Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) Looking to lose that spare tire? Ideal weight 200+? Frustrated being a large cyclist in a sport geared for the ultra-light? Learn about the bikes and parts that can take the abuse of a heavier cyclist, how to keep your body going while losing the weight, and get support from others who've been successful.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-28-08, 01:34 PM   #26
cohophysh
fishologist
 
cohophysh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pacific Northwest
Bikes: Diamondback MTB; Leader 736R
Posts: 1,201
I try to use stevia, it has a bit of a bitter taste if you use to much
__________________
We cannot solve problems with the same level of consciousness that created them. A.E.

1990 Diamond Back MTB
2007 Leader 736R
www.cohocyclist.blogspot.com
http://www.loopd.com/members/cohocyclist/Default.aspx


cohophysh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-08, 02:16 PM   #27
CliftonGK1
Senior Member
 
CliftonGK1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Bikes: '08 Surly Cross-Check, 2011 Redline Conquest Pro, 2012 Spesh FSR Comp EVO, 2015 Trek Domane 6.2 disc
Posts: 11,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Stormcrowe View Post
Some more than others. Saccharine is the worst for that. Too much Sodium.

Equal breaks down into Formaldehyde and phenylalanine, amongst others.

Splenda contains Chlorine in substitution for some of the Carbon Atoms in the polymer chain that comprises Sucralose vs Sucrose.
Mmmmm.... Polychlorinated galactopyranosides... *drool*
CliftonGK1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-08, 05:09 PM   #28
deraltekluge
Senior Member
 
deraltekluge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Bikes: Kona Cinder Cone, Sun EZ-3 AX
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan112 View Post
None. I've never buttered my toast, bagels, muffins...always thought they tasted fine on their own. And considering the amount of coffee/diet coke I drink the sugar savings is significant.
Well, the diet soda is significant...saves 150 calories per 12 ounces. The coffee with one teaspoonful of sugar is 15 calories per cup. That's a pretty big difference.

Last edited by deraltekluge; 05-28-08 at 06:02 PM.
deraltekluge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-08, 05:26 PM   #29
Black Bud
One Tough Cookie.
 
Black Bud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: West Hartford, CT
Bikes: Too many and not ENOUGH!
Posts: 265
The studies cited were all conducted in rats or using rat tissues. Rats are cute (at least to some people)...but they are NOT humans. Therefore, all that can be taken from any of the cited studies is that the question needs more study and should not be used by humans as a reason to support the "why" behind their food choices.

A better reason for NOT using artificial sweeteners (if one is not actually allergic to them) is best summed up as "Why bother?" They do nothing to aid in weight loss (what other changes in habits were made if someone claims that this change helped them lose weight, for instance) and are not even all that useful for diabetics (using artificial sweeteners really does little or nothing to help control blood glucose levels in the absence of very low carbohydrate intake).

These concoctions also are expensive and taste lousy to boot.
__________________
A bad day on the bike is better than a good day at work!!

My discussion board, another resource for the "utility" and commuter cyclist: "Two Wheeled Commuter: The Everyday Cyclist"
Black Bud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-08, 06:06 PM   #30
lil brown bat
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
lil brown bat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Boston (sort of)
Bikes: 1 road, 1 Urban Assault Vehicle
Posts: 3,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Bud View Post
The studies cited were all conducted in rats or using rat tissues.
No they weren't.
lil brown bat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-08, 06:23 PM   #31
Spartan112
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Woostah, MA
Bikes: 1982 Peugeot PH10
Posts: 674
Quote:
Originally Posted by deraltekluge View Post
Well, the diet soda is significant...saves 150 calories per 12 ounces. The coffee with one teaspoonful of sugar is 15 calories per cup. That's a pretty big difference.
Yup, but I use 2 teaspoons (big ones) and drink 6+ cups of coffee a day, multiply it out and you get close to 200 calories or 10% of my suggested daily intake of calories. I say that's significant. 200 times 7 days is 1400 or somewhere around a 1/3 of a pound.
Spartan112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-08, 06:32 PM   #32
Black Bud
One Tough Cookie.
 
Black Bud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: West Hartford, CT
Bikes: Too many and not ENOUGH!
Posts: 265
To those who question my last post? Go ahead and read the study extracts put up by Tom Stormcrowe again. Both rat studies.

As for the human studies? Are any of you sure they are not all--if they even exist--"data dredges"? If there are any that are not and have been published, I am sure you can come up with a few cites.

Not that it will support any argument you might have: Epidemiological studies consisting of a bunch of studies that have nothing to do with each other and may not have even tested for the data in question are worse than useless in theory or in application. All too often the "don't do this" or "do this instead" advice being handed out by even the medical establishment is nothing more than some computer model's GIGO that happens to "fit" someone's desired results and is then propagated by other equally lazy researchers. Or the "cr*p" is "pushed" like a "pram" in a medical journal because it fits the current memes and those defective "conclusions" are therefore adopted as "gospel" by most people,--including clinicians in practice--because THEY are too lazy to question what they are told.

Is the job to "Question Authority" important, even when it comes to whether to eat fake "sugar" or the real stuff? Yes: Questioning the data and/or its source is important when deciding what one should do--or eat--or shouldn't. The REAL conclusions--if any--that can be drawn from any data as actually garnered any such studies may say something some people don't want you to know because it will not help THEM make the all important $$$, which is really all that seems to matter these days.
__________________
A bad day on the bike is better than a good day at work!!

My discussion board, another resource for the "utility" and commuter cyclist: "Two Wheeled Commuter: The Everyday Cyclist"

Last edited by Black Bud; 05-28-08 at 06:36 PM.
Black Bud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-08, 06:49 PM   #33
Black Bud
One Tough Cookie.
 
Black Bud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: West Hartford, CT
Bikes: Too many and not ENOUGH!
Posts: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan112 View Post
...I use 2 teaspoons (big ones) and drink 6+ cups of coffee a day, multiply it out and you get close to 200 calories or 10% of my suggested daily intake of calories. I say that's significant. 200 times 7 days is 1400 or somewhere around a 1/3 of a pound.
Uh, no...

Using the "default" values which would work in a linear system in a system that is not linear (and which is far from fully understood)--such as human energy usage--is making an assumption that should not be used in deciding how much one wants to starve themselves (and that's what a weight-loss plan of any kind is: planned starvation). The suggestions for calorie intake per day are only very rough figures based on the simplistic "calories in, calories out" model that would be more useful in--with a change in name of the variable--determining gas mileage in one's SUV than the energy requirements of the human body. Conforming to the "default" value (3,500 kCal/lb) for determining how much one needs to eat (or not) to gain/lose one pound is a virtually useless exercise in determining what one should eat, especially if one's natural metabolism is low to begin with and/or one has dieted oneself into perpetual famine mode (and therefore one has reset oneself into a lower-energy-burning mode).

In other words, eating "fake" sugar to try to control weight is more of an exercise in self-deception to justify one's self-denial (plays to one's ego only) than of any real benefit to health.
__________________
A bad day on the bike is better than a good day at work!!

My discussion board, another resource for the "utility" and commuter cyclist: "Two Wheeled Commuter: The Everyday Cyclist"
Black Bud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-08, 06:57 PM   #34
Tom Stormcrowe
Out fishing with Annie on his lap, a cigar in one hand and a ginger ale in the other, watching the sunset.
 
Tom Stormcrowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida
Bikes: Techna Wheelchair and a Sun EZ 3 Recumbent Trike
Posts: 16,121
Personally, I use a risk assessment, based off of the studies, and figure better safe that sorry I know full well that there are physiological differences between rats and humans, but there are also sufficient physiological similarities that the results have sufficient merit for me to say no, I'm not going to put that in my body. I can assure you it's not a position based on a meme, since I've studied Physiology. I also know, whether it be a placebo or actual physiological effect, that I feel better since I quit using the artificial sweeteners. Observed results are what count with me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Bud View Post
To those who question my last post? Go ahead and read the study extracts put up by Tom Stormcrowe again. Both rat studies.

As for the human studies? Are any of you sure they are not all--if they even exist--"data dredges"? If there are any that are not and have been published, I am sure you can come up with a few cites.

Not that it will support any argument you might have: Epidemiological studies consisting of a bunch of studies that have nothing to do with each other and may not have even tested for the data in question are worse than useless in theory or in application. All too often the "don't do this" or "do this instead" advice being handed out by even the medical establishment is nothing more than some computer model's GIGO that happens to "fit" someone's desired results and is then propagated by other equally lazy researchers. Or the "cr*p" is "pushed" like a "pram" in a medical journal because it fits the current memes and those defective "conclusions" are therefore adopted as "gospel" by most people,--including clinicians in practice--because THEY are too lazy to question what they are told.

Is the job to "Question Authority" important, even when it comes to whether to eat fake "sugar" or the real stuff? Yes: Questioning the data and/or its source is important when deciding what one should do--or eat--or shouldn't. The REAL conclusions--if any--that can be drawn from any data as actually garnered any such studies may say something some people don't want you to know because it will not help THEM make the all important $$$, which is really all that seems to matter these days.
__________________
. “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche

"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant
Tom Stormcrowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-08, 08:26 PM   #35
Spartan112
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Woostah, MA
Bikes: 1982 Peugeot PH10
Posts: 674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Bud View Post
Uh, no...

Using the "default" values which would work in a linear system in a system that is not linear (and which is far from fully understood)--such as human energy usage--is making an assumption that should not be used in deciding how much one wants to starve themselves (and that's what a weight-loss plan of any kind is: planned starvation). The suggestions for calorie intake per day are only very rough figures based on the simplistic "calories in, calories out" model that would be more useful in--with a change in name of the variable--determining gas mileage in one's SUV than the energy requirements of the human body. Conforming to the "default" value (3,500 kCal/lb) for determining how much one needs to eat (or not) to gain/lose one pound is a virtually useless exercise in determining what one should eat, especially if one's natural metabolism is low to begin with and/or one has dieted oneself into perpetual famine mode (and therefore one has reset oneself into a lower-energy-burning mode).

In other words, eating "fake" sugar to try to control weight is more of an exercise in self-deception to justify one's self-denial (plays to one's ego only) than of any real benefit to health.
As stated earlier in the thread I have changed my diet drastically in the last year, part of that change has included switching to foods that have sugar substitutes. I do this to help with my daily calorie count. As a result of my efforts I have lost 95# in the last year. The model is real for me. YMMV.
Spartan112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-08, 08:34 PM   #36
deraltekluge
Senior Member
 
deraltekluge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Bikes: Kona Cinder Cone, Sun EZ-3 AX
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan112 View Post
Yup, but I use 2 teaspoons (big ones) and drink 6+ cups of coffee a day...
Don't do that!
deraltekluge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-08, 06:23 AM   #37
Spartan112
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Woostah, MA
Bikes: 1982 Peugeot PH10
Posts: 674
Quote:
Originally Posted by deraltekluge View Post
Don't do that!
Too late, already had the first 2....this motor runs on caffeine.
Spartan112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-08, 06:27 AM   #38
lil brown bat
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
lil brown bat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Boston (sort of)
Bikes: 1 road, 1 Urban Assault Vehicle
Posts: 3,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Bud View Post
To those who question my last post? Go ahead and read the study extracts put up by Tom Stormcrowe again. Both rat studies.
You said "the studies cited" without a quote or reference to what studies you were talking about. The studies referenced by the post that started this thread were not both rat studies. Remove chip from shoulder, please.
lil brown bat is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:18 AM.