4 ms·

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

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.

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.