Letsrun is vindicated!! Many top pro athletes drink soda. Coke fueled Frank Shorter to gold in 1972

Dude, focus on important stuff, like the Cowboys playoff run.

Limey UK Runner wrote:

To the person who stated that HFCS acts in a different way to sucrose I'm afraid that is not correct. HFCS is typically very close to a 50:50 mix of glucose and fructose. Sucrose is also 50:50 glucose and fructose and is catalyzed so quickly by sucrase in the intestines that there is no practical difference between the effect of a sucrose solution and a HFCS solution.

There are a number of studies that suggest a different metabolic pathway for HFCS as opposed to sugar. I suggest you take a look at them before you jump on the "no difference" bandwagon.

Running on Empathy wrote:

There are a number of studies that suggest a different metabolic pathway for HFCS as opposed to sugar. I suggest you take a look at them before you jump on the "no difference" bandwagon.

Cool. Link one.

sugar killed rojo's tiny brain wrote:

The thing is, rojo's an idiot.

Rojo is a genius. Letsrun will be sponsored by coke or pepsi by the end of the week.

We drank lots of defizzed Coke back in the day. We also diluted it 50/50 with water. It seemed to work better than ERG or Gatorade back in the day. I also remember that in one study done that Koolaid came out on top.

This thread is making me want to train for another marathon just so I have an excuse to drink more soda!

I googled it and there are a lot. Then again there are a lot of nots.

Rojo reminds me of some guys I went to school with in the 6th grade. Not as they are now, but as they were then. They were normal kids at the time, for their age and whatnot. Hell, I was stupid too. Difference is, everyone I knew then actually matured at some point. How old is Rojo now? 40ish? Sad.

I wonder if he was severely mentally immature when he was at that age, or he was age-appropriate at that time but remains frozen there for whatever reason.

Randy Oldman wrote:

I googled it and there are a lot. Then again there are a lot of nots.

I checked too and didn't find anything to support the claim of "a different metabolic pathway for HFCS as opposed to sugar". If you have found something that supports that claim then please go ahead and link it; I would like to see.

Elvis drank coke https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmLOt9mRD18

flat coke.

Moe's Tavern wrote:

Rojo, several of the Mexican marathoners I used to manage would have CocaCola in their bottles to be placed on the course. Common knowledge.

Up until very recently, Mexican Coke was made with pure cane sugar, not HFCS.

Limey UK Runner wrote:

Randy Oldman wrote:

I googled it and there are a lot. Then again there are a lot of nots.

I checked too and didn't find anything to support the claim of "a different metabolic pathway for HFCS as opposed to sugar". If you have found something that supports that claim then please go ahead and link it; I would like to see.

The biggest difference is in the way the glucose-fructose blend is presented. The glucose and fructose in HFCS are monosaccharides (aka not bonded together), while the glucose and fructose in sucrose are bonded together as disaccherides. When we consume sucrose, we trigger the sucrase enzyme which breaks that glucose-fructose bond.

Dude you don't even have to do any reading. Of course the OChem is going to be above your level. Appears that HFCS is metabolized a little differently......

It's a pigovian tax. Again, few here will get that either.

A Pigovian tax (also spelled Pigouvian tax) is a tax applied to a market activity that is generating negative externalities (costs for somebody else). The tax is intended to correct an inefficient market outcome, and does so by being set equal to the negative externalities. In the presence of negative externalities, the social cost of a market activity is not covered by the private cost of the activity. In such a case, the market outcome is not efficient and may lead to over-consumption of the product.[1] An often-cited example of such an externality is environmental pollution.[2]

In the presence of positive externalities, i.e., public benefits from a market activity, those who receive the benefit do not pay for it and the market may under-supply the product. Similar logic suggests the creation of a Pigovian subsidy to make the users pay for the extra benefit and spur more production.[3] An example sometimes cited is a subsidy for provision of flu vaccine.[4]

Pigovian taxes are named after economist Arthur Pigou who also developed the concept of economic externalities. William Baumol was instrumental in framing Pigou's work in modern economics.[2]

The whole point is that sugary drinks are partially to blame for the enormity of our society. That being said, our affluence is probably equally to blame. If only we could go back to the late 1800's with no air conditioning and child labor. Ah the good old days when every one was thin!

It's a catch 22, we're wealthy and fatter as a result. We pay the price for our wealth and size in health related problems. Seems like we are getting what we deserve. Then again if we outlaw all these sugary drinks and we have less of a drain on our economy dealing with these health issues our wealth will increase further revealing some other malady indirectly linked to our increased wealth.

Oh well. I'm on the fence on this one. Don't love soda but I would lose my mind if they increased the tax on beer.

Sucrose is broken down by the brush border enzyme sucrase.

Glucose is then transported across the apical membrane by GLUT2 transporter

Fructose is transported by GLUT5 transporter.

The transport of glucose and fructose is exactly the same.

The question is whether or not sucrase is involved in some sort of feedback ( I doubt it, likely just broken down into amino acids and reabsorbed by the cell) or if the synthesis of sucrase in the epithelial cell involves signaling byproducts.

Actually, is there even a sucrose receptor that will up regulate sucrase??? or is it stimulated by stretch receptors in the duodenum or something.

Running on Empathy wrote:

The biggest difference is in the way the glucose-fructose blend is presented. The glucose and fructose in HFCS are monosaccharides (aka not bonded together), while the glucose and fructose in sucrose are bonded together as disaccherides. When we consume sucrose, we trigger the sucrase enzyme which breaks that glucose-fructose bond.

I already mentioned sucrase and if this is what you mean by a "different metabolic pathway" then sure, I'm with you.

When it comes to metabolic effects then there may be a difference, although glancing at the literature nothing leaps out as correcting for the different glucose/fructose fraction for a proper comparison to sucrose. Again that would be something I'd like to see if it's out there.

As for effects on disease rates I think the HFCS issue is simply scaremongering. The US favours HFCS whereas the UK favours sucrose but our 'diabesity' rates are approaching US rates so I think that is good evidence that it is a non-issue.

Has taken a physiology class wrote:

The question is whether or not sucrase is involved in some sort of feedback ( I doubt it, likely just broken down into amino acids and reabsorbed by the cell) or if the synthesis of sucrase in the epithelial cell involves signaling byproducts.

Actually, is there even a sucrose receptor that will up regulate sucrase??? or is it stimulated by stretch receptors in the duodenum or something.

Good questions and unfortunately not ones I know the answers to! I think I might look into that.

Has taken a physiology class wrote:

Sucrose is broken down by the brush border enzyme sucrase.

Glucose is then transported across the apical membrane by GLUT2 transporter

Fructose is transported by GLUT5 transporter.

The transport of glucose and fructose is exactly the same.

The question is whether or not sucrase is involved in some sort of feedback ( I doubt it, likely just broken down into amino acids and reabsorbed by the cell) or if the synthesis of sucrase in the epithelial cell involves signaling byproducts.

Actually, is there even a sucrose receptor that will up regulate sucrase??? or is it stimulated by stretch receptors in the duodenum or something.

It's more than just that. HFCS is produced using an enzyme not produced naturally by animals. I can't imagine that the residuals of that would be good for us.

One other thing regarding the differences between sodas produced in the 70's and soda's today - IIRC 70's sodas had a higher sodium content.

Sodium - ostensibly bad for heart patients, but absolutely beneficial for athletes.