
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Shawn Meilicke on May 21, 2009, 03:19:30 PM
america
this is why the world hates you
lol
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Bret Coon on May 21, 2009, 05:56:17 PM
please tell me why you think their is no link here is something taken from wikipedia that supports what i believe

Quote
National Cancer Institute

In 2006, the US National Cancer Institute concluded in a study of over 470,000 men and women aged 50 to 69 that there was no statistically significant link between aspartame consumption and leukemias, lymphomas or brain tumors.[66] The study compared how much of 4 types of aspartame-sweetened beverages the subjects said they had drunk in 1995 or 1996 to how likely they were to have developed these cancers during the following five years.[67] This conclusion was questioned in letters to the editors[68][69] which pointed out that the study did not consider non-beverage consumption of aspartame, did not estimate the subjects' long-term use of aspartame, and did not include any subjects who had consumed aspartame since childhood (as the subjects were all over 49 and aspartame beverages had only been on the market for 15 years). The letters concluded that the study design was inappropriate to test the stated hypothesis.

and here is the link i got it from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy


please read the whole thing and do more research before you jump on what i believe 
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Chris Salvato on May 21, 2009, 06:11:19 PM
please read the whole thing and do more research before you jump on what i believe 

Little do you know what you have just done...

My knowledge of asparteme is such that I know that the data is inconclusive - at best.  But tombb knows much more on the topic, im sure....and you are about to find out how much more that is... :P

*gets a tub of popcorn*
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Shawn Meilicke on May 21, 2009, 06:31:52 PM
please read the whole thing and do more research before you jump on what i believe 

Little do you know what you have just done...

My knowledge of asparteme is such that I know that the data is inconclusive - at best.  But tombb knows much more on the topic, im sure....and you are about to find out how much more that is... :P

*gets a tub of popcorn*

i know htis doesnt add to the convo but:
LMAO
+1 for making me LOL
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Bret Coon on May 21, 2009, 08:29:18 PM
now i did not say that he didn't know more than i do, but i believe what i believe and since the data was inconclusive id like to be aware that it might have to do with chemical reactions with other things that you consume with the aspartame and i did not say humans in my first post i sad small animals but like i said i do not have the time or the patience to do the research at this moment but when i get a spare moment i will...

i want him to give me more information on this topic and i love to debate, i think i can be a politician because i argue so much, but this is just my opinion that the first constitutional amendment right gives me the freedom to say
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Chris Salvato on May 21, 2009, 08:36:04 PM
oh don't worry - you can debate all you like -- trust me, just wait :P
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: tombb on May 21, 2009, 11:20:43 PM
please tell me why you think their is no link here is something taken from wikipedia that supports what i believe

Quote
National Cancer Institute

In 2006, the US National Cancer Institute concluded in a study of over 470,000 men and women aged 50 to 69 that there was no statistically significant link between aspartame consumption and leukemias, lymphomas or brain tumors.[66] The study compared how much of 4 types of aspartame-sweetened beverages the subjects said they had drunk in 1995 or 1996 to how likely they were to have developed these cancers during the following five years.[67] This conclusion was questioned in letters to the editors[68][69] which pointed out that the study did not consider non-beverage consumption of aspartame, did not estimate the subjects' long-term use of aspartame, and did not include any subjects who had consumed aspartame since childhood (as the subjects were all over 49 and aspartame beverages had only been on the market for 15 years). The letters concluded that the study design was inappropriate to test the stated hypothesis.

and here is the link i got it from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy


please read the whole thing and do more research before you jump on what i believe 
I am not sure I see a logical argument here.
You have no proof backing up what you state, no actual reason to believe what you apparently really want to believe, and instead you show is a link that shows that there have been studies to even contradict your claims, but that they didn't measure all possible parameters, so they they might be inconclusive.

Now first of all, letters to the editor are a good tool for continued point-counterpoint between scientists, but the mere fact that another scientist points out strengths and weaknesses of a study (especially studies that look for correlations and statistics, or lack of correlation as in this case) doesn't automatically mean the opposite claim must be true.
The studies in question are all epidemiological to begin with, i.e., you look at statistics after the fact and try to draw some correlations. Those are always just more of a "let's look if there';s something there" type of study that could never fully prove or disprove conclusively anything anyways, but it makes a valid point especially in the absence of an effect.

What would be conclusive evidence for a cancer-causing hypothesis would be a specific, repeatable, dose-dependent effect with a known mechanism.
There are plenty of things like that (for example stuff like Benzopyrene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzo(a)pyrene) ) which WILL always cause cancer at high enough doses in the lab, basically -every time-, and have a very specific and clear mechanism for actually doing so, like binding directly to DNA and introducing mutation errors at each binding site every time cells divide and attempt to copy DNA.
That's of course absolutely not the case for Aspartame. It doesn't have any known chemical reason why it should ever cause cancer, and you certainly can't give it to any animal in any way to cause 100% cancer formation like you could for other real well-known carcinogens.
The only study that suggested there could be a problem really is extremely weak scientifically. If you are not familiar with analyzing science you can see the explanation of why it's very poor science and inconclusive in the discussion of wiki, but if you can analyze the paper yourself look at the actual paper (http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/8711/8711.html#resu) and you can see why it is at best inconclusive even ignoring the other problems like the fact that nobody has been able to replicate it (despite the fact that being able to prove such a claim would obviously make any lab or researcher famous). The survival curves of figure 1 are statistically the same for any dose including no dose at all, and are all over the place in terms of increasing dose not having increased effect.
You can see again the same problem in table2 and again look at the % of rats that had tumors, their data has again no trend, from their data you are actually LESS likely to have tumors if you eat aspartame at 3 of the 6 concentrations of aspartame than with no aspartame at all (so you would have as much/little right to say that aspartame prevents cancer as you would to say that it causes it, i.e., it's inconclusive), and again they are just random values and not dose dependent (btw, those rats are genetically predisposed to get tumors and cancer spontaneously at high rates, that's why the 35% of rats with tumors even without doing anything that causes cancer. If you used real rats from the wild you would be lucky to get even 1%).


To put it in simpler terms, let me give you an analogy to show you the disconnect in logic in your argument, with an analogy to something you might be less likely to just believe for no reason:

1) person B claims "Parkour or running in general causes cancer in small animals'
2) There is no evidence that running causes cancer, and no known reason or mechanism of why it should, but studies that actually show running -doesn't- cause cancer don't consider all the possible running situations in humans and can't completely disprove it... (after all a lot of people who got cancer did run at least once in their life...)
3) Therefore, running must cause cancer!

Hopefully you can see why point 3 doesn't follow from points 1 and 2.

And the conclusion you can draw from the wiki page on "aspartame controversy" is that there is no scientific reason to believe that aspartame has any negative health consequences, especially not cancer.

In terms of "people wanting to hide the truth" and similar arguments based on conspiracy or presumed ulterior motives of people, you should keep in mind that every side of a scientific question can have people that want you to believe one side regardless of the truth. The honey and sugar corporations have their own significant economic interests to protect just as much as the nutrasweet/aspartame or splenda producers do. That's why it's even more important that you don't just believe any claim that has no real basis in science and reality and avoid using these other considerations to draw conclusions (e.g., phrases like "what bigPharmaX or AppealToRebellionTargetY doesn't want you to know and therefore must be true" should be red flags that you need to really look carefully for evidence and science make sure they were really correctly interpreted) .... .
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Bret Coon on May 22, 2009, 03:22:47 AM
this page links nutrasweet to aspartame please tell me why the are not link to aspartame if they do not sell it but i give you +1 for effort

also splenda is a clorinated artificial sweetner last time i check the clorinated part is bad for you because i know you cannot eat or drink bleach without harmful side effects

here is a study at duke university proving that splenda in male rats causes bad effects with could also lead to cancer in the future
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/15287390802328630

please if you have more information please list the links you got it from so i know where you get your information from
in my opinion the only kinds of food that should be consumed are pure organics with no processing and additives
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Chris Salvato on May 22, 2009, 05:04:59 AM
also splenda is a clorinated artificial sweetner last time i check the clorinated part is bad for you because i know you cannot eat or drink bleach without harmful side effects

You do realize chlorine is in drinking water...as well as in water you swim in which is swollowed quite a bit on accident by like 85% of the american population throughout the summer.  The point here is very weak, at best.

here is a study at duke university proving that splenda in male rats causes bad effects with could also lead to cancer in the future
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/15287390802328630

Did you read that study?  It has nothing to do with cancer.

The original study you posted, as well, was epidemiological, anyway -- and worthless.   Just because one study is worthless doesn't instantly prove that the opposing side is true.

In regards to the warnings for aspartame - it is totally legal to sell.  There is just a little warning saying that "Scientific studies prove a link to cancer" based on a set of relatively weak studies...and in the eyes of the law it is better to be safe than sorry.

Now, I don't doubt that there is an adverse effect to drinking/eating tons of splenda.  There is an adverse effect to eating tons of fresh meat, tons of fresh honey, tons of fresh water.  Anything taken out of moderation is going to produce an adverse effect.  The body is not meant to deal with extremes - it is meant to deal with moderation.  So in that regard, I am with you 100% of the way. 

So, I would say, don't drink diet cola because it is "doesn't have sugar" and don't drink regular cola because it  "doesn't have aspartame".  Just avoid both of them as much as possible unless you feel like treating yourself.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: tombb on May 22, 2009, 07:50:45 AM
this page links nutrasweet to aspartame please tell me why the are not link to aspartame if they do not sell it but i give you +1 for effort

also splenda is a clorinated artificial sweetner last time i check the clorinated part is bad for you because i know you cannot eat or drink bleach without harmful side effects

here is a study at duke university proving that splenda in male rats causes bad effects with could also lead to cancer in the future
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/15287390802328630

please if you have more information please list the links you got it from so i know where you get your information from
in my opinion the only kinds of food that should be consumed are pure organics with no processing and additives
First off, consider each point one at a time instead of making this into a moving target. The new points you make are also wrong, as Chris already covered, but you should try to also recognize and understand why all your previous points were incorrect too.

Also, you seem to be confusing names and chemicals. Nutrasweet/aspartame are one thing (nutrasweet is the brand, aspartame the main chemical) and splenda/sucralose are a completely different thing (again splenda is the brand, and sucralose the sweetener in it).

Both are really quite harmless and with less health side-effects than 'real/natural' sugar or salt (which are fine in normal doses but happen to have a much stronger effect on the body and thus stronger side-effects when taken in excess).

In terms of chlorine, chlorine is an essential element in human biology, and is a completely different thing than bleach. In case you didn't realize it, the only reason why you can even absorb foods is because your body can use its chlorine stores to make hydrochloric acid (in our gastric juice). Chlorinated compounds are also a very important component of you sweat (the reason why it is a bit salty) and so many key biological functions and as you know normal salt or sea water contain salt which is sodium chloride. That's why you have chlorides supplementation in any decent multivitamin and multimineral pill for example.

Again the flaw in your logic is that you take an atom contained in something you don't like (say bleach) and then compare its properties to that of the whole or of anything else that also contains that atom. 
For example, Bleach also contains oxygen atoms, so by the same flawed logic you would conclude that you should stop breathing air since it also contains oxygen, and "last time you checked air is bad for you because you cannot breathe bleach without side effects..."

It is also clear you didn't read any of the posts in the middle of this same thread as many of these points were already made.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Bret Coon on May 22, 2009, 11:58:33 AM
well i thank you for the time you spent on this but id like to know more about the things in these things maybe you can post the links or the book name where you got your information from because ive been lied to by my parents obviously maybe they didnt know either

also bleach cleaner is not good for you if you drink it which i kind of learned the hard way as a child so i believed that chlorinated meant it had been bleached

another thing is their a difference in dark carbonated drinks than clear colored ones because i get sick when ever i drink the dark ones and the clear ones have no effect on me.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: tombb on May 22, 2009, 01:00:24 PM
well i thank you for the time you spent on this but id like to know more about the things in these things maybe you can post the links or the book name where you got your information from because ive been lied to by my parents obviously maybe they didnt know either

also bleach cleaner is not good for you if you drink it which i kind of learned the hard way as a child so i believed that chlorinated meant it had been bleached

another thing is their a difference in dark carbonated drinks than clear colored ones because i get sick when ever i drink the dark ones and the clear ones have no effect on me.
I am glad you are open to learn more and improve your knowledge on things, that's the right attitude to have.

It's not so much about information or books only, it's mostly about understanding science and exercise logic all the times. So it's not so much that I have good information because I was lucky enough to read the right books for example... Every day we are all exposed to both good and bad information, that's inevitable. But they are not just a matter of opinion. If you understand something rather than just being indoctrinated to one opinion or another, you will be able to tell myths and hoaxes apart from solid facts.

For example, in school you learned math and geometry and you fully understood them, so if someone told you there are an infinite number of fractions between any two numbers, you would know it's true because you fully understand it. If someone later tells you that's not true, and that between the number 0 and 1 there are only 5 fractions, you would know that is false because you understand it, you can come up with many counterexamples etc. Same for logic, valid arguments, etc.
You should already have much of that information from school (basic chemistry, basic biology, physiology, logic, etc) but you have to understand them and practice applying that understanding in your everyday life.
You have to be able to ask yourself if something you read on the web or heard from your parents or fox news etc is really sound logic, and if all checks out, looking up things you are not familiar with (e.g., start with wikipedia entries as a good starting point) and actively searching BOTH sides of any argument and compare them using your best logic and understanding to see which one holds water, rather than just making it an issue of "belief" or just assuming what people tell you is true.

As I said, everybody is inevitably exposed to all sorts of false information and sometimes they don't realize it and pass it along even with the best intentions (so it's probably not that they are lying or anything), I get all the times chain emails from friends and family that are well known hoax (often with stories like bill gates giving you money or little kids with cancer that are not really true), and sometimes people just believe them too easily even with the best intentions...

So anyways, the bottom line is don't treat information as something you just blindly believe but rather something you have to process and believe only because you understand it. For example lot of people study physics and yet never use it to understand simple things like why the sky is blue and not transparent or another color, why lightning makes thunder claps, etc.


(as far as colored vs clear, you should find out for yourself what the difference is, maybe starting with making sure it's not psychological, with your own blind-test at home with a friend helping you maybe, and then figure out exactly which ingredient causes it if it is a real effect for you, you might just be allergic to something specific that also happens to only be in colored soda, maybe caffeine etc, although I think it would be fairly unlikely to be the case).
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Bret Coon on May 22, 2009, 02:21:45 PM
i do not believe it is the caffeine because i do not get sick when i drink full throttle or monster energy drinks so it might be the syrup used in the ingredients

also the info i got from my parents came from a guy name Kevin Trudeau or something like that and i researched him, apparently this guy isn't all there with the right side of the law

i wish i could of learned that earlier before making myself look like a fool lol thank you for broadening my perspective on the 2 sweeteners 
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Chris Salvato on May 22, 2009, 03:31:34 PM
i wish i could of learned that earlier before making myself look like a fool lol thank you for broadening my perspective on the 2 sweeteners 

heh, don't worry that happens to the best of us...being put in your place is part of the learning process.

Quote from: http://www.chrissalvato.com/2009/05/10-common-mistakes-in-acheiving-fitnessperformance-goals/
This is something many people can, and will, learn the hard way. The hard way means posting or speaking out in public and being put in your place brutally by someone who knows much more than you. When this happens to you, then my advice is to embrace the moment, be humbled and hit the gym/library to learn more so it doesn’t happen again.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Bret Coon on May 22, 2009, 06:22:36 PM
i like that +1 for both of you on that stuff yall posted
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: BearMills on May 28, 2009, 09:28:50 AM
hey guys i was watching the video on youtube recently and it made me think about what is going into my body. If you're like me getting over an addiction is near impossible.. and no i am not talking about smoking but I am talking about chocolate and other sweets...but back to the topic.. think as the fatty liquids./foods that go into your body essentially pours toxic waste into your stomach etc etc... The thought of toxic waste has really dug into my mind and has allowed me to abstain from these things.. Just thought I should share it with you guys because it has helped me a lot.



Alex
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Shawn Meilicke on May 29, 2009, 10:10:41 AM
something im sure we ALL didnt know, lol

http://health.yahoo.com/news/healthday/toomuchcolacancausemuscleproblems.html
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: tombb on May 29, 2009, 09:18:14 PM
something im sure we ALL didnt know, lol

http://health.yahoo.com/news/healthday/toomuchcolacancausemuscleproblems.html
It doesn't really cause it. I will say that drinking 7 liters of cola a day for 10 consecutive months is way too much, and yes if she stopped after 8 months of continuous 7liter a day of cola that patient would have been better off, or better yet stop at a glass every other day or less like most normal people...
But if you have a normal balanced diet, you still won't have any lack of potassium. The problem is that if you are drinking 7-9 liters a day of cola chances are you don't have a balanced diet in the first place. even eating a banana once a week would have been enough to avoid problems for those 3 people mentioned, and actually even drinking water can make you lose potassium faster, it's not just caffeine or nutrients.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Chris Salvato on May 29, 2009, 09:57:16 PM
I didn't read the article because it seemed pretty crappy right out of the gate (no offense)...

I did want to touch on one small thing, though..

... or better yet stop at a glass every other day or less like most normal people...

Do you really think a glass of soda every other day is the norm??  In my experience it is either soda as a main beverage or no soda at all (or so limited that it is not worth mentioning...like once every 6 months..)

i really don't think a glass every other day is the norm...
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: tombb on May 29, 2009, 11:31:41 PM
I didn't read the article because it seemed pretty crappy right out of the gate (no offense)...

I did want to touch on one small thing, though..

... or better yet stop at a glass every other day or less like most normal people...

Do you really think a glass of soda every other day is the norm??  In my experience it is either soda as a main beverage or no soda at all (or so limited that it is not worth mentioning...like once every 6 months..)

i really don't think a glass every other day is the norm...

Well I didn't say norm as in statistical average or median, I didn't take surveys or anything. I said what normal people (as opposed to someone who would drink 9 liters a day) would drink.

For example for me it's definitely not either none or a ton. For example sometimes if I go with friends to a cheap restaurant like subway etc, sometimes I feel like something different than water and I will get that, so it's definitely closer to at least a large glass a week sometimes, it just depends on circumstances and on what I feel like.

Most things are not taken only in huge excess or nothing at all, aside for maybe alchool and only after someone becomes an alchoolic or recovering alchoolic... And even for that there are plenty of people who just drink a glass of wine once a week if they have a nice fancy dinner where it fits in.

Granted sodas are conveniently available in can and in many places, but still it's hard to beat the convenience and value of completely free water vs expensive sodas.
Title: Re: For those of you that still drink soft drinks....
Post by: Shawn Meilicke on May 30, 2009, 07:40:52 AM
well i know the article was kinda crappy, it was off of yahoo, i dont expect much from them, i was just reading this, went to check my email, then saw that link, skimmed over it, and then posted it in here