4 ms·

Being fair, none of the studies linked showed that you were "borrowing a bit" that you would have to "pay back later." That does feel like a stretch over the r

by taeric 4y ago

Being fair, none of the studies linked showed that you were "borrowing a bit" that you would have to "pay back later." That does feel like a stretch over the rest of the articles. It is neat to read on how/why it works. That said, the claim that "it is not the creation of energy" feels like a stretch anyway. Do people really think they get energized in some magical creation way from coffee? Worse, the claim is there that the adenosine "doesn't go away," but there is no cite for that rather key claim. (Did I miss it?) Edit: For why that last claim needs a cite, it would be like saying ADHD meds for those that take them are "borrowing focus from a later time." Which... feels very contra to how that works.

groby_b 4y ago
The studies show that coffee is an adenosine receptor blocker. We know that this means increased neural activity that the body cannot downregulate via adenosine. We know that neural activity is responsible for adenosine release during ATP breakdown. Which means coffee gives you temporary energy (because activity isn't downregulated), but the body continues to consume energy at a higher-than-desired level, releasing more adenosine trying to stop that. As soon as you stop blocking the receptors, you'll get downregulated fairly hard. Is it OK to characterize this as "borrow and pay back later"? IDK. It's a good enough metaphor to summarize what's happening. As for comparing it to ADHD meds - these are completely different systems. A comparison doesn't make any sense. But if you must see a cite, we've known for a long time that caffeine induces adenosine buildup: https://www.nature.com/articles/38160 https://www.nature.com/articles/38160 Should it have been cited? Maybe. But it's a very well known fact, and not everything needs to be proven from first principles. (Also, Occams razor applies - things that go away need a mechanism to make it go away, while things staying around don't) This is a pop-science article that's surprisingly well sourced. Nitpicking the exhaustiveness of the sources seems somewhat contraproductive.
- taeric 4y ago
  My point was as much that showing it is a blocker on the receptors is not the same as showing it just "builds up" in your system. It isn't so implausible that I don't believe it, but a study would be good. Similarly, showing it moves to another part of your body does not imply that it is just "waiting its turn" for getting into the receptors later. Indeed, if they reach a steady state in the rest of your body, it seems to imply you are always binding less of it. The link you gave showing it is increased in plasma levels feels good. I would still question whether or not it only gets consumed in the receptors, versus changing where it is stored in the body. (That is, does your body "burn" the same amount of the stuff regardless of whether it is in the receptors or not?) That said, these questions are just asking how far we have come in understanding. And, really, my main point was to be fair to the question asked and see if there is evidence of the claim. And... quite frankly, there isn't. There were no studies linked showing that you will be tired later if you have coffee. None. To claim that what is there does that, is to hide behind sophistry of science to push claims that it isn't making.
yazzku 4y ago
> Worse, the claim is there that the adenosine "doesn't go away," but there is no cite for that rather key claim. (Did I miss it?) It "doesn't go away" in the sense that the adenosine stays bound to the caffeine until your body metabolizes that caffeine away. At that point, the adenosine is released back and follows it's usual cycle. It's not that it "doesn't ever go away".
- taeric 4y ago
  That reads differently to me. Claiming that caffeine is a receptor blocker reads more that it displaces the adenosine in a way that it is not in the receptors. This does not imply that it cannot be processed in some other way, or that it is waiting for the receptor forever. Do SSRIs work by just "delaying the depression" to later? Because that reads in very much the same way. I get that the body is complex. I also get that things are necessarily watered down for people like me. I would still like to see studies that were done against the main claim here.

by taeric 4y ago

groby_b 4y ago

The studies show that coffee is an adenosine receptor blocker. We know that this means increased neural activity that the body cannot downregulate via adenosine. We know that neural activity is responsible for adenosine release during ATP breakdown. Which means coffee gives you temporary energy (because activity isn't downregulated), but the body continues to consume energy at a higher-than-desired level, releasing more adenosine trying to stop that. As soon as you stop blocking the receptors, you'll get downregulated fairly hard. Is it OK to characterize this as "borrow and pay back later"? IDK. It's a good enough metaphor to summarize what's happening. As for comparing it to ADHD meds - these are completely different systems. A comparison doesn't make any sense. But if you must see a cite, we've known for a long time that caffeine induces adenosine buildup: https://www.nature.com/articles/38160 https://www.nature.com/articles/38160 Should it have been cited? Maybe. But it's a very well known fact, and not everything needs to be proven from first principles. (Also, Occams razor applies - things that go away need a mechanism to make it go away, while things staying around don't) This is a pop-science article that's surprisingly well sourced. Nitpicking the exhaustiveness of the sources seems somewhat contraproductive.

taeric 4y ago
My point was as much that showing it is a blocker on the receptors is not the same as showing it just "builds up" in your system. It isn't so implausible that I don't believe it, but a study would be good. Similarly, showing it moves to another part of your body does not imply that it is just "waiting its turn" for getting into the receptors later. Indeed, if they reach a steady state in the rest of your body, it seems to imply you are always binding less of it. The link you gave showing it is increased in plasma levels feels good. I would still question whether or not it only gets consumed in the receptors, versus changing where it is stored in the body. (That is, does your body "burn" the same amount of the stuff regardless of whether it is in the receptors or not?) That said, these questions are just asking how far we have come in understanding. And, really, my main point was to be fair to the question asked and see if there is evidence of the claim. And... quite frankly, there isn't. There were no studies linked showing that you will be tired later if you have coffee. None. To claim that what is there does that, is to hide behind sophistry of science to push claims that it isn't making.

yazzku 4y ago

> Worse, the claim is there that the adenosine "doesn't go away," but there is no cite for that rather key claim. (Did I miss it?) It "doesn't go away" in the sense that the adenosine stays bound to the caffeine until your body metabolizes that caffeine away. At that point, the adenosine is released back and follows it's usual cycle. It's not that it "doesn't ever go away".

taeric 4y ago
That reads differently to me. Claiming that caffeine is a receptor blocker reads more that it displaces the adenosine in a way that it is not in the receptors. This does not imply that it cannot be processed in some other way, or that it is waiting for the receptor forever. Do SSRIs work by just "delaying the depression" to later? Because that reads in very much the same way. I get that the body is complex. I also get that things are necessarily watered down for people like me. I would still like to see studies that were done against the main claim here.