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

241–250 of 263 posts

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

#241

Post by robocat »

vidarh wrote: post #216
robocat wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tapering down using Caffeine pills (nodōz) has been really effective for me multiple times in the past. I have found it tricky to find a good starting dose, and it gets a bit difficult to break tablets into very small amounts (1/10th pill) tapering down near the end. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46417034 I would never try cold turkey again due to nasty headaches. I've done it linearly over some weeks, but if…

You can get powder and a digital scale, and there are relatively low caffeine pills. Alternatively, things like dark chocolate might be easier to cut to small doses.

Good idea. I didn't know about caffeine powder suppliments (for sports). Scales and gel-caps are something else I wouldn't think of without context.

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

#242

Post by [deleted] »

throw2ih020 wrote: post #234
Retric wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the bottom of the label it’s listing caffeine from all sources 160mg here: https://www.walmart.com/ip/12-Pack-Monster-Energy-Drink-Zero... So not the original is 160mg as are most of their options, only the low carb monster is 140mg meanwhile Java monster hits 300mg. https://www.caffeineinformer.com/caffeine-content/monster Starbucks has a wide range of coffee at different sizes with different amounts of caffeine.…

I think at this point the zero cal/low cal ones are more popular. I don't know anyone who drinks Black Monster, while White Monster (zero cal) is so popular it's literally a meme. You go to a store and most of the shelf space is the low cal/zero cal options.

[deleted]

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

#243

Post by Retric »

throw2ih020 wrote: post #234
Retric wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the bottom of the label it’s listing caffeine from all sources 160mg here: https://www.walmart.com/ip/12-Pack-Monster-Energy-Drink-Zero... So not the original is 160mg as are most of their options, only the low carb monster is 140mg meanwhile Java monster hits 300mg. https://www.caffeineinformer.com/caffeine-content/monster Starbucks has a wide range of coffee at different sizes with different amounts of caffeine.…

I think at this point the zero cal/low cal ones are more popular. I don't know anyone who drinks Black Monster, while White Monster (zero cal) is so popular it's literally a meme. You go to a store and most of the shelf space is the low cal/zero cal options.

It’s not that significant but don’t assume low calorie means a specific amount of caffeine.

Monster Energy Ultra Sunrise, Sugar Free Energy Drink is 155mg which is an unusual number for them.

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

#244

Post by exabrial »

ryu2k2 wrote: post #22
exabrial wrote: post #5

[flagged]

It sure is our business if companies are misappropriating science to sell harmful products or advertize harmful misuse of their products.

Better spend your time going after those flat-earthers then

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

#245

Post by marcuschong »

pestatije wrote: post #221
marcuschong wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been drinking loads of coke Zero (up to 3 liters a day, these days it's about 2 liters), and my teeth are fine. I'm 40 and have been drinking it for most of my life, it started when I was about 16, with regular coke back then. Maybe I'm lucky.

> and my teeth are fine says the dentist? or says you? after a check-up i was strongly recommended to stop taking soft drinks...no symptoms whatsoever but the teeth are weakening

My dentist, annual consultation.

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

#246

Post by marcuschong »

b3ing wrote: post #195
marcuschong wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been drinking loads of coke Zero (up to 3 liters a day, these days it's about 2 liters), and my teeth are fine. I'm 40 and have been drinking it for most of my life, it started when I was about 16, with regular coke back then. Maybe I'm lucky.

Hope you don’t have diabetes

I'm regularly afraid of things like that, not only for drinking too much coke but also for not having exactly the healthiest lifestyle overall. I've tried reducing coke a few times with some luck here and there, but eventually got back to it everytime. For now, my annual checkups are good.

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

#247

Post by doubletwoyou »

neutronicus wrote: post #190
DANmode wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

I was going mad for a good chunk of time a while ago figuring out why those blind spots were forming, glad to see I’m not alone

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

#249

Post by mft_ »

bluescrn wrote: post #248

Why are cold drinks with sugar and caffeine seen as problematic, while hot drinks with sugar and caffeine are seen as perfectly good?

On the one hand it’s nonsense, as you imply.

On the other, ‘energy’ drinks can often have far more sugar and caffeine than e.g. tea or coffee, and are obviously marketed heavily at young people, who can then find themselves consuming unhealthy amounts and/or forming addictions.

So it’s not really a particular drink in moderation that’s a problem per se, but everything else that comes with it.

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

#250

Post by filoleg »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #181
quickthrowman wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

holy, that's quite a lot.

Even the strongest energy drink I've ever seen sold retail in the US had "only" 300mg of caffeine. And it came with plenty of signage on the packaging, indicating very prominently how high the caffeine levels were. I usually drink 200mg a day total (sometimes, but rarely, crossing into the 300mg territory), and you were totally correct, there is absolutely no way to not notice when that 300mg comes from a single drink.

In no world would I expect a random caffeinated drink at Panera to go above that.

Post reply on HN