Arctic Zero Ice Cream

[jcosley]

disgusting

eat real ice cream or don't

I'd rather pass and eat artic zero honestly.

For the first time ever, I totally agree with you. I made this thread over a year ago, and since then I have discovered the horror that is arctic zero

I take it with your 4 posts that you work for them? You're really taking it that personally? Why is it a horror? Taste.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...#post464669983
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...#post464678863
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...#post646901083

Shill much? Your only 4 posts are ardently supporting arctic zero. Either demonstrate your affiliation or GTFO.

Interesting, I bought choc pb, coffee, choc mint, and chocolate and they are all excellent. At first I didn't like choc pb at all, then it grew on me. Choc mint is the bomb. I'm sorry, but if you can eat a whole pint of this (which contains whey) and only get away with 128 calories, then i'm all for it. What is that, about 1 scoop of real ice cream?

[Mr.Cooper69]

I'd rather pass and eat artic zero honestly.




Interesting, I bought choc pb, coffee, choc mint, and chocolate and they are all excellent. At first I didn't like choc pb at all, then it grew on me. Choc mint is the bomb. I'm sorry, but if you can eat a whole pint of this (which contains whey) and only get away with 128 calories, then i'm all for it. What is that, about 1 scoop of real ice cream?

Yeah if you like it I can imagine you are the happiest man on earth, cuz you would never need to cheat on your macros again haha.

How are the coffee and chocolate mint? Of those that you listed, only the chocolate and choc pb were available when I got it, and I wasn't too impressed with either.

[jcosley]

Yeah if you like it I can imagine you are the happiest man on earth, cuz you would never need to cheat on your macros again haha.

How are the coffee and chocolate mint? Of those that you listed, only the chocolate and choc pb were available when I got it, and I wasn't too impressed with either.

Choc mint and Coffee are insanely good...those were my 2 favs. The coffee one I couldnt put down and ended up downing the entire pint that night.

[Mr.Cooper69]

Choc mint and Coffee are insanely good...those were my 2 favs. The coffee one I couldnt put down and ended up downing the entire pint that night.

Hmm I might have to give these a go then. Maybe they improved the flavoring.

[jcosley]

Hmm I might have to give these a go then. Maybe they improved the flavoring.

Only 1 store in my city has it, and they are $4.99 a pint for every flavor....price blows, but oh well...its good for when I actually get a sweet tooth.

[MikeK46]

I'm sorry, but if you can eat a whole pint of this (which contains whey) and only get away with 128 calories, then i'm all for it. What is that, about 1 scoop of real ice cream?

Agreed. I'd rather eat a pint of so-so ice cream that leaves me satisfied than a scoop of better ice cream that will obviously leave me wanting more.

I've been fitting small quantities of real ice cream into my macros during my cut, and I've gotta say that eating 1 or 2 pints of Arctic Zero is WAY more satisfying than a tiny bit of real ice cream.

[jcosley]

Agreed. I'd rather eat a pint of so-so ice cream that leaves me satisfied than a scoop of better ice cream that will obviously leave me wanting more.

I've been fitting small quantities of real ice cream into my macros during my cut, and I've gotta say that eating 1 or 2 pints of Arctic Zero is WAY more satisfying than a tiny bit of real ice cream.

My thoughts exactly. And most of the time I don't even eat that much, maybe just a little bit after a meal to satisfy the craving instead of binging on some high calorie food to satisfy it.

[JohnBrowne]

Agreed. I'd rather eat a pint of so-so ice cream that leaves me satisfied than a scoop of better ice cream that will obviously leave me wanting more.

I've been fitting small quantities of real ice cream into my macros during my cut, and I've gotta say that eating 1 or 2 pints of Arctic Zero is WAY more satisfying than a tiny bit of real ice cream.

Maybe just stop trying to fit ice cream into your diet when you're cutting

[MikeK46]

Maybe just stop trying to fit ice cream into your diet when you're cutting

Surely you jest. You only live once, and ice cream is up there with peanut butter as one of the greatest things in the world.

Back when I started this whole nutrition & fitness thing I would've never touched it at all. Now that I know I can fit ice cream into my macros without hurting progress there's no going back.

It's akin to SF chocolate syrup and things like that. They're not as good as the real thing but they're a hell of a lot easier to fit into your diet (especially when cutting).

[coals]

This sounds expensive.

where does one acquire said ice cream?

[MikeK46]

This sounds expensive.

where does one acquire said ice cream?

http://www.myarcticzero.com/locations.php


I can see this stuff being used in a protein shake or some other concoctions.

[Slovation]

I might get sh*t for it but I LOVE this stuff. It has made prepping for my shows so much more bearable. I eat a pint a day and I think they taste great especially with some WF products.

Cookies and Cream > all

Only downside is the cost. Yes Id much prefer to eat B&Js or HD but having the ability to eat the entire pint its like cheating. I think it tastes phenominal then again Ive been dieting for over 6 months. I just wish they came in bigger tubs or were more affordable/available in more stores.

[Zelda55]

in terms of the way i live, i'm totally if it fits your macros, etc. in fact, i eat at least 1.5 servings of premium ice cream almost daily and i don't see myself ever buying arctic zero....BUT i respect the other perspective about getting volume for satisfaction and it's getting pretty annoying with these iifym people telling others what to do/indoctrinating through their "religion."

[MikeK46]

I've known the guys that invented the stuff for a long time and I'm a stalwart supporter of their product. I've got a case of nearly every flavor in the freezer in my garage at any given time. Any specifics I can answer for you go right ahead.

My question is why don't the macros on the nutrition panel in the back jive with the calories advertised on the front of the container? It's almost like something fishy is going on and I'm almost doubting that these mock ice creams are really this low in calories. Who tests and verifies the macronutrient content?

For example, I had the Strawberry Banana, advertised as 136 calories on the container. When I look at the macros on the nutrition panel, the total calories should be 240.

Servings: 4
Fat: 0
Total Carbs: 10
Fiber: 0
Sugars: 9
Other Carbs: 0
Protein: 5

Ingredients: purified water, whey protein concentrate, organic cane sugar, chicory root, strawberries, guar gum, xantham gum, natural flavors, beet juice for color, citric acid, sea salt, monk fruit concentrate.

[Skimartist35]

My question is why don't the macros on the nutrition panel in the back jive with the calories advertised on the front of the container? It's almost like something fishy is going on and I'm almost doubting that these mock ice creams are really this low in calories. Who tests and verifies the macronutrient content?

For example, I had the Strawberry Banana, advertised as 136 calories on the container. When I look at the macros on the nutrition panel, the total calories should be 240.

Servings: 4
Fat: 0
Total Carbs: 10
Fiber: 0
Sugars: 9
Other Carbs: 0
Protein: 5

Ingredients: purified water, whey protein concentrate, organic cane sugar, chicory root, strawberries, guar gum, xantham gum, natural flavors, beet juice for color, citric acid, sea salt, monk fruit concentrate.

Found this on their website:

Looking at the previous pints of Arctic Zero (ie. 128 and 136 calorie pints), one has to ask whether the calorie count is off? How does one serving of a pint of "Chocolate" provide 32 calories per serving when it has 11 grams of carbs and 4 grams of protein? Shouldn't it be 60 calories?

We get the standard 4 calories per gram nutrition question several times a day. Per the FDA requiring us to do so, we have to list total carbs on the label regardless of whether they have an impact. In addition to our proprietary ingredients, we also utilize the patented Whey Low sweetener that has been on the market for more than a decade. Whey Low has 75% fewer calories than traditional sugar, because only 25% is absorbed by the body and it has a 70-80% lower glycemic index to boot.

http://www.myarcticzero.com/faq.php

[Mr.Cooper69]

Found this on their website:

Looking at the previous pints of Arctic Zero (ie. 128 and 136 calorie pints), one has to ask whether the calorie count is off? How does one serving of a pint of "Chocolate" provide 32 calories per serving when it has 11 grams of carbs and 4 grams of protein? Shouldn't it be 60 calories?

We get the standard 4 calories per gram nutrition question several times a day. Per the FDA requiring us to do so, we have to list total carbs on the label regardless of whether they have an impact. In addition to our proprietary ingredients, we also utilize the patented Whey Low sweetener that has been on the market for more than a decade. Whey Low has 75% fewer calories than traditional sugar, because only 25% is absorbed by the body and it has a 70-80% lower glycemic index to boot.

http://www.myarcticzero.com/faq.php

This, IMO, is bs. they think the perfect blend of sucrose, fructose, and lactose (or something like that) will block absorption of sugars.

[matthew3881]

This, IMO, is bs. they think the perfect blend of sucrose, fructose, and lactose (or something like that) will block absorption of sugars.

it doesnt seem like thats what theyre saying. it seems like a concept similar to sucralose (the sweetener in splenda), where your body cannot break down/use the calories in the molecule, therefore it doesn't make a difference to your calorie count

[Mr.Cooper69]

it doesnt seem like thats what theyre saying. it seems like a concept similar to sucralose (the sweetener in splenda), where your body cannot break down/use the calories in the molecule, therefore it doesn't make a difference to your calorie count

no, I know for a fact that wheylow does not work like that

[JohnBrowne]

WheyLow is a scam. It has 4 calories per gram just like any other carb.

They've been sued before but have enough money behind them that they have effectively paid off the plaintiffs.

The FDA doesn't give a ****

[Mr.Cooper69]

WheyLow is a scam. It has 4 calories per gram just like any other carb.

They've been sued before but have enough money behind them that they have effectively paid off the plaintiffs.

The FDA doesn't give a ****

This. A pint of arctic zero is not just 150 calories

[JohnBrowne]

it doesnt seem like thats what theyre saying. it seems like a concept similar to sucralose (the sweetener in splenda), where your body cannot break down/use the calories in the molecule, therefore it doesn't make a difference to your calorie count

This is essentially what they claim, but it's bull****

[MikeK46]

This. A pint of arctic zero is not just 150 calories

With all due respect, 240 calories is still pretty d@mn low. Some of them (i.e. Vanilla Maple) still come in under 200 calories.

Whey Low = sucrose, fructose & lactose. It's sugar. How these guys have the audacity to say that it has 75% fewer calories than sugar is beyond me, and it's even plastered all over the Whey Low site.

http://www.wheylow.com/

"How is this possible? It has to do with the composition of Whey Low. Regular sugar is all sucrose, but Whey Low is a careful balance of three forms of sugar: fructose, lactose, and sucrose. The lactose interferes with the absorption of sucrose, instantly cutting calories and stopping sucrose’s entrance into your bloodstream where it would normally cause a blood sugar spike."

Did they just pull this out of their @ss?

[trance__dreamer]

Fake ice cream? I'd rather drink my own piss.

LOL. piiiiiiss. out my aaaaaass.

[MikeK46]

The natural sweetener in the PREVIOUS version of Arctic Zero was Whey Low which was a combination of sucrose, fructose, and lactose monohydrate and also proven up to 75% lower calorie absorption by a study conducted by the FDA in conjunction with Maryland University.

The company that created Whey Low is VivaLac. So it's VivaLac that has the audacity to make these accurate statements. Also protected by two international patents and touted as being a low glycemic sweetener by the diabetes association.

As for the Whey Low sweetener, the company Viva Lac being sued, never heard that one and they wouldn't survive if they were sued they're a very small company run by a chemist that invented the sweetener over 20 years ago.

So why doesn't Arctic Zero run WheyLow sweetener anymore in their new pints?

They switched out the old formula for the new about 6 months ago and you can still sometimes find a few of the older pints floating around. They switched out the old formula specifically because they got tired of constantly explaining the complexities of the science of the Whey Low sweetener and dealing with skepticism. So rather than fight a constant battle they made a switch. In addition they wanted organic and raw ingredients to sweeten Arctic Zero so they moved away from Whey Low. The calorie count went up from 128-136 calories respectively to 150 calories per pint. Though the calories went up in doing so they were able to shorten the ingredient label (less junk), added 8 grams of fiber and cut the total sugar content by 30%. It's now sweetened with organic monk fruit (150X sweeter than sugar) and organic cane. You'll start seeing monk fruit in more and more products when the price comes down, it's like 100X more expensive than sugar.

So there you go, hopefully this clears up a lot of misnomers that I've been reading.

My Strawberry Banana that I bought this past Sunday still had WheyLow in it. It's a 6 month old container?

Can you elaborate on what you mean by a "combination" of sucrose, fructose, and lactose? Is it simply a blend of those three? I would assume it is, because if they were chemically combined/altered on a molecular level to reduce digestibility, they would no longer be sucrose, fructose, and lactose. By definition, sucrose, fructose, and lactose are all digestible carbohydrates. Sucrose is broken down to fructose & glucose, fructose is absorbed directly, and lactose is broken down to glucose and galactose before being absorbed.

Glucose, fructose, and galactose (which ultimately converts to glucose after absorption) each have 4 calories per gram. Sorry, but eating them together does not somehow reduce their absorption despite what you've been led to believe. They would not simply pass into your large intestine and into your colon without being digested. This would, of course, cause diarrhea and other unpleasant symptoms. Ever hear of lactose intolerance (inability to digest and absorb lactose)? Now imagine glucose, fructose, AND lactose intolerance. Simultaneously. It wouldn't be pretty.

If this audacious claim was true, then consuming table sugar, a piece of fruit, and a glass of milk would result in "75% fewer calories being absorbed." Perhaps there's the cure for obesity in America? Right. It's complete nonsense.

[JohnBrowne]

Went ahead and negged man_of_travel because it's pretty clear he's just here to sell product

[MikeK46]

Thanks for the neg John, clearly aren't looking for clarification are we? Seriously sad how regardless of whats said in this thread some are bashing a product that was made and designed for us to eat in its entirety. Not made for the masses, made for those of us that lift. Well like they say, don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

I love the product and am looking forward to finding more flavors.

On that note, can you show us the scientific backing to these claims? I'm sure John will rep if you can actually provide something resembling science that concludes this magical "75% lower calorie absorption" of the WheyLow.

I'm glad they don't use it anymore, though. I HOPE that the makers of Arctic Zero knew that the WheyLow claim was bogus and were simply trying to fool everyone to make more money. I HOPE that was the case.

If they actually believed in the "75% lower calorie" nonsense, I'm not so sure I feel comfortable eating ANYTHING made by them, because it would mean they have no clue about nutrition and shouldn't be in the food industry. I'd have a hard time believing anything else they claim or write on their product.

[JohnBrowne]

I love the product and am looking forward to finding more flavors.

On that note, can you show us the scientific backing to these claims? I'm sure John will rep if you can actually provide something resembling science that concludes this magical "75% lower calorie absorption" of the WheyLow.

I'm glad they don't use it anymore, though. I HOPE that the makers of Arctic Zero knew that the WheyLow claim was bogus and were simply trying to fool everyone to make more money. I HOPE that was the case.

If they actually believed in the "75% lower calorie" nonsense, I'm not so sure I feel comfortable eating ANYTHING made by them, because it would mean they have no clue about nutrition and shouldn't be in the food industry. I'd have a hard time believing anything else they claim or write on their product.

this

I'll rep the guy for life if he can substantiate what was originally claimed.

[JohnBrowne]

Mike you'd probably want to check out the Whey Low site, under their FAQ page they've got the breakdown of the sweetener along with charts, graphs, statistical data, etc. Regardless, those that are lactose intolerant can eat that sweetener without issue. There's always the chemical alternative like Splenda (AKA ant poison) if all else fails.

facepalm

[MikeK46]

How could I show you the scientific backing to the claims?

The studies done which prove that this combination is somehow able to bypass being digested by the enzymes in our stomach.

All I know is a diabetics blood sugar doesn't lie, and this stuff was made specifically for diabetics.

It has a low glycemic index. No one is disputing that. We KNOW that fructose and lactose have low glycemic values. You've proved nothing, because the glycemic index has nothing to do with the total quantity of the sugar that is digested. It's just a value for how quickly it ends up as bloog glucose.

Anyway, all I know is eating as many pints as I was last year I wasn't gaining weight.

Right. This is calories in vs. calories out, and has nothing to do with anything in this discussion except thermodynamics. You can eat whatever you want in a caloric deficit and lose weight.

[mannydawg]

The studies done which prove that this combination is somehow able to bypass being digested by the enzymes in our stomach.

I don't know the enzyme kinetics of it. Send the makers of Whey Low an email and ask them about it or the University of Maryland.

if you do not know don't post about it like if you do

And unless you do not produce the enzymes i cannot see your body not digesting the carbs