Low Carb Not A Healthy Beer Option, Doctor Warns

[manticle]

I was sure you wouldn't stoop to drinking the ol' Vitamin B. I am disappointed.

Beer is vitamin B.

 

[MarkBastard]

Kilojoules as an expression of health is a nonsense.

Excessive intake of kilojoules will lead to fat storage which can lead to obesity and related health problems. Insufficient intake of kilojoules can also lead to health problems.

If you stated that lo carb beers contain less kilojoules than regular beer or that diet drinks have less kilojoules than fruit juice you'd be right. You'd be making a fairly redundant point as most people are probably aware of it but you'd be right.

To state that they are healthier in terms of kilojoules means nothing.

you think?

 

[gregs]

Guys if you keep it up, beer will be so healthy theyll be dishing it up in hospitals the world over. :lol:

 

[Dave86]

I think it's fairly safe to say there has been a definite increase in the proportion of the population who are overweight/obese in the last 20-30 years, let alone 50-100 years. The increasingly sedentary lifestyle we lead has been a contributing factor, but it goes hand in hand with the increasing prevalence of processed foods that are available (Incidentally, macca's will celebrate their 70th this year, depending if the corporate behemoth recognises it's own origins or not). Every small mod-con that has been introduced has in a small way contributed to our sedentary lifestyle, from the power windows in your car (or the cordless drill that powers your grain-mill!) to the remote you keep nestled safely on the arm of your lounge. These all have made life easier and all contribute to a lack of energy expenditure.

There are a lot of athletes and gym junkies/image concious types out there, but there are a hell of a lot more people who have medical conditions that are caused purely by their lifestyles than the former.

To get back on topic however, when it comes down to it, any beverage, other than water (for the most part) can be construed as "unhealthy". For certain people, some may be more unhealthy than others. My brother loves to drink a 2L bottle of fruit juice most days. As much as I warn him about the risks of type 2 diabetes, he just laughs. Everyone has their vice, for most of us it's pretty apparent what that is. It's simply a matter of what you do to balance your vices. I exercise and try to eat a lot of unprocessed fruit/salad/cereals/vegies to compensate for the amount of beer I drink and the amount of cheese and meat I'd like to eat

My personal preference for a session beer is one that is about 3-4% alcohol and finishes at about 1.010-1.014

Brew long and prosper :beerbang:

 

[manticle]

@Mark_Bastard:

Not following you there chief.

Yes I think that, that's why I wrote it.

And you?

 

[MarkBastard]

If someone is concerned with being healthy, there are better options than shitty sweet soda drinks whether they contain artificial sweeteners or plain sugar.

Smoking 8 cigarettes a day is better for you than smoking 25.


It's not just about whether they are 'better' - they might be (marginally) in some respects. They might not be in some others (I'm sure the research is not conclusive). It's more about how they are marketted as somehow being a healthy option when people should be being encouraged to eat appropriate sized meals of fresh and freshly prepared produce at appropriate points of the day, drink water and exercise and see sugary/sweet/junk style stuff as a treat rather than as a regular option.

^ This is all crappy arguing. It's like saying public transport isn't better for the environment than driving cars because we should all be walking everywhere anyway.

 

[manticle]

Dude that's a stretch and you know it. The health benefits of drinking diet soft drink over sugared soft drink are minimal at best, more than likely simply miniscule and dubious at worst.

There is an obvious and significant relationship to utilisation of public transport when compared to the average car. Find me the same correlation in terms of diet soda.

I accepted they have less kilojoules. You tell me I'm arguing crappily yet you haven't addressed a single point I've raised with a good counterpoint (one bad analogy is the sum total so far).

 

[Dazza_devil]

I think it's fairly safe to say there has been a definite increase in the proportion of the population who are overweight/obese in the last 20-30 years, let alone 50-100 years. The increasingly sedentary lifestyle we lead has been a contributing factor, but it goes hand in hand with the increasing prevalence of processed foods that are available (Incidentally, macca's will celebrate their 70th this year, depending if the corporate behemoth recognises it's own origins or not). Every small mod-con that has been introduced has in a small way contributed to our sedentary lifestyle, from the power windows in your car (or the cordless drill that powers your grain-mill!) to the remote you keep nestled safely on the arm of your lounge. These all have made life easier and all contribute to a lack of energy expenditure.

There are a lot of athletes and gym junkies/image concious types out there, but there are a hell of a lot more people who have medical conditions that are caused purely by their lifestyles than the former.

To get back on topic however, when it comes down to it, any beverage, other than water (for the most part) can be construed as "unhealthy". For certain people, some may be more unhealthy than others. My brother loves to drink a 2L bottle of fruit juice most days. As much as I warn him about the risks of type 2 diabetes, he just laughs. Everyone has their vice, for most of us it's pretty apparent what that is. It's simply a matter of what you do to balance your vices. I exercise and try to eat a lot of unprocessed fruit/salad/cereals/vegies to compensate for the amount of beer I drink and the amount of cheese and meat I'd like to eat

My personal preference for a session beer is one that is about 3-4% alcohol and finishes at about 1.010-1.014

Brew long and prosper :beerbang:

Also factor in genetical makeup.
Us Tasmanians on the other hand are a healthy lookin bunch.

I can drink as much as I like and it doesn't seem to make any difference to my body weight.

 

[MarkBastard]

Dude that's a stretch and you know it. The health benefits of drinking diet soft drink over sugared soft drink are minimal at best, more than likely simply miniscule and dubious at worst.

I completely disagree with this point. Both forms of soft drink have minimal or no dietary benefits other than that they are mostly water. One contains pretty much zero energy, and the other contains about 600kj per can (which is about a tenth of your recommended daily intake of energy if you're on a diet / are a female etc).

For people that drink two cans a day (plenty do), all they have to do to reduce their intake of energy (THE most important thing in weight loss) is swap from a full sugar soft drink to a no sugar one. Very very simple lifestyle change and the differences couldn't be more massive, very far indeed from your 'minimal at best, dubious at worst' call.

There is an obvious and significant relationship to utilisation of public transport when compared to the average car. Find me the same correlation in terms of diet soda.

Done above.

I accepted they have less kilojoules. You tell me I'm arguing crappily yet you haven't addressed a single point I've raised with a good counterpoint (one bad analogy is the sum total so far).

You keep conveniently disregarding the context of my original post, despite me actually pointing it out to you.

 

[manticle]

I completely disagree with this point. Both forms of soft drink have minimal or no dietary benefits other than that they are mostly water. One contains pretty much zero energy, and the other contains about 600kj per can (which is about a tenth of your recommended daily intake of energy if you're on a diet / are a female etc).

I think the fact that there's no dietary benefit to either was precisely my point. Maybe we're talking at cross purposes?

Kilojoule intake is only relevant as part of a larger equation which involves how much you use/need on a daily basis so if that's the only basis on which to recommend choosing diet coke (and not considering it a marketting wank) then it's inadequate as far as I'm concerned. It is not healthier (your original statement) in any real way.

Drinking diet soft drink will make very little real difference to anyone's weight if they don't incorporate other, more important factors into diet and lifestyle. If they do incorporate those factors, I'd warrant that drinking or not drinking the diet drink will also make very little difference - so much so that as a variable in weight loss, it can be discounted. I think suggesting one is healthier than the other is very misleading.

Maybe in cases where someone drinks 17 bottles of coke daily the significance will increase but then there might be other concerns (and certainly that volume of artificially sweetened alternative becomes problematic too)

For people that drink two cans a day (plenty do), all they have to do to reduce their intake of energy (THE most important thing in weight loss) is swap from a full sugar soft drink to a no sugar one. Very very simple lifestyle change and the differences couldn't be more massive, very far indeed from your 'minimal at best, dubious at worst' call.

There is no one important factor in weight loss. That's why people struggle to lose weight and why your 'simple as' for most people doesn't work. Intake is no more important than usage which corresponds directly to need (what the body uses) and surplus (what the body doesn't). Obviously other factors like age, gender and genetics play a role too.

Done above.

Um............. not really.

You keep conveniently disregarding the context of my original post, despite me actually pointing it out to you.

My original response was directly to your original post. You claimed diet drinks are healthier (in terms of kilojoules) than sugared drinks. I responded by saying health involves much more than kilojloules and that to claim less kilojoules automatically = healthier is nonsensical. What have I disregarded?

 

[MarkBastard]

These are the facts:

1 - a 600ml bottle of coke contains 1080 kj, which is 1/6th the recommended daily intake. It contains 63.6g of sugar, which is 21% of recommended dietary intake of carbohydrates. Obviously dieticians consider sugar one of the worst types of carbohydrate to eat and the problems associated with a long term high intake of sugar are well documented (ie diabetes).
2 - a 600ml bottle of coke zero contains 6kj, completely negligible, and no sugar.
3 - To lose weight a person needs to expend more energy than they intake in food. Therefore to lose weight cutting consumption of energy is a very valid tactic.
4 - A person that drinks 600ml of coke per day can drastically reduce their energy and particularly sugar intake by doing any of the following.
i - Not drinking the coke.
ii - Not drinking the coke and drinking 600ml of water instead.
iii - Not drinking the coke and drinking 600ml of coke zero instead.

There is no need to talk about any other factors as I have not stated that this is the only tactic they need to employ.

My original response was directly to your original post. You claimed diet drinks are healthier (in terms of kilojoules) than sugared drinks. I responded by saying health involves much more than kilojloules and that to claim less kilojoules automatically = healthier is nonsensical. What have I disregarded?

I said 'in terms of kilojoules', which specifically precludes you from making points you have made. You either:
1 - don't understand
2 - have deliberately overlooked
3 - are arguing semantics,
or more likely are retospectively are arguing semantecs to cover the fact you (1) didn't understand.

 

[Dazza_devil]

I wouldn't be counting kJ's if I was losing weight.
I'd be minimising saturated fats and increasing the amount of energy I burnt/day.

 

[manticle]

These are the facts:

1 - a 600ml bottle of coke contains 1080 kj, which is 1/6th the recommended daily intake. It contains 63.6g of sugar, which is 21% of recommended dietary intake of carbohydrates. Obviously dieticians consider sugar one of the worst types of carbohydrate to eat and the problems associated with a long term high intake of sugar are well documented (ie diabetes).
2 - a 600ml bottle of coke zero contains 6kj, completely negligible, and no sugar.
3 - To lose weight a person needs to expend more energy than they intake in food. Therefore to lose weight cutting consumption of energy is a very valid tactic.
4 - A person that drinks 600ml of coke per day can drastically reduce their energy and particularly sugar intake by doing any of the following.
i - Not drinking the coke.
ii - Not drinking the coke and drinking 600ml of water instead.
iii - Not drinking the coke and drinking 600ml of coke zero instead.

There is no need to talk about any other factors as I have not stated that this is the only tactic they need to employ.




I said 'in terms of kilojoules', which specifically precludes you from making points you have made. You either:
1 - don't understand
2 - have deliberately overlooked
3 - are arguing semantics,
or more likely are retospectively are arguing semantecs to cover the fact you (1) didn't understand.

It doesn't preclude me from making those points because the first point I made was that looking at health purely in terms of kilojoules is a bad approach. Maybe you're the one who hasn't understood? You claimed healthier in terms of kilojoules. I suggested that means nothing in and of itself.

Yes cutting energy intake is a valid part of weight loss but simply switching to diet coke and ignoring anything else won't make a fig's fart of difference. Changing those factors (diet, exercise etc) but still drinking full sugar coke will. Therefore the point that diet drink is healthier fails to mean much in any real terms. I wasn't ignoring your context - I was trying to respond and expand on the discussion.

Before this gets stupid, let's go backwards.

In response to bum I suggested some people do believe diet drinks and lo carb beers are a healthy option.

You claimed they are healthier IN TERMS OF KILOJOULES than other options including fruit juice.

I suggested that looking at health IN TERMS OF KILOJOULES makes no sense. I further suggested that insufficient kilojoule intake can be as unhealthy as excessive intake.

To my mind the word health has no place here and is misleading. That's the guts of it. It's so much more than semantics. As I said in an earlier post - if you argued that diet drinks had less kilojoules I would have no issue. To argue that they are healthier because of that is what I disagree with. Health is so much more than counting calories.

Yes I understand what you're saying (and no I'm not deliberately ignoring anything) and in addition I concede the point about diet drinks being an alternative in regards to avoiding sugar diabetes (perhaps a point you should have made earlier).

However we are going around in circles. I was trying to move the discussion beyond kilojoule/calorie counting (a foolish way of looking at weight loss if not incorporated with other factors). You want to stubbornly stick to it. I'm not quite sure where to go from there apart from suggest that a passionate debate about something shouldn't mean we can't one day share beer and yell about it then.

 

[Dazza_devil]

Beer is full of healthy kilojoules.
Coke is full of unhealthy ones.

 

[Adamt]

You're both making good points, but you're both looking at things from different perspectives: One from a "calorie" argument (related to obesity/weight control) and one from a "nutrient" argument (related to general body health).

Edit: And by both, I mean M^B and Manticle

 

[Murcluf]

Dripping sandwiches to the lot of ya....!!!!

Those were the days nice pot of dripping next to the stove to drip the bread in and fry away, the younger generation have no idea what they are missing.

 

[Bribie G]

We have to thank unreliable medieval water supplies for the existence of beer - the fact that beer, being boiled, was safe but the local duck pond could give you cholera or typhoid. It's even in our genes - people from Asia generally lack the enzyme that can convert alcohol ( Japanese salarymen doing karaoke, staggering around and red in the face after two Kirins). They developed a different method of dealing with the water supply. It's called tea.

Thank God I was born in Yorkshire :beerbang:

 

[RobH]

some people actually like diet coke!

yeah, but they are demented right?

 

[bum]

It's even in our genes - people from Asia generally lack the enzyme that can convert alcohol ( Japanese salarymen doing karaoke, staggering around and red in the face after two Kirins).

This is absolute crap. The Japanese are serious drinkers. Let's see how long you last swapping your Yorkie bitters for warm sake.

 

[MarkBastard]

You're both making good points, but you're both looking at things from different perspectives: One from a "calorie" argument (related to obesity/weight control) and one from a "nutrient" argument (related to general body health).

Edit: And by both, I mean M^B and Manticle

But 'nutrient' is sort of off-topic to this thread. I've never said or implied that using the word 'health' in this context is a good thing. It isn't. The only context that matters in this thread is whether or not 'diet' soft drinks aid in a diet (of course they do compared to the alternative full sugar drinks) and whether low carb beers are lower in carbohydrates than 'regular' beers (of course they are). No one has marketed in any other way for mine.

If people are stupid and assume that either low carb beers or diet soft drinks will actually burn fat, then they are just freaking stupid. The industries have not done any false or misleading advertising, and the people that assume that a fat person drinking a diet cola thinks they are going to lose weight merely from doing so are jumping to massive conclusions.

It's always a stupid article by some cockhead scientist trying to get his name in the media, stating the absolute obvious and making stupid claims like "in fact they may be worse as people think they can have more of them". No the facts are they are not worse, they are better, and how people abuse them isn't up to the scientist to infer. Especially when they haven't done a specific study on the change in habits when switching from one to the other.

EDIT: Just for the record I like Coke Zero but when it comes to beer the more carbs the better (I'm assuming malt-heavy beers are higher in carbs).