Alan C. Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 What a can of Coca-Cola REALLY does to your body: Infographic reveals the effects the fizzy drink has in just an hour... from a 20-minute blood sugar spike to the 'crash' In The First 10 minutes: 10 teaspoons of sugar hit your system. (100 per cent of your recommended daily intake.) You don't immediately vomit from the overwhelming sweetness because phosphoric acid cuts the flavour allowing you to keep it down.20 minutes: Your blood sugar spikes, causing an insulin burst. Your liver responds to this by turning any sugar it can get its hands on into fat. (There's plenty of that at this particular moment).40 minutes: Caffeine absorption is complete. Your pupils dilate, your blood pressure rises, as a response your livers dumps more sugar into your bloodstream. The adenosine receptors in your brain are now blocked preventing drowsiness.45 minutes: Your body ups your dopamine production stimulating the pleasure centres of your brain. This is physically the same way heroin works, by the way.>60 minutes: The phosphoric acid binds calcium, magnesium and zinc in your lower intestine, providing a further boost in metabolism.This is compounded by high doses of sugar and artificial sweeteners also increasing the urinary excretion of calcium.>60 Minutes: The caffeine's diuretic properties come into play. (It makes you have to pee.)It is now assured that you'll evacuate the bonded calcium, magnesium and zinc that was headed to your bones as well as sodium, electrolyte and water.>60 minutes: As the rave inside of you dies down you'll start to have a sugar crash.You may become irritable and/or sluggish. You've also now, literally, urinated the water that was in the Coke.But not before infusing it with valuable nutrients your body could have used for things like even having the ability to hydrate your system or build strong bones and teeth. 2
A4E Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Do they have the Diet Pepsi version of this I have warned people about diet soda for many years. Aspartame is a horrid story on its own. It took quite some time to get aspartame approved for human consumption, most likely due to bribery. I highly advice anyone drinking diet soda to acquire information about all its effects. Recommended reading Link to more of the same Image from here Google search 1
shirgall Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 40mg of caffeine (typical can of soda) is not enough to make your pupils dilate.
Anuojat Posted August 2, 2015 Posted August 2, 2015 What a can of Coca-Cola REALLY does to your body: Infographic reveals the effects the fizzy drink has in just an hour... from a 20-minute blood sugar spike to the 'crash' ' I couldnt find the scuentific papers from the link you posted. Any idea where they could be Alan? I have warned people about diet soda for many years. Aspartame is a horrid story on its own. It took quite some time to get aspartame approved for human consumption, most likely due to bribery. I highly advice anyone drinking diet soda to acquire information about all its effects. Recommended reading Link to more of the same Image from here Google search I dont have disagreement with the picture sources seem legit (although american heart association seem to indicate the moderate drinking had no significant effect, only the daily drinking had) But about aspertime... and other sweetners. Any scientific papers on those? Since ive only seen acesylftime-k being dubious in term and health effects and other being fine as far as the research goes.
russoft Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 There's no credible research showing artificial sweeteners to be harmful. I've looked for it. Unless you're willing to believe suspect sources that anti-vaxxers also believe. One very recent study suggested artificial sweeteners are harmful to the gut bacteria that aid in digestion and this may lead to metabolic syndrome. The study was done with mice and is only a single study that has not yet been reproduced. If that research leads anywhere, then there may be a case to be made.
J-William Posted August 9, 2015 Posted August 9, 2015 Whoever made this infographic is my new hero forever!!! Kale shakes are the new Prius.
A4E Posted August 9, 2015 Posted August 9, 2015 There are various stories about using diet soda as ant poison. I tried it myself, mainly as an experiment because the ants did not bother me much, and I had long been wondering if it was true. I used pepsi max. I did not have access to the nest, so I put some things near one of the trails going down the wall to a bench. I put one pure puddle, and one soaked toilet paper, and one soaked toilet paper mixed with regular coke, because I had read that you would likely need to mix it with something. Nothing happened for a couple of hours, but then later they had made a trail to the mixed one. I let it go for a while, but did not want to have a big trail going to my bench, so I stopped it. The pure puddle just dried up with a few ants who got stuck in it. and the soaked non mixed one was left alone. As I checked up on the situation, I noticed some ants were moving slower than the rest, and some others were carrying other ants. The next day, something strange and frightening had happened. The trail that went down the wall was entirely gone, and there were a significant amount of dead ants littered in a random pattern over my stuff. Around 100 maybe, like someone had hand picked each ant and placed them down carefully. Really freaky. I was wondering if I had killed the entire colony, but they came back after about 5 days. Anyone else tried it? If so I really want to hear it. I saw on internet today that diet coke might have baking soda, which would kill ants. But on the ingredients for pepsi max, there should not be any baking soda, unless its under another name.
st434u Posted August 9, 2015 Posted August 9, 2015 It may be the caffeine that killed the ants. I hear they put double the amount of caffeine in diet coke as in regular coke. And caffeine is an insecticide.
neeeel Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 I don't really know about the coke question, but I do know that when some ants die, the other ants will clean up their bodies. I had a bunch of dead ants on my countertop after I sprayed them with vinegar, and a live one came along to drag all the bodies to the edge of the countertop, and threw them over. I got it on video, it was really funny. So that may have been why they seemed to be in strange places that you didn't expect. Maybe off topic, but I would really like to see that video! Dont suppose you still have it?
Alan C. Posted August 11, 2015 Author Posted August 11, 2015 Revealed - the shocking amount of sugar 'hiding' in your soft drink: Photographer boils down household favourites then makes them into lollipops Coca-Cola - 39 grams in a 12-ounce canMountain Dew - 77 grams in a 16-ounce bottleZico - 15 grams in a 14-ounce bottleSnapple - 47 grams in a 16-ounce bottleVitamin Water - 31 grams in a 20-ounce bottleJarritos - 29 grams in a 12.5-ounce bottle
st434u Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Coca-Cola says the amount of sugar in coke is not a problem. At least as far as obesity goes. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/coca-cola-funds-scientists-who-shift-blame-for-obesity-away-from-bad-diets/
AncapFTW Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Revealed - the shocking amount of sugar 'hiding' in your soft drink: Photographer boils down household favourites then makes them into lollipops sounds delicious. a coke or mt. dew sucker would be good. I might have to try this.
Tweety Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 Do they have the Diet Pepsi version of this? I have not confirmed what she is saying from any studies, but in this video she is saying that zero calorie food with artificial sweeteners is making people fatter, because your brain is tricked to think you are getting sugar. This would then promote insulin production that locks down your fat reserves and aims to turn more calories into additional fat reserves. https://youtu.be/rdfk6kfqNGM Would be very interesting to hear if this is accurate. Do we have any human physiology experts here?
dsayers Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 caffeine is an insecticide. Are you sure? Bees have been observed to prefer nectar that provides caffeine (and nicotine) and scientists have concluded that these flowers may have developed these ingredients for this reason, and that the caffeine improves the bees' memory.
Romulox Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 I have not confirmed what she is saying from any studies, but in this video she is saying that zero calorie food with artificial sweeteners is making people fatter, because your brain is tricked to think you are getting sugar. This would then promote insulin production that locks down your fat reserves and aims to turn more calories into additional fat reserves. https://youtu.be/rdfk6kfqNGM Would be very interesting to hear if this is accurate. Do we have any human physiology experts here? I don't think I qualify as an "expert" but everything I read seems to agree that artificial sweeteners provoke an insulin response that will in turn prevent fat burning and promote fat storage. From what I understand, the second part of the story is that since you are now loaded up on insulin and but don't follow up with any calories, you'll just start craving sugar and likely end up consuming at least as many calories as would have been in the soda anyway.
yagami Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 From what I have come to understand the real danger of drinking carbonated drinks isn't the huge amount of sugar you ingest. It's the fact carbonated drinks make your acidic stomach acid basic. This basically defeats the purpose of having a stomach by making it difficult to break down food because your stomach acid is now a lot closer to water. If you drink a soda within an hour before or after a meal you will basically forgo any nutrients you may have gotten from that meal. This is why drinking soda is linked to so many different chonic diseases because if you stop your body from consuming all types of nutrients you get all types of chronic diseases associated with nutrient deficiencies.
dsayers Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 From what I have come to understand the real danger of drinking carbonated drinks isn't the huge amount of sugar you ingest. In the US, most sodas use high fructose corn syrup and have for decades. Does the information you provided still hold in light of that correction? My understanding is that glucose (sugar) is better for you (obviously not in excess) than fructose. And in fact the effects they have in the brain within the context of being able to identify you're properly nourished. I've read that HFCS is actually one explanation for obesity for this reason.
AccuTron Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Someone in these forums linked to a chemical pathway kind of talk, and the presenter showed that long term, HFCS is actually a poison. Not just fat making, but doing something bad. Sugar: The Bitter Truth - YouTube I think that poison part is near the end, not sure where. The talk is high value all the way thru, so listen to it all if you haven't already. I thought I'd already know much of it, but was surprised by new info all the way thru.
Alan C. Posted October 28, 2015 Author Posted October 28, 2015 Glucose is metabolized in cells. Fructose is metabolized in the liver.
yagami Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 In the US, most sodas use high fructose corn syrup and have for decades. Does the information you provided still hold in light of that correction? My understanding is that glucose (sugar) is better for you (obviously not in excess) than fructose. And in fact the effects they have in the brain within the context of being able to identify you're properly nourished. I've read that HFCS is actually one explanation for obesity for this reason. The high fructose corn syrup stuff is over hyped I think. Think of it this way. If you cut yourself on purpose your body has systems in place to deal with the injury. Otherwise whenever we hurt ourselves we would never heal. The same goes for the processing of bad food. Our body has the ability to handle any negative stimuli up until it runs out of resources. Once the resources run out you end up with a chronic disease that cant be cured via drugs and it's not a bacteria or virus you can identify and kill. Your body just suddenly stops working correctly. This is why western medicine is so expensive and ineffective because they are trying to solve health problems with drugs when it is an issue of lack of nutrition. Most people think they are getting what they need via "eating the rainbow" of vegetables. It's a very misleading idea. The problem with this theory of nutrition is every plant even within it's own species will have different nutrient concentrations and variety. A carrot planted a foot away from another carrot are not the same. This is because the soil is different everywhere on the planet. When the planet was originally formed all the minerals in the soil were randomly thrown all over the place. So if you are a farmer and you farm the land for a few seasons you will have taken out everything the soil has to offer. So then you are left with nothing. This is why we invented fertilizer to make up the difference in MINERAL content in the soil. I bold mineral because none of this applies to vitamins amino acids or essential fatty acids. The big issue is that farmers are not nutritionist they are businessman. Farmers do not fertilize their plants for the optimum consumption for humans they fertilize their plants for the optimum consumption of the plant. Plants require significantly less variety and concentration of minerals to be healthy and strong. So western farmer follow something called the NPK philosophy. NPK stands for nitrogen phosphorus potasium. This philosophy basically allows farmers to put the bare minimum of what their plants need to grow into their crops. Essentially this is the best bang for their buck. They can put more into their plants but it's not cost efficient in most cases. This is not to say it never happens ever but in general farmers put the bare minimum of what is needed in their crops. Now you may be able to see why something like high fructose corn syrup is not the issue. Neither is soda or GMOs or any of these other things people freak out about. It's really about the fact that these little issues cause significant harm because of the lack of defenses our body have to protect itself. The only way to get what your body needs is not through eating all your vegetables. As I said you have no idea what you are getting when you eat your vegetables and neither does the farmer or anyone else. It's impossible to tell. You must supplement. P.S. I would still stay away from the stuff even if you have everything you need I supplement with youngevity. (not selling I promise) I just think they are the best there is.
st434u Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 You must supplement. P.S. I would still stay away from the stuff even if you have everything you need I supplement with youngevity. (not selling I promise) I just think they are the best there is. We're not supposed to eat rocks dissolved in water. Plants do that. We eat the plants, or the animals that eat the plants (or the animals that eat the animals that eat the plants). Saying that a mineral deposit is "plant derived" doesn't really mean anything. Crude oil is plant derived too, but I don't think you want to drink it.
yagami Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 We're not supposed to eat rocks dissolved in water. Plants do that. We eat the plants, or the animals that eat the plants (or the animals that eat the animals that eat the plants). Saying that a mineral deposit is "plant derived" doesn't really mean anything. Crude oil is plant derived too, but I don't think you want to drink it. I never said that nor did I mean that. But you are pointing out one of the huge problems with supplementation. Most people dont actually realize that minerals come in two forms alkaline and colloidal. Alkaline are basically unprocessed minerals you find in the ground. Colloidal minerals are the ones you get when a plant has processed the mineral. All colloidal really means is small. The reason why colloidal minerals are so much better is because the smaller the mineral the easier it is to absorb. When I said minerals earlier I was not referring to just any type of mineral. It's also a myth that eating minerals or vitamins or any other nutrition directly from a plant is better than taking that mineral out of the plant and selling it on the market. I even if there was a benefit you could never get enough from your plants because there are so many different things you need and in different concentrations so it wouldn't matter even if straight from a plant was better There is also the question of how is the mineral contained. Is the mineral contained in a tablet, gelcap or liquid form? All of these are processed differently and change the absorption rate of the mineral (which is all that really matters). When it comes to trying to figure out if you should get your nutrients from a plant or a supplement the concentration and absorption rate of that supplement is the only thing that matters. On the molecular level a calcium mineral is the same no matter where it comes from. These are the major reason why people try supplementation and get wildly different results even though that are taking the "same" thing. Another major issue is exactly what people take. For example calcium carbonate is a popular calcium supplement but it's mostly carbon with a small amount of calcium. Because it takes so much to separate the carbon from the calcium a lot of the calcium gets lost in the process and you dont get much of what little is in the supplement in the first place. All these factors combined are the reason why it seems to the layman that supplementation is a less consistent road to health. I hope I have answered your objection thoroughly.
st434u Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 It's also a myth that eating minerals or vitamins or any other nutrition directly from a plant is better than taking that mineral out of the plant and selling it on the market. I even if there was a benefit you could never get enough from your plants because there are so many different things you need and in different concentrations so it wouldn't matter even if straight from a plant was better Well if the mineral or vitamin is extracted from an actual plant, then they have to use food waste (for it to be economical) and subject it to various chemical solvents to extract the concentrated substance they're looking for. If you want to get more minerals and vitamins from plants, then juice them. Also, you can get organically grown plants that were grown in nutrient-rich soil and without chemical pesticides (or without as many as the conventionally grown ones). You'll spend a bit more, but save it on the supplements you're no longer buying. Not to mention your health. About the plant-derived minerals, it's what I found in the youngevity site you mentioned, under the source for the mineral supplements they use.
yagami Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Well if the mineral or vitamin is extracted from an actual plant, then they have to use food waste (for it to be economical) and subject it to various chemical solvents to extract the concentrated substance they're looking for. If you want to get more minerals and vitamins from plants, then juice them. Also, you can get organically grown plants that were grown in nutrient-rich soil and without chemical pesticides (or without as many as the conventionally grown ones). You'll spend a bit more, but save it on the supplements you're no longer buying. Not to mention your health. About the plant-derived minerals, it's what I found in the youngevity site you mentioned, under the source for the mineral supplements they use. I think you are kind of missing my point. I know very little about the proper way to extract minerals from plants that will bring you the most value. Maybe you know more about what is most optimal but that has nothing to do with what im saying. Im talking about absorption. If you do not use colloidal minerals the minerals will be difficult to absorb. Of course pesticides are harmful but they are not the big issue. In fact you can get the most organically grown vegetables on the planet harvested by Jesus christ under a full moon and that would not make a huge impact on your health. All organic means is without the bad but not having the bad stuff isn't even close to important when you compare it next to having the good stuff. Not sure if that makes sense. I guess im saying is if you have all your nutrients you will not even notice the effects of a non organic food on your body because your body is dealing with it as it is design to do when it's given all the proper tools. Not to say we should all just go out and eat non organic it's not just not where the majority of people should be looking at first. The other point you made about "nutrient-rich soil" brings us back to what I said before. Farmers grow their crops for the crops not the consumer. Plants have a curious property of being able to absorb minerals they dont need. When you say nutrient rich do you really know if the soil is nutrient rich for humans or for the plant? Humans require much more in concentration and variety. Plants only need a three at minimum we need many many more. This is the main reason we cant just eat plants and think we are getting what we need. We have no earthly idea what is in the food and the food for the most part is completely void of the nutrients we need. Buying organic wont do anything to help that problem. I also push back on your assumption since supplements must be treated with chemicals. Youngevity for instance has all organic supplements (at least the ones I buy). They are one of the only if not the only company that actually has every ingredient certified by the FDA. Not that that means much but there has got to be a reason the competition isnt doing so.
Recommended Posts