Really? 1800 calories? Seems like very little for somebody with that much physical activity, unless the person is a 5’2" female who is very light. Looking online, for a 44-year old, we’re looking at a basal metabolic rate of about 1200 calories to about 1700 (for a short, light woman to a tall, medium-buid guy). Add the activity, and you should be able to consume quite a bit more than 1800 calories to maintain weight. The people (men, I should specify) I know with half that level of activity typically consume around 3000 calories a day to maintain weight.
Cite cite cite, oh please, cite? I’ve yet to see a study that actually correlates diet sweeteners with blood glucose or insulin, and I find it very hard to believe. Yet, this factoid gets thrown around all the time.
ETA: Oh, and I agree completely with pulykamell. 1800 calories is far too low for a male of any appreciable size at the claimed activity level.
The “factoid” is direct empirical experience. If I have not had lunch and drink a diet soda my body/brain will think there’s food coming because of the sweet taste and will respond with surge of insulin which practically puts me to sleep in some cases. Bear in mind this is happening with zero calories being introduced into the system. If you are on a restricted calorie diet and diet soda keeps surging your insulin levels with no food forthcoming at some point your body is going to clutch back your metabolism.
Is there a difference between aspartame and Splendra?
Yep, Splenda is sucralose which is made from chlorinated sugar.
Aspartame is made from two amino acids, aspartic acid and phenylalanine.
That’s great and all, but please provide some actual evidence that shows artificial sweeteners, indeed, have this effect. I’m very interested in finding out how a metabolically inert substance is causing significant swings in tightly regulated hormones.
Sorry, but they are NOT claiming that artificial sweeteners affect your insulin levels. The idea is (as I understand it), that you are effectively decoupling the relationship between taste and calories. If you are on a diet, no problem. You have external controls on your food intake. If you are not on a diet, and you rely on your brain to control your calorie intake, you may have problems. Because when you drink diet soda, your body stops recognizing that sweetness = calories. Therefore you become worse at maintaining neutral energy homeostasis. Here is a much more informative cite.
I kinda meant is there a difference in how they affect you.
oh, and astro, are you kidding? You skip lunch. You drink a diet soda. You are sleepy half and hour later. CLEARLY, this is due to an “insulin spike”. No chance it’s due to anything else, (like being hungry). Especially considering that it is LOW BLOOD SUGAR (caused, perhaps, by your lack of lunch) that causes sleepiness, not insulin. But no, “empirical evidence” proves that it’s insulin? :dubious:
Send me your blood insulin levels before and after drinking a diet soda, and I’ll consider believing your premise.
Not to mention that the body naturally becomes sleepy after lunchtime because that’s when the “wake up” chemicals are at their lowest point before being refreshed. That’s the reason why many cultures have a siesta or similar naptime.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
:smack: Sorry.
I’m afraid your non-objective guesses about what’s going on in your own body when you’re hungry do not count as “direct empirical evidence.”