RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


SoBe rant(17 posts)

SoBe rantmtber
Jul 19, 2002 8:44 AM
Anyone else have a problem with SoBe marketing themselves as 'healthy refreshment'? The stuff is no healthier than pop!

Take Lizard Fuel as an example: 1 8oz serving has 130 cal and 32g of sugar. Well, one 8oz serving of Dr Pepper has only 100 cal and 27g of sugar. Don't forget that there are 2.5 servings in one bottle - 325 cal and 80g of sugar! Healthy????????? Yeah right!

I realize that we are all ultimately responsible for what we put into our own bodies, but I think that it is WRONG to blatantly lie like this. I realize that Sobe is a big promoter of cycling, but that is no excuse.
I agree, but Red Bull works for me.....Dave Hickey
Jul 19, 2002 9:13 AM
Red Bull is no better but it really works for me. At least in RB's marketing, they don't say it's healthy. They do call it an energy drink.
red bull and vodka works for me (nm)ColnagoFE
Jul 19, 2002 10:03 AM
I agree, but Red Bull works for me.....mtber
Jul 19, 2002 10:04 AM
Im not exactly sure what's in RB, but I have friends who drink it before a ride to make themselves more amped. At least RB comes in an 8oz? can which limits your sugar intake.
Where was the lie?TJeanloz
Jul 19, 2002 10:01 AM
It may be no healthier than soda, but what isn't healthy about Sobe?

As for your precious calories, every food (except diet-coke and water) has calories. Something without calories isn't inherently any more or less healthy than something with 1,000 calories per serving.

Sugar? You need sugar to live, they're just simple carbohydrates. It is not bad for you, except that it can do bad things to your teeth if you don't brush.

The one thing we can point to is that Lizard Fuel gives you 100% of the recommended value of Vitamin C (which, coincidently, a package of Skittles will also give you).

So, what's not healthy about sugar and calories? Listen to your nutritionist, not your mother.
Huh????mtber
Jul 19, 2002 10:11 AM
"So, what's not healthy about sugar and calories? Listen to your nutritionist, not your mother."

Find a nutritionist who advocates getting calories from simple, refined, sugar.

And for the Vit C, the US RDA is something like 60mg - most mulitvitamins have 2-300% of the RDA. So drink a Coke and pop a multi and consume less simple sugar and more vitamins than you can from a SoBe. Would you recommend pop to someone trying to eat a healthy diet??????
Soda could well be part of a healthy diet,TJeanloz
Jul 19, 2002 10:53 AM
There is nothing inherently evil about sugar. Should all of your daily calories be from simple sugars? No, of course not. What drink, in 8oz contains 110 calories and 24g of sugar (84% the calories, 75% the sugar)? Minute Maid orange juice (100% fruit juice).

Is orange juice bad for me too, because it has much more calories and sugar than soda?
Soda could well be part of a healthy diet,mtber
Jul 19, 2002 11:06 AM
Actually, many nutritionists would have you refrain from drinking fruit juices - they, too are high in sugar. But Lizard Fuel is no more than sugar water with some VitC thrown in - 80g of sugar in one bottle!

I am not saying that SoBe does not taste good (although, I, personally find it way too sweet) or that it will kill you to drink it. I just do not think it is ethical to market it as healthy. One can argue that Ben and Jerry's is healthy, too - it contains calcium, vit D, some protein. Yes it tastes good, and yes, I eat it, but they are not trying to fool the public into thinking that it is healthy.
Re: soda and high fructose corn sweetner (was just reading this)128
Jul 19, 2002 12:01 PM
Snippet:
Since the 1980's, most soft drink manufacturers have switched from sugar to corn sweeteners,
It's probably no coincidence that the wholesale switch to corn sweeteners in the 1980's marks the beginning of the epidemic of obesity and Type 2 diabetes in this country.

Th rESt of the story:
When a Crop Becomes King
By MICHAEL POLLAN

ORNWALL BRIDGE, Conn. — Here in southern New England the corn is already waist high and growing so avidly you can almost hear the creak of stalk and leaf as the plants stretch toward the sun. The ears of sweet corn are just starting to show up on local farm stands, inaugurating one of the ceremonies of an American summer. These days the nation's nearly 80 million-acre field of corn rolls across the countryside like a second great lawn, but this wholesome, all-American image obscures a decidedly more dubious reality.

Like the tulip, the apple and the potato, zea mays (the botanical name for both sweet and feed corn) has evolved with humans over the past 10,000 years or so in the great dance of species we call domestication. The plant gratifies human needs, in exchange for which humans expand the plant's habitat, moving its genes all over the world and remaking the land (clearing trees, plowing the ground, protecting it from its enemies) so it might thrive.

Corn, by making itself tasty and nutritious, got itself noticed by Christopher Columbus, who helped expand its range from the New World to Europe and beyond. Today corn is the world's most widely planted cereal crop. But nowhere have humans done quite as much to advance the interests of this plant as in North America, where zea mays has insinuated itself into our landscape, our food system — and our federal budget.

One need look no further than the $190 billion farm bill President Bush signed last month to wonder whose interests are really being served here. Under the 10-year program, taxpayers will pay farmers $4 billion a year to grow ever more corn, this despite the fact that we struggle to get rid of the surplus the plant already produces. The average bushel of corn (56 pounds) sells for about $2 today; it costs farmers more than $3 to grow it. But rather than design a program that would encourage farmers to plant less corn — which would have the benefit of lifting the price farmers receive for it — Congress has decided instead to subsidize corn by the bushel, thereby insuring that zea mays dominion over its 125,000-square mile American habitat will go unchallenged.

At first blush this subsidy might look like a handout for farmers, but really it's a form of welfare for the plant itself — and for all those economic interests that profit from its overproduction: the processors, factory farms, and the soft drink and snack makers that rely on cheap corn. For zea mays has triumphed by making itself indispensable not to farmers (whom it is swiftly and surely bankrupting) but to the Archer Daniels Midlands, Tysons and Coca-Colas of the world.

Our entire food supply has undergone a process of "cornification" in recent years, without our even noticing it. That's because, unlike in Mexico, where a corn-based diet has been the norm for centuries, in the United States most of the corn we consume is invisible, having been heavily processed or passed through food animals before it reaches us. Most of the animals we eat (chickens, pigs and cows) today subsist on a diet of corn, regardless of whether it is good for them. In the case of beef cattle, which evolved to eat grass, a corn diet wreaks havoc on their digestive system, making it necessary to feed them antibiotics to stave off illness and infection. Even farm-raised salmon are being bred to tolerate corn — not a food their evolution has prepared them for. Why feed fish corn? Because it's the cheapest thing you can feed any animal, thanks to federal subsidies. But even with more than half of the 10 billion bushels o
Soda could well be part of a healthy diet,peloton
Jul 19, 2002 3:15 PM
I usually agree with you TJeanloz, but you are way off on this one. There is more to it than just the calorie intake when considering soda. The sucrose and fructose in soda is very gylcemic, and does horrible things to the blood sugar and insulin in the body. Something like orange juice might contain some simple sugars, but the way they are delieved to the body is much slower. OJ is less gylcemic than soda, so less is done to the blood sugar levels. Rapid rises and drops in blood sugar levels like those caused by table sugar are the reasons for hunger pains, shifts in energy levels, increased eating, and even long term problems such as diabetes. Sugar and highly refined foods are the worst things that we Americans face in our diets today. It's all about how it gets metabolized once in our bodies. Check out some sites like :

www.glycemicindex.com

www.dietitian.com

These can show a little more than I could type here. Sugar is bad stuff. Fruit is odd in the way you think it would be the same due to it's simple carb content, but the cellulose (fiber) slows the intake into our bodies. Makes it a different game.
If only we knew all we think we know...TJeanloz
Jul 19, 2002 4:02 PM
Of all of the sciences, I'd say diet is one that we know least about.

Things like glycemic indicies fall in and out of fashion. We do know however, that eating too much sugar does NOT lead to diabetes. Fructose is very similar in uptake to sucrose, which is why diabetics suffering from hypoglycemia will typically either drink orange juice or (horrors) eat a piece of candy.

The issue I really have with the whole argument is that nobody has demonstrated that eating simple sugars is actually bad for you. Eating a lot of anything is bad for you- sugar doesn't distinguish itself here. I'll give you that maintaining a stable blood sugar level is probably better for you than not- but I can eat a pint of Ben & Jerry's and maintain a pretty stable blood sugar number (and I've tested the theory).

Eating sugar isn't like smoking, which is in no way good for you, and will kill you regardless of what you do. If you ride 500 miles a week, no amount of sugar is going to send you to the grave. If you sit on the couch all day, the twinkies may catch up with you.

What disease (besides obesity, which can be prevented by exercise) is caused by eating sugar (diabetes is NOT, see www.joslin.org for information)?
sugar and obesitypeloton
Jul 20, 2002 7:58 AM
Ted-

The glycemic index isn't something that I really percieve as a fashionable way to look at diet. The way our bodies metabolize food once it is in our system is valuable stuff. Think of how you percieve sports drinks with different ingredients. I know fructose based drinks back up in my stomach, and make me feel quite slower than usual. I'm sure most here who think about this stuff look for glucose or glucose polymer based sports drinks with perhaps a small amount of fructose. Protein on the bike or before a race is tough too due to it's lowly glycemic nature. It digests slowly, backing up our stomachs and causes problems. Knowing how the body breaks something down is good stuff. Agreed sugar has it's place. Something highly glycemic on the bike like some Gatorade or Gu is a good thing for quick energy. I still wouldn't reccomend sugar as a part of anyone's daily diet. Look at the problems we have with obesity in this country. Probably caused more by highly glycemic food choices than high fat. Look at the white breads, refined grains, and sugars the average person consumes. If you wanted to fatten up a cow for slaughter you feed them refined grains. Feed them grass if you want them more lean. It all has to do with how fast the things get broken down by the body. A high sugar diet/highly glycemic diet is the number one cause for obesity in this country. Obesity is a risk factor for diabetes. I know many organizations have loosened their views on sugar and diabetes over the past few years, but if it makes you fat then it is still a factor.

When sugar enters the body it spikes blood glucose levels, and the body compensates with an insulin spike to remove the excess glucose from the bloodstream. This insulin pulls most of this glucose into adipose tissue (fat), and the blood sugar level drops as a result. Usually the blood sugar levels drop lower than before sugar consumption after the insulin spike. Now you have more fat, and since you blood sugar levels are lower you have hunger pains. So you eat more, and the cycle repeats. A more lowly glycemic food choice would promote greater feelings of satiety, and the blood sugar levels remain more stable. Your blood sugar doesn't drop as much so you don't eat as much either. You don't have the blood sugar roller coaster that causes lethargy, hunger, and increased fat storage. And this isn't just sugar. Look at white bread, with a glycemic index of 100- the same as table sugar. Potatoes are even worse, as are many of the readily accepted carbohydrates Americans typically consume. Looking for less glycemic food choices such as whole foods like fruits and vegetables vs. sugars and refined grains would make a huge difference in the rates of obesity we have in this country. Sugar and highly glycemic foods in excess are a huge problem. You could link the obesity that highly glycemic food sources like sugar contribute to with heart disease, diabetes, and many other diseases. If obesity is a factor, and something makes you fat then it is a part of the problem. Sugar might not directly cause a disease, but it sure can be part of the source.

Sure, a soda now and then won't cause any problems. It is empty calories though, and there are better choices out there. I think that we probably basically agree though, too much of anything is a bad thing. Even riding too much.
I think we're agreeing more than disagreeing,TJeanloz
Jul 20, 2002 11:20 AM
I'm well aware of how sugars enter and are processed by the human body. And I also acknowledge that too much sugar contributes to obesity, just like too much red meat contributes to heart disease. These facts, in and of themselves however, do not make sugar and red meat unhealthy. The facts are merely that the level of consumption at which these foods become unhealthy is lower than, say the level of water (which will kill you if you drink too much). A perfectly healthy person CAN have sugar in their perfectly healthy diet. Just because a food contains sugar does NOT make it unhealthy.

Do a lot of people in the United States eat an unhealthy amount of suger? Undoubtedly. But sugar in moderation is no worse for you than water in moderation.
Agree (nm)peloton
Jul 20, 2002 11:56 AM
nm
yeah but it isn't carbonated...(nm)ColnagoFE
Jul 19, 2002 10:03 AM
re: Drink what works...jrm
Jul 20, 2002 3:49 PM
Im kinda partial to mountain dew and snapple lime green tea.
re: SoBe rantlongfellow68
Jul 22, 2002 5:52 AM
I had some for the first time last week and this stuff is just to damn sweet tasting.... terrible. Its for kiddies or something with a serious sweet tooth. Hell, Hawiian Punch or Hi-C tastes better...