PDA

View Full Version : i had a pepsi today and threw up



Gizotch
06-25-2004, 10:12 PM
since cleaning up my diet ive had no carbonated beverages , no caffeine . ive been pretty much making all of my own food . anyway , today my buddy and i were outside working on our skimboards and i decided a cold soda would be nice so i cracked one open and just started drinking it down , without warning i felt myself feeling like i needed to throw up , and sure enopugh i ended up doing that a few minutes later in some bushes next to my garage . what the heck ?

BigNic
06-25-2004, 10:32 PM
ya i used to stop drinking soda during wrestling season and pre season. Then after liek 7-8 mos of not drinking it if i had one if be sick for like 2 days

ryuage
06-26-2004, 05:30 AM
soda = bad!

Gizotch
06-26-2004, 07:35 AM
lol , yea i know . i figured that since alot of people give themselves cheat days and i dont , that this wouldnt hurt too much . boy was i wrong .

Ron
06-26-2004, 07:46 AM
Would you say diet soda is bad? Man, that would just suck like no tomorrow cuz I'm absolutely addicted to diet pepsi. I drink probably about five cans of this crap per day. Is there a 12-step program like AA for this?

Shao-LiN
06-26-2004, 09:12 AM
Soda is nice to have once in awhile, but I'd try and drop back from 5 a day.

KingJustin
06-26-2004, 09:49 AM
I haven't had any kind of "cola" for about 4 years now. I just think the stuff is disgusting. Once you haven't had any for six months or so you should stop wanting it. The carbonated drinks are just plain bad for you. If you crave them then go ahead, but know that it will (albeit mildly if kept in moderation) be hurting your health.

Holto
06-26-2004, 11:34 AM
the diet sodas still leach calcium from your bones etc...

I have been drinking Reverse Osmosis water for so long I don't have the anti-bodies to drink tap water or spring water and it makes me throw up more than once

Augury
06-26-2004, 12:09 PM
heh. no soad for ages and then you suddenly dump half a litre of highly acidic, bubbly junk into your tummy. It was doing you a favour by makin ya throw up. You should pat it and give it some kinda reward.

Good tummy. have some protein. mmm.

Max-Mex
06-26-2004, 12:22 PM
I need to ween myself from diet sodas. That's probably my only addiction so to speak.

T_Chapman
06-26-2004, 05:51 PM
i only drink soda when im out with friends. usually cherry coke or vanilla coke (only from restaurants that use actual vanilla syrup. not the cocacola crap). the rock drinks diet coke when he eats fast food.

you should cheat once in a while to shake up your metabolism. your body will get sick from junk food if you stay off of it for too long.

KingJustin
06-26-2004, 09:54 PM
How would eating processed carbs, saturated fats or carbonated drinks help change your metabolism?

T_Chapman
06-26-2004, 10:51 PM
How would eating processed carbs, saturated fats or carbonated drinks help change your metabolism?

increasing cals on certain days is supposed to shock your metabolism. you dont want to make your diet too routine. thats what ive read on several mags. correct me if im wrong.

TiGeR AK
06-27-2004, 12:01 AM
i noticed that it's a LOT harder to finish 1 can of coke than before, when i wasn't cutting.

Spartacus
06-27-2004, 07:24 PM
increasing cals on certain days is supposed to shock your metabolism. you dont want to make your diet too routine. thats what ive read on several mags. correct me if im wrong.

uh that was bad advice

T_Chapman
06-27-2004, 07:31 PM
uh that was bad advice

lol im so sorry if thats wrong but i swear i hear it all the time. heheh. sorry...

where's augury and geoffgarcia when you need them lol???

Augury
06-27-2004, 07:39 PM
you arent confusing "refeeds" with eating something different to shock the metabolism are you?

im not sure you can actually "shock" a metabolism either. Your met rate is just how many cals per day you burn staying alive. Not sure how a beefburger would casue it any shock.

Anyhow...refeeds are good as they stop the body heading towards starvation and keep fat loss going rather than a metabolic crash. perhaps thats what the mags were aiming at? However refeeds are pretty specific in nature. normally high carb, low fat one or two day affairs.

T_Chapman
06-27-2004, 09:42 PM
you arent confusing "refeeds" with eating something different to shock the metabolism are you?

im not sure you can actually "shock" a metabolism either. Your met rate is just how many cals per day you burn staying alive. Not sure how a beefburger would casue it any shock.

Anyhow...refeeds are good as they stop the body heading towards starvation and keep fat loss going rather than a metabolic crash. perhaps thats what the mags were aiming at? However refeeds are pretty specific in nature. normally high carb, low fat one or two day affairs.

maybe i confused it yeah but i read this article i think from flex or muscle and fitness that said to increase your calories by like 500 or something every week if youre 10% bodyfat. if youre 5% to 8% you increase twice a week or something like that. they had a graph to "shock" your metabolism or something. i bet i misread. sorry. ill try looking for it.

T_Chapman
06-27-2004, 09:56 PM
i found the article. its called cheat to lose. ill type it up. in the mean time ill give you a link to another article on muscleandfitness.com.

http://www.muscleandfitness.com/nutrition/21

kozen
06-27-2004, 10:15 PM
If you consistently eat belw maintence your thyroid will become dormant, and as a result you will burn less calories throughout the day

T_Chapman
06-27-2004, 10:22 PM
heres the article

----

Learn when and how to chow to lose fat now.

CHEAT TO LOSE by Caleb Stone

We've all been there - you're smackdab in the middle of a successful diet, when suddenly it all comes crashing down. Your fat loss comes to a screeching halt and is replaced instead by muscle loss, your cravings go through the roof, you're more fatigued than ever, and you can't shake that bug you caught a couple of weeks ago. This very common experience all too often signals the end of the line for most diets. But wait, don't throw away your weeks of effort for something that can be fixed.

We'll show you how to keep your diet headed in the right direction by staying one step ahead of your body. The best part is, it involves eating more food!

Leapin' for Leptin
If you've heard of leptin, it was probably several years ago, when scientists first discovered this hormone and news broke worldwide about its promising future as a cure for the obesity epidemic. Pharmaceutical companies immediately began salivating over the potential leptin had as a diet drug. And the data was hot: Injecting animals with leptin decreased appetite and food intake and increased metabolism with rapid fat loss and maintenance of muscle mass. It was perfect!

Then leptin fell off the face of the earth, just as quickly as it appeared, at least in the media. In laboratories across the world, however, leptin was hotter than ever. The reason the media attention waned was that the topic got very confusing. New research found that leptin levels were actually higher in obese individuals than in thin people. And down the drain went the hopes for an obesity cure.

Yet leptin's role in fat loss is far from dead. Today, we know much more about this hormone, enough to harness its power through proper diet and supplementation for optimal fat loss.

Leptin Lesson
What do most dieters do when they hit the dreaded diet wall and the fat stops coming off? Typically they drop calories even more and increase the time they spend exercising. This may sound like a smart plan, but it isn't. In fact, when the pounds stop coming off, you should do the exact opposite - eat more. This may seem to go against all logic, but with leptin under our microscopes, it makes perfect sense.
Advanced bodybuilders have known for years that cheating on their diets from time to time stimulates the metabolism. The hows and whys were beyond their understanding and anyone else's, but once again, bodybuilders were far ahead of science. Today we know why a cheat day will help kickstart your metabolism: leptin. Because the hormone is in place to prevent starvation, when calories drop and fat cells get smaller, so does the release of leptin. This slows your metabolism in an effort to conserve fuel stores, and in creases hunger to encourage eating. When you eat a lot of food after you've been dieting, leptin levels surge, resulting in a boost to your metabolism and drop in your appetite.

The Cheat Day
Unfortunately, a cheat day doesn't always mean you can totally abandon all sensibility in exchange for high-fat foods and calorie-laden sweets. It's still a welcome day on your diet calendar, but it isn't a total food orgy. You have to follow an eating strategy, which of course is better than a staration strategy.

In essense, a "smart" cheat day provides similar amounts of protein and fat as your typical diet days, though you can throw in some fun foods that you've been craving here or there, like pizza. The majority of your extra calories on "cheat day" should come from complex carbohydrates such as oatmeal, cold cereal, rice, pasta and potatoes. (A byproduct of carbohydrate metabolism called hexosamine is involved in the leptin-signaling pathway.) Because of this, you should limit carbs on your diet days. A good rule of thumb is to keep carbohydrate down below 2 grams per pound of bodyweight. And speaking of carbs, one other important note: Limit fruit. Its fructose can't be used directly by the muscles, so it first must be converted in the liver to glucose or fat. Because carb intake is so high on a cheat day, there's a greater chance that fructose will be converted to fat. To avoid this, limit your fructose a cheat day to no more than 50 grams, or approximately 3-4 pieces of fruit.

A Cheater's Schedule
The frequency and length of your cheat day will depend on your bodyfat levels and length of dieting. The longer and more severely you have dieted (thus the lower leptin has fallen), the more frequently you'll need to "cheat."

To estimate your bodyfat percentage, you can have a trainer perform a skin-fold caliper test on you, use a scale with a BIA or go online (www.freeweightloss.com). The amount of food you will need to consume on your cheat days will depend on your metabolic rate. To determine how many calories you need to satisfy daily energy requirements, multiply your bodyweight in pounds by 17. For example, a 180-pound male would require about 3,000 calories to match his daily energy expenditure (including exercise): 180 X 17 - 3,060 kcal.

>>20%+ Bodyfat. You probably won't benfit much from cheat days if your percent bodyfat is too far above 20%. Your leptin levels are probably not at the risk of dropping to seriously low levels. Too frequent cheat days can actually add to your fat-storage problem and possibly reduce leptin sensitivity. But you'll still want to take a minor cheat day ever 10 days or so to keep leptin levels from falling. On those days, go with 10-20% more calories than your daily energy requirements. For a 180-pound man, that equals to about 1,500 additional calories (mainly from carbohydrate sources), or approximately 4,500 calories total for the day.

>>15%+ Bodyfat. Scheduling a cheat day every 7-10 days should be adequate to keep leptin levels up. Shoot for up to 50% more calories than your daily energy requirements.

>>12-15% Bodyfat. You'll need a cheat day in which you eat up to 50% more calories than your daily energy requirements every 5-7 days.

>>10-12% Bodyfat. Go with a cheat day every 3-4 days. Again, shoot for about 50% above your daily caloric needs.

>>Less than 10% Bodyfat. You'll need a cheat day - eating up to 50% more calories than your daily energy expenditure - about every three days.

BIG C
06-28-2004, 12:14 AM
When I get tired of drinking H2O, I have a diet Dr. Pepper every now and then.

Maybe, I should cut them out.

Spartacus
06-28-2004, 09:02 PM
that sounds like a refeed but saturated fats and lots of HFCS are not what you want on a reefeed.

T_Chapman
06-29-2004, 01:22 AM
refeed or not i just said you should up your calories and i guess i was right. woohoo! see it was good advice lol.

Holto
06-29-2004, 11:01 AM
If you consistently eat belw maintence your thyroid will become dormant, and as a result you will burn less calories throughout the day

I'm hypothroid

low TSH low T3

I have lost about 70 lbs while dieting for a year and my thyroid has not become dormant

although you read this alot of places it is a gross oversimplification

I'm just under maintenance to lose 1lb/week and my metabolism is humming along nicely

the clinical evidence I have seen suggests it has everything to do with how large the deficit is

if it's a slight deficit your metabolism stays up

I also do not re-feed

Kal-El
06-30-2004, 11:02 AM
Diet sodas have also been proven to render BOTH male and females sterile. That and they are JAMMED with all sorts of chemicals and taste like crap. I have been off soda for three weeks now, and I feel pretty damn good about it. I compare the soda industry to the cigarette industry. That IS going overboard, but I used to be a smoker, and I compare the physical feeling of being OFF soda to being off nicotine.

Paul Stagg
06-30-2004, 11:19 AM
Could you post a link to the study (or studies) that support the sterility claim please?

Not to some anti-apartame website, but to an unbiased source, say, medline, OK.

Kal-El
06-30-2004, 12:45 PM
http://www.ummah.net.pk/dajjal/aspart1.html

If this is not good enough, lemme know :)

Paul Stagg
06-30-2004, 01:31 PM
That site doesn't reference a study.

Paul Stagg
06-30-2004, 01:47 PM
I looked at the links from that page. The ones that still work, well, none of THEM seem to cite a study.

I searched PubMed. Not one hit using aspartame + sterility.

I used some other terms, and never saw anything relating to sterility.

I'm sure if there's such a study, on such a common product on such an improtant issue as sterility, it wouldn't take long using google to find it... yet I can't.

Maybe it's me.

djreef
06-30-2004, 02:35 PM
Hey Paul,

Is it just me, or is Train of Thought the best damn record to be released in the last 5 years, or what? Have you read the Yahoo review site? Man, talk about polarization!

On topic - I've excised all carbonation from my intake, and I'm happy to say I'm now weaning myself off of my stomach meds.

DJ
= 8-->{I>

Paul Stagg
06-30-2004, 02:56 PM
Train of Thought is fantastic. Some of the reviews I read were not positive, lots of fans thought it was too 'simple'... but I've been a DT fan since 1992 (Images and Words) and I love it. There is simply no one else putting out anything that compares.

I've seen them live three times, and I've never seen anything like what they can do. I'm looking forward to seeing them do "Stream of Consciousness" live.

I've got Change of Seasons in my car now.

djreef
06-30-2004, 08:52 PM
Too simple?... yeah what ever.....like they could produce one of John Myung's runs, or better yet stack arpeggios like JP does, on this record. I'll be honest, I haven't been this hyped on anything musical, like this, since Tool's Undertow. I think the common complaint is that this record is not 'progressive' enough. They forget that DT is a metal band first, progressive second. I think, by the quality of work, and the ammount of conviction and sweat that went into the performance/recording on this CD that this is really where their hearts lie. I think those who commenced to crying might be smart to get used to this. Cripe, if you want progressive, then pick up a Camel, Triumvirat, or ELP CD for crying out loud. Have you heard any of Portnoy's side project Transatlantic? That, is truly progressive. Peace.

DJ
= 8-->{I>

Paul Stagg
07-01-2004, 07:15 AM
I've heard a little of Protnoys stuff, both OSI and TA.

I agree with you, though. I think Tool is the only band around that can even be compared to DT.

It's a shame they can't get more mainstream attention.

Paul Stagg
07-02-2004, 07:22 AM
BTW, I'm still waiting for the 'proof' of the effects of aspartame, specifically the sterility claim.

attica
07-03-2004, 06:56 PM
I'm with Holto - losing about a lb per week, and no problems w/ my metabolism.

Funny thing about soda though (which originally started the thread) - since I started cutting (about 5 months ago), I've started craving "treats". Not necessarily sweets, just things outside of oatmeal, protein drinks, plain tuna, etc. etc. I'm normally NOT a soda drinker, but Diet Coke (especially w/ Lime) has become my "treat" lately. When everyone bellies up to the table for ice cream and cookies, I'm pouring a big glass of Diet Coke. I know I should knock it off - I would hate to be known as one of those people who drink soda all day, but I figure I'm taking in 3/4 to 1 gallon of water each day, so I'm prolly still OK.

But it's so depressing to have a crutch. Fsck it, I'm off to dump all my DC down the drain and stick to water.... ;-)

Jane
07-04-2004, 07:38 AM
Well if the choice is between succumbing to cookies or having a cold diet coke, I say go with the diet coke. I have 1-2 a week and don't plan on stopping. I could never drink more than that because I simply can't afford it.

Paul Stagg
07-04-2004, 03:29 PM
psst... Jane...

I know a hookup.

:)

Tryska
07-06-2004, 08:52 AM
i only drink mexican sodas these days.


hey paulie - talk to someone about swapping the HFCS for sugar, could ya?

moklepaul
07-07-2004, 05:08 AM
I stopped drinking pop and eating 'all' junkfood for my final year in highschool. after about 8 months, I had pop and chips with some friends. Felt like my stomach was going to explode for the next 2 days.

With my new job though, I consume way too much pop. Actually starting to get zits again (which may or may not be directly related, but as a teen, I always broke out after drinking a pop)

attica
07-07-2004, 09:23 AM
Was talking to my buddy who is diabetic and a hardcore addict of DietCoke. He showed me this link, which is fairly interesting overall. It pretty much says that artificial sweeteners in general muck with your bodies internal calorie counter, which makes it harder for you to associate caloric intake with certain types of foods:

http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1725

galileo
07-07-2004, 10:23 AM
"So, the body may be fooled into thinking a product sweetened with sugar has no calories and, therefore, people overeat."

That has nothing to do with people using diet softdrinks on a regulated diet. If you're trying to use your hunger as a gauge for your diet, then I doubt that even stopping diet drinks will help your cause.

attica
07-11-2004, 07:51 AM
That has nothing to do with people using diet softdrinks on a regulated diet. If you're trying to use your hunger as a gauge for your diet, then I doubt that even stopping diet drinks will help your cause.

There is definitely truth to your statement: people following a regimented diet will not overeat (as long as they strictly adhere to their diet), but (unnecessary!) hunger can be a strong factor in NOT adhering to the diet, no? Why make a battle harder to fight than it needs to be?

OTOH, I personally believe that weight training is a means to becoming more in tune with my body's potential, and anything detrimental to the natural order of my metabolism/hunger/internal calorie counter etc. should be avoided.

Do I really want to fool my body into thinking it's hungry when it's really not? Doesn't make much sense to me...

galileo
07-11-2004, 01:26 PM
I doubt that it would be strong enough to push you beyond the hunger seen on a normal calorie restricted diet. When you diet you get hungry, period. People use things like eca, y, and other stimulants to control this aspect. Diet sodas may be a problem for people who are just eating normally, but on a cut, that's just a cop-out.

attica
07-12-2004, 03:47 AM
I doubt that it would be strong enough to push you beyond the hunger seen on a normal calorie restricted diet.

Notwithstanding the fact that this is a very vague and subjective statement, with no supporting evidence, this "effect" isn't as scary to me as the root of the problem, which is messing with my body's internal calorie counter.


Diet sodas may be a problem for people who are just eating normally, but on a cut, that's just a cop-out.

Could be. However, as I said in my last post, and above, this isn't the main reason the article interests me. I can't see any reason to consume something that can (allegedly) trick my body into thinking I should be hungry when I wouldn't otherwise be. Regardless of who I am, whether I'm dieting, cutting, trying to add mass, ad nauseum. It just doesn't seem healthy to me.

Bottom line (for me) is that there seems to be an abundance of reasons to avoid this stuff:

A) unknown side-effects of aspartame and other "weird" ingredients
B) high level of acidity (pH of ~2.8)
C) artificial sweeteners mess with my body's internal calorie counter

You all can do whatever you want. I'll stick to water...

galileo
07-12-2004, 05:49 AM
Notwithstanding the fact that this is a very vague and subjective statement, with no supporting evidence, this "effect" isn't as scary to me as the root of the problem, which is messing with my body's internal calorie counter.

First, please don't insult me by attempting to use diction to insult my point.

This is another classic example of how a rat study and an article push forward fancy scientific terms like "internal calorie counter." If you wish to present the full study as well as a true analysis of such, then I'll go further, but until then this is my last word on the subject. To this point, all you've done is espoused a propaganada-filled article with the same intent as most any other flavor of news. I've read the abstract on this research and to tell you the truth, it was completely underwhelming. You can't compare a human's eating habits to that of a rat, as we've grown so far out of our scavenger responses that it isn't comparable.

The first study shows a body's adaptation to traits of a substance by exposure. The rats were adapting from sugar->artifical sweetners in a "negative" way. The studies were done with the intention of proving this point. It does not appear in any fashion that they tried to determine if the body would have the opposite reaction or even if the body would readapt to a non-sguar environment after a short term. My guess without research would be that it does. The abstract implies that the rats were exposed to a lot of sugary substances prior to the study and only the exposed rats had this issue. Not a matter of harming your precious I.C.C., but more a matter of your body's amazing ability to adapt. The second referenced study shows a body's adaptation to viscosity of a substance. So, your body expects something like milk to have the calories of milk, if you were exposed to it. Your body would feel the same way about changes in other similar substances. Nothing to do with the asparatame.

I'm not a fan of aspartame in general, even if there are over 1000's studies on the substance and it is still available for public consumption. But my point was never that it was good or diet sodas were good in volume. My point was that this was a generally crappy study/article without providing enough on which to base a true opinion. Is that all it takes for you?

attica
07-12-2004, 06:30 AM
First, please don't insult me by attempting to use diction to insult my point.

I think you're taking this a little too personal. I wasn't trying to insult anything. I just tend to stay away from making statements unless I have something to back them up. I have no idea if this study is valid (which I clearly stated in my last post), I just put it up there for grabs. Seems like it could make sense, but <shrug> who knows?


This is another classic example of how a rat study and an article push forward fancy scientific terms like "internal calorie counter."

That "fancy, scientific term" was a term that I made up. Search the article, that term isn't in it. Again, I have no idea if this counter even exists, I didn't write it nor do the research. Which is a segeue to your next point.


If you wish to present the full study as well as a true analysis of such, then I'll go further, but until then this is my last word on the subject.

I've presented the article as something to consider. Nothing else.


To this point, all you've done is espoused a propaganada-filled article with the same intent as most any other flavor of news.

Now that's pushing it a bit. I've "espoused" nothing - simply presented an article that I thought was pertinent to this particular thread. It's up to the readers to decide whether they buy into it. You don't, and that's cool. I don't necessarily; I mean this article in and of itself wouldn't make me quit drinking diet soda. But, I recognise that it might be valid, so I'll keep looking into it.


I've read the abstract on this research and to tell you the truth, it was completely underwhelming. You can't compare a human's eating habits to that of a rat, as we've grown so far out of our scavenger responses that it isn't comparable.

<snipped a bunch of (relevant) stuff about the "research" in the article>

Dude, I don't disagree with you here. I don't tend to believe anything unless I've experienced it in some way. When I was in college, I had a great teacher for Biochem who started off our class by saying something to the effect that when she was in our seats, a lot of what she was taught was vastly different from what she was about to teach us. In the span of about 20 years, the science of Biochem (that was understood) changed a lot. And in the 12 or so years since then, I'll put dollars to donuts that it's changed even more.

So I look at an article like this as another potential nugget of information that may or may not be true, but the potentially negative implications (coupled with the other items I listed in my prev. post) make me leery.

And I'm in no way telling anyone else what to do, I'm just saying that I'm gonna stick to water.


I'm not a fan of aspartame in general, even if there are over 1000's studies on the substance and it is still available for public consumption. But my point was never that it was good or diet sodas were good in volume. My point was that this was a generally crappy study/article without providing enough on which to base a true opinion. Is that all it takes for you?

Obviously we're getting emotional here, so I'm out.

My sincerest apologies for presenting an article that you thought was irrelevant/crappy/etc. I'll try harder to vet any information I present to the forum in the future.

galileo
07-12-2004, 06:46 AM
I'm impressed by anyone who can successfully attach tone to text. There is no emotion here and if any it would be of disillusion. At best you might pick up some extra sarcasm, but seriously..."emotional?" The only reason I pursued it as far as I did was because you came back attempting to undermine my statement, when it was presented without need for justification. Leave insinuation to the writers of sensationalist articles.

This is getting silly, locked.