Say "No" to Splenda?

[Lost Dog]

Most people don't count calories or look at portion sizes. Sometimes the fat ones swap out the Coke for the Diet Coke and hope for the best. But the Diet Coke triggers something to make them eat more calories. More than the calories of the Coke that they dropped.

The study had nothing to do with counting or thinking.

As to studies on rats not being accurate when applied to people, is there a good percentage of these studies that don't pan out? I know the Sweet n Low thing, but what others are bad?

[gobbla]

Not the case. If you swapped out a coke for a diet coke in your #3, you wouldn't eat more calories because your portion size is static. A whopper and large fries is still a whopper and large fries regardless of the beverage.

If you take a "low calorie\fat\carb snack" and put it next to a "normal snack", exclude any portion control and plop down a fatty they'd *probably* eat more calories from the low calorie snack (assuming that low calorie snack really isn't) because they're "aware" with the regular calories. Not that the regular snack is better, people just exclude responsibility with the diet food.

[Lost Dog]

If I understand the study, once they've had the diet coke, they'll eat more calories later. Not now. It triggers greater than normal hunger and since most people eat when hungry, they'll eat more calories.

[gobbla]

True.

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by Lost Dog

Most people don't count calories or look at portion sizes. Sometimes the fat ones swap out the Coke for the Diet Coke and hope for the best.

I consider that Darwinism. The information about what is healthy and what has the greatest chance of working is out there. If they disregard it and go with fallacy, it's Darwinism, pure and simple.

The study had nothing to do with counting or thinking.

How many rats can you say have cognizant self-control? That's the bottom line. Humans are so unique in the world, I don't see how we can apply so many rat studies to humans.

As to studies on rats not being accurate when applied to people, is there a good percentage of these studies that don't pan out? I know the Sweet n Low thing, but what others are bad?

If rats are so genetically similar to humans, why don't they have opposable thumbs? Why do they have mating cycles?

Why rats over monkeys? Chimps? Chimps are 99.4% genetically similar to humans. I seem to remember that a lot of mammals are within 95% genetic similarity to humans, some that have little in common with humans, except that they have one nose with two nostrils, two eyes, ears to listen with, give birth to live young, etc. I'm still trying to find how close rats and mice are to humans. Still, enough distinction to make me look sideways at any study on rats applied to humans.

I'd like to think we're all a bit more intellectually capable and physically evolved than rats, but hey, if rats are the key to knowing what drives humans instincts and behavior...I have a sudden urge to rummage through my garbage.

I'm still going to stand by the idea that studies on rats are going to shine a light on rat behaviors.

[smoddelm]

Originally Posted by gobbla

In the study the rats gaining weight WERE eating more than the rats that weren't gaining weight. It's not an assumption.

It was observed that the rats were eating more, but that doesn't mean that accounts for 100% of the weight gain effect.

Also, one might speculate that something that physiologically (not psychologically) makes a rat want to eat more is having some kind of physiological impact on its metabolism. Not something that was examined in the study but certainly something that could be tested -- on rats as well as humans.

In terms of talking about human willpower, it seems that most people use artificial sweeteners to satisfy a craving for something sweet. So even if 100% of the weight gain effect is that it makes you (if you are a rat) want to eat more, why would you eat something to satisfy a craving (the food containing the artificial sweetener) that causes more cravings?

[Lost Dog]

Originally Posted by Cynic

I consider that Darwinism. The information about what is healthy and what has the greatest chance of working is out there. If they disregard it and go with fallacy, it's Darwinism, pure and simple.

It's only Darwinism if they get fat enough not to mate, get sterile, or die before they have kids. Or, produce sterile kids or fewer kids than they normally would have.

Information like this can be used to decide how to best educate people who could care less. Or, who care just a little bit and choose a method that they think will work, but won't. Diet Coke vs Coke.

Come on, people think juice is a good sub for soda.

Originally Posted by Cynic

How many rats can you say have cognizant self-control? That's the bottom line. Humans are so unique in the world, I don't see how we can apply so many rat studies to humans.

If rats are so genetically similar to humans, why don't they have opposable thumbs? Why do they have mating cycles?

Why rats over monkeys? Chimps? Chimps are 99.4% genetically similar to humans. I seem to remember that a lot of mammals are within 95% genetic similarity to humans, some that have little in common with humans, except that they have one nose with two nostrils, two eyes, ears to listen with, give birth to live young, etc. I'm still trying to find how close rats and mice are to humans. Still, enough distinction to make me look sideways at any study on rats applied to humans.

I'd like to think we're all a bit more intellectually capable and physically evolved than rats, but hey, if rats are the key to knowing what drives humans instincts and behavior...I have a sudden urge to rummage through my garbage.

I'm still going to stand by the idea that studies on rats are going to shine a light on rat behaviors.

Okay, Willard. I understand.

But, a rat study is cheap and a monkey study isn't. Things like rat poison kill us both. Too much food makes us both fat.

The fact that they used rats doesn't prove or disprove anything, but it gives us a clue at where to look next.

Originally Posted by smoddelm

It was observed that the rats were eating more, but that doesn't mean that accounts for 100% of the weight gain effect.

Also, one might speculate that something that physiologically (not psychologically) makes a rat want to eat more is having some kind of physiological impact on its metabolism. Not something that was examined in the study but certainly something that could be tested -- on rats as well as humans.

In terms of talking about human willpower, it seems that most people use artificial sweeteners to satisfy a craving for something sweet. So even if 100% of the weight gain effect is that it makes you (if you are a rat) want to eat more, why would you eat something to satisfy a craving (the food containing the artificial sweetener) that causes more cravings?

Well said.

[smoddelm]

A lot of posts have criticized the study on the basis that it was done on rats and not humans. However, one advantage in doing a study like this on rats rather than humans is that, presumably, the psychological effects are greatly diminished. A rat won't eat more just because he thinks he can without getting fat since he was "good" and drank a diet soda instead of a sugar soda. So if he eats more, it's much more likely that the overconsumption is due to a physiological effect of the artificial sweetener than a psychological rationalization. It would be much more difficult to design a human study to discern such a difference. Of course now that the phenomenon has been observed in rats, the next step is to design such a study to see if what appears to hold true for rats holds true for humans as well. The rat study doesn't convince me that diet soda will physiologically cause humans to want to consume more calories, but it helps persuade me that it's possible.

[gobbla]

A simple tracking method would be to figure out the calories that the rats ate vs weight gain. Of course if that were reported as the cause it wouldn't make for a very interesting article.

I think it's possible that it's physiological, I just don't think it's relevant.

[Defiant1]

All I'm saying is that I used to have some hamsters when I was little and those guys were the last two creatures that you would want to do a test on and relate it to humans. Hell, one of them, anytime I would feed him would eat all of his food at once, carry it around in his cheek making his head look like a balloon. Then he would bury himself in cedar chips and I wouldn't see him again until the next day.

[Lost Dog]

You summed up my Uncle Marv, right there.

[smoddelm]

Originally Posted by Defiant1

All I'm saying is that I used to have some hamsters when I was little and those guys were the last two creatures that you would want to do a test on and relate it to humans. Hell, one of them, anytime I would feed him would eat all of his food at once, carry it around in his cheek making his head look like a balloon. Then he would bury himself in cedar chips and I wouldn't see him again until the next day.

We had hamsters when I was a kid. One of them died, apparently of the hiccups. Seeing how upset we were, my father (world's best dad) tried to revive it by giving it mouth-to-mouth.

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by Lost Dog

Information like this can be used to decide how to best educate people who could care less. Or, who care just a little bit and choose a method that they think will work, but won't. Diet Coke vs Coke.

1. It's "could not care less."
2. If they could not care less about their health, why should we? Given that many company provided insurances are moving more of the cost to the individual (higher deductable, higher percentage of fork-over, etc), the cost is again on them.

I don't drink juice or soda, diet or otherwise. I see a lot of people naming coke zero as an addiction in the OT thread. I may try it, but frankly (not Frank S'ly), I'm not really wanting to get started. I have enough issues in life. When I sip a Coke, it's way too sweet for me these days.

[LisaS]

Rowlannd is pretty precise with his grammar. Maybe he meant the ones "who could care less" are still educable.

[Lost Dog]

Crap. I hate that. You're right, it's "people who couldn't care less."

Fat people are more likely to be poor and cost the govt (us) money to support as they slowly die. So, we could invest money to get them healthy, if we can see a cost benefit to doing so.

And, I believe it's our responsibility to see that kids of losers have a good shot at not being losers when they grow up. Possibly by better educating people. It's not the kids' fault.

[Lost Dog]

Oh, and Coke Zero doesn't taste any better than Diet Coke. Not to me, anyway. I drink Diet Pepsi or Diet Dr. Pepper, when I have the choice. None of these sodas use Splenda, by the way.

[Mark57]

Originally Posted by Lost Dog

Oh, and Coke Zero doesn't taste any better than Diet Coke. Not to me, anyway. I drink Diet Pepsi or Diet Dr. Pepper, when I have the choice. None of these sodas use Splenda, by the way.

Wrong-O, Buckwheat!

Coke Zero is way more gooder than Diet Coke (which is crap, except for the Diet Coke w/Lime, which is most awesome.) I also like Diet Rite Cola, which uses Splenda and tastes good. And Fresca, which is the best thing God or man ever put in a can.

But Coke Zero, Cherry Coke Zero and Vanilla Coke Zero are all pretty dang good.