PDA

View Full Version : What is really sooooooooooo bad about soft drinks?



SupRsmall
08-14-2007, 06:59 PM
I was really pondering this today as i sipped down my slurrrpeee after work. What is really so bad about soft drinks?

I mean for a physically active person, the extra carbs from the simple sugars in a soft drink would actually be better than drinking water i would think because it would provide with quick energy. And on top of it all it has caffiene (which some say is bad, but i dont think its bad for a fully grown person at all.) The other ingredients in a soft drink are carbonated water (not really sure if "carbonated" is bad, but water is good! so they cancel out lol) And thats about it for the main ingredients.

So What is so bad about soft drinks considering you drink in moderation.

I mean juice is alot like a soft drink. Made of simple sugars, but it doesn't the caffiene that a soft drink has but has added vitamins and nutrients instead. I mean sure thats great, but if a person is taking a multivitamin, im sure the vitamins aren't nessecary.

So for a fully grown person. What is so bad about a soft drink, if taken in moderation?

shazoo123
08-14-2007, 09:09 PM
oh....where to start?

Questor
08-14-2007, 09:28 PM
high fructose corn syrup

if I'm right, glycogen from fructose is not stored in muscle outside of the liver. it just turns to fat.

sharkall2003
08-14-2007, 09:35 PM
The high acidic value, high fructose corn syrup, usually if you look at the servings there is a lot more sugar in the entire container, and there is usually no vitamins or nutritional value in soda.

Built
08-14-2007, 09:36 PM
What's wrong with soft drinks is the same thing that's wrong with fruit juice: half the sugar is fructose, and it's really easy to knock back a LOT if it in a hurry.

Once in a while, if you're not fat? Not a problem.

Guido
08-15-2007, 07:46 AM
Drinking soft drinks is kind of like lifting with machines. No, they won't kill you really, but why do it if there is a better way (or better drink) out there?

RedSpikeyThing
08-15-2007, 08:26 AM
So What is so bad about soft drinks considering you drink in moderation.


that would be the key word that a lot of people have problems with.

Coqui
08-15-2007, 08:35 AM
that would be the key word that a lot of people have problems with.

And to some moderation is 5 a day.

Alex.V
08-15-2007, 09:02 AM
high fructose corn syrup

if I'm right, glycogen from fructose is not stored in muscle outside of the liver. it just turns to fat.

Yeah. The body knows when the G3P it sees is derived from fructose or other sources, and makes sure to store all of it as fat when it knows it's that bad fructose-derived substrate.

Where the hell did this myth come from, anyway?

Con
08-15-2007, 09:04 AM
Yeah. The body knows when the G3P it sees is derived from fructose or other sources, and makes sure to store all of it as fat when it knows it's that bad fructose-derived substrate.

Where the hell did this myth come from, anyway?

FEAR

Questor
08-15-2007, 10:38 AM
Yeah. The body knows when the G3P it sees is derived from fructose or other sources, and makes sure to store all of it as fat when it knows it's that bad fructose-derived substrate.

Where the hell did this myth come from, anyway?

http://www.wannabebig.com/article.php?articleid=274

IZich
08-15-2007, 11:09 AM
Like Guido said, there are simply better alternatives out there. The cons far outweigh the pros - but drinking 1 can a day is not poison and it seems around here like it'll kill you. It won't.

samj
08-15-2007, 11:20 AM
mmm emtpy calories

Holto
08-15-2007, 11:31 AM
Yeah. The body knows when the G3P it sees is derived from fructose or other sources, and makes sure to store all of it as fat when it knows it's that bad fructose-derived substrate.

Where the hell did this myth come from, anyway?

I think you are saying what I have always maintained, that if eating fat doesn't make us fat, why would fat produced by the liver be any different.

Alex.V
08-15-2007, 12:08 PM
http://www.wannabebig.com/article.php?articleid=274

There are several theoretical leaps of faith made in the section of fructose. Nothing against the author; but the studies cited (and individuals mentioned) were framing theory and conjecture as absolutes.

This section:

If liver glycogen is full the rest of the fructose is converted to pyruvate, transferred to mitochondria, and finally converted to fatty acids and exported from the liver as triglycerides."
is actually mis-cited, it's taken directly from a web article written by Robert Horn, a professor at the University of Oslo, a man who is a strong advocate of the whole "back to nature, no processed food" approach to eating. Not that he is incorrect necessarily, but people often oversimplify processes when describing them to the layman. In his case, he's leaving out a few "if"s, because they don't support his conclusion.

The segment claiming that fructose favors de novo lipogenesis is likewise oversimplifying; this sentence was taken from the abstract cited in the WBB article, and was not original content to that study. Rather, if you follow the trail to the original research, anything supporting this conclusion is linked to studies on Fructose overfeeding on diabetic patients, or others with pre-existing issues regarding insulin sensitivity. To date, I haven't seen any studies designed to assess the limits of hepatic fructose metabolism.

And regardless, I fail to see where it's written that the body cares which pathway the pyruvate in the bloodstream began from. Whether the product of glycolysis, or an intermediate step in gluconeogenesis, the body's overall energy state will determine whether it is consumed, stored as glycogen, or stored as fat.

Same as regular sugar.

Yes, fructose has some whacky (My wording) tendencies when it comes to leptin levels, insulin response, etc., but nothing to draw blanket, hard and fast conclusions from.

**edit: I hate it when I'm typing in a hurry and leave out words.

mickyjune26
08-15-2007, 12:14 PM
Man, that's a lot of stuff I don't understand. In my ignorance, i choose to learn more. Back to studying.

Questor
08-15-2007, 01:14 PM
There are several theoretical leaps of faith made in the section of fructose. Nothing against the author; but the studies cited (and individuals mentioned) were framing theory and conjecture as absolutes.

This section:

is actually mis-cited, it's taken directly from a web article written by Robert Horn, a professor at the University of Oslo, a man who is a strong advocate of the whole "back to nature, no processed food" approach to eating. Not that he is incorrect necessarily, but people often oversimplify processes when describing them to the layman. In his case, he's leaving out a few "if"s, because they don't support his conclusion.

The segment claiming that fructose favors de novo lipogenesis is likewise oversimplifying; this sentence was taken from the abstract cited in the WBB article, and was not original content to that study. Rather, if you follow the trail to the original research, anything supporting this conclusion is linked to studies on Fructose overfeeding on diabetic patients, or others with pre-existing issues regarding insulin sensitivity. To date, I haven't seen any studies designed to assess the limits of hepatic fructose metabolism.

And regardless, I fail to see where it's written that the body cares which pathway the pyruvate in the bloodstream began from. Whether the product of glycolysis, or an intermediate step in gluconeogenesis, the body's overall energy state will determine whether it is consumed, stored as glycogen, or stored as fat.

Same as regular sugar.

Yes, fructose has some whacky (My wording) tendencies when it comes to leptin levels, insulin response, etc., but nothing to draw blanket, hard and fast conclusions from.

**edit: I hate it when I'm typing in a hurry and leave out words.

Can you phrase that in meathead? I had always wondered why fructose would be either a liver-or-fat sugar like I had been led to believe. So are you saying that fructose is not processed significantly differently than the other sugars?

Holto
08-15-2007, 01:44 PM
So are you saying that fructose is not processed significantly differently than the other sugars?

No, he's saying it's ridiculous to think it will have some magical impact on body composition.

Questor
08-15-2007, 01:48 PM
Strictly speaking, I wasn't asking you Holto.

But Belial's answer may be of interest to other thread readers.

Holto
08-15-2007, 02:13 PM
Strictly speaking, I wasn't asking you Holto.

My bad.

thor310
08-15-2007, 02:41 PM
the carbonation drops the pH of the drink significantly...it'll screw up your teeth.

jamrock
08-15-2007, 03:12 PM
Yeah. The body knows when the G3P it sees is derived from fructose or other sources, and makes sure to store all of it as fat when it knows it's that bad fructose-derived substrate.

Where the hell did this myth come from, anyway?

You're saying that all sugars are the same? Ehh.. I'm sure it's deeper than that with as long as I've been reading your posts..

Slim Schaedle
08-15-2007, 05:02 PM
There are several theoretical leaps of faith made in the section of fructose. Nothing against the author; but the studies cited (and individuals mentioned) were framing theory and conjecture as absolutes.

This section:

is actually mis-cited, it's taken directly from a web article written by Robert Horn, a professor at the University of Oslo, a man who is a strong advocate of the whole "back to nature, no processed food" approach to eating. Not that he is incorrect necessarily, but people often oversimplify processes when describing them to the layman. In his case, he's leaving out a few "if"s, because they don't support his conclusion.

The segment claiming that fructose favors de novo lipogenesis is likewise oversimplifying; this sentence was taken from the abstract cited in the WBB article, and was not original content to that study. Rather, if you follow the trail to the original research, anything supporting this conclusion is linked to studies on Fructose overfeeding on diabetic patients, or others with pre-existing issues regarding insulin sensitivity. To date, I haven't seen any studies designed to assess the limits of hepatic fructose metabolism.

And regardless, I fail to see where it's written that the body cares which pathway the pyruvate in the bloodstream began from. Whether the product of glycolysis, or an intermediate step in gluconeogenesis, the body's overall energy state will determine whether it is consumed, stored as glycogen, or stored as fat.

Same as regular sugar.

Yes, fructose has some whacky (My wording) tendencies when it comes to leptin levels, insulin response, etc., but nothing to draw blanket, hard and fast conclusions from.

**edit: I hate it when I'm typing in a hurry and leave out words.

Any parts of what I wrote that were included in that article came from credible sources.

While not plagiarized, my info provided was straightfoward from books written by doctors, high-level nutritionists, etc etc.

Slim Schaedle
08-15-2007, 05:16 PM
Here is a bunch of **** I posted like 2 years ago.

Hopefully it is all still correct and I was less stupid back then than I think.


http://www.wannabebigforums.com/showpost.php?p=1360971&postcount=35