 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / April 2004Re: Study encourages kids to ditch soft drinks
quote 3: "Diet drinks aren't very nutritious but they don't have the calories to contribute to excess weight. The issue is the calories," Clark said Thursday. In another version of the story, the daily reduction in calories to cause the difference was 35. >http://durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp?article_type=news&artic >le_path=/news/04/news040423_4.htm > >quote 1: >"The study, outlined this week on the Web site of the British Medical >Journal, found that a one-year "ditch the fizz" campaign discouraging >both sweetened and diet soft drinks led to a decrease in the >percentage of elementary school children who were overweight or obese. > >The improvement occurred after a modest reduction in consumption - >less than a can a day. > >The percentage of overweight and obese children increased by 7.5 >percent in the group that did not participate and dipped by 0.2 >percent among those who did." > >Quote 2: >"Representatives of the soft drink industry contested the implications >of the British results." > >Big surprise, eh? > >TC > quote 3: > "Diet drinks aren't very nutritious but they don't have the calories [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > In another version of the story, the daily reduction in calories to cause > the difference was 35. Sure, that's ~4lbs less fat after a year. But I think another part of the story is not slamming one's body with more fructose than your liver can turn into glucose/glycogen. corn growers are beginning to rue the day they decided to call their sucrose replacement HFCS... The study involved a lot more than soft drinks. Ora >> quote 3: >> "Diet drinks aren't very nutritious but they don't have the calories [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >corn growers are beginning to rue the day they decided to call their >sucrose replacement HFCS... > Sure, that's ~4lbs less fat after a year. > > But I think another part of the story is not slamming one's body with > more fructose than your liver can turn into glucose/glycogen. I think that what people need to learn is moderation... I feel like people want to blame one or two types of food likek carbs or HFCS, but it isn't a specific type of food, it is having too much of that food. > > Sure, that's ~4lbs less fat after a year. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > people want to blame one or two types of food likek carbs or HFCS, but > it isn't a specific type of food, it is having too much of that food. If moderation by itself worked in the real world, then anyone who tried to restrict their eating would easily lose weight and everyone who wanted to be thin would be. The problem is that it is a fact that restricting food in general without specifically restricting refined carbs has not worked. Low fat diets have failed in 98% of cases. The other problem is that the food industry has done a great job of fixating us all on fats while the carbs made us fat. The fact is that the *main* cause of obesity and obesity related problems *are* the carbs, precisely the refined carbs like hfcs. If it wasn't a fact then low-carb diets would not work as well as they do and people would try them and then go on to another so-called fad diet. But they do work and people are losing weight finally and they have found a diet that really works. They are now in complete CONTROL of their weight for the first time ever. And they are not going to forget it anytime soon. The "fad" atkins diet is here to stay. TC >>>Sure, that's ~4lbs less fat after a year. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > tried to restrict their eating would easily lose weight and everyone > who wanted to be thin would be. So people who do restrict their eating are not thin? > The problem is that it is a fact that > restricting food in general without specifically restricting refined > carbs has not worked. Low fat diets have failed in 98% of cases. What is the long term success rate of low carbohydrate diets and low calorie diets? jmk in NC > > Sure, that's ~4lbs less fat after a year. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > people want to blame one or two types of food likek carbs or HFCS, but > it isn't a specific type of food, it is having too much of that food. Except that HFCS is in everything, and 50g/day of fructose is what I've read that the liver can metabolize into glucose/glycogen. Once you go over 50g/day of fructose, bad things start happening (both to your waistline and your liver). 3 tablespoons of ketchup has roughly 15g of HFCS, or ~9g of fructose, 20% of this (apparent) 50g daily dose. I limit carbs because they are nutritionally empty and I can get enough energy with just 30% of my daily calories from carbs. During and after glucose-depleting exercise sessions (cycling 10 miles or more) I usually reload sucrose/dextrose via a gatorade solution. I'm on a 1000kcal/day deficit diet regimen, and I simply could not stick to it if I ate more carbs, since fat and protein are so much more satiating than carbs. I still take in 100g or more a day of all kinds of carbs, not counting extra carb ups to avoid bonking during strenuous exercise. Moderation is fine after I finish this diet regimen, but even after I'm done losing I don't think I'm going to go back to soft drinks as a daily habit. Water is good enough, and I'd rather have the gap it leaves filled with more satisfying fare. My animus towards HFCS is also being driven by the fact that 2000-2003 I drank on average 16oz of Mt Dew, or more. Loved the stuff. 240 calories, what can it hurt, it's just carbs, not fat. Yet I could have just drank water instead of Mt Dew, and not gained an ounce, instead of the 40lbs I gained 2000-2003. Live & learn. HFCS is merely a mixture of two sugars in approximately the same ratio that those two sugar are found in cane sugar. And also in many fruit juices. Honey is also fairly similar to HFCS with a little added sucrose. Note Cane sugar or sucrose is rapidly conerted to invert sugar in the gut to it component sugars see above BobM > HFCS is merely a mixture of two sugars in approximately the same ratio > that those two sugar are found in cane sugar. And also in many fruit [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > BobM HFCS is a sugar compound with its molecular bonds broken. It is absorbed in the body in a way that is significantly different from honey, cane sugar or any other sugar compound. Also note that genetically modified enzymes are used to break down the corn starches. And there is reason to believe that at least some of the corn itself is genetically modified. It is very highly processed. http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/ip/ip58g/4f.gif http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/ip/ip58g/2f.gif http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/prev/national/fig1.htm TC > > HFCS is merely a mixture of two sugars in approximately the same ratio > > that those two sugar are found in cane sugar. And also in many fruit [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > TC http://edtech.utb.edu/_Projects/6320/group/exone/problem.html TC >quote 3: > "Diet drinks aren't very nutritious but they don't have the calories > to contribute to excess weight. The issue is the calories," Clark said > Thursday. Guess what apparently one of the metabolic products of aspartame metabolism is an appetite stimulant. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.