vegetable juice... substitute for caffeine?

[gib65]

Hello,

I'm looking for substitutes to caffeine. A friend told me that vegetable juices raise one's alkaline levels. Raised alkaline levels are supposed to increase oxygen levels and higher energy levels.

Is any of this true?

Are there other substitutes to caffeine for raising one's energy levels and alertness?

[StringJunky]

The caffeine addiction is probably messing about with your levels of alertness. If you kick that addiction you'll likely find you won't have the crashes that make you want to have caffeine to make you more alert. The headaches can be pretty heavy for a few days when you stop.

[hypervalent_iodine]

2 hours ago, gib65 said:

Hello,

I'm looking for substitutes to caffeine. A friend told me that vegetable juices raise one's alkaline levels. Raised alkaline levels are supposed to increase oxygen levels and higher energy levels.

Is any of this true?

Are there other substitutes to caffeine for raising one's energy levels and alertness?

 

The idea of it (or indeed, any food) raising the body's 'alkaline levels' is total nonsense. 

[gib65]

Thanks both, good to know.

[Alex_Krycek]

@ OP

For me, drinking fresh fruit and vegetable juices that I make myself has totally changed my life.  I feel 10 years younger when I'm "on the juice", so to speak, compared to when I lapse back into drinking tea.  I usually keep it simple and drink celery / apple juice twice a day which is very cheap and easy to prepare.  Drinking celery juice has a calming effect that I find very beneficial. 

Vegetable juice doesn't cause the swings in energy associated with caffeine.  It gives you a strong boost, but then you return to normal.  I've noticed that fruit juices high in sugar, such as fresh watermelon juice, do tend to make me tired once the sugar has worn off, so it's important to drink those in moderation. 

The science behind juicing is you are getting close to 99% of the food value (i.e. the vitamins and minerals) from the fruit / vegetable with your body doing minimal work.  Our digestive systems are actually very inefficient when it comes to extracting nutrients from raw vegetables, only getting about 5-10 % of the food value if you eat it raw.  If you cook the vegetables, forget it, you just killed pretty much all the nutrients. 

Same with store bought juice.  It's pasteurized (super heated) to kill bacteria so it can sit on the shelf without spoiling, but this also kills the nutrients that make the juice healthy.  When you buy orange juice from the store you're essentially buying glorified sugar water with an orange flavor.  Much better to juice the oranges yourself and get all the benefits. 

Juicing brings 99% of the food value into your bloodstream within minutes of drinking the juice, no digestion required. 

If you're serious about trying this, do an experiment.  Buy a basic juicer from the supermarket.  Learn some basic recipes.  Twice a day (once in the morning and once in the afternoon), drink a very basic fruit / vegetable combination (carrot apple / celery apple / cucumber / apple . etc).  Make enough for 8-12 oz of juice.  Follow this new regime of two fresh juices a day for two weeks, and record your energy levels each day and if they change.

There's a million books and channels on youtube about juicing:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-_FuK4pgs0

 

[John Cuthber]

7 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

@ OP

For me, drinking fresh fruit and vegetable juices that I make myself has totally changed my life.  I feel 10 years younger when I'm "on the juice", so to speak, compared to when I lapse back into drinking tea.  I usually keep it simple and drink celery / apple juice twice a day which is very cheap and easy to prepare.  Drinking celery juice has a calming effect that I find very beneficial. 

Vegetable juice doesn't cause the swings in energy associated with caffeine.  It gives you a strong boost, but then you return to normal.  I've noticed that fruit juices high in sugar, such as fresh watermelon juice, do tend to make me tired once the sugar has worn off, so it's important to drink those in moderation. 

The science behind juicing is you are getting close to 99% of the food value (i.e. the vitamins and minerals) from the fruit / vegetable with your body doing minimal work.  Our digestive systems are actually very inefficient when it comes to extracting nutrients from raw vegetables, only getting about 5-10 % of the food value if you eat it raw.  If you cook the vegetables, forget it, you just killed pretty much all the nutrients. 

Same with store bought juice.  It's pasteurized (super heated) to kill bacteria so it can sit on the shelf without spoiling, but this also kills the nutrients that make the juice healthy.  When you buy orange juice from the store you're essentially buying glorified sugar water with an orange flavor.  Much better to juice the oranges yourself and get all the benefits. 

Juicing brings 99% of the food value into your bloodstream within minutes of drinking the juice, no digestion required. 

If you're serious about trying this, do an experiment.  Buy a basic juicer from the supermarket.  Learn some basic recipes.  Twice a day (once in the morning and once in the afternoon), drink a very basic fruit / vegetable combination (carrot apple / celery apple / cucumber / apple . etc).  Make enough for 8-12 oz of juice.  Follow this new regime of two fresh juices a day for two weeks, and record your energy levels each day and if they change.

There's a million books and channels on youtube about juicing:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-_FuK4pgs0

 

Do you know what psychosomatic means?

[Alex_Krycek]

7 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Do you know what psychosomatic means?

Yep.

[John Cuthber]

How do you rule out psychosomatic effects as an explanation for what you have perceived when you drink juice?

[Alex_Krycek]

7 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

How do you rule out psychosomatic effects as an explanation for what you have perceived when you drink juice?

Mainly because the energy difference is so noticeable.  It's not just a minor boost in energy, it's like night and day. 

Which is only normal considering I'm consuming massive amounts of vitamins, minerals, carbohydrates, protein, etc pretty much directly into my bloodstream. 

[John Cuthber]

Having lots more vitamins (for example) in the bloodstream is only going to make a difference if you were previously deficient, and I doubt that you would be if you were in the habit of drinking juice.

Also you comments about store bought juices are factually wrong- pasteurisation isn't super-heating.

It doesn't "Kill" nutrients-partly because they are not alive, but principally because they are reasonable stable chemicals.

This is a bit odd too

"When you buy orange juice from the store you're essentially buying glorified sugar water with an orange flavor. "
The same is pretty much true of home made juice."
And, if you like fruit juice what's wrong with sugar in water. That describes practically the whole of any juice.
 

Are you one of these people who somehow thinks "natural is good"?

 

[Alex_Krycek]

7 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Having lots more vitamins (for example) in the bloodstream is only going to make a difference if you were previously deficient, and I doubt that you would be if you were in the habit of drinking juice.

Also you comments about store bought juices are factually wrong- pasteurisation isn't super-heating.

It doesn't "Kill" nutrients-partly because they are not alive, but principally because they are reasonable stable chemicals.

This is a bit odd too

"When you buy orange juice from the store you're essentially buying glorified sugar water with an orange flavor. "
The same is pretty much true of home made juice."
And, if you like fruit juice what's wrong with sugar in water. That describes practically the whole of any juice.
 

Are you one of these people who somehow thinks "natural is good"?

 

Ok.  Thanks.  But I'm not interested in having a debate with you about how you think you know more about my own life than I do.  If you want to believe that, you're entitled to, but I'm not interested in entertaining your superiority complex. 

[John Cuthber]

If you check carefully, you will find that I didn't say anything about your life.

Some of the things you said are flat out wrong.

This is a science web site.

Do you think false things should be left unchallenged on a science page?

[Alex_Krycek]

11 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Having lots more vitamins (for example) in the bloodstream is only going to make a difference if you were previously deficient, and I doubt that you would be if you were in the habit of drinking juice.

Do you have any evidence for this?  Because there are countless individuals who would attest otherwise.  Or are they all victims of psychosomatic thinking?

Quote

Also you comments about store bought juices are factually wrong- pasteurisation isn't super-heating.

It doesn't "Kill" nutrients-partly because they are not alive, but principally because they are reasonable stable chemicals.

"The pasteurization process typically involves heating beverages up to 180 degrees Fahrenheit in order to kill bacteria, although many fungi and parasites are also destroyed by the heat. Flash pasteurization uses higher temperatures."

Vitamin C

"Vitamin C is needed to make and repair collagen, which is the elastic-like protein found in skin and connective tissues and is important for immune function. Unfortunately, vitamin C is very sensitive to heat and oxidation. Consequently, a significant amount of vitamin C is destroyed by pasteurization, although some juice manufacturers may add more to their products after the pasteurization process to compensate for the loss. Perhaps more importantly, vitamin C deteriorates quickly when exposed to oxygen, so there may not be much viable vitamin C left for pasteurization to destroy by the time the juice gets to that stage. This is why some “before and after” pasteurization studies examining vitamin content may be misleading or confusing."

Antioxidants and Enzymes

"Antioxidants in fruits and veggies, especially compounds called phenols, are also very sensitive to heat and oxidation. As such, a significant amount of antioxidants are destroyed by commercial production of juice and the pasteurization process. Antioxidants destroy free radicals, which are chemical by-products that damage and age tissues such as arteries. Fruits, especially pineapple and papaya, contain enzymes that help break down protein and other components of food. Enzymes such as those are also destroyed by heat."

Irradiation

"Many pasteurized products are also irradiated, which is capable of destroying other kinds of nutrients because the gamma rays deeply penetrate food and alter the molecular structure. For example, irradiation can destroy vitamins A, B-12, D and E. Irradiation also alters the natural life cycle of plants, which delays ripening and prevents sprouting."

SOURCE:  https://woman.thenest.com/pasteurization-affect-nutrients-fruit-9199.html

Quote

Are you one of these people who somehow thinks "natural is good"?

Of course.  Produce or livestock raised in a natural, clean environment is always preferable to that contaminated with pesticides, growth hormones, or other unknown toxins. 

Edited February 4, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[hypervalent_iodine]

 

 

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Do you have any evidence for this?  Because there are countless individuals who would attest otherwise.  Or are they all victims of psychosomatic thinking?

 

Anecdotes =/= evidence. Do you have any actual scientific evidence to prove what you’re saying?

[Strange]

19 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Mainly because the energy difference is so noticeable. 

That doesn't rule out psychological (e.g. placebo) effects.

Quote

Do you have any evidence for this?  Because there are countless individuals who would attest otherwise.  Or are they all victims of psychosomatic thinking?

It also doesn't rule out other possible (physical) causes such as, when they start to prepare their own fruit juice (or take supplements, or whatever) they also started looking after their health in other ways such as doing more exercise, drinking less, etc. As they say, correlation is not causation.

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Produce or livestock raised in a natural, clean environment is always preferable to that contaminated with pesticides, growth hormones, or other unknown toxins. 

Strictly speaking, that is not a distinction between natural and unnatural. For example, many pesticides, growth hormones and fertilisers are natural. And it is quite possible to produce poor quality food by completely "natural" means (i.e. not using such things).

(Also, it wouldn't be possible to feed the world's growing population without the use of fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides.) 

Edited February 4, 2018 by Strange

[Alex_Krycek]

Just now, hypervalent_iodine said:

Anecdotes =/= evidence. Do you have any actual scientific evidence to prove what you’re saying?

If a subject is consuming a substance (be it a food, beverage, drug, chemical, etc) and they report their experiences honestly and in good faith, that does count as evidence.  Discounting the experiences of the subject of the experiment is unscientific. 

Just now, Strange said:

That doesn't rule out psychological (e.g. placebo) effects.

It also doesn't rule out other possible (physical) causes such as, when they start to prepare their own fruit juice (or take supplements, or whatever) they also started looking after their health in other ways such as doing more exercise, drinking less, etc. As they say, correlation is not causation.

Strictly speaking, that is not a distinction between natural and unnatural. For example, many pesticides, growth hormones and fertilisers are natural. And it is quite possible to produce poor quality food by completely "natural" means (i.e. not using such things).

(Also, it wouldn't be possible to feed the world's growing population without the use of fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides.) 

Sure, I hear what you're saying.  Which is why the OP should do his own experiment and see for himself how juicing affects his daily life.  Until he does that, everything else is mere speculation. 

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

If a subject is consuming a substance (be it a food, beverage, drug, chemical, etc) and they report their experiences honestly and in good faith, that does count as evidence.  Discounting the experiences of the subject of the experiment is unscientific. 

No on is dismissing the evidence. But assuming those subjective feelings must be due to physical effects is not scientific either. Especially as things like the placebo effect are so well attested.

6 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Which is why the OP should do his own experiment and see for himself how juicing affects his daily life.

Science is not about personal experience. In fact, this is almost the exact opposite of science. But, sadly, this is the sort of anti-science response I am coming to expect from you.

 

[Alex_Krycek]

Just now, Strange said:

Science is not about personal experience. In fact, this is almost the exact opposite of science. But, sadly, this is the sort of anti-science response I am coming to expect from you.

Treating one's subjective experiences, whether in relation to health, consciousness, psychology, or any other area of life as irrelevant is an oversight which impedes the search for truth.  This is one of the major flaws in the mechanistic / materialist philosophy that currently prevails in the scientific mainstream. 

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

"The pasteurization process typically involves heating beverages up to 180 degrees Fahrenheit in order to kill bacteria, although many fungi and parasites are also destroyed by the heat. Flash pasteurization uses higher temperatures."

OK, that's half the story.

Why did you not include the other half?
"In physics, superheating (sometimes referred to as boiling retardation, or boiling delay) is the phenomenon in which a liquid is heated to a temperature higher than its boiling point, without boiling. "?
Was it because it shows that I was right?

Your statement that 

On 2/3/2018 at 6:13 AM, Alex_Krycek said:

It's pasteurized (super heated) to kill bacteria

still isn't true.
Others have already pointed out most of the other errors in your screed so I won't bother reiterating them.

I will pick up on one thing, the food produced without the use of fungicides is likely to be attacked by fungi.

Some fungal products are among the most toxic materials we know of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycotoxin

 

So this 

3 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Produce or livestock raised in a natural, clean environment is always preferable to that contaminated with pesticides, growth hormones, or other unknown toxins.

is, perhaps, true but argues against you point.
The "unknown toxins" are what you get if you don't use pesticides.

That's why we use them.

And , of course if your answer to 

20 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Are you one of these people who somehow thinks "natural is good"?

 

is  this

3 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Of course. 

then I have bad news for you.

Nothing is more natural than death.

[Alex_Krycek]

Just now, John Cuthber said:

then I have bad news for you.

Nothing is more natural than death.

Of course.  So in the face of inevitable death, what kind of life do you choose to live?

1. You either treat your health with casual indifference, living the life of the bohemian pleasure seeker, thinking: "everyone has to die someday, so I may as well just do as I please".
2. You make an effort to live as long as your can and stay in as optimal as shape as you can, experimenting with different diets / nutrition regimes in your search for the healthiest possible lifestyle. 
3. Or you just do as everyone else does, not thinking about it too much while you follow the herd, whichever way it may go. 

The avenue a person chooses is related to how much they value their life. 

[Strange]

53 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Treating one's subjective experiences, whether in relation to health, consciousness, psychology, or any other area of life as irrelevant is an oversight which impedes the search for truth.  This is one of the major flaws in the mechanistic / materialist philosophy that currently prevails in the scientific mainstream. 

Stop with the stupid and dishonest straw man arguments. No one said they were irrelevant. 

[Alex_Krycek]

Just now, Strange said:

Stop with the stupid and dishonest straw man arguments. No one said they were irrelevant. 

 

Ok.  I must have misunderstood you then.  What else did you mean when you wrote this:

Quote

Science is not about personal experience. In fact, this is almost the exact opposite of science.

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[Strange]

Science is about repeated (and repeatable) objective measurements (which can, of course, be of subjective feelings). Not about an individual's personal experience.

And, one person's subjective experience does not help answer the question of whether an effect is physical, psychological, some combination, or due to some other cause.

14 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Of course.  So in the face of inevitable death, what kind of life do you choose to live?

1. You either treat your health with casual indifference, living the life of the bohemian pleasure seeker, thinking: "everyone has to die someday, so I may as well just do as I please".
2. You make an effort to live as long as your can and stay in as optimal as shape as you can, experimenting with different diets / nutrition regimes in your search for the healthiest possible lifestyle. 
3. Or you just do as everyone else does, not thinking about it too much while you follow the herd, whichever way it may go. 

The avenue a person chooses is related to how much they value their life. 

Do you really think they are the only possibilities?

[Alex_Krycek]

Just now, Strange said:

Science is about repeated (and repeatable) objective measurements (which can, of course, be of subjective feelings). Not about an individual's personal experience.

So you think science includes an individual's subjective feelings but excludes an individual's personal experience?  That seems a bit incongruous, but ok...

Quote

And, one person's subjective experience does not help answer the question of whether an effect is physical, psychological, some combination, or due to some other cause.

Sure.   But I was responding as one person to the OP's query about whether there are viable alternatives to caffeine.  The OP can factor in my personal experience as he sees fit, and I don't expect the OP to take my word for it, which is why I suggested he do his own experiments to determine what works in his own life.

Quote

Do you really think they are the only possibilities?

Generally speaking, yes. 

Edited February 4, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[Strange]

57 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

So you think science includes an individual's subjective feelings but excludes an individual's personal experience? 

That would make zero sense.

58 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Sure.   But I was responding as one person to the OP's query about whether there are viable alternatives to caffeine.  The OP can factor in my personal experience as he sees fit, and I don't expect the OP to take my word for it, which is why I suggested he do his own experiments to determine what works in his own life.

Wasn't commenting on your original post. (I'm not sure how fruit juice is a substitute for caffeine, but it can obviously be a substitute for tea or coffee, or any other drink. I'm not sure why one couldn't drink both coffee and fruit juice (although probably not together!) But whatever.) 

59 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Generally speaking, yes. 

That may explain a lot.