[kaplods]

Does IP actually forbid aspartame? I thought that any 0/0/0 product is allowed.

I understand that IP products do not contain aspartame, but I think that's more a selling point than "required for weight loss."

Sweetener use, natural and artificial, caloric and low/no calorie is controversial, but none more so than for aspartame. Taking a no-aspartame stand, is a good business decision in my opinion because it avoids the controversy around aspartame and to some degree send a reassuring message about the sweeteners that are being used.

I'm not saying it's all hype. Some of the risks of aspartame are proven (but far fewer have been proven than claimed), but when portions and calories are controlled as in IP, aspartame has no power to prevent weight loss. You might get headaches or otherwise feel crappy, but it won't prevent weight loss.

If it did, aspartame would become a miracle cure for world hunger. Even if all of the horror stories were true, countless lives could be saved, simply by shipping diet coke to famine sufferers.

[ragdoll74]

kaplods official IP protocol does not allow aspartame, and it removed the 0/0/0 extras from the protocol recently.

[Art3mis]

Originally Posted by ragdoll74

it removed the 0/0/0 extras from the protocol recently.

so does that mean i can no longer have my chicken broth? or sparkling ice?

[kaplods]

Originally Posted by ragdoll74

kaplods official IP protocol does not allow aspartame, and it removed the 0/0/0 extras from the protocol recently.

Good to know. It makes sense, since most 0/0/0 foods aren't really 0/0/0, and they can add up very quickly.

I think it's still important to realize that ultimately calorie deficit is responsible for weight loss. You can even gain weight in ketosis if your calorie levels are high enough.

I'm not saying that anyone should use aspartame or break any of the IP rules. I'm just saying that if you are going to break any of the rules, whether or not it will affect your weight loss will depend on how the violations affect the calorie balance.

While aspartame could in theory somehow reduce metabolic rate, there is no indication in any of the research that this occurs (and again if it did, it could revolutionize famine-relief efforts).

Rather, eliminating aspartame makes sense from the standpoint that many people have adverse reactions to it (headaches seem most common) and it may increase hunger and cravings (which won't stall weight loss unless react to the hunger and cravings by choosing to eat off plan).

I think on some level, we sometimes want to think that every rule of a weight loss plan should be tied directly to weight loss, and that breaking any of them should result in a gain or stall.

I think that's where you get some of the bizarre weight loss myths such as negative calorie fruits and vegetables or that drinking water magically dissolves fat.

Some of the rules aren't for weight loss, they're for health and well-being DURING the weight loss, and some may even exist for reasons we may never know such as business concerns or the personal philosophy of the founder(s).

For example, most meal replacement products rely heavily on whey proteins, not because they're the best, but because they're the least expensive decent protein. Gelatin is even cheaper, but it's such a poor and difficult to digest protein that it can actually be dangerous if relied too heavily upon (which is why gelatin products are usually limited by most meal replacement plans).

When you follow a very structured plan with a good reputation, you don't need to understand the logic or biology behind any of the rules. If you're going to develop your own plan or modify the official plan, then you need to know how everything works to make sure you're making decisions that make sense.

The aspartame ban makes sense on many levels, but not because it will prevent weight loss (unless it inspires you to eat off plan).

[lisa32989]

Originally Posted by Art3mis

so does that mean i can no longer have my chicken broth? or sparkling ice?

Many of us have lost weight just fine with the 0/0/0 rule, and will continue to do so.
I think they removed it for 2 reasons:
1) they are coming out with a Mio-type water enhancer to sell
2) it is too hard to control for the extras people include, which dilutes their data.

Since many clinics sell Walden Farms and other items, it seems even their own removal of the 0/0/0 rule is in question.
As a reminder 0/0/0 = carbs/sugar/fat
Some folks mistakenly put calories in that "equasion"

[patns]

kaplods, just a question about the"īt's only about the calories" line of study.
I actually don't post much anymore because whatever I post seems to generate this response.
But I am genuinely curious about how this line of research regards carbs.

I like many people who found IP worked am insulin resistant with PCOS. I can go ( and have gone) very low calorie, exercise and not lose. For me it is vital what is in the food that makes up the calories. It has to be lower in carbs or it just won't work.

I know this is off topic for this thread but I find your insights rational and really like some insight into how science has proved that the only way to lose weight is to take in fewer calories than you expend.

In my next life I plan to come back as a tall male, but in this life I have to live with my short round insulin resistant body and calories in/calories out just doesn't work as mathematics says it should.

[Art3mis]

Originally Posted by lisa32989

Many of us have lost weight just fine with the 0/0/0 rule, and will continue to do so.
I think they removed it for 2 reasons:
1) they are coming out with a Mio-type water enhancer to sell
2) it is too hard to control for the extras people include, which dilutes their data.

Since many clinics sell Walden Farms and other items, it seems even their own removal of the 0/0/0 rule is in question.
As a reminder 0/0/0 = carbs/sugar/fat
Some folks mistakenly put calories in that "equation"

thanks lisa..that makes me feel better.
and usually if im looking at a non ip product i consider all four and make it 0/0/0/0 or as close to 0 with cals as i can

[kaplods]

Originally Posted by patns

kaplods, just a question about the"īt's only about the calories" line of study.
I actually don't post much anymore because whatever I post seems to generate this response.
But I am genuinely curious about how this line of research regards carbs.

I like many people who found IP worked am insulin resistant with PCOS. I can go ( and have gone) very low calorie, exercise and not lose. For me it is vital what is in the food that makes up the calories. It has to be lower in carbs or it just won't work.

I know this is off topic for this thread but I find your insights rational and really like some insight into how science has proved that the only way to lose weight is to take in fewer calories than you expend.

In my next life I plan to come back as a tall male, but in this life I have to live with my short round insulin resistant body and calories in/calories out just doesn't work as mathematics says it should.

The problem isn't with the math, we just do the math wrong. Calories in/out isn't the problem. The problem is thinking that the calories out portion of the equation is a constant, or at least something easily and accurately calcuable or that it is unaffected by the food you eat (or the sleep you get, or the stress you're under, or the state of your immune system....).

I also find that it isn't only "calories in" that matters. If I eat low-carb, I can eat about 300 calories more than high-carb to lose similar amounts of weight. I'm also hungrier on high-carb so low-carb is the way to go - less hunger, more food and more weight loss - bonus!

But the laws of physics still apply, you cannot gain weight if you do not eat. Zero calorie foods cannot materialize fat onto your body from nowhere.

I never said it is just calories, or that all calories are equal, but there are inescableable laws of physics. As I said, the only way aspartame could cause gains or stalls is if it reduced metabolism (shifting the out part of the equation).

However, this has been specifically studied and the results do not support the hypothesis. If it did, aspartame could be used to prevent starvation in famine-ravaged communities.

Proof of the calorie component is that no one on a zero calorie diet maintains their weight. Stop all food intake, and you will lose weight, at least for as long as you survive.

However, determining how many calories you are burning at any given minute, hour or day, isn't as easy as the all-calories-are-equal believers would have us believe.

...but that doesn't mean calories are completely irrelevant. You can't eat 10,000 calories and be "safe" from weight gain, just because the calories are coming from protein and/or fat. You also can't gain on a zero (or probably even 500) calorie intake.

How low can your metabolism go, how few calories can you burn in a day, and what effects those numbers.... that's not so easy to determine.

You do have to consume fewer calories than you burn, but you can't precisely control how much you burn, and the burn rate can be affected by the foods you choose and a mess of other variables we probably haven't even discovered yet. We only recently learned that sleep deprivation and chronic stress lower metabolism (the calories burned).

We've also learned that not all foods are burned completely. Some or all of their calories are inaccessible to humans. Fiber, sugar alcohols, and resistant starches are just some of the foods for which calorie/carb content and calorie/carb impact are two very different things.

The problem isn't the math, it's that there are variables in the equation we can't control or know, and it definitely doesn't mean that all calories are equal for either nutrition or weight loss.