There was lab work done doubting whether Mexican Coke actually uses real sugar, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1038/oby.2010.25... and in general blind taste tests don't show people really prefer Mexican Coke, it's mostly random. Plus, Costco would definitely ship tons of Coke from Mexico if it were "hipster bullshit," that kind of stuff is profitable.
IIRC there have been a few studies on the Coca Cola and the biggest thing is being told it’s Mexican coke and having it be in a cold glass bottle - real sugar coke in a can or glass ranked lower than HFCS coke in a glass bottle and misidentified.
Of course the cognoscenti know that the real deal is Coke in returnable bottles that are probably older than you are. No retornable is export shit.
Costco sells a lot of good stuff but they also sell plenty of stuff because it is hipster bullshit. Case in point.
> There is a significant chemical difference between sugar and HFCS. For one, the molecules in sugar are disaccharides while in HFCS they are free.
And those molecules are enzymatically broken down to monosaccharides early on in your GI tract, long before it ever makes into your blood.
Sucrose is absorbed into your bloodstream.
> but basically fructose is multiple times more reactive in your blood than glucose and creates nasties when it reacts with other things you eat, namely fats.
Yes and sucrose is 50/50 glucose and fructose and this dissociation occurs long before anything about the bloodstream enters the picture.
All the bad shit you think happens with fructose will occur with “real” sugar consumption.
Being downvoted by the HN moron brigade (and I’m more referring to the parallel comment rather than mine) doesn’t change any simple scientific and physiologic facts.
“Compared with sucrose, HFCS leads to greater fructose systemic exposure and significantly different acute metabolic effects.”
https://www.metabolismjournal.com/article/S0026-0495(11)0031...
Again because you are obviously slow (too much sugar?): sugar (like HFCS) is a refined product, it will have similar glycemic index to HFCS. The enzymatic breakdown of sucrose is fast enough not to matter. Rice is not, stop muddying the waters with irrelevant bullshit.
There is no evidence that the 5% difference in fructose content between usual HFCS and sucrose is of any consequence for health outcomes.
I’m in Europe right now and Coke tastes way better, and doesn’t leave a mild bad feeling after drinking it like it does in the US.
There is a significant chemical difference between sugar and HFCS. For one, the molecules in sugar are disaccharides while in HFCS they are free. High Fructose CS also has more fructose, which is the worst type of sugar. There’s a Wikipedia page I’ve been trying to find again for years, but basically fructose is multiple times more reactive in your blood than glucose and creates nasties when it reacts with other things you eat, namely fats.