A diet coke experiment

I'm not a doctor but… 
Cycling injury, recovery and health issues.
Forum rules
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.

Re: A diet coke experiment

Postby casual_cyclist » Fri May 23, 2014 4:45 pm

P.S. it is a pity the fruit study didn't look at modern fruit vs heirloom fruit. I reckon if you did tomato, banana and strawberry, the modern would have less sugar than the heirloom. But apparently the heirloom pears are not as sweet? In any case, it would be interesting to see actual data.
<removed by request>
User avatar
casual_cyclist
 
Posts: 7340
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:41 am
Location: Kewdale

by BNA » Sat May 24, 2014 6:14 pm

BNA
 

Re: A diet coke experiment

Postby eeksll » Sat May 24, 2014 6:14 pm

ok, my quote about selectively breed fruit was not from a researched position, i have heard it mentioned but not really looked in to it, this being the most recent example i have seen. Combination of my distaste for health fads and the anti-processed food stance which seems to hang around the internet and people I work with. "Cause fresh fruit and veg are just better for you, everyone knows that", I am afraid that does not cut it for me.

casual_cyclist wrote:But go down to your local supermarket and have a look at the giant bananas and giant strawberries... you know, the ones that are the size of your fist? They taste disgusting. Sweet is the last word I would use to describe them. When scientists made them up in their labs, their priorities are size, transportability, shelf life, colour. Taste and sweetness are not on the agenda. Modern supermarket tomatoes are watery and flavourless. Whereas, homegrown tomatoes (of the right kind) taste amazing!!! To the point where scientists are trying to breed the flavour back into the fruit.


now on to this point, I remember a time (I think 2-4 years ago) where this was the case. I remember large "tasty" looking fruit (peaches in particular) bought from the super market where indeed as you described, powdery, tasteless not nice. However, i have not seen these for some time now. To think of it, especially in the last 2 years it is very rare for me to get bad tasting fruit from the supermarket. So either the scientist have perfected it now or they realised that having a good looking fruit only "tricks" customers once or twice than we stop buying it. Either way the fruit I buy now are the sweet ones.

Now following on with that last point. This "obsession" with eating fresh fruit and veg cause its more healthy. If this is the stance, then I can bet you people will be grabbing the sweetest nicest tasting fruit, selectively breed or not, the fruit consumed will be the sweetest type e.g sweet orange variety over grapefruit.
eeksll
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:36 pm

Re: A diet coke experiment

Postby anttismo » Sun May 25, 2014 11:48 am

Over 2 weeks now into the experiment. Damn FTP has not budged :lol: More seriously, can't say I'm feeling much different. I thought I was sleeping better on the 1st week, but perhaps that was more sedated during withdrawal. This week felt as usual. Both weeks have been 700km + on the pushie, so don't notice anything negative there either. Keep plugging along, but not convinced this is as life changing as some may hope...

And esksll, right on about the anti-anti-processed stuff. Preach it brother :lol:
Image
User avatar
anttismo
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:53 am
Location: SE Melbourne

Re: A diet coke experiment

Postby mikesbytes » Mon May 26, 2014 3:05 pm

Removing diet coke was never going to make some earth shattering change, its a case of one of the smaller refinements.

One of the incidental benefits of removing something from one's diet is that it brings in the capability to put something else into your diet. In the case of the diet coke removal, it may result in your sourcing flavor somewhere else, for example fruit
A helmet saved my life
User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 15010
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney

Re: A diet coke experiment

Postby marty_one » Mon May 26, 2014 3:31 pm

mikesbytes wrote:Removing diet coke was never going to make some earth shattering change, its a case of one of the smaller refinements.


This ^^^

This is one of the reasons I want to start giving up the coke myself. I know its not going to improve my athletic ability. What it will do for me is stop giving me indigestion during big efforts or not feel as rubbish after long rides (IE: > 90km). If I'm lucky possibly even start sleeping a little better and not have to rely on sugar/caffeine to get me through the day.

Your doing quiet well to get this far and not lapse back on to the stuff.
Avantia Giro 3.0 2012
My Journey to Triathlon - Focusing more on cycling (no time for anything else).
User avatar
marty_one
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 10:11 am

Re: A diet coke experiment

Postby casual_cyclist » Mon May 26, 2014 4:17 pm

eeksll wrote:ok, my quote about selectively breed fruit was not from a researched position, i have heard it mentioned but not really looked in to it, this being the most recent example i have seen. Combination of my distaste for health fads and the anti-processed food stance which seems to hang around the internet and people I work with. "Cause fresh fruit and veg are just better for you, everyone knows that", I am afraid that does not cut it for me.

I agree. There is too much diet advice based on gossip, such as don't eat tomatoes and citrus because they are too acidic. Conversly, the idea of eating more fresh food and less processed food is backed up by preliminary research comparing low nutrient density diets with high nutrient density diets.

This study provides important insights into hunger in a society characterized by over-consumption of processed food with an excess of calories and deficiency of micronutrients. Such hunger creates a cycle of overeating leading to obesity and is an obstacle for those who attempt to establish a healthy eating pattern and normal BMI. We found highly significant differences in the experience of hunger on the high nutrient density diet compared to the previous usual diet in a large sample of people who had made the shift to a diet high in micronutrients and lower in calories. The uncomfortable physical and emotional symptoms of hunger were much less prevalent after a change to the high nutrient density diet was made. We also observed a "dose response" that was strongly correlated with the degree of adherence to the high nutrient density diet. Our findings reveal that those who are able to make the change to a high nutrient density diet experience uncomfortable sensations of hunger less often than they experienced on their previous usual diet.


http://www.nutritionj.com/content/9/1/51

My own experience reflects this. A couple of years ago I was eating basically only processed foods and very little unprocessed foods (a little bit of veg and no fruit). I felt hungry all the time even though I was overeating and gaining weight. I actually changed what I was eating because I felt that did not want continually feel hungry because the sensation of hunger was so unpleasant. I started eating a lot more vegetables and fruit and a lot less processed foods. The major difference I found was that I did not feel constantly hungry. My issues with highly processed foods are that it is energy dense but nutrient poor but at the same time makes many people feel hungrier than they should relative to the amout they have eaten.
<removed by request>
User avatar
casual_cyclist
 
Posts: 7340
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: A diet coke experiment

Postby casual_cyclist » Mon May 26, 2014 4:23 pm

eeksll wrote:Now following on with that last point. This "obsession" with eating fresh fruit and veg cause its more healthy. If this is the stance, then I can bet you people will be grabbing the sweetest nicest tasting fruit, selectively breed or not, the fruit consumed will be the sweetest type e.g sweet orange variety over grapefruit.

Not for me. I do not pick the sweetest apples, pears, lemons or bananas. However, I do like sweet mangoes, watermelon and strawberries. It depends on the fruit but I certainly don't go "grabbing" the sweetest fruit and I don't associate "sweet" and "nice". Example: I do not call a sweet apple, pear or lemon "nice tasting". I have deliberately included lemons here because there are some sweeter lemons around and they are disgusting! A lemon should be nice and sour thanks! For me, the "obession" with eating fresh fruit and veg is more about the fact is has actual nutrients in it as opposed to some processed foods, which can have virtually none.
<removed by request>
User avatar
casual_cyclist
 
Posts: 7340
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: A diet coke experiment

Postby casual_cyclist » Mon May 26, 2014 5:07 pm

eeksll wrote:
anttismo wrote:To be fair, I'm not really completely pro-processed food. I'm sure as natural as possible is probably better, but I do like winding up those who take it all a bit too seriously. It's important, but not very, IMO :)

I like that :D
Processed is such a generic word as well. Rolled oats is technically processed, I believe that is classified as a healthy food.

I think this is a really important point and something that is not well defined by the anti-processed foods crowd (me included). For example, I think that frozen veg, canned legumes, coconut milk, coconut oil, olive oil, oats and brown rice are all healthy and yet all of these are processed foods. On the other hand, I would consider puffed rice, white flour, white bread, cake, muffins and biscuits to be unhealthy foods that should be eaten only occasionally, not every meal.

What's the difference, they are all processed right? Yes, but there are degrees of processing which results in different properies of the final product. In general, a minimally processed food will be higher in nutrients and lower in energy than an ultra-processed food, which will generally be higher in energy and lower in nutrients. It comes down to personal choice really. If you want nutrients in your foods, you will pick more unprocessed and minimally processed foods. If you want an energy hit with very little nutrients, you will pick more ultra-processed foods.

You are right to call people out on processed foods being "bad".

Food processing, in any broad sense of this term, is not a public health issue. To suppose so would be rather foolish. This would be like supposing that food technology – or any other form of technology – is intrinsically problematic. Much discussion of food, nutrition and health that mentions processing as such as a factor is almost meaningless. To begin with, almost all food and drink always has been processed, in some real sense. A characteristic of many foodstuffs as found in nature, is that they are unpalatable or inedible unless subjected to some process, such as preparation or cooking.


In an analysis of food processing, one author proposes the following categories: unprocessed, type 1 processing, type 2 processing and type 3 processing. These are defined below:

Unprocessed
Unprocessed foods, also known as fresh foods, are defined here as parts of plants (such
as seeds, leaves, roots, fruits) or animals (such as muscles, offals, milk, blood) and also
fungi or algae, shortly after they have been harvested, butchered or extracted, or after
they have been gathered from nature.


Type 1 processing - (minimally processed)
The processes classified here as type 1 do not substantially change the nutritional properties of the original unprocessed foods, and may improve them, intrinsically or in effect. Such processes include and are not confined to cleaning, removal of inedible fractions, grating, squeezing, draining, flaking, drying, parboiling, bottling (without additions other than water), chilling, freezing, fermentation (when the result is not alcoholic), pasteurisation, vacuum and gas packing, and simple wrapping.

Type 2 processing - (culinary ingredients)
The second group of processes extract and ‘purify’ specific substances from unprocessed foods. There are many. They include pressing, crushing, milling, refining, ‘purifying’, hydrogenation, hydrolysation, extrusion, and use of enzymes and additives. Combinations of such processes are commonly used to make manufactured products.
One purpose of type 2 food processing is to convert unprocessed foods into culinary ingredients. These are used in preparation and cooking of unprocessed or minimally processed foods in the home, or in catering outlets such as restaurants, cafes and street markets where meals are made on site. The other purpose of type 2 food processing is to convert unprocessed foods into food industry ingredients used in the industrial development of ultra-processed foods (see below).
The results of type 2 food processing are therefore culinary or food industry ingredients. Examples are oils, fats, sugar and sweeteners, flours and pastas (when made of flour and water), and starches. Salt is a group 2 ingredient. Most end products of type 2 food processing are depleted or devoid of nutrients and essentially provide energy. They are not palatable by themselves apart from sugar (which however is not commonly eaten neat), and are not consumed by themselves.

Type 3 food processing - (ultra-processed)
The third type of processing combines the already processed group 2 ingredients, such as oils, fats, sugars, salt, flours, starches, remnants of meat, with some (often only a small or even minuscule amount) of unprocessed or minimally processed group 1 foods. Sometimes no group 1 foods are included, although they may be imitated. Specific processes include baking, battering, frying, deep frying, curing, smoking, pickling, canning, use of preservatives and cosmetic additives, addition of synthetic vitamins and minerals, and sophisticated types of packaging.

The purpose of type 3 food processing is the creation of durable, accessible, convenient, attractive, ready-to-eat or ready-to-heat products. Such ultra-processed products are formulated to reduce microbial deterioration (‘long shelf life’), to be transportable for long distances, to be extremely palatable (‘high organoleptic quality’) and often to be habit-forming. Typically they are designed to be consumed anywhere – in fast-food establishments, at home in place of domestically prepared and cooked food, and while watching television, at a desk or elsewhere at work, in the street, and while driving. This is why they are termed ‘fast’ or ‘convenience’ foods.


So what is so bad about ultra-processed foods anyway?

From the public health point of view, ultra-processed foods are problematic in two
ways. First, their principal ingredients (oils, solid fats, sugars, salt, flours, starches) make
them excessive in total fat, saturated or trans-fats, sugar and sodium, and short of
micronutrients and other bioactive compounds, and of dietary fibre. Taken together this
increases the risk of various serious diseases. Second, their high energy density, hyperpalatability,
their marketing in large and super-sizes, and aggressive and sophisticated
adverting, all undermine the normal processes of appetite control, cause overconsumption,
and therefore cause obesity, and diseases associated with obesity.


The author contends that the "genuinely occasional consumption" of ultra-processed products is not harmful but rather that problems occur when ultra-processed products become the predominant products consumed.

http://www.wphna.org/htdocs/downloadsno ... essing.pdf

I think it is rubbish when people say that processed foods are bad and should be removed and even that all ultra-processed food and drink products are best eliminated from diets. However, when people are predominantly eating ultra-processed food and drink products, I think that is a real problem.
<removed by request>
User avatar
casual_cyclist
 
Posts: 7340
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: A diet coke experiment

Postby marty_one » Wed May 28, 2014 9:25 pm

How are things going since giving up now. I would imagine that you would not be getting any withdrawal related headaches by now.

I'm hoping that in a month or two's time I might be able to start having yet another crack at giving up the cola habit (and hopefully the V habit too).
Avantia Giro 3.0 2012
My Journey to Triathlon - Focusing more on cycling (no time for anything else).
User avatar
marty_one
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 10:11 am

Re: A diet coke experiment

Postby anttismo » Thu May 29, 2014 11:32 am

marty_one wrote:How are things going since giving up now. I would imagine that you would not be getting any withdrawal related headaches by now.

I'm hoping that in a month or two's time I might be able to start having yet another crack at giving up the cola habit (and hopefully the V habit too).


yeah, no problems. Felt fine after the 1st week. To be honest, hard to pick much difference between how I feel now compared to before. I drink more water now, and pee a bit less. Will see how it goes over the longer term :)
Image
User avatar
anttismo
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:53 am
Location: SE Melbourne

Previous

Return to Cycling Health

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Ebay Ebay AU
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers