Drinking Coke Freely Quadruples Calorie Intake WITHOUT Weight Gain

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
The study was designed to actually show that ad libitum consumption of fructose-rich drink like Coke has undesirable changes on some lipid parameters. It did manage to show that rats drinking Coke freely as part of their diet had higher levels of TG. However the cholesterol of the Coke-drinking rats was the same as that of the control group drinking water, while the cholesterol of the rats drinking Diet Coke was lower than even the control group. Perhaps the most important finding of the study was that the daily caloric intake of the rats drinking fructose-rich Coke increased from about HED 2,000 calories per day to about HED 8,000 calories per day WITHOUT any gain in weight (see "Group R" in the attached image). The study lasted 8 weeks, so it was plenty of time for the rats to adjust weight-wise if the diet would have had any effect on that. Not sure how to interpret this except to conclude that the rats' metabolic rate skyrocketed while they were liberally drinking sucrose-sweetened (actually HFCS-sweetened) Coke. The study authors think that the extra caffeine ingested by the rats drinking regular Coke was responsible for the lack of weight gain, even though those rats consumed 5 times more liquid (as Coke) then the diet Coke and control groups. I am not sure I buy that since the rat dose of 4.8mg/kg caffeine is equivalent to 0.8mg/kg for a human every two hours, which means 9.6mg/kg total daily intake for a human. While this is certainly not a low dose of caffeine, human studies with 10mg/kg and more have routinely failed to show weight loss.
I'd personally chalk that one up as another win for sucrose.

Chronic consumption of fructose rich soft drinks alters tissue lipids of rats
"...The caloric intake of the R group animals in this study was approximately four times higher than that of the L and C group animals. However, there was no significant difference in body weight. It is known that, in humans, caffeine intake at a dose of 4 mg/kg every two hours alters both the basal metabolic rate (increasing it between 8 and 11%) and the renin-angiotensin system [30-32]. The caffeine intake of the group R animals corresponding to 4.8 mg/kg every two hours was probably sufficient to offset the potential gain in weight that would otherwise have resulted from their increased caloric intake. Nevertheless, it should be noted that these animals ingested about five times more liquid than did the animals in the other two groups. Changes in the renin-angiotensin system may have been responsible for the large intake of regular soft drink by group R animals during the experiment. By comparison, the L group animals had an average caffeine intake of about corresponding to 1.02 mg/kg every two hours. This amount was probably not sufficient to cause changes in basal metabolism or in the renin-angiotensin system [30,32]."
 

Attachments

  • coca_cola_calorie_intake.jpg
    coca_cola_calorie_intake.jpg
    29 KB · Views: 283
Last edited:

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
Are they painting this study in a negative light?
It would be interesting to test for intelligence before and after.
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
Are they painting this study in a negative light?
It would be interesting to test for intelligence before and after.

Test whose intelligence before/after - the rats or scientists?
Yes, they are painting their findings in a negative light.
"...Based on the results, it can be concluded that daily ingestion of a large amount of fructose- rich soft drink resulted in unfavorable alterations to the lipid profile of the rats."
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
Test whose intelligence before/after - the rats or scientists?
Yes, they are painting their findings in a negative light.
"...Based on the results, it can be concluded that daily ingestion of a large amount of fructose- rich soft drink resulted in unfavorable alterations to the lipid profile of the rats."

Test the rats and give the scientists the Coke in the meantime.

I think Coke has a lot more going on, the essential oils are similar to what Peat is starting to mention more of. Phosphoric acid.
The old school phosphate sodas are ,"peaty", I think Coke may be one of only a few that maintain a similar recipe.
I think they have the ability to act like a hdac inhibitor ,demethylate, cinnamon lowering ammonia etc
 
J

jb116

Guest
Just to be clear, that was Coke with HFCS or sugar?
It seems HFCS soda actually contains lots of starch.
 

Peata

Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
3,402
@haidut do you think drinking the HFCS Coke products are generally safe and as effective as the Mexican Coke or real sugar Pepsi?
 

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
Starchgate.
An intelligence test would be ideal here if that's the case.
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
Just to be clear, that was Coke with HFCS or sugar?
It seems HFCS soda actually contains lots of starch.

They don't say explicitly, but given that it is regular Coke they used and they mention the increased fructose consumption from HCFS leading to obesity makes me think it was just the regular HFCS-sweetened variety from the local store.
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
@haidut do you think drinking the HFCS Coke products are generally safe and as effective as the Mexican Coke or real sugar Pepsi?

If it truly is HFCS, then probably not much different than sucrose metabolically. But there are studies showing some of the HFCS suppliers do not process the starch properly so cut cost of production, so there is a lot of it left over in the "syrup" and it's really HSCS (high starch corn syrup) that ends up in the bottles.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
81
I have been drinking a lot of coke ( not fructose) . I feel much better on many levels , also facially I think I'm not so ugly! However my cholesterol has doubled (around 9)&triglycerides are high also insulin levels are very high. I have been eating sweetened condensed milk too - we used to make up baby formula with that in the seventies in the children's ward where I would help myself. Also to the Valium( yellow submarine ! ) Any way I have put on fifteen kilos and my thighs and hips are big which has never been the case . So perhaps it's the condensed milk and not the Coke??? The nutritionist says low carb and eat more fat and increase iron levels/ meat. Totally contradictory. When I was on that regime the iron levels caused age spots ( glycolysis?) Also felt removed from my environment & stressed etc so sugar for me has been healing but not biochemically??
 

Peater Piper

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
817
I wouldn't gloss over the raised triglycerides so quickly. The liver triglycerides were elevated by about 50%. Isn't that an indication they were developing NAFLD?
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
I wouldn't gloss over the raised triglycerides so quickly. The liver triglycerides were elevated by about 50%. Isn't that an indication they were developing NAFLD?

Not necessarily. The TG can also be transported and stored in peripheral adipose tissue. Of all the fat in your bloodstream, you'd better have elevated TG than NEFA/FFA floating around. I think Peat said TG is the safest form of blood/liver fat since it is "inert". But he recognizes that having very high levels may be undesirable and he said that the low dose niacinamide (100mg x 3 daily) prevents the wasteful conversion of sugar into TG.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
81
Not necessarily. The TG can also be transported and stored in peripheral adipose tissue. Of all the fat in your bloodstream, you'd better have elevated TG than NEFA/FFA floating around. I think Peat said TG is the safest form of blood/liver fat since it is "inert". But he recognizes that having very high levels may be undesirable and he said that the low dose niacinamide (100mg x 3 daily) prevents the wasteful conversion of sugar into TG.

Thanks Haidut, I'll give that a try and report back on the middle - age spread! Perhaps I transitioned from eating no sugar or fruit ( detoxing from mercury programme) too quickly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

superhuman

Member
Joined
May 31, 2013
Messages
1,124
@haidut this is just insane cool finding, thanx. I remember a childhood friend of mine and he was always skinny and full of energy. He drank at least 4 liters regular coca cola a day. For like 10+ years
 
M

marikay

Guest
@haidut this is just insane cool finding, thanx. I remember a childhood friend of mine and he was always skinny and full of energy. He drank at least 4 liters regular coca cola a day. For like 10+ years

I concur. Every skinny person I knew growing up (in the sixties and seventies) drank a boatload of pop (which is what we called soda back then):)
 

Peater Piper

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
817
Not necessarily. The TG can also be transported and stored in peripheral adipose tissue. Of all the fat in your bloodstream, you'd better have elevated TG than NEFA/FFA floating around. I think Peat said TG is the safest form of blood/liver fat since it is "inert". But he recognizes that having very high levels may be undesirable and he said that the low dose niacinamide (100mg x 3 daily) prevents the wasteful conversion of sugar into TG.
What's interesting though is the soleus TG were lower by a fairly significant amount in the soda group compared to the control and light soda group, but around 50% higher in both the liver and blood, which made me assume the liver was taking the brunt of it instead of shunting it off to adipose tissue, but I admit I'm a layman.

What it initially made me think of was methionine and choline. A high methionine diet replete in choline protects against fatty liver while causing weight gain and insulin resistance. Remove the choline and there's no weight gain or insulin resistant, but liver trigylcerides rise and result in NAFLD.

In terms of anecdotal evidence, a drank almost nothing but soda as a child and have always been thin. I can't stand the stuff anymore, though.
 

superhuman

Member
Joined
May 31, 2013
Messages
1,124
Can it also be that since soda is just pure sucrose etc and absolute no fat and also no fiber or any other things that can cause endotoxins that may make it so that you can drink so much of it without weight gain/fat gain?
 
T

tobieagle

Guest
If the coke was still significantly carbonated at the point of ingestion, the CO2 might be another factor to consider.
But the same would apply to the diet coke group.

Do rats burp? :D

I just can't get over the total caloric intake figure.
What a difference!
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Perhaps the most important finding of the study was that the daily caloric intake of the rats drinking fructose-rich Coke increased from about 2,000 calories per day to about 8,000 calories per day WITHOUT any gain in weight (see "Group R" in the attached image).
Regular rats eat 2000 calories a day?! Wow, what a metabolism.

Not sure how to interpret this except to conclude that the rats' metabolic rate skyrocketed while they were liberally drinking sucrose-sweetened (actually HFCS-sweetened) Coke. The study authors think that the extra caffeine ingested by the rats drinking regular Coke was responsible for the lack of weight gain, even though those rats consumed 5 times more liquid (as Coke) then the diet Coke and control groups.
I wonder whether the very high calories or sugar, moderate caffeine, or sth else in the coke increased transit speed significantly, so they excreted more of the other food they were eating? Could this happen or is this controlled for? Can't see it accounting for the whole difference, but maybe a part of it?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom