Discussion Board

I love my Wii Fit! I'm glad you do too. Today it told me it was Day 438 of exercising with it. I gravitate to the step exercises, the running, the yoga, the hula hoop, and I discovered I love that boxing one! It uses lots of calories--I was surprised!

I've been floating in the 201-204 range for a long time now, but finally came down a bit this morning to 201.2 so I thought I'd do a post. We did have what I call a Mary Salad (see earlier posts) for supper last night and since it's rather low calorie density that's probably what tipped me down.

There are a lot of discussions about diet drinks and I've always been a big drinker of Diet Coke. But I've apparently got a different metabolism than most people. I can drink Diet Coke right up till I go to bed and it doesn't keep me awake. Also in the past whenever I went without Diet Coke for a while i noticed no withdrawal symptoms and didn't notice any mood changes. Anyway I was getting low a few weeks and decided it was time to try a fast again to see if things were different now. But same result. No headaches, no difference in mood, and no difference in sleep pattern.

Now I know there's a lot of people who worry about "poison's" in Aspartame, but I've looked at the metabolism of the sweetener and the only problem (for those who don't suffer from Phenyl Ketone Uria) is that some methanol is produced when it breaks down. Now it is true that methanol can be a poison in large quantities, but we're talking a couple of magnitudes greater than even a heavy drinker of diet drinks would receive. There are enzymes in the liver which detoxify the usual small quantities of methanol we normally produce (DNA breakdown produces it, for instance). Also a number of fruit juices contain methanol in larger concentrations than come from the breakdown of Aspartame.

I'm not saying that most people wouldn't be better off not drinking diet sodas, but diet Coke doesn't seem to produce any ill effects in me, so I've gone back to drinking it for now. But I am cutting back the quantity and drinking water instead.

We generally avoid things like coke and diet coke for the same reasons we avoid highly processed foods. Not because of any one particular harmful ingredient but because it is a chemical soup of "interesting" substances that at it's best does little to boost human health. It also continues the bodies cravings for unnaturally sweet substances keeping the tastebuds expecting them. Many here have found dropping them to help with staying on plan and their desire to "strictly" McDougall. I find them very easy to avoid after not drinking them for several months. If you were doing this for better health it might be worth dropping them. YMMV
f1jim

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/0 ... 21058.html

You might want to check this out before you decide to keep on drinking the diet coke. Certainly might make you think twice, especially if you dont care one way or the other if you drink it.

I used to be a 1 can a day girl, but when I got in my 50's, it started bothering me. I didn't quit all at once, it took time, it never bothered me either, going for 4-5 days without one, but finally I just stopped buying them. Every once in a while I do get a craving for it, but not very often. I haven't had one in a long time. I think the healthier you get, the less you want the not so good for you stuff.

Jan

Here's the first paragraph from the Huffington post you mention. The problem is that this is the sort of thing which is printedway too often, both here and in many other places. To their credit Huffington do start with the correct statement, "It's far from a definitive proof", but often people don't know what's wrong with the statement which follows. Partly it's the old statistics axiom, "correlation is not causation". That is, things can appear together without the direction of causation being known, or with the correspondence simply being coincidence. Thus one could get causation backword by claiming that wearing heavy coats causes the weather to be colder. But in other cases it's simply that there's not a high enough statistical significance to separate out coincidence from causation.

In this case, we need to see if the correlation between diet drinks and stroke / heart attack is causal or not. For instance, people who are worried (rightfully) about their chance of disease might start drinking diet drinks, hoping this will help them without their having to change their lifestyle. As McDougallers we see this often among people we know. OTOH, someone who want's to really improve their health might decide to eliminate diet drinks in the process. Now I could do it myself, but I'm not convinced the evidence warrents giving up something I enjoy. The point is that unless the study has also checked the general lifestyle of the people in both groups, they're likely to have come to the causation from the wrong direction.

You are absolutely correct in your analysis of causality vs correlation. We don't have enough data to make that claim. What we do have is a whole lot of evidence of the links between consumption and illness. Enough to make one seriously consider consumption of the particular item. Your arguments do bring back memories of the arguments the tobacco companies used to defend cigarette smoking. No matter.
It is interesting, however, that you chose to use the phrase "Progress of a newly strict McDougaller" to describe your journey. Most of us would probably have left off the word strict in that phrase. I know of zero strict McDougallers that enjoy this particular beverage. Most of us find it a product that encourages a craving for unnatural sweetness and may have more serious consequences. Perhaps not. I hope you do not find the product a stumbling block to a good diet and better health.
Enjoy
f1jim

Please, Jim, I find the "tobacco" game quite insulting, especially since I've never smoked and both my parents did and paid the price. Tobacco smoke has always had a clear relationship between its components and health problems. Diet sodas don't, as far as I can see.



This is a very weak argument, though for some it may be true. The human tongue has receptors for sweetness, and it doesn't really matter what triggers them. I don't see why it'd be worse for a no calorie product to do so rather than a high calorie product. But I already admitted that I'm at best the exception to the rule, and might eventually decide to do without permanently.

As for "strict" this was on the basic tenets of no meat, dairy, eggs, and starch based. Before last fall I had some meat, dairy and eggs on a regular basis, though I was mostly McDougallish. Now there is only the occasional exception, the most recent being having a taste (< 1oz) of pot roast this past Monday, mostly to see how it compared with what my mom used to fix. Frankly I wasn't impressed and wouldn't have had any given a second chance. I think it's adding salt or sauces to meat that gives it any appeal. I am starting to cut back considerably on salt though it's sometimes hard to find stuff without it. But I can sure tell the difference.

I was just pointing out that sometimes something like that might give you the extra push to get rid of it. I dont think it ever gave me any extra cravings, but it certainly does nothing for anyone nutritionally.

And it is Coke, just google used for Coke, I mean it removes rust for goodness sakes, whether it is diet or not.

Jan

I'm surprised you don't remember the arguments made by the tobacco companies that there wasn't any proof of a direct relationship to cancer and smoking. They made the same arguments about what we called emphysema then too. They said we had to have a causal relationship before saying smoking caused cancer and they made this argument fighting the warnings on packages. Perhaps you are too young to recall them. You may also not recall the TV commercials featuring doctors endorsing them. I expect similar warnings on soda in the future. I think the analogy is a good one.
As far as the sweetness issues, mankind is used to getting his sweetness in a natural blend of sweetness, fiber, and a compliment of health inducing nutrients all nicely packaged in a handy container. How that bears any resemblance to a quick blast of sugar or synthetic sugary liquid escapes me.
But we all are willing to make excuses for our own particular compromise. Me included. (For me it's salt.) If you are comfortable with yours that is all that counts.
f1jim

Oh come on, Jim. I'm going to turn 65 this fall. Of course I remember the tobacco propaganda and rejected it at the time. The nature of smoke makes it unlikely to be safe right off the bat. Products of combustion will naturally contain huge numbers of randomly produced chemicals. That some of them will be carcinogenic is a given. This is aside from any preexisting chemicals which are vaporized. This sort of situation doesn't exist in the case of Diet Coke or other diet sodas. We have three major components to consider, Aspartame, caffeine and phosphoric acid (and benzoic acid perhaps).

Phosphates are perfectly natural and needed by the body. The only question is if the quantity is excessive and if the acid form, as found in diet drinks, can cause stomach upset. It doesn't bother me, but it might bother some and cause them to want to avoid sodas.

Aspartame consists of two natural amino acids (one of which, phenylalanine, can't be metabolized and excreted by a small number of people and who thus can't ingest Aspartame) and some methyl groups which produce methanol upon digestion which is poisonous in large quantities. But as I said, lots of things contain methanol naturally, including fruit drinks and methanol is also a product of DNA digestion. The body has enzymes to oxidize and metabolize it in small quantities such as diet drinks have. Further, if a person ingests moderate amounts of methanol it will induce the body to produce more of the enzyme(s) to detoxify it.

Caffeine has certain physiological affects and here we have to decide just what affects are legitimate and which should be avoided. AFAIK it doesn't build up in the body, nor cause cancer. I know many people think it should be avoided, but it's hardly only found in diet drinks or even sodas. Since I don't suffer withdrawal symptoms when I'm not ingesting it, as I recently rechecked, it's not a problem for me, but I'm not speaking for other people and I don't see why I'm being attacked, in a sense, for not giving up Diet Coke.

As to the sweetness issue, the problem is that satisfying the natural desire for sweetness too often results in producing too much insulin production as well as unneeded calorie intake. Neither are an issue with Aspartame. I'm not saying Aspartame is as good as naturally sweet products, but when trying to lose weight and stave off type II diabetes, it fills a role, IMO.

BTW, I'm not making excuses, I'm explaining my analysis. And I'm not locked into my position if a clear contrary case can be presented.

BTBTW, what would you say to someone who came here and claimed that we're just making excuses for not eating meat or dairy?

Well I just don't want you to feel "insulted" by the negativeness expressed by many over soda consumption here on the forum.
Just for clarity, I don't think for most people soda consumption represents the immediate threat to health smoking, or even smokeless tobacco offers. For most of us we see the rise in soda consumption parallels many of the ills we see in the general population. Doesn't prove a thing but certainly raises eyebrows. Also, you may boil the arguments about soda to three components but last time I looked at a can of soda(and it's been a while) it looked like a lot more than three ingredients. As I remember it was quite a long list of chemicals. Doesn't make them dangerous but I tend to avoid products with a long list of ingredients I can't pronounce! It also flies in the face of the "unprocessed" mantra most of my nutritional heroes ascribe to. When we have such general agreement between the 6 or 7 doctors I have come to respect, it lends weight to their claim to avoid such products.
No, my post wasn't to try to get you to quit sodas, it was to point to the use of them while adopting the term "strict McDougaller."
I apologize for any insult or offense you may have felt. None was intended.
f1jim

Here's the total list:
carbonated water
caramel color
aspartame
phosphoric acid
potassium benzoate
natural flavors
citric acid
caffeine

Carbonated water is simply water with carbon dioxide dissolved in it.
Caramel color I can't see a problem with. Potassium benzoate I don't know, but it's one of those universal ingredients. Natural flavors; who knows? Every plant that exists will have "natural flavors". It's possible they're trying to hide something, but I doubt it. Citric acid is not just a normal body component, it's one of the central ones being what the citric acid cycle is named after, which unites most of the important metabolic pathways together.

Debbie,

I stand to be corrected, but I doubt it's an acid build up on your battery connections. Batteries are generally sealed so that the acid can't excape. Corrosion will produce metal oxides; lead oxide or copper oxide, etc. which are insulators and basic in pH. applying a mildly acidic substance will convert the oxide to a salt which will be soluble and can be washed off.

The stomach produces hydrochloric acid, one of the strongest inorganic acids. If we can stand it, I think we can stand soda pop as well.

Well your particular soda ingredients look better than the last one I looked at. In fact, it looks downright healthy! Maybe I'll start consuming them too.
f1jim

Debbie,

I hope you realize the refs you copied there are all over the place. As such, it's hard to respond to your post. Let me just point to one item:



If you looked at the message to Jim about the ingredients in Diet Coke, you'll see that Diet Coke does not contain vitamin C (or at lest not enough to be listed as an ingredient), and thus isn't going to form benzene.



This is the sort of remark the can drive me crazy. Yes, I think that for me as far as I know at this time Diet Coke is not a problem for me. I've presented detailed reasons for this. I did not just make assumptions that it was ok and am unwilling to change my mind. OTOH, I invited this sort of remark, partly as an experiment to see what people would say, so I'm not particularly upset that people have responded as I would have expected. I guess that's all I want to say on the subject. Meanwhile, read my signature.