Home   |   Contact   |   Help

Get Our Newsletter
Sign up for our free newsletter to get training tips and stay up to date on Catalyst Athletics, and get a FREE issue of the Performance Menu journal.

Go Back   Catalyst Athletics Forums > Nutrition > General Nutrition

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-30-2007, 05:55 AM   #21
Garrett Smith
Senior Member
 
Garrett Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 4,368
Default

I also wanted to clarify several things on the actual topic of this thread.

I break the fast with food after 3pm on my feed days. I only take my supplements on the mornings of my feed days, with my powdered glandular shake.

I drink 16 oz. of coffee a day. I consider this a necessary evil at the current time, as I sure as heck know it's not "natural" for humans to try to run two businesses! There are good and bad points to coffee. Over time, as I am able to delegate responsibility and guarantee my proper sleep, I will ditch the coffee, except maybe a bit on weekends.

One will not find me vehemently defending coffee as an elixir...
__________________
Garrett Smith NMD CSCS BS, aka "Dr. G"
RepairRecoverRestore.com - Blood, Saliva, and Stool Testing
My radio show - The Path to Strength and Health
Garrett Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2007, 06:06 AM   #22
Steve Shafley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,285
Default

I think coffee, and caffiene in general, is one of the longest used drugs in the history of the human race.

Right up there with alcohol.

Remember, beer used to be drunk because it was really bad for you to drink the water. Ah, those were the days!

Humans seem to want to get high. I know folks who claim that marijuana really is medicinal.

The recent "metastatistical" analysis that revealed high levels of coffee intake were better than statin drugs was my favorite piece of that sort of "research".
Steve Shafley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2007, 06:37 AM   #23
Stuart Mather
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 81
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Liberati View Post
I believe it is the long term effects from prolonged use of artificial sweetners that pose the greatest health concerns.
What's your time frame Steve? Ten, twenty, thirty years perhaps? Come to think of it, saccharin has been used prolifically throughout the world for at least fifty years. If there was even a tenuous statistical correlation (not to mention a causal mechanism) between prolonged saccharin use and any health problems, let alone serious ones, believe me, Big Sugar would have made sure every man and his dog knew about it. Sucralose hasn't been around for nearly as long, but IMHO, there is considerably more risk from that other chlorinated molecule, common salt, because you only ever need to use sucralose in infinitesimal amounts.

Stuart
Stuart Mather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2007, 03:39 PM   #24
Steve Liberati
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 459
Default

Don't use salt and fifty years is a very, very short time frame in our millions of years of existence. Sorry but the verdict is still out. You play casino, not me.
__________________
100,000 generations of humans have been hunters and gatherers; 500 generations have been agriculturalists; ten have lived in the industrial age; and only one has been exposed to the world of computers.

Steve's Club
Crossfit Tribe
Steve Liberati is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2007, 05:21 PM   #25
Mike ODonnell
Senior Member
 
Mike ODonnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,596
Default

fasting helps the body to deal with additional chemicals in our system....so even though artificial sweetners are everywhere, our liver gets some time during a fast to help deal with all those things.....at some point there is a breakdown in health...what the level is? No idea....as it is individualistic to every person based on their current state of health and what their toxicity input on a daily basis is (and their body's ability to handle it).

Prevention is a lifestyle...that hopefully I will never have to prove how long it takes me to get sick...because I never get there....

Quote:
Remember, beer used to be drunk because it was really bad for you to drink the water. Ah, those were the days!
You mean it's safe to drink the water?? Funny....never got that memo....
__________________
Fitness Spotlight
The IF Life
Mike ODonnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2007, 07:46 AM   #26
Stuart Mather
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 81
Default

The really curious thing about the artificial sweetener unnatural, therefore must = toxic is that humans seem incabable of applying the same reasoning to that potent neurotoxin, alcohol, when its biochemistry is so well understood to be harmful even in tiny amounts. It's particularly prevalent in the male mind. Moderate alcohol consumption must be OK. It's sooo .... culturally entrenched.

At least try to be consistent . Can't you see how ridiculous the anti AI argument is. There's no credible scientific evidence that sucralose, saccharin, acesulfame-K or cyclamate are harmful to humans, even at doses astronomically higher than even somebody with even a frightening sweettooth would concievably consume. And yet a substance whose toxicity is well and intimately understood is almost de rigeur in 'moderation' because .... well, Men just like to drink beer.

I know who's really playing poker with their health. And to the members of this forum who never drink alcohol, I sincerely apologize for any inferred lack of objectivity, and take another sip of my (moderately, of course) artificially sweetened mate tea

And Steve, wether or not you (or anyone else) add salt to your food, rest assured all food ,processed or not, contains it in varying amounts.
Stuart Mather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2007, 10:25 AM   #27
Ron Nelson
Senior Member
 
Ron Nelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Center of the heterosexual universe
Posts: 547
Default

Time to remind all about Ron's Holy Trinity of Fluids:

Beer
Coffee
Milk

Milk has been out of fashion lately with green tea making a surprisingly strong showing of late.

What is this water substance people speak of? I use a clear, tasteless liquid to make my tea and coffee. Is that close?
__________________
"Have you seen my weiner?"

http://www.theartofdansilver.com/ron.html
Ron Nelson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2007, 01:21 PM   #28
Steve Liberati
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 459
Default

Stuart-
I don't understand your reasoning. You are trying to counterclaim the health and safety threat of unnatural, artificial sweetners by comparing them to other made-made substances such as alchohol and salt. The problem is artificial (love that word!) sweetners are simply the lesser of two evils. Whether abortion is as violent as a cold blooded murder, it doesn't make a difference. It still is murder (though a different topic for a different day).

While we agree consuming AI's may not be any worse for you than consuming alcohol and salt, that's not to say they are not harmful. While you continue to look for the scientific facts here, I'll continue to use common sense and avoid them as best as possible. Considering man has a history of inventing few if any substances that are good for people long term, I'd be very surprised if artificial sweetners is that one substance man got right.

There is nothing that humans need that mother nature hasn't already afforded to us. AI's are no exceptions IMO.
__________________
100,000 generations of humans have been hunters and gatherers; 500 generations have been agriculturalists; ten have lived in the industrial age; and only one has been exposed to the world of computers.

Steve's Club
Crossfit Tribe
Steve Liberati is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2007, 04:53 PM   #29
Stuart Mather
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 81
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Liberati View Post
Stuart-
I don't understand your reasoning. You are trying to counterclaim the health and safety threat of unnatural, artificial sweetners by comparing them to other made-made substances such as alchohol and salt. The problem is artificial (love that word!) sweetners are simply the lesser of two evils. Whether abortion is as violent as a cold blooded murder, it doesn't make a difference. It still is murder (though a different topic for a different day).
Steve, there it is again, that assumption that 'artificial' is necessarily 'better' (or 'healthier', or some other simplistic qualitative comparison) than natural. The natural world is far, far more inventive and creative than humans ever were at creating (and concentrating) a bewildering kaleidoscope of toxins for survival advantage. Believe me, humans are mere babes at that particular game. And toxins that evolution has never been able develop comphrehensive protection against either, which is why the various plants and animals that employ them do so - they work.

And as for abortion, trust a male mind to think that it's undoubted violence is somehow worse (or even equivalent) to the violence inflicted on the hapless children themselves or society itself, of bringing unwanted children into the world. Unfortunately, the human mind is innately selfish, no more clearly demonstrated than deciding that because abortion is 'murder' then it must be worse than allowing the termination to proceed.


Quote:
While we agree consuming AI's may not be any worse for you than consuming alcohol and salt, that's not to say they are not harmful. While you continue to look for the scientific facts here, I'll continue to use common sense and avoid them as best as possible. Considering man has a history of inventing few if any substances that are good for people long term, I'd be very surprised if artificial sweetners is that one substance man got right.

There is nothing that humans need that mother nature hasn't already afforded to us. AI's are no exceptions IMO.
Geez Steve, I never even suggested AI's are equivalent in risk to alcohol and salt. I've never seen any evidence that they (with the exception of aspartame) are harmful at all. What I pointed out was that the same people who run with the reasoning that there 'could be' some speculative risk - AI's are 'artificial' so they must be unhealthy - are (usually) the same people who cling so unyieldingly to their moderate alcohol habit.
Some people do react to AI's. But some people react to eggs (among a myriad of other food sensitivities). Most people react to gluten. All people react to concentrated sugar or starch, and alcohol,and to salt above certain levels (which may or may not include some added salt - my goats chickens and horses are far healthier when their diet is salt supplemented). Yet these are all 'natural' substances.

What Mother Nature bequeathed to us was a fearful, nasty, brutish and short life, which also just happened to include some macronutrient ratio (and micronutrient) diet imperatives we ignore at our peril. Not to mention an almost palpable ability to oversimplify things, such as the long standing furphy that 'natural' must be 'better' than 'artificial.
Stuart Mather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2007, 06:04 PM   #30
Robb Wolf
Senior Member
 
Robb Wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,444
Default

Keep things nice and above the belt guys.
__________________
"Survival will be neither to the strongest of the species, nor to the most intelligent, but to those most adaptable to change."
C. Darwin

Robb's Blog
Robb Wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Subscribe to our Newsletter


Receive emails with training tips, news updates, events info, sale notifications and more.
ASK GREG

Submit your question to be answered by Greg Everett in the Performance Menu or on the website

Submit Your Question
WEIGHTLIFTING TEAM

Catalyst Athletics is a USA Weightlifting team of competitive Olympic-style weightlifters with multiple national team medals.

Read More
Olympic Weightlifting Book
Catalyst Athletics
Contact Us
About
Help
Newsletter
Products & Services
Gym
Store
Seminars
Weightlifting Team
Performance Menu
Magazine Home
Subscriber Login
Issues
Articles
Workouts
About the Program
Workout Archives
Exercise Demos
Text Only
Instructional Content
Exercise Demos
Video Gallery
Free Articles
Free Recipes
Resources
Recommended Books & DVDs
Olympic Weightlifting Guide
Discussion Forum
Weight Conversion Calculator