Dubious research tied to Red Bull has shaped energy drink policy • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by crtasm » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 5:26 PM UTC

asdff wrote: post #94

crtasm wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, are either of those sold in cans and marketed to children?

Anything with any sort of flavor is argued as being sold to children these days. Except bubblegum flavored vodka I guess. Somehow that has always gotten the pass while people handwring over juul pods.

I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say - at least here I don't see marketing campaigns for flavored vodka targeting children, and unlike energy drinks it's not on store shelves right next to soft drinks.

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

#102

Post by input_sh » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 5:30 PM UTC

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.

Whenever I stumble upon articles such as this one, I always just mentally swap the words energy drink with "two coffees and a multivitamin" (or even "one coffee and a multivitamin" if we're talking about a Red Bull) and then the whole article just seems silly.

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

#103

Post by dlcarrier » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 5:48 PM UTC

It's not like health food research is the bastion of good practice, or even okayish practice.

Humans are by default irrational, especially when it comes to health theater. We waste endless resources with organic farming and trying to figure out what we even mean when we call something ultra processed, because we want to eat what feels right, and we don't care a smidgen how often data supports our intuition, we just care that on the off chance it does, we amplify that research while ignoring everything else. (See also: https://xkcd.com/882/)

It doesn't take a big corporate overlord to wish addictive substances were healthy; we're always looking for an excuse to rationalize them. So what if fresh grapes have all the antioxidants we can use, we like to drink wine so we're only going to talk about wine having antioxidants. Plus, it turns out that people with bad health stop drinking wine, so surely that's why they have bad health. Is coffee and tea messing up our sleep and destroying our teeth? Well, lets try and find something good about it, or some variation of it, and ignore the probability that other foods could give us the same benefits without the side effects.

This doesn't mean a well designed experiment, instead of a biased study or meta analysis, can't find useful information, but it does mean you'll need to dig to find it. It also doesn't mean that we have to be teetotalers to be healthy, but being addicted to something can make it more difficult.

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

#104

Post by tristor » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 6:01 PM UTC

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 like energy drinks, but I prefer coffee. I drink my coffee black. About the only time I drink an energy drink for these past few years is when driving long distances. I don't like the chemicals used in sugar free sodas/energy drinks, and I don't like consuming a lot of unnecessary sugar, I also really like the flavor of properly prepared coffee. I go through phases, but I generally just have 1-2 cups in the morning and that's it, but when I'm driving I might have 3-5 energy drinks over the course of 8-10 hours of driving. I understand the appeal, but it's just never hooked me the way people talk about them.

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

#105

Post by tombert » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 6:09 PM UTC

swores wrote: post #96

tombert wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There certainly is kind of a different culture around people who chug energy drinks compared to people who drink coffee. Energy drinks in the fridge at a job sort of signals that this company is part of that "grindset hustle culture" startup, which itself likes to employ a certain..."type".

I think there's a certain type that you're talking about that does tend towards energy drinks like that, but it's not true in the other direction, as that type is a minority of energy drink drinkers. Just a particularly noticeable one. I've not been a fan of them myself since I was a teenager years ago, but I've worked with quite a few people in all sorts of roles, whose drink of choice was whatever their favourite e…

Sure, I guess I've just worked at enough startups that advertise "keeping the fridge full of Red Bull" as some kind of perk, when in reality it kind of ends up being a code for "you'd better enjoy working long, long hours".

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

#106

Post by Retric » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 6:12 PM UTC

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #78

Retric wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how much of that is milk, honey, or just water from making weak coffee? That’s the difference. What’s an extreme amount of caffeine compared to most people is presented as the normal servicing size. So the next step up is 2 of them.

I make it strong. No sweeteners. An ounce or two of heavy cream. The amount of caffeine is probably quite high. Anyway, any concept of a "standard" coffee is substantially smaller and weaker than what any variant in the US actually is in practice, where espresso-based drinks nearly universally use 2-3 shots and drip coffees are poured in sizes ranging from voluminous to biblical flood. An 8 ounce cup of coffee is jus…

> An ounce or two of heavy cream.

That’s 6-12% of a 16 ounce serving and even more of your “nearly” 16oz beverage.

McDonald’s is known for having strong coffee and a double espresso from them is under 150mg.

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

#107

Post by BugsJustFindMe » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 6:19 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #106

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I make it strong. No sweeteners. An ounce or two of heavy cream. The amount of caffeine is probably quite high. Anyway, any concept of a "standard" coffee is substantially smaller and weaker than what any variant in the US actually is in practice, where espresso-based drinks nearly universally use 2-3 shots and drip coffees are poured in sizes ranging from voluminous to biblical flood. An 8 ounce cup of coffee is jus…

> An ounce or two of heavy cream. That’s 6-12% of a 16 ounce serving and even more of your “nearly” 16oz beverage. McDonald’s is known for having strong coffee and a double espresso from them is under 150mg.

> That’s 6-12%

"Oh no!"

> McDonald’s is known for having strong coffee

Lol.

> a double espresso from them is under 150mg

McDonalds famously does not publish caffeine numbers because they aren't forced to by the government. https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/faq/how-much-caffeine-is-...

But this person did his own measurements and says you're wrong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imc7Aime_cI

Anyway, here are published numbers we can find for reasonable comparison:

  Monster Energy 16oz cans
  Original Green Monster: 160 mg
  Monster Ultra / Zero Sugar: 150 mg
  Monster Lo-Carb: 140 mg

  Starbucks Brewed coffee
  Pike Place Roast: Short 155 mg, Tall 235 mg, Grande 310  mg, Venti 410 mg.
  Blonde Roast: Short 180 mg, Tall 270 mg, Grande 360 mg, Venti 475 mg.
  Dark Roast: Short 130 mg, Tall 195 mg, Grande 260 mg, Venti 340 mg.
  Decaf Pike Place: Short 15 mg, Tall 20 mg, Grande 25 mg, Venti 30 mg.

  Starbucks espresso is 150 mg per standard double shot, so e.g. a grande caramel macchiato is 150 mg for 16oz of liquid, just like the monster energy drink can.

  (In case you don't know, Grande, aka 16oz, is the most popular drink size at Starbucks, and short isn't even shown visibly on the menu.)

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

#108

Post by _doctor_love » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 6:30 PM UTC

When I see headlines and stories like this, a male voice with a Mid-Atlantic accent pipes up in my head: "9 out of 10 doctors recommend Pall Mall cigarettes - they help guard against throat scratch!"

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

#109

Post by asdff » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 6:42 PM UTC

crtasm wrote: post #101

asdff wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything with any sort of flavor is argued as being sold to children these days. Except bubblegum flavored vodka I guess. Somehow that has always gotten the pass while people handwring over juul pods.

I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say - at least here I don't see marketing campaigns for flavored vodka targeting children, and unlike energy drinks it's not on store shelves right next to soft drinks.

I never saw those sorts of ads for juul either. People just incorrectly assumed fruity must be for kids and that no adults would want say a mango pod vs pure tobacco flavor. At the gas station that vodka is in the common shelving as its often the 40 proof stuff like orlov with these flavors. The smirnoff in the grocery store depending on the state could be in the same aisle as the soda.

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

#110

Post by drcongo » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 7:10 PM UTC

jodacola wrote: post #89

mmsc wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feeling miserable for three days seems ... unlikely after 800mg/day of caffeine. I say that to mean, it should be much longer (been there, done that, took many months) Caffeine use especially at that level massively grows the amount adenosine receptors your brain has, and they don't just disappear overnight. A 500ml Diet Coke (assuming you don't mean the caffeine free version) also contains about 65 mg of caffeine, w…

Everybody's physiology is different, but I drank a full pot of coffee every day, for about 15 years. After Getting Older™, I was noticing more and more effects that I didn't like, so I made the decision to (mostly) detox off caffeine using decaf beans. Cold turkey would have destroyed me. I went with the following schedule: * Week 1: 75% caffeinated/25% decaf beans * Week 2: 50% caf/50% decaf * Week 3: 25% caf/75% de…

For about 8 years now I've been down to one caffeinated coffee per day, first thing in the morning. If I miss it, I have the start of a migraine by about 1pm. It's mad.