Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dubious research tied to Red Bull has shaped energy drink policy

theexamination.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 263 posts

Re: Dubious research tied to Red Bull has shaped energy drink policy

#181

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

quickthrowman wrote: post #146
cogman10 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the most convincing example isn't energy drinks but rather Panara bread's energy blaster drinks that they had to stop selling. [1] It seems like they used all the same ingredients common to a lot of energy drinks, but they used more of them. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/23/business/panera-lawsuit-charg...

The caffeinated lemonade was amazing, but I have a very high caffeine tolerance (1000mg+ a day) and it made me jittery. Can’t imagine what effect it had on people without a serious tolerance.

That lemonade was stupidly high, 390mg caffeine. Only serious addicts could drink that without noticing strong effects.

What’s most remarkable about that case, is that it was a Panera. Could have added 50mg and it would still be more caffeinated than I would expect of the establishment. There was no need to go to the extreme end.

Re: Dubious research tied to Red Bull has shaped energy drink policy

#182

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

john_strinlai wrote: post #68
filoleg wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am with you here, especially given that the examples listed in the article were basically: * Some young man downed 6 beers and "several" energy drinks, then dove into a lake, and subsequently died. His mother said that he grew up near a lake and a was a good swimmer, so their conclusion was to blame energy drinks. * An 18 year old woman downed 10 jagerbombs (a mix of jagermeister liquor and an energy drink) and sub…

> consumed an equivalent of 10 energy drinks+10 shots of hard liquor a jagerbomb is not typically an entire energy drink. it's typically 3oz/90ml of energy drink. 10 jagerbombs would be ~3 redbulls. (which is still obviously a lot of energy drink and alcohol in a short time)

Red Bulls are a pretty pedestrian caffeine content by today’s standards, 80mg/can. Other brands are usually 150-200 mg.

Re: Dubious research tied to Red Bull has shaped energy drink policy

#183

Post by UqWBcuFx6NV4r »

Kon5ole wrote: post #126

Seems like a good a place as any to ask this - anyone else feel no effect from either coffee or energy drinks? I can go from 4-5 cups of coffee per day at work (coffee machine) to 0 cups in the weekend and feel no different. Had bouts of doing 4-6 red bulls (or similar energy drinks) per evening into the wee hours as a youngster and still fell asleep at the keyboard - felt no different than drinking water or lemonade…

lol. sounds like it’s time to get diagnosed.

Re: Dubious research tied to Red Bull has shaped energy drink policy

#184

Post by crote »

filoleg wrote: post #62
superdisk wrote: post #29

I really don't know why people go so nuts over energy drinks. People casually chug coffee like crazy and then act like you're drinking nuclear waste when you drink a monster, and then you look at the ingredients list and it's like - Water - Sugar - Vitamin B - Caffeine and the caffeine is basically equivalent to one cup of coffee.

I am with you here, especially given that the examples listed in the article were basically: * Some young man downed 6 beers and "several" energy drinks, then dove into a lake, and subsequently died. His mother said that he grew up near a lake and a was a good swimmer, so their conclusion was to blame energy drinks. * An 18 year old woman downed 10 jagerbombs (a mix of jagermeister liquor and an energy drink) and sub…

And doing "only alcohol" vs "alcohol plus energy drink" research is quite misleading: college kids are using it to mask the taste of alcohol, so it is basically a certainty that they'll drink more alcohol and drink it faster. And because alcohol is bad that will obviously lead to worse outcomes.

If you want to do proper research on the impact of the caffeine part you'd have to do, say, "alcohol with Red Bull" vs "alcohol with Sprite".

Re: Dubious research tied to Red Bull has shaped energy drink policy

#185

Post by dopa42365 »

mattmaroon wrote: post #176
tombert wrote: post #25

I have always hated coffee so I've previously had some kind of energy drink in the morning for weeks at a time. Those suckers are bizarrely addictive. It's one thing to have one shortly after you wake up, but I found myself craving them later and later in the day, and of course that makes it harder to sleep...which makes me more likely to have energy drinks the next day. I stopped the daily consumption when I realize…

I make my own all natural energy drink. I too don’t like coffee much, no matter how hard I’ve tried, but also those things have a lot of chemicals other than caffeine in them. You can buy powdered caffeine derived from green tea. I do bottling including my own sodas so I have ready access and you might have to buy at least 1 lb, which is a lot of caffeine, but it’s worth it for your health. I don’t drink more than 20…

Pure caffeine is dirt cheap to produce at the enormous scale that it is consumed worldwide. Appeal to nature is a logical fallacy.

Just get some perfectly fine caffeine if that's what you want, nothing wrong with it.

Re: Dubious research tied to Red Bull has shaped energy drink policy

#186

Post by esikich »

strbean wrote: post #122
tombert wrote: post #25

I have always hated coffee so I've previously had some kind of energy drink in the morning for weeks at a time. Those suckers are bizarrely addictive. It's one thing to have one shortly after you wake up, but I found myself craving them later and later in the day, and of course that makes it harder to sleep...which makes me more likely to have energy drinks the next day. I stopped the daily consumption when I realize…

Consuming that much caffeine is terrible for your heart. If you find yourself consuming a lot of caffeine regularly, you would probably be much better served by Adderall. You can get the same stimulant effect with much less wear and tear on your body. If you want to put it to the test without breaking the law or going through the hassle of getting a prescription, you can try taking 1 or 2 Sudafed (the real stuff that…

Good Lord no. Sudafed is nothing like Adderall and Adderall is nothing like caffeine, for starters.

I was on a low 10mg time release dose of Adderall for about 6 years. I had a lapse of insurance and could no longer afford it. I weaned myself off over a month and the withdrawals were absolutely fucking terrible.

Just fucking bad advice dude.

Re: Dubious research tied to Red Bull has shaped energy drink policy

#187

Post by awakeasleep »

AlphaAndOmega0 wrote: post #161
inigyou wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How come normal people take methamphetamine and go crazy but people with ADHD can take it to feel normal? (One of the less common prescription meds for ADHD is literally just meth but with the government stamp of approval on it)

I'm a psychiatry resident, and I have ADHD. The myth is, in fact, a myth. More importantly, the dose of desoxyn (methamphetamine) used therapeutically for ADHD is *much* lower than what's consumed recreationally. That's really it. Use low doses, as prescribed, and the risks are minimal/comparable to most alternative stimulants. It's like asking why a society where everyone has cups of tea twice a day has a different…

If anyone is curious, a medical daily dose can be around 20mg and recreational consumption for a non-hardcore user is around 400mg so they’re commonly taking 20x the therapeutic dose

Re: Dubious research tied to Red Bull has shaped energy drink policy

#188

Post by sneak »

jwrallie wrote: post #164
InsideOutSanta wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're describing caffeine addiction. This also happens with coffee. People at the office sometimes ask me how I manage to get up in the morning and be in a good mood without having a cup of coffee. I suspect that most of them are only in a bad mood after waking up because they have mild caffeine widthrawal.

That is likely true, but there are other factors. For example delayed sleep phase paired with fixed office work hours. I bet many people that have a slight 1-2h shift compared to the average are using an early morning coffee to make things work.

Not sure why you’re downvoted, this is HUGE. Most humans have a circadian rhythm that tends toward slightly longer than 24 hours, and waking up at the same time every day can be very difficult for some percentage of us.

Re: Dubious research tied to Red Bull has shaped energy drink policy

#189

Post by sneak »

cess11 wrote: post #136
strbean wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consuming that much caffeine is terrible for your heart. If you find yourself consuming a lot of caffeine regularly, you would probably be much better served by Adderall. You can get the same stimulant effect with much less wear and tear on your body. If you want to put it to the test without breaking the law or going through the hassle of getting a prescription, you can try taking 1 or 2 Sudafed (the real stuff that…

Why do you expect pseudoephedrine to be less nasty on the cardiovascular system than caffeine? Recommending going from caffeine to amphetamine comes across as rather weird to me. 'It seems you have trouble regulating intake of a weak stimulant most people have little issue with, how about you take one of the strong, seriously treacherous ones instead?'

Amphetamine is no stronger or more treacherous than caffeine, when dosed properly. As someone with EXTENSIVE experience with both, I would say caffeine is probably substantially more treacherous.

Re: Dubious research tied to Red Bull has shaped energy drink policy

#190

Post by neutronicus »

DANmode wrote: post #121
neutronicus wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you try Excedrin? It has some caffeine in it. It does seem to be especially helpful relative to just Tylenol for me as a migraine sufferer. Specifically for helping to disperse the aura.

> disperse the aura. What’s this mean?

Visual disturbance.

I get a blind spot near the center of my vision that looks a bit like what you see when you rub your closed eyes. It gets large enough to mostly obscure faces and prevent reading

Post reply on HN