Guest guest Posted April 16, 2003 Report Share Posted April 16, 2003 While there maybe no substitute for water, the question is do other things rehydrate the body? I lived on diet cokes and tea for years. I guarantee you that I didn't drink much water at all. It wasn't the healthiest thing in the world by any means but I wasn't dehydrated either. Just my opinion, of course. Lori Owen - Denton, Texas CHF 4/14/01 479 lbs. SRVG 7/16/01 401 lbs. Current Weight 335 Dr. Ritter/Dr. Bryce On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 20:01:56 -0400 sarahs3826@... writes: > Pop contains phosphorus, which can diminish your calcium level... so > we're not really supposed to count it as water. According to my > doc, there's no substitute. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2003 Report Share Posted April 16, 2003 While there maybe no substitute for water, the question is do other things rehydrate the body? I lived on diet cokes and tea for years. I guarantee you that I didn't drink much water at all. It wasn't the healthiest thing in the world by any means but I wasn't dehydrated either. Just my opinion, of course. Lori Owen - Denton, Texas CHF 4/14/01 479 lbs. SRVG 7/16/01 401 lbs. Current Weight 335 Dr. Ritter/Dr. Bryce On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 20:01:56 -0400 sarahs3826@... writes: > Pop contains phosphorus, which can diminish your calcium level... so > we're not really supposed to count it as water. According to my > doc, there's no substitute. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2003 Report Share Posted April 16, 2003 In a message dated 4/16/2003 7:36:56 PM Central Daylight Time, loriowen@... writes: > While there maybe no substitute for water, the question is do other > things rehydrate the body? I lived on diet cokes and tea for years. I > guarantee you that I didn't drink much water at all. It wasn't the > healthiest thing in the world by any means but I wasn't dehydrated > either. Just my opinion, of course. ----------------------------------- Prior to gastric bypass, we have quite a different system than we have now, which could better tolerate some of the excesses we put it thru. While there may be no BIG problem in the short run in substituting other liquids for water, some are less healthy than others. Juices generally are high in calories. Diet sodas are better choices (if the carbonation doesn't upset your pouch) IF they don't have caffeine. Caffeine is a diuretic, so it helps to DEhydrate you. Most importantly it decreases the body's ability to maintain bone density--a condition that gastric bypass also contributes to. I just recently read an article by a couple of docs telling about all the advantages of caffeine, which made me want to start drinking coffee again (I could DEFinitely use a clearer brain, lol). Until I remembered I really don't want to get osteoporosis. Sigh. Carol A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2003 Report Share Posted April 16, 2003 In a message dated 4/16/2003 7:36:56 PM Central Daylight Time, loriowen@... writes: > While there maybe no substitute for water, the question is do other > things rehydrate the body? I lived on diet cokes and tea for years. I > guarantee you that I didn't drink much water at all. It wasn't the > healthiest thing in the world by any means but I wasn't dehydrated > either. Just my opinion, of course. ----------------------------------- Prior to gastric bypass, we have quite a different system than we have now, which could better tolerate some of the excesses we put it thru. While there may be no BIG problem in the short run in substituting other liquids for water, some are less healthy than others. Juices generally are high in calories. Diet sodas are better choices (if the carbonation doesn't upset your pouch) IF they don't have caffeine. Caffeine is a diuretic, so it helps to DEhydrate you. Most importantly it decreases the body's ability to maintain bone density--a condition that gastric bypass also contributes to. I just recently read an article by a couple of docs telling about all the advantages of caffeine, which made me want to start drinking coffee again (I could DEFinitely use a clearer brain, lol). Until I remembered I really don't want to get osteoporosis. Sigh. Carol A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 Whether the phosphorus in soda diminishes your calcium level has nothing to do with whether it counts as a liquid. Those are apples and oranges. There are dozens of nutrients that can diminish calcium, but that does not necessarily mean that they can not be eaten or drank. Calcium depletion is a normal occurrence. That is why we have to take in calcium whether we are WLS patients or not. Ray Hooks For WLS nutrition info, visit http://www.bariatricsupplementsystem.com sarahs3826@... wrote: > > Pop contains phosphorus, which can diminish your calcium level... so we're not really supposed to count it as water. According to my doc, there's no substitute. > > Homepage: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Graduate-OSSG > > Unsubscribe: mailto:Graduate-OSSG-unsubscribe > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 Whether the phosphorus in soda diminishes your calcium level has nothing to do with whether it counts as a liquid. Those are apples and oranges. There are dozens of nutrients that can diminish calcium, but that does not necessarily mean that they can not be eaten or drank. Calcium depletion is a normal occurrence. That is why we have to take in calcium whether we are WLS patients or not. Ray Hooks For WLS nutrition info, visit http://www.bariatricsupplementsystem.com sarahs3826@... wrote: > > Pop contains phosphorus, which can diminish your calcium level... so we're not really supposed to count it as water. According to my doc, there's no substitute. > > Homepage: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Graduate-OSSG > > Unsubscribe: mailto:Graduate-OSSG-unsubscribe > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 > Whether the phosphorus in soda diminishes your calcium level has nothing > to do with whether it counts as a liquid. Those are apples and > oranges. There are dozens of nutrients that can diminish calcium, but > that does not necessarily mean that they can not be eaten or drank. > Calcium depletion is a normal occurrence. That is why we have to take > in calcium whether we are WLS patients or not. So if we know that a substance diminishes calcium, and we know we already have a problem with keeping enough calcium, would it not make sense to at least reduce the amount of that substance so that we might stand a chance of breaking even? Or do you suggest we just take in more calcium? Confused at the point. ~~ Lyn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 > Whether the phosphorus in soda diminishes your calcium level has nothing > to do with whether it counts as a liquid. Those are apples and > oranges. There are dozens of nutrients that can diminish calcium, but > that does not necessarily mean that they can not be eaten or drank. > Calcium depletion is a normal occurrence. That is why we have to take > in calcium whether we are WLS patients or not. So if we know that a substance diminishes calcium, and we know we already have a problem with keeping enough calcium, would it not make sense to at least reduce the amount of that substance so that we might stand a chance of breaking even? Or do you suggest we just take in more calcium? Confused at the point. ~~ Lyn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 I am suggesting that there is a natural ebb and flow of calcium into and out of the body. It certainly can not hurt to avoid nutrients that diminish calcium, but it is not the end of the world to eat them either. The FDA recommends 1000 mg daily calcium intake. THis is by far this highest DVI intake for any mineral. It seems to me, and I do stand to be corrected, that it is set so high because it is recognized that calcium is going to depleted as a natural life occurrence. From a purely mathematical viewpoint, it makes sense to avoid calcium reducing substances just so that we do not have to replenish the calcium. This does not however necessarily mean that the calcium that is depleted is irreplaceable by simple supplementation. I am suggesting that there is little harm in eating a calcium reducing substance if the calcium is replaced through supplementation. Ray Hooks For WLS nutrition info, visit http://www.bariatricsupplementsystem.com Butterflye wrote: > > > Whether the phosphorus in soda diminishes your calcium level has nothing > > to do with whether it counts as a liquid. Those are apples and > > oranges. There are dozens of nutrients that can diminish calcium, but > > that does not necessarily mean that they can not be eaten or drank. > > Calcium depletion is a normal occurrence. That is why we have to take > > in calcium whether we are WLS patients or not. > > So if we know that a substance diminishes calcium, and we know we already > have a problem with keeping enough calcium, would it not make sense to at > least reduce the amount of that substance so that we might stand a chance of > breaking even? Or do you suggest we just take in more calcium? > Confused at the point. > > ~~ Lyn > > Homepage: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Graduate-OSSG > > Unsubscribe: mailto:Graduate-OSSG-unsubscribe > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 I am suggesting that there is a natural ebb and flow of calcium into and out of the body. It certainly can not hurt to avoid nutrients that diminish calcium, but it is not the end of the world to eat them either. The FDA recommends 1000 mg daily calcium intake. THis is by far this highest DVI intake for any mineral. It seems to me, and I do stand to be corrected, that it is set so high because it is recognized that calcium is going to depleted as a natural life occurrence. From a purely mathematical viewpoint, it makes sense to avoid calcium reducing substances just so that we do not have to replenish the calcium. This does not however necessarily mean that the calcium that is depleted is irreplaceable by simple supplementation. I am suggesting that there is little harm in eating a calcium reducing substance if the calcium is replaced through supplementation. Ray Hooks For WLS nutrition info, visit http://www.bariatricsupplementsystem.com Butterflye wrote: > > > Whether the phosphorus in soda diminishes your calcium level has nothing > > to do with whether it counts as a liquid. Those are apples and > > oranges. There are dozens of nutrients that can diminish calcium, but > > that does not necessarily mean that they can not be eaten or drank. > > Calcium depletion is a normal occurrence. That is why we have to take > > in calcium whether we are WLS patients or not. > > So if we know that a substance diminishes calcium, and we know we already > have a problem with keeping enough calcium, would it not make sense to at > least reduce the amount of that substance so that we might stand a chance of > breaking even? Or do you suggest we just take in more calcium? > Confused at the point. > > ~~ Lyn > > Homepage: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Graduate-OSSG > > Unsubscribe: mailto:Graduate-OSSG-unsubscribe > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 Ceep. I don't have the information to know anything absolutely. But, I wonder if Ray experimented and stopped the caffeine, soda would he still have trouble maintaining his weight. Fay Bayuk **300/173 10/23/01 Dr. Open RNY 150 cm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 Ceep. I don't have the information to know anything absolutely. But, I wonder if Ray experimented and stopped the caffeine, soda would he still have trouble maintaining his weight. Fay Bayuk **300/173 10/23/01 Dr. Open RNY 150 cm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 In a message dated 4/19/03 4:58:50 PM, FBayuk writes: << Ceep. I don't have the information to know anything absolutely. But, I wonder if ....stopped ...caffeine, soda, would ....still have trouble maintaining ... weight. (?) >> I think people who are havng trouble holding onto weight have physical challenges that can be present across many spectrums including the endocrine system, the gastrointestinal system. There are so many nuances to each system. When i read journals about mirconucleii studies for instance, I constantly realize we know so very little at the micro level about the INDIVIDUAl body. And often at the bottom of many physical abberations is not one issue, but several. We had a couple people on list for a long time who struggled so very seriously to hold onto their weight. For one, surgery was a solution. love, ceep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 In a message dated 4/19/03 4:58:50 PM, FBayuk writes: << Ceep. I don't have the information to know anything absolutely. But, I wonder if ....stopped ...caffeine, soda, would ....still have trouble maintaining ... weight. (?) >> I think people who are havng trouble holding onto weight have physical challenges that can be present across many spectrums including the endocrine system, the gastrointestinal system. There are so many nuances to each system. When i read journals about mirconucleii studies for instance, I constantly realize we know so very little at the micro level about the INDIVIDUAl body. And often at the bottom of many physical abberations is not one issue, but several. We had a couple people on list for a long time who struggled so very seriously to hold onto their weight. For one, surgery was a solution. love, ceep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 I drink caffeine free soda 90% of the time. The only time I drink a beverage with caffeine is when I am out of the house and caffeine free and sugar free beverages are not available. I doubt that caffeine has anything to do with it. Thanks for the thought though. Ray hooks fbayuk@... wrote: > > Ceep. I don't have the information to know anything absolutely. But, I > wonder if Ray experimented and stopped the caffeine, soda would he still have > trouble maintaining his weight. > > Fay Bayuk > **300/173 > 10/23/01 > Dr. > Open RNY 150 cm > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 I drink caffeine free soda 90% of the time. The only time I drink a beverage with caffeine is when I am out of the house and caffeine free and sugar free beverages are not available. I doubt that caffeine has anything to do with it. Thanks for the thought though. Ray hooks fbayuk@... wrote: > > Ceep. I don't have the information to know anything absolutely. But, I > wonder if Ray experimented and stopped the caffeine, soda would he still have > trouble maintaining his weight. > > Fay Bayuk > **300/173 > 10/23/01 > Dr. > Open RNY 150 cm > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 In a message dated 4/19/2003 8:19:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, ray@... writes: > I doubt that caffeine has > anything to do with it. Thanks for the thought though. > See what happens when you assume. I am sorry I assumed you drank caffeinated sodas. Fay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 In a message dated 4/19/2003 8:19:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, ray@... writes: > I doubt that caffeine has > anything to do with it. Thanks for the thought though. > See what happens when you assume. I am sorry I assumed you drank caffeinated sodas. Fay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 " There is often a skewing of a study through what we call the Hawthorne principle-- This is wherein the researcher unwittingly or more rarely influences the results, thereby pulling the study out of shape, so to speak, often gaining inaccurate data. " To set the record straight, this ill describes the Hawthorne principle. The Hawthorne principle was recognized sometime in the 50s. Some General Electric engineers in Hawthorne, IL, plant were experimenting with ways to increase work place productivity. They put a selected group of workers in a special room to make some kind of widgets. They increased the brightness of the light in the room and productivity increased. They increased the brightness again and productivity again increased. It increased a third time when the light was still further increased. They thought that they were really on to something. Then as a protocol check, they turned the lighting down to a level below the original level, and productivity increased again. Their original conclusion that increasing lighting intensity caused higher worker productivity was then obviously wrong. The data was perfectly accurate, it was the interpretation that was flawed. The experimenters jumped to the conclusion that the change in brightness of the light was the cause of the change. When I was working on a doctorate degree, one of my professors was a big wig in the American Management Association. He personally interviewed two of the original Hawthorne workers. They told him that they increased their productivity because they liked the special attention that was being given to them and also because they did not want to go back to work in the regular factory. So the Hawthorne principle applies more to the validity of how the data is interpreted than to the actual accuracy of the data. The studies referenced at http://www.cosic.org/caffeine/diureticeffects/ are all what are called peer reviewed journals. To get something published in regular magazine or newspaper, someone sends in their article and if the editor likes it, it gets published. Most magazines and newspapers have a fact checking department that verify the facts stated in the article. A different track is followed to have an article published in a peer reviewed journal. The proposed article is submitted to a panel of peers in that particular area of study. If the article is research on a nutritional matter, it is reviewed by a panel of peers consisting of people who have PhDs in nutrition. They study the design of the study, the method of the study, the calculations of the study and the conclusions drawn. Only if all the members of the panel agree that the proposed article meets generally accepted research standards and the conclusion or lack thereof is consistent with the data gathered is the article published. Since the study is validated at arms length by individuals who have no connection with whomever might have paid for the study, the motive of the sponsoring party is largely a non-issue. In the instant case, the research cited came from peer reviewed journals such as: 1. Journal of cardiovascular Pharmacology, 15, 685-691, 1990. 2. Neuhäuser-Berthold, M. et al. ls of Nutrition & Metabolism, 41, 29-36, 1997. 3. Martof, M.T. and Knox, D.K., Clinical Nursing Research, 6, 186-196, 1997. 4. Stookey, J.D., European Journal of Epidemiology, 15, 181-188, 1999 5. Creighton, S.M. and Stanton, S.L. British Journal of Urology, 66, 613-614, 1990. 6. Arya, L.A. et al. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 96, 85-89, 2000. 7. Wemple, R.D. et al. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 18, 40-46, 1997. 8. Graham, T.E. et al. Journal of Applied Physiology, 85, 883-889, 1998. 9. Curhan, G.C. et al. American Journal of Epidemiology, 143, 240-247, 1996. 10. Curhan, G.C. et al. ls of Internal Medicine, 128, 534-540, 1998. 11. Leitzmann, M.F. et al. Journal of American Medical Association, 281, 2106-2112, 1999. It is somewhat doubtful that these journal are each and every one paid lackeys for the coffee industry. It is even more doubtful that none of them use research standards that meet the highest scientific standards. As I said before, I have no connection with the coffee industry. In fact, I have not had so much as even a sip of coffee in over 35 years. I try to avoid caffeine consumption because it is a central nervous stimulent that will keep me awake. The simple fact is that no one has ever come up with a study that proves caffeine is a diuretic. I, personally, don't care whether it is or is not a diuretic. I do like to keep the record straight by mentioning that there is little if any evidence of caffeine having a true diuretic effect. Ray Hooks For WLS nutrition info, visit http://www.bariatricsupplementsystem.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 " There is often a skewing of a study through what we call the Hawthorne principle-- This is wherein the researcher unwittingly or more rarely influences the results, thereby pulling the study out of shape, so to speak, often gaining inaccurate data. " To set the record straight, this ill describes the Hawthorne principle. The Hawthorne principle was recognized sometime in the 50s. Some General Electric engineers in Hawthorne, IL, plant were experimenting with ways to increase work place productivity. They put a selected group of workers in a special room to make some kind of widgets. They increased the brightness of the light in the room and productivity increased. They increased the brightness again and productivity again increased. It increased a third time when the light was still further increased. They thought that they were really on to something. Then as a protocol check, they turned the lighting down to a level below the original level, and productivity increased again. Their original conclusion that increasing lighting intensity caused higher worker productivity was then obviously wrong. The data was perfectly accurate, it was the interpretation that was flawed. The experimenters jumped to the conclusion that the change in brightness of the light was the cause of the change. When I was working on a doctorate degree, one of my professors was a big wig in the American Management Association. He personally interviewed two of the original Hawthorne workers. They told him that they increased their productivity because they liked the special attention that was being given to them and also because they did not want to go back to work in the regular factory. So the Hawthorne principle applies more to the validity of how the data is interpreted than to the actual accuracy of the data. The studies referenced at http://www.cosic.org/caffeine/diureticeffects/ are all what are called peer reviewed journals. To get something published in regular magazine or newspaper, someone sends in their article and if the editor likes it, it gets published. Most magazines and newspapers have a fact checking department that verify the facts stated in the article. A different track is followed to have an article published in a peer reviewed journal. The proposed article is submitted to a panel of peers in that particular area of study. If the article is research on a nutritional matter, it is reviewed by a panel of peers consisting of people who have PhDs in nutrition. They study the design of the study, the method of the study, the calculations of the study and the conclusions drawn. Only if all the members of the panel agree that the proposed article meets generally accepted research standards and the conclusion or lack thereof is consistent with the data gathered is the article published. Since the study is validated at arms length by individuals who have no connection with whomever might have paid for the study, the motive of the sponsoring party is largely a non-issue. In the instant case, the research cited came from peer reviewed journals such as: 1. Journal of cardiovascular Pharmacology, 15, 685-691, 1990. 2. Neuhäuser-Berthold, M. et al. ls of Nutrition & Metabolism, 41, 29-36, 1997. 3. Martof, M.T. and Knox, D.K., Clinical Nursing Research, 6, 186-196, 1997. 4. Stookey, J.D., European Journal of Epidemiology, 15, 181-188, 1999 5. Creighton, S.M. and Stanton, S.L. British Journal of Urology, 66, 613-614, 1990. 6. Arya, L.A. et al. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 96, 85-89, 2000. 7. Wemple, R.D. et al. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 18, 40-46, 1997. 8. Graham, T.E. et al. Journal of Applied Physiology, 85, 883-889, 1998. 9. Curhan, G.C. et al. American Journal of Epidemiology, 143, 240-247, 1996. 10. Curhan, G.C. et al. ls of Internal Medicine, 128, 534-540, 1998. 11. Leitzmann, M.F. et al. Journal of American Medical Association, 281, 2106-2112, 1999. It is somewhat doubtful that these journal are each and every one paid lackeys for the coffee industry. It is even more doubtful that none of them use research standards that meet the highest scientific standards. As I said before, I have no connection with the coffee industry. In fact, I have not had so much as even a sip of coffee in over 35 years. I try to avoid caffeine consumption because it is a central nervous stimulent that will keep me awake. The simple fact is that no one has ever come up with a study that proves caffeine is a diuretic. I, personally, don't care whether it is or is not a diuretic. I do like to keep the record straight by mentioning that there is little if any evidence of caffeine having a true diuretic effect. Ray Hooks For WLS nutrition info, visit http://www.bariatricsupplementsystem.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2003 Report Share Posted April 20, 2003 My $.02 about the caffeine issue --- I don't know what the big thing about it is, or why it's such a problem for Ray that it's a diuretic. I guess we all have our crusades. Caffeine IS a diuretic for me and for the majority or other people that I know - WLS patients and others. Cutting & pasting blurbs off a website about studies regarding this & that isn't going convince me otherwise. If I had the time to do nothing better than sit around collecting blurbs off the internet so I can disprove anything posted by someone I don't like, I could do the same thing. I've told lots of people, lots of times, you can " prove " anything you want by cutting & pasting bits & pieces off the internet. Anyone can do a Google search, even my 6 year old son. ------------------------------------------------ Terry Mayers 5DollarHosting.comR http://www.5dollarhosting.com (877)-838-HOST / .... because it shouldn't cost a fortune to make a fortune! R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2003 Report Share Posted April 20, 2003 My $.02 about the caffeine issue --- I don't know what the big thing about it is, or why it's such a problem for Ray that it's a diuretic. I guess we all have our crusades. Caffeine IS a diuretic for me and for the majority or other people that I know - WLS patients and others. Cutting & pasting blurbs off a website about studies regarding this & that isn't going convince me otherwise. If I had the time to do nothing better than sit around collecting blurbs off the internet so I can disprove anything posted by someone I don't like, I could do the same thing. I've told lots of people, lots of times, you can " prove " anything you want by cutting & pasting bits & pieces off the internet. Anyone can do a Google search, even my 6 year old son. ------------------------------------------------ Terry Mayers 5DollarHosting.comR http://www.5dollarhosting.com (877)-838-HOST / .... because it shouldn't cost a fortune to make a fortune! R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2003 Report Share Posted April 20, 2003 Since we are adding person observations, let me add my own. I virtually never drink water. For a 10 year period of time, 99% of my liquid intake was diet Coke or Pepsi, both of which contained caffeine. If caffeine is a diuretic and 99% of a person's liquid intake is a diuretic, then over a 10 year period of time of drinking nothing but a diuretic, that person would develop severe dehydration. I did not. I later switched to caffeine free diet soda because I found that the caffeine was keeping me awake at night. Caffeinated beverages do affect urine output. I go to the movies every Saturday. I drink at least 32 oz of diet Coke or Pepsi, both of which have caffeine. I usually have to go to the bathroom once or twice during the movie. When I am at home, I drink the same amount of caffeine free soda, but go to the bathroom much less frequently. Going to the bathroom more frequently does not necessarily mean that more urine is being passed. It just means that you are going to the bathroom more frequently. I am not on a diuretic crusade. I just like to see accurate information posted. Ray Hooks For WLS nutrition info, visit http://www.bariatricsupplementsystem.com Terry Mayers wrote: > > My $.02 about the caffeine issue --- I don't know what the big thing about > it is, or why it's such a problem for Ray that it's a diuretic. I guess we > all have our crusades. Caffeine IS a diuretic for me and for the majority > or other people that I know - WLS patients and others. Cutting & pasting > blurbs off a website about studies regarding this & that isn't going > convince me otherwise. If I had the time to do nothing better than sit > around collecting blurbs off the internet so I can disprove anything posted > by someone I don't like, I could do the same thing. I've told lots of > people, lots of times, you can " prove " anything you want by cutting & > pasting bits & pieces off the internet. Anyone can do a Google search, even > my 6 year old son. > > ------------------------------------------------ > Terry Mayers > 5DollarHosting.comR > http://www.5dollarhosting.com > (877)-838-HOST / > > ... because it shouldn't cost a fortune to make a fortune! R > > Homepage: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Graduate-OSSG > > Unsubscribe: mailto:Graduate-OSSG-unsubscribe > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2003 Report Share Posted April 20, 2003 Since we are adding person observations, let me add my own. I virtually never drink water. For a 10 year period of time, 99% of my liquid intake was diet Coke or Pepsi, both of which contained caffeine. If caffeine is a diuretic and 99% of a person's liquid intake is a diuretic, then over a 10 year period of time of drinking nothing but a diuretic, that person would develop severe dehydration. I did not. I later switched to caffeine free diet soda because I found that the caffeine was keeping me awake at night. Caffeinated beverages do affect urine output. I go to the movies every Saturday. I drink at least 32 oz of diet Coke or Pepsi, both of which have caffeine. I usually have to go to the bathroom once or twice during the movie. When I am at home, I drink the same amount of caffeine free soda, but go to the bathroom much less frequently. Going to the bathroom more frequently does not necessarily mean that more urine is being passed. It just means that you are going to the bathroom more frequently. I am not on a diuretic crusade. I just like to see accurate information posted. Ray Hooks For WLS nutrition info, visit http://www.bariatricsupplementsystem.com Terry Mayers wrote: > > My $.02 about the caffeine issue --- I don't know what the big thing about > it is, or why it's such a problem for Ray that it's a diuretic. I guess we > all have our crusades. Caffeine IS a diuretic for me and for the majority > or other people that I know - WLS patients and others. Cutting & pasting > blurbs off a website about studies regarding this & that isn't going > convince me otherwise. If I had the time to do nothing better than sit > around collecting blurbs off the internet so I can disprove anything posted > by someone I don't like, I could do the same thing. I've told lots of > people, lots of times, you can " prove " anything you want by cutting & > pasting bits & pieces off the internet. Anyone can do a Google search, even > my 6 year old son. > > ------------------------------------------------ > Terry Mayers > 5DollarHosting.comR > http://www.5dollarhosting.com > (877)-838-HOST / > > ... because it shouldn't cost a fortune to make a fortune! R > > Homepage: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Graduate-OSSG > > Unsubscribe: mailto:Graduate-OSSG-unsubscribe > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 26, 2003 Report Share Posted December 26, 2003 Caffeine, I do remember the clinic telling me about depleting water, but hadn't thought of ulcers. I guess good to avoid it as much as possible. Joan LAP RNY 11/18/03 Dr. Higa, Fresno, CA 282pre-op/275surg/242/140 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.