For context on the Mexican cola, US cola had sugar as well until the mid 1980s. The US sugar program restricts imports and keeps the domestic price for sugar high, which created a new market for milling corn into HFCS. HFCS is uniquely an American invention that's the result of massive government subsidies for corn and price support for sugar. If the government did not intervene in American sugar markets, cola would still be made with sugar imported from outside the United States.
And recent studies show HFCS alters the folds in your gut, lengthening them. This increased surface area significantly increases the amount of calories your intestines can extract from the same volume of food.
>The research, published August 18 in Nature, focused on the effect of a high-fructose diet on villi, the thin, hairlike structures that line the inside of the small intestine. Villi expand the surface area of the gut and help the body to absorb nutrients, including dietary fats, from food as it passes through the digestive tract. The study found that mice that were fed diets that included fructose had villi that were 25 percent to 40 percent longer than those of mice that were not fed fructose. Additionally, the increase in villus length was associated with increased nutrient absorption, weight gain and fat accumulation in the animals.[0]
Worth noting that the "in mice" qualifier might be particularly apropos here.
>According to Taylor, the observations in mice make sense from an evolutionary perspective. "In mammals, especially hibernating mammals in temperate climates, you have fructose being very available in the fall months when the fruit is ripe," he said. "Eating a lot of fructose may help these animals to absorb and convert more nutrients to fat, which they need to get through the winter."
How many people actually read those warnings? See logo, buy product, consume product. Much like those mandated warnings on tobacco. Guy looks at pack 1 with a warning "May cause cancer", puts it back. Guy looks at pack 2 with a warning "May cause birth defects". Guy decides that's now his brand. (appologies to Bill Hicks)
In the UK we get 'candy' imports that are saturated with azo-dyes, they are not banned, they just have a warning on the packet, yup, a warning on the packet that says 'may cause hyperactivity', when I've drawn other parents attention, either they have never noticed it, or dismiss it as a sugar high, https://hacsg.org.uk/artificial-food-colourings-and-adhd-hyp...
"Azo dyes are used widely as color additives in food, drugs, and cosmetics; hence, there is an increasing concern about their safety and possible health hazards. In the present study, we chose 4 azo dyes tartrazine, Sunset Yellow, amaranth, and Allura red and evaluated their developmental toxicity on zebrafish embryos. At concentration levels of 5 to 50 mM, we found that azo dyes can induce hatching difficulty and developmental abnormalities such as cardiac edema, decreased heart rate, yolk sac edema, and spinal defects including spinal curvature and tail distortion. Exposure to 100 mM of each azo dye was completely embryolethal. The median lethal concentration (LC50), median effective concentration (EC50), and teratogenic index (TI) were calculated for each azo dye at 72 hours postfertilization. For tartrazine, the LC50 was 47.10 mM and EC50 value was at 42.66 mM with TI ratio of 1.10. For Sunset Yellow, the LC50 was 38.93 mM and EC50 value was at 29.81 mM with TI ratio of 1.31. For amaranth, the LC50 was 39.86 mM and EC50 value was at 31.94 mM with TI ratio of 1.25. For Allura red, the LC50 was 47.42 mM and EC50 value was 40.05 mM with TI ratio of 1.18. This study reports the developmental toxicity of azo dyes in zebrafish embryos at concentrations higher than the expected human exposures from consuming food and drugs containing azo dyes."
"Synthetic azo dyes are widely used in industries. Gerhardt Domagk discovered that the antimicrobial effect of red azo dye Prontosil was caused by the reductively cleaved (azo reduction) product sulfanilamide. The significance of azo reduction is thus revealed. Azo reduction can be accomplished by human intestinal microflora, skin microflora, environmental microorganisms, to a lesser extent by human liver azoreductase, and by nonbiological means. Some azo dyes can be carcinogenic without being cleaved into aromatic amines. However, the carcinogenicity of many azo dyes is due to their cleaved product such as benzidine. Benzidine induces various human and animal tumors. Another azo dye component, p-phenylenediamine, is a contact allergen. Many azo dyes and their reductively cleaved products as well as chemically related aromatic amines are reported to affect human health, causing allergies and other human maladies."
"Approximately 0.7 million tons of azo dyes are synthesized each year. Azo dyes are composed of one or more R₁-N=N-R₂ linkages. Studies have shown that both mammalian and microbial azoreductases cleave the azo bonds of the dyes to form compounds that are potentially genotoxic. The human gastrointestinal tract harbors a diverse microbiota comprised of at least several thousand species. Both water-soluble and water-insoluble azo dyes can be reduced by intestinal bacteria. Some of the metabolites produced by intestinal microbiota have been shown to be carcinogenic to humans although the parent azo dyes may not be classified as being carcinogenic. Azoreductase activity is commonly found in intestinal bacteria. Three types of azoreductases have been characterized in bacteria. They are flavin dependent NADH preferred azoreductase, flavin dependent NADPH preferred azoreductase, and flavin free NADPH preferred azoreductase. This review highlights how azo dyes are metabolized by intestinal bacteria, mechanisms of azo reduction, and the potential contribution in the carcinogenesis/mutagenesis of the reduction of the azo dyes by intestinal microbiota."
Okay, so the first study is 5-50 millimolar. And these dyes weigh about 500 grams per mol, so those are about 2.5 to 5 grams per liter. That seems like a very large amount and I'm not sure how relevant this is to normal food use.
The second one talks about allergens, noted though not particularly relevant, and does this have amounts anywhere?
And the third one seems to be mentioning other mechanisms to get the same effects, but is not classifying the actual danger levels based on dose? Interesting but it's not helping me figure out if the additives are safe in small amounts.
Jan-Feb 1982;
'Sulfanilic acid: behavioral change related to azo food dyes in developing rats'
'While our work suggests a significant effect of azo food dyes on the developing rat central nervous system, species differences in parameters such as absorption, metabolism, and blood-brain barrier properties do not permit any extrapolation of these observations to proposed effects in children.'
But now we know the blood-brain barrier imagined in 1982 was not accurate so...
Then from Aug 18, 2021
'The FDA says they’re safe in moderation. But some experts say their guidelines are outdated and need changes to account for the possibility that dyes affect children's brains and behaviour'
The jury is still out, hopefully continuous array's together with fast and high resolution non-invasive brain scans will be able to revisit all this stuff I'd imagine?
With regards the quantity and effect quandary 'Threshold effects can be felt with as little as 25 micrograms of LSD' so who knows.
Finally it's a petrochemical derivative, just mentioning that, here, at the bottom.
"Similar term(s): genotoxicity. Definition: Toxic (damaging) to DNA. Substances that are genotoxic may bind directly to DNA or act indirectly leading to DNA damage by affecting enzymes involved in DNA replication, thereby causing mutations which may or may not lead to cancer or birth defects (inheritable damage)."
Kind of tangential to the article but regarding phosphoric acid and its use as anti-nausea, is this why bubbly white sodas are a household cure for upset stomachs? This was a go-to for my family in the US as a kid when I had a stomach flu (saltines and 7-up), and i guess it was pretty common
A long time ago all colas were sold as medicine. I suspect that giving kids with a upset stomach cola is a faint cultural echo of those times, with each parent teaching their kids that soda is a cure for upset stomachs even though they took out the cocaine that might do something a century ago. Interestingly in my house the drink used for this was ginger ale.
That being said, the placebo effect is strong. When I was a little kid, I was only allowed to move from bed to the couch once I’d turned the corner on my illness but wasn’t yet ready to go back to school. To this day I move to the couch when sick, and it makes me feel better even though the only plausible mechanism is my own head. I bet a lot of colas given for upset stomachs are in the same category.
Are you sure about that? What do you consider the common brands? The one that most immediately comes to mind for me is Canada Dry, which does contain ginger extract.
Out of curiosity I checked, and Canada Dry is about 2% ginger extract. I’m not sure what the ideal percentage of ginger should be, but that seems kind of low. Given that they’ve been sued over this before, I suspect that this might be just enough extract to cover their behinds.
My go to brand, Seagram’s, contains “natural flavors”. Content and concentration unspecified.
The ginger extract is in the "less than 2% of" category. I found this:
"They do buy actual ginger, but then what they do is they boil it in ethanol, and that essentially destroys any nutritional or medicinal benefits," Mark Canofari said, adding that Canada Dry uses a ginger concentrate. "One drop fills 70 cans [...] and a drop is .05 ml. So that's how little, even of the concentrate, is actually in one drink."
thats why i brew my own lacto fermented ginger beer/ale from scratch. the flavor is way better than anything in the store. I particularly like brewing ginger ale/ginger beers with molasses. it taste like gingersnaps.
As a kid in the 70's growing up in Scotland we were given Lucozade (long before the "energy drink" fad) and quite often Ferguzade (a similar product but made in Scotland) when we were ill. Both had pretty odd tastes back then, almost salty if I remember.
I don't remember Lucozade being anything _but_ a drink for recovery from illness. (Remember the yellow cellophane wrapped bottles?!) I have no idea how it attained this reputation.
These days, Lucozade Sport (in multiple flavours) has taken over, but being "isotonic", presumably has various salts.
Same here (as a kid growing up in the 80s) - it was always a drink for when you were ill. Lucozade also had a reputation as being even more sugary than other fizzy drinks. I'm sure it was even marketed back then as an 'energy' drink.
I see that nowdays even the sugar-free lucozade is advertised as an energy drink, I'm not sure quite how that works, though!
7-up is lemon/lime flavored, easy to digest, and colorless so it doesn't stain when you spill it or throw it up again. I don't know whether its acidity or carbonation help, though lemons and limes are also anti-nausea remedies (limes are also delicious and prevent scurvy!)
However, in my experience Coke/Pepsi (phosphoric acid) and ginger beer/ale (ginger extract) may work better as anti-nausea medicines.
Canada Dry was sued for their Ginger Ale not containing "real ginger" (as per the label), but I think it still contains something like ginger extract. The anti-nausea effects may be one reason airlines serve ginger ale as an in-flight beverage.
Maybe Emetrol is placebo, but it has worked for me in the past on a couple of occasions. This included 8 hours of vomiting no mater how hard I willed it to stop or other remedies I tried, and it didn't work on the first dose. It didn't seem like placebo to me, but I am grateful it worked either way.
One thing to note that isn't in the article, is that concentration can matter, so comparing one can to a 30ml dose of medication might not be a great comparison (although this still supports for the author's position that phosphoric acid is not added to cola to prevent vomiting).
Is the placebo effect applicable in infants? I would think that infants would not be capable of the understanding that something will make them better, and thus placebo wouldn't apply to them. Unfortunately this paper is pay-walled so we dont have details about the methods used, but the summary seems relevant.
I think we are thinking of different things. Continuously vomiting every 5-15 minutes for 8 hours to the point of just green bile coming up is pretty serious (dehydration is a huge concern), in my opinion. This sort of vomiting seems to be an uncontrollable involuntary response.
I generally agree. The secondary (and more interesting) question is whether placebo effect is applicable to infants. Based on the theory of how placebo works, it seems it might not be. It seems there are no studies on that. At least I couldn't find any.
Placebo mostly just means "good effect unrelated to intended treatment (active substance, surgical procedure etc)". That can include psychological effects of treatment (such as in pain management, depression, heart rate and blood pressure, and a handful of others).
More commonly though, the placebo effect is just natural progression of the disease, errors in data collection (such as patients trying to be helpful and confirming that vague symptoms have somewhat improved), or errors in data analysis (such as lab techs thinking they've seen something in the sample that they expected to see there).
The psychological effects may or may not apply to infants - that's a somewhat separate question. The other effects definitely do - it's perfectly plausible that a lab tech looking for an improvement in an infant's blood sample after treatment "finds" it.
I would consider those other effects to be bias, controlled via some other mechanism like a study being double blind. For example, lab techs shouldn't even know whose sample they're testing, let alone that patient's treatment, whether they're involved in a study, or the expected outcome.
So I do agree these other effects exist, but I don't think they exist under the classification of placebo effect. It's possible one of these is at play in this study.
Yes, whatever the duration, you'll eventually stop vomiting some time after taking the medicine. Sometimes by chance it will seem like a remarkably short time from medicine to cure compared to the duration of the sickness. This is how a lot of ineffective traditional medicines "work". For a cold or nausea, nearly everyone will experience their problem fixing itself after taking the medicine and combined with cultural beliefs, use that to convince themselves that the medicine treated the disease. Just look at the number of people online who credit some (real) medicine with some outcome despite the fact that they have no way of knowing causation. Or young people who say "I don't drink FooBar type of alcohol because it makes me vomit." after one occasion getting plastered and ending up vomiting. It's good old mind-tricks of correlation vs causation.
There's a reason real medicine requires preregistered double blind trials. It's just far too easy to get causation wrong without using rigorous scientific methods.
"Yes, whatever the duration, you'll eventually stop vomiting some time after taking the medicine."
That's a gross oversimplification. You could continue to vomit. You could also die. There are multiple types/causes for vomiting. Not all vomiting simply stops on it's own.
"It's good old mind-tricks of correlation vs causation."
I'd say this is more than just mind tricks. The study shows there's a strong correlation and evident effects, which suggests studies should be done on the cause.
"There's a reason real medicine requires preregistered double blind trials."
Or in this case a grandfathered status (it is a "real" medicine as it is approved for sale). I also think this is, again, only a half truth. Double blind studies tend to provide the strongest evidence, but they are not the only kind of study accepted for drug approval.
Mostly vomiting stops on its own and people don't die. Even when someone dies, it won't break the beliefs of survivors because they don't believe it works 100% of the time anyway. In your case, you even took an ineffective dose of Emetrol but still believed in its effectiveness despite that! How many ineffective doses would it take for you to not credit Emertol with stopping the vomiting?
If there's a scientific study, that might show something better than the giant fail-fest of cultural medical knowledge. I don't know of any human society that hasn't at least historically had a bunch of ineffective medicine that was widely used. Even modern western society probably has some - such as this Emetrol perhaps or wrong results of drug trials. An extreme case is China where normal doctors in hospitals routinely prescribe herbal remedies alongside conventional medicine.
That's interesting. Yeah, I couldn't find anything about it for infants.
I wouldn't put too much stock in this study you linked. It's a meta analysis of other studies. These other studies were not designed to test placebo effect. The P value also seems quite large to me (.17). Seems to me like any benefit may have been the conventional drugs they were on...
"In each study, the treatment group received the experimental therapeutic intervention in addition to conventional antiepileptic drug treatment, and the control group received a matching placebo in addition to conventional antiepileptic drug treatment."
I thought they were going to mention the "new coke" conspiracy theory which states that coke ditched the old flavor for a new one in 1985 and then changed it back later but this time with corn syrup instead of sugar in just enough time for people to forget what exactly it tasted like before and not complain about the change.
As part of my undergrad statistics course on experimental design I tested this very hypothesis among about 60 students and found no significant difference in preference between cola poured from plastic, canned, or glass bottles.
Still, there’s nothing better to me than a cold glass bottle if I had to drink soda.
There must be a perception-over-time element to this. Fresh from the container, there's probably not much difference, but the size of the container, whether it's re-closable, how well it conducts heat, how fast the individual drinks, etc must have an affect on overall perception of quality/tastiness.
I'm wondering at what point quality is "sampled." There's the first sip ... and then the last. Maybe overall perception is tied more strongly to the last sip?
I notice it and I always thougut it is a combination conduction related coldness (making you feel it as colder at very least) plus small package size meaning it is "fully carbonated" as opposed to plastic bottle screw on.
I don't think so. Bottles impart a small amount of flavor that's almost imperceptible to most people except for warm bottled water. Canned water exists but is a little unusual, that liquid death company with the energy drink looking cans is the only one I could find around here easily. The few times I've had it I wasn't able to detect any plastic flavor, even when warm. My guess is the lining is way more inert than the bottle, or that because the aluminum is blocking light, there's no ability for photodegradation of the liner to happen.
I used to drink cubes of Pepsi per week...like over 20 years ago. My explanation is that it contains aluminum ions (or some other chemical hint) from the tearing of the tab. This is why it tastes better on the earlier sips. If you leave soda out and it gets flat, the small difference is still there for at least half the can. Ultimately, since aluminum is a neurotoxin, it's probably very bad for you over time.
Definitely tastes better in a glass. Canned and 2 liter seem more carbonated to me than glass or smaller plastic bottles, so maybe decanting/decarbonating helps a bit.
I sort of agree with their comments that they feel like cans have “more bite”. I think that’s what I’ve noticed too. As if the cans have larger bubbles or something. Plastic bottles always seemed “smoother” to me like they had lots of really small bubbles.
Cola in a plastic bottle seems to go flat faster, but maybe that's because it's often a larger size (20oz vs 16 or 12oz)? Or maybe with a can you feel compelled to drink it more quickly because you can't re-close it?
The test in the video doesn't seem valid because they didn't cleanse their palates in between drinks, and drinking one after the other would likely affect the taste somewhat. They're also influencing each other's decisions.
I’d say conspiracy theories are just urban legends but with the qualification that the antagonist is a large, powerful, and malicious organization, either a real or fictional.
Fanta & other non-colas do contain citric acid, however, as mentioned under fact #4. If willing, one could simply try the sugar water experiment explained in that same section.
I don't drink soda, so I am not willing, but I am interested as to whether I could just use any food-type acid mixed in water to ease stomach discomfort and dodge this whole sugar/hfcs/fructose/sucrose question entirely.
Good article, but I'm skeptical of the point raised in the "P.S." section (which leads me to doubt some of the other points in the article):
> aspartame has basically zero negative effects ...diet cola is much safer than real cola.
I won't argue that sugar isn't bad for you, but I don't think the science (and my own observation) agrees that diet cola - specifically aspartame - is "much safer" or somehow healthier. The linked WebMD page mentions this:
> The study found that consuming a low-calorie sweetener was not, by itself responsible for slowing metabolism. However, when combined with other carbohydrates, or fats, the consumption of the non-sucrose sweetener did lead to a significant drop in metabolic rate.
We don't generally ingest things in isolation, so you have to account for what an ingredient does in the context of an average diet accompanying the ingredient, and in that sense, aspartame absolutely does have significant negative effects. Those effects may or may not be worse than real sugar, but after the whole switch from "margarine is a healthier butter substitute" to "turns out margarine might be worse for you than butter" (and other similar upended dietary advice), I'm personally included to prefer sugar - in moderation - over sugar substitutes.
And that's another problem with sugar substitutes: claims that they have no negative effects encourage people to consume "diet" products in very high amounts - often more than the products they replace, so you're no longer comparing equal amounts of the substances. For me, drinking a sugary soda is an infrequent, deliberate decision - one I don't take lightly. There's a guilt that comes with it, but I think that's a good thing to make me think twice. But I also see people drinking diet soda all day, every day, thinking there are essentially no negative consequences (when there obviously are).
The article’s claims of non sugar sweetened soda being healthier than sugary sweetened seems to be a fair claim.
> For me, drinking a sugary soda is an infrequent, deliberate decision - one I don't take lightly. There's a guilt that comes with it, but I think that's a good thing to make me think twice. But I also see people drinking diet soda all day, every day, thinking there are essentially no negative consequences (when there obviously are).
I notice people eating excess sugar and carbs all day. Even without drinking a sugar sweetened soda, more people are consuming excess sugar and carbs. Therefore sugar sweetened soda is still worse than non sugar sweetened soda.
But that’s neither here nor there when comparing the consumption of just sugar sweetened and non sugar sweetened soda.
You can use Coca Cola for jail breaks: see this article about a recent jail break in Israel, where the inmates used cola to get through eight inches of concrete floors. So much for the acids that they put into this 'soft drink'...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/captured-fugitives-from-gilboa...
Acids are certainly bad for teeth, but is it bad for anything else? I imagine stomach acid is more powerful than any soft drink and the drink ends up there a second after being swallowed. Is there any risk of downstream harm from food acids?
Your stomach pH is consistently monitored and buffered by the feedback mechanisms in your body. Depending on your sensitivities, infusing a large amount of acidity all at once can absolutely cause stomach issues.
Coca-colas have a pH of 2.4 to 3 [1]. Stomach acid's pH is 1.5 to 3.5 [2]. So coca-cola has acidity that is very close to that of stomach acid. Water's pH is around 7. I am no doctor, but wouldn't that suggest that drinking water will unbalance stomach's acidity worse than coca-cola will?
Yes, but you are still adding a significant amount of acid to the stomach, way more than is supposed to be there. If your body can't neutralize the extra acid fast enough (to pass to the S. Intestine for adsorption) then you are either going to have a stomach ache, acid reflux or you may vomit. That's why people take chalky antacids to deal with an overly acidic stomach - your body naturally produces bicarbonate to do that, Tums provides a larger dose.
No, it just means our body knows very well how to regulate less acidic stuff coming in, all day, everyday. One can expect in that case that digestive system is not perfectly balanced around ph of stomach in both directions, but rather overequipped for the most common case, and underequipped for the opposite.
From what i understand they may as well have used power tools to break through. This prison break highlighted the almost unbelievable incompetency of the Israeli Prison service. I wouldn't be shocked if this coke story is just a lie to divert attention from the ineptitude of the prison guards. After all, who would expect coke would be used in a breakout attempt?
Ginger is also anti-nausea, but I eat it with sushi just because it tastes good.
From their study link:
>And, the reason most people say that they prefer Mexican Coke is that it contains real cane sugar instead of corn syrup. But according to this Time article, a study done by Obesity journal found that Mexican Coke did not contain sucrose
What does this mean? Last I looked many years ago, Mexican coke has two formulations you can notice *just by looking at the ingredients*: sugar or corn syrup. Did they not look? Did they not trust it?
The taste difference is noticable, because less-refined cane sugar is very tasty.
I must say that I find the word “conspiracy theory” to have rather odd usage in common parlance that does not seem to have much to do with conspiracies but I'm not sure what the actual definition is either.
If anything, perhaps it's actual semantics are little more than “allegations of wrongdoing the speaker considers to be false”.
A conspiracy requires a crime. Poisoning millions of people should maybe be a crime, but it manifestly is not today, as numerous soda company executives move about freely, just as paint executives did and tobacco executives still do.
Killing a dozen people by shooting up a bus station is national news. Killing millions, year in and year out, slowly enough, is just business.
That's a needlessly specific definition for "conspiracy" in common usage, and it's wrong. A conspiracy is a secret plot by more than one person to do something that the speaker (and presumably listener) considers nefarious. Whether that nefarious thing is illegal or not doesn't enter into it, unless you're looking at the specific legal term 'conspiracy to [...]'.
Great piece. This starts out talking about a silly conspiracy theory, and after solving that, causes me to question a few things I have believed about sugar/hfcs/coke.
Pretty much all sweet drinks, including natural juices, have approx 10% sugar(s) in it. Pretty cool fact that there's a universal sweet spot for sugar (pun!).
Thus, all are slow poison. Fruits in nature have enough fiber to slow absorption long enough that intestinal bacteria get most of it. Stripping necessary fiber out of food and discading it is the major task of the food industry.
When I used to be able to get Kosher for Passover sugar sweetened Coke, I absolutely could tell the difference - did multiple blind tests. It's possible the sucrose hasn't had time to fully break down in recently bottled Coke. The other theory wrt taste differences is the chemicals used in extracting HFCS leave a small but non-negligible taste.
Interestingly, my go-to hangover/nausea remedy has always been Coca Cola. I had no idea that OTC anti-nausea medication also contains phosphoric acid, or that it was even an antiemetic (or not, as it seems).
I've always put it down to the fact that Coca Cola is very effective at washing out the taste of vomit.
Being Scottish, Barr's Irn Bru (full fat) was my go-to as a pick-me-up after a night on the sauce. Sadly now ruined by artificial sweeteners replacing some of the sugar due to government sugar taxes on pop.
Ah I haven't had Irn Bru in ages. I used to find it at some supermarkets in the US, but I haven't seen it in around a decade. Sad to hear they've changed the recipe.
Sadly it's not just Irn Bru they ruined. Many soft drinks now taste completely off because of the sugar tax thing here. Another favourite treat was "Old Jamaica Ginger Beer" and that's now undrinkable. Sad days for those of us who enjoyed these things as an occasional pleasure and not as part of our daily diet.
Dynm, i can tell the difference between hfcs and non-hfcs soda. I get blockage near the vocal cords about 5 - 15 minutes after consuming it, so there's definitely something worse than sugar about it.
Sounds like allergy. (I am not a physician. This is not medical advice.)
Difference in trace constituents, triggering allergy, is completely plausible. But either way, it is the fructose identical in both that is actually poisoning you.
I am indeed, i know allergies vs non-allergies. Consider the reactions people have to fried food. You would bin that all under allergies with your logic.
Allergy is defined as an anomalous auto-immune reaction to an introduced substance. Indigestion from a common foodstuff is a good candidate. You would of course need a medical examination to reliably determine that your particular intolerance is allergy. But that's the way to bet.
You miss "anomalous". I.e., it does not happen to almost all other people who eat identically the same stuff. Indigestion and diarrhea are common responses to dietary allergens. Thus, onions make my sinuses bleed and cause indigestion.
All the human waste gets specifically concentrated for treatment, usually; so presumably they'd be mitigating larger levels at that point. I'd assume. My experience in that field ends at leech fields and septic lagoons.
There is nothing harmless about liquid fructose, or liquid sugar (which is half fructose).
The people who know the most about fructose blame it for the huge public health crisis that the US (and UK, Pakistan, India, and some other countries) are suffering, manifested as insulin resistance and type #2 diabetes, "metabolic syndrome". It kills way more than COVID.
Specifically: fructose is mostly processed only by the liver. (The liver's main job is neutralizing toxins.) Excess fructose is processed on the same metabolic pathways as alcohol, a major toxin. Large amounts of fructose are turned into fat and stored in the liver, like alcohol, and generate uric acid, which causes gout and numerous other problems, like alcohol. (Your kidneys work to try to clear uric acid, but the spikes are harmful.) Today, American children are getting cirrhosis, like alcoholics.
Taken with enough fiber, fructose absorption is delayed long enough that gut bacteria get most of it, instead, where it causes them no problem. Fruits have fructose and fiber, but juice and soda have no fiber. Fructose without enough fiber is slow poison.
A good place to start learning about fructose metabolism is Robert Lustig vids on youtube. (I watch them at 1.5x-2x speed with subtitles, to save time.) Or read his books. Lustig is a respected endocrinologist.
They are the same, metabolically. It is a fact that UK, India, and Pakistan are also suffering from epidemic levels of metabolic syndrome, traceable to sugar. The US suffers worst because sugar is massively subsidized in the US.
The notion that sugar is less harmful than fructose corn syrup is sugar company propaganda. Both are identically harmful. As noted in TFA, sucrose gets split into fructose and glucose before it gets into the can.
>fructose absorption is delayed long enough that gut bacteria get most of it
Have a reference for this? Seems implausible, bacterial fermentation of any sugar in the intestines should result in distress, i.e. the same symptoms a lactose intolerant person would have upon drinking milk.
Uhh... sure. If you don't want to call it fermentation that's ok. Though I don't imagine human gut bacteria are respirating, or some other more exotic form of metabolism.
Point is, the products of bacterial metabolism of sugar in the human gut tend to cause issues, as in lactose intolerance, or the more rare sucrose intolerance. Hence my request for a citation on fibre delaying absorption of fructose so that "bacteria get most of it".
"Raw material for growth" means actually using the carbons to make the molecules that the daughter cells are made out of. So, not fermenting, and not respiring either.
I am only passing on what Robert Lustig, who is in a position to know, reports. You would have to ask him.
How do you imagine the carbon makes it from the sugar and into the components of new/larger cells? Magic? It has to be metabolized first. In the gut, mostly through fermentation.
I don't know about the rest of this, but fructose cannot be turned into uric acid. Uric acid is a nitrogen compound and there is no nitrogen in fructose.
> Fructose is known to induce uric acid production by increasing ATP degradation to AMP, a uric acid precursor (85, 93, 94) and thus, within minutes after fructose infusion, serum uric acid levels rise (94).
COVID is not, unlike fructose, a known contributor to both cancer and circulatory disease[1]. To compare fructose to heart disease would be to compare fructose to one of the ways it kills.
Car accidents are not seen as a current public health emergency meriting massive interventions; and anyway cause way too few deaths to make a meaningful comparison.
What warning? About phenylalanine? That only applies to people with a specific dysfunction; phenylalanine is found in lots of food like meat or cheese or beans.
