[HN Gopher] Two conspiracy theories about cola
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Two conspiracy theories about cola
        
       Author : dynm
       Score  : 101 points
       Date   : 2021-10-24 15:18 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (dynomight.net)
 (TXT) w3m dump (dynomight.net)
        
       | ab3rC1te wrote:
       | Coke Cola use to be based off cocaine. Like playing Red Dead
       | Redemption with the tonic drink mixes back in the day. Was based
       | off herbial and natural ingredients, compared to today's standard
       | of processed and further processed refinement. I'd rather have
       | the damn cocaine to keep me addictive to a drink instead of all
       | the bullshit that's processed into a cola drink now a days. You
       | open one up and it can't stay fizzy no more then 20 mins. Which
       | in reality all soda drinks are root causes of modern day
       | deseases.
        
       | littlestymaar wrote:
       | > conspiracy theories
       | 
       | Aren't those "urban legends" more than conspiracy theories? (Non-
       | native English speaker here)
        
         | hairofadog wrote:
         | 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.
        
       | H8crilA wrote:
       | 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!).
        
         | ncmncm wrote:
         | 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.
         | 
         | Juice is wholly as bad as Coke.
        
       | curiousgeorgio wrote:
       | 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).
        
       | nemo44x wrote:
       | Is it just me or does soda taste better out of a can than out of
       | a plastic bottle?
       | 
       | I've felt this for many years and have even tested by pouring
       | into glasses. I like the can one better.
       | 
       | Is this just me?
        
         | Supermancho wrote:
         | 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.
         | 
         | Fountain soda is noticeably different.
        
         | jwilber wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | saila wrote:
           | 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?
        
         | guilhas wrote:
         | I find that true comparing with the individual soda bottles,
         | but the big litter bottles taste way better than both
        
         | Nasrudith wrote:
         | 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.
        
         | bluedino wrote:
         | Highly scientific test:
         | 
         | https://youtu.be/Hzat3Sv1Vwg
        
           | nemo44x wrote:
           | 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.
        
             | saila wrote:
             | 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.
        
             | bluedino wrote:
             | I rate them glass > fountain > can > plastic
        
         | joecool1029 wrote:
         | >Is this just me?
         | 
         | 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.
        
       | giantg2 wrote:
       | 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.
       | 
       | https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(51)80084-2/pdf
        
         | silviot wrote:
         | Apparently placebo works even with dogs:
         | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19912522/ Given that I would
         | not find surprising if it worked for infants too
        
           | giantg2 wrote:
           | 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."
        
         | ushakov wrote:
         | > Unfortunately this paper is pay-walled
         | 
         | not when you use sci-hub
         | 
         | https://sci.bban.top/pdf/10.1016/s0022-3476%252851%252980084...
        
         | jrmg wrote:
         | _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 seems very plausible that after 8 hours vomiting would stop
         | without intervention.
        
           | giantg2 wrote:
           | Why? One could say that about any duration, right?
        
             | exporectomy wrote:
             | 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.
        
             | jrmg wrote:
             | Totally. And it would be more probable as time goes on,
             | since you couldn't really go on vomiting for ever (unless
             | the illness was way more serious!)
             | 
             | 8 hours seems pretty 'normal' from the few times I've been
             | ill like this though - would basically feel like 'most of a
             | day' or 'most of a night'.
        
               | giantg2 wrote:
               | 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.
        
             | daveguy wrote:
             | Yes. You would have to have a placebo controlled test to
             | confirm placebo vs "just happens to last 8 hours". This is
             | what placebo controls are for.
        
               | giantg2 wrote:
               | 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.
        
               | tsimionescu wrote:
               | 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.
        
               | giantg2 wrote:
               | 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.
        
       | Blikkentrekker wrote:
       | Neither of which involve an alleged conspiracy.
       | 
       | 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".
        
         | ncmncm wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | tsimionescu wrote:
           | 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 [...]'.
        
             | ncmncm wrote:
             | There is anyway nothing secret about the amount of sugar is
             | sodas.
        
           | xboxnolifes wrote:
           | Pretty sure conspiracy only implies harm, not crime.
           | Otherwise "criminal conspiracy" is pretty redundant.
        
       | inpdx wrote:
       | 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.
        
       | pirate787 wrote:
       | 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.
        
         | bluedino wrote:
         | Unlike the USA, Mexico has warnings on their Coke and Pepsi,
         | about excess calories and how it is not meant for children.
        
           | short12 wrote:
           | Those warnings sure worked considering childhood obesity of
           | mexico
        
             | dylan604 wrote:
             | 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)
        
               | tudorw wrote:
               | 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...
        
               | [deleted]
        
         | zionic wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | sdfsdghk wrote:
           | Thanks for the tip. I'll be adding more Coke products to my
           | survival shelter.
        
           | adamiscool8 wrote:
           | In case anyone else is curious about this:
           | 
           | >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]
           | 
           | [0] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/08/21081813521
           | 8.h...
        
             | phonypc wrote:
             | 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.""_
             | 
             | Humans generally don't hibernate.
        
         | throw63738 wrote:
         | Everyone argues about sugar, but the true original is in Peru
         | :)
        
         | dghughes wrote:
         | Canada has no such requirements but even so we still get stuck
         | with pop sweetened with HFCS.
        
           | smegger001 wrote:
           | because many corps look at Canada as a just another smaller
           | less profitable part of the US market and simply swap Spanish
           | print for French.
        
       | antonzabirko wrote:
       | 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.
        
         | ncmncm wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | antonzabirko wrote:
           | Nah, more like I can feel the side effects of hfcs more
           | easily. I can still eat it and be fine, just have that plus a
           | bit of indigestion.
        
             | ncmncm wrote:
             | Apparently you are not aware of the wide range of allergic
             | effects.
             | 
             | For myself, I get tiny blisters on the backs of my hands
             | and neck from cranberries. And, onions make my sinuses
             | bleed. Indigestion is more common.
        
               | antonzabirko wrote:
               | 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.
        
               | ncmncm wrote:
               | 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.
        
               | antonzabirko wrote:
               | Definitely not the way to bet since most reactions to
               | food are not allergic in nature. Gut reactions _should_
               | constitute the majority.
        
               | ncmncm wrote:
               | 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.
        
       | gfosco wrote:
       | 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.
        
         | ncmncm wrote:
         | It utterly fails to note the massive public health crisis
         | caused by fructose unmoderated by dietary fiber.
        
         | kafkaIncarnate wrote:
         | All this information is just taking the fun out of life.
         | 
         | /me cracks open a Mexican Coke.
        
       | toomanybeersies wrote:
       | 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.
        
         | teh_klev wrote:
         | 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.
        
         | bluedino wrote:
         | Coke slurpees and greasy pizza from the gas station got me
         | through a lot of mornings after I had been out drinking
        
       | ryanmarsh wrote:
       | Okay but Saudi Arabian Pepsi tastes better than American Pepsi
       | and you can't convince me otherwise.
        
       | csydas wrote:
       | 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
        
         | ashtonkem wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
           | Ginger actually does have noted positive effects on nausea
           | and stomach upset, so ginger ale could presumably help.
        
             | AuryGlenz wrote:
             | The common ginger ale brands contain no ginger.
        
         | aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
         | 7-up doesn't contain phosphoric acid.
        
           | jay3ss wrote:
           | Neither does Sprite
        
         | djbusby wrote:
         | Saltines for substance, 7-up for sugar and bubbles. Easy
         | filler, energy and helps you burp out the bad feels.
        
         | teh_klev wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | scoot wrote:
           | 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.
        
             | joosters wrote:
             | 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!
        
       | h2odragon wrote:
       | I wonder how much phosphorus in the wastewater stream can be laid
       | at the root cause of soft drinks instead of the fertilizers
       | usually blamed.
        
         | toomanybeersies wrote:
         | If I drank a can of Coke every day, that would equate to 21 g
         | of phosphorus.
         | 
         | Grain fields get fertilised with around 250 kg/ha of
         | superphosphate, which contains 20 kg of phosphorus.
        
           | h2odragon wrote:
           | 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.
        
       | readflaggedcomm wrote:
       | 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.
        
       | MichaelMoser123 wrote:
       | 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...
       | 
       | https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/3222116/palestinian-...
        
         | smnrchrds wrote:
         | 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?
        
           | arrosenberg wrote:
           | 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.
        
             | smnrchrds wrote:
             | 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?
             | 
             | [1] https://www.ada.org/en/~/media/ADA/Public%20Programs/Fi
             | les/J...
             | 
             | [2] https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/003883.htm
        
               | arrosenberg wrote:
               | 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.
        
               | saiya-jin wrote:
               | 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.
        
               | likpok wrote:
               | Sure, but stomach acid is more acidic than soda.
        
               | joosters wrote:
               | The pH scale is exponential, so a pH of 2.4 compared to
               | 1.5 is roughly a tenth as acidic as the stomach's. Is
               | that 'close' ? I'm not sure.
        
           | djbusby wrote:
           | Heartburn and Acid-Reflux
        
             | Salgat wrote:
             | Mind you this only exacerbates already dysfunctional
             | stomachs. A normal healthy person can drink large amounts
             | of soda without causing acid reflux.
        
         | FridayoLeary wrote:
         | 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?
        
         | varjag wrote:
         | A number of natural juices (e.g. grapefruit) are more acidic
         | than Coca Cola, so that's not telling much.
        
           | lotsofpulp wrote:
           | There needs to be much greater emphasis on teaching physics
           | and chemistry in middle school and high school.
        
       | ncmncm wrote:
       | 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.
        
         | AnotherGoodName wrote:
         | >and UK, Pakistan, India, and some other countries
         | 
         | But isn't fructose pretty much only a US based sweetener due to
         | corn subsidies?
         | 
         | The rest of the world uses sugar in coke which is a better
         | mixture of sucrose and fructose.
        
           | ncmncm wrote:
           | 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.
        
         | vetinari wrote:
         | I think that the first who was talking about this was Gary
         | Taubes. His talks and books are worth a look.
        
           | ncmncm wrote:
           | Robert Lustig, as an endocrinologist specializing in liver
           | metabolism, is more immediately credible than Gary Taubes, a
           | journalist.
           | 
           | That Taubes's critics are wrong (e.g., in first paragraph of
           | his Wikipedia page) seems worth mentioning.
        
         | phonypc wrote:
         | >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.
        
           | ncmncm wrote:
           | Fermentation is not the principal pathway by which bacteria
           | process sugar. In particular, sugar is a key raw material for
           | growth, when available.
           | 
           | LMGTFY: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bacteria+sugar+pathway
        
             | phonypc wrote:
             | 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".
        
         | latchkey wrote:
         | I stopped reading after the covid mention.
         | 
         | [1]
         | https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Faulty-...
        
           | ncmncm wrote:
           | Death is death.
        
             | latchkey wrote:
             | Explain your reasoning for mentioning covid vs. car
             | accident, cancer or heart attack.
        
               | ncmncm wrote:
               | 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.
               | 
               | [1] Temporary myocardial inflammation notwithstanding
        
         | philipkglass wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | charbonneau2 wrote:
           | > 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).
           | 
           |  _The Epidemiology of Uric Acid and Fructose_ -
           | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3197219/
        
       | mooneater wrote:
       | Buffet openly brags about the anti vomiting effect. Saw this in a
       | talk he gave to Indian MBA students and I was shocked.
        
         | DerekL wrote:
         | Who's Buffet?
        
       | amelius wrote:
       | Wait, so if you're in a bar and about to vomit from having had
       | too many drinks, you should order a cola?
        
       | LinAGKar wrote:
       | >Mexican Coke contains sugar rather than high-fructose corn syrup
       | 
       | You mean US coke contains HFCS rather than sugar? Because it uses
       | regular sugar in most of the world. The USA is the outlier here,
       | not Mexico.
        
         | muthdra wrote:
         | 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.
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | 323 wrote:
       | Fanta contains exactly as much sugar as Cola, yet it doesn't
       | contain phosphoric acid, nor does it cause people to throw up.
       | 
       | Q.E.D.
       | 
       | Also, the whole premise (sugar causing people to throw up) seems
       | a bit weird. Think about honey, cakes, ...
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | throw_away wrote:
         | 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.
        
       | guilhas wrote:
       | Conspiracy theories only cool to be discussed when it is a
       | completely irrelevant topic for people lives
        
       | transfire wrote:
       | Good analysis but the conclusion that people should drink diet
       | cola instead is terrible. For starters just read the warning on
       | the aide of the can.
        
         | likpok wrote:
         | 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.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-10-24 23:01 UTC)