Topic: How bad are energy drinks?

[Matthew Wang]

I myself don't drink them, I've always known they were bad for you. But just how bad? I'm curious to know so I can tell other people who drink them like water how their slowly killing their body.

After some Googling I got that the high amounts of caffine mainly cause increased anxiety, panic, some stomach problems, some cardiac arrhythmias, higher blood pressure, and some other minor problems (but problems nonetheless).

Also, a few years ago on the news, there was a study and it showed that drinking energy drinks will make your brain bleed and that obviously can't be good. Any info to back this up or disprove it?

So, anymore information and debate would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

[Chris Salvato]

Similar threads exists:
http://www.americanparkour.com/smf/index.php?topic=14310.0
http://www.americanparkour.com/smf/index.php?topic=14235.0

Energy drinks are also ridiculously high in refined sugars which is no good for insulin levels and inflammatory effects.

[tombb]

They are not really bad at all.

And especially not because of caffeine, plus you often don't have sugar in them unless you want it, e.g., light or diet versions etc.

Of course they are not all that good either, and possibly unnecessary, depending on how and why you take them, but no, they don't make your brain bleed or any such nonsense.
You could say the same unrealistic negative remarks for anything good as well, like exercise: it momentarily increases blood pressure so if you had a faulty blood vessel in the brain it would 'make your brain bleed' too. And it could make a bad heart fail etc. And if you suddenly exercised way too much all of a sudden it could actually cause serious health problems (anything you do in too large sudden amounts is).
But you know very well that exercise done properly is actually very good.

In general I think it's just the wrong attitude to want to try to tell people something is killing them slowly before you put things into a proper context. The majority of things, even things that are not exactly ideal for you, are not killing people slowly. Take the example of small amounts of alchool in wine, it's definitely much worse than energy drinks, as it's a toxic product your liver has to metabolize. Yet again in moderation (say a small glass every few days) despite not being good for you, it really doesn't have any long-term negative effect. Plenty of people lived to 100 years or more in good health while doing this all their lives. Would they have lived to 120 years if they didn't? No.

If you want to find something that kills you slowly, that's called time

In terms of caffeine specifically, it has many positive aspects too but as with many other things it can be easy to use it too frequently or in too large amounts which can sort of reverse many of the advantages it gives. So again moderation or planning carefully how you consume it would be best, just as you would with say vitamins, ginseng, protein drinks etc.

[David Boyle]

I drink them.  I only get the low carb/suger free kind.

Lately I've been drinking "Spike", there sold at 7-11.

Crack in a can....

[Jake Vigil]

Spike.... Haha, did you read the topic Chris Posted?

Spikes... Good if you have them as suggested. BAAAAD if you have lots of them

[tombb]

I drink them.  I only get the low carb/suger free kind.

Lately I've been drinking "Spike", there sold at 7-11.

Crack in a can....

Yeah and look at the big smile on his picture profile, is that the smile of someone killing themselves slowly? I think not   

[Chris Salvato]

They are not really bad at all.

And especially not because of caffeine, plus you often don't have sugar in them unless you want it, e.g., light or diet versions etc.

Of course they are not all that good either, and possibly unnecessary, depending on how and why you take them, but no, they don't make your brain bleed or any such nonsense.
You could say the same unrealistic negative remarks for anything good as well, like exercise: it momentarily increases blood pressure so if you had a faulty blood vessel in the brain it would 'make your brain bleed' too. And it could make a bad heart fail etc. And if you suddenly exercised way too much all of a sudden it could actually cause serious health problems (anything you do in too large sudden amounts is).
But you know very well that exercise done properly is actually very good.

In general I think it's just the wrong attitude to want to try to tell people something is killing them slowly before you put things into a proper context. The majority of things, even things that are not exactly ideal for you, are not killing people slowly. Take the example of small amounts of alchool in wine, it's definitely much worse than energy drinks, as it's a toxic product your liver has to metabolize. Yet again in moderation (say a small glass every few days) despite not being good for you, it really doesn't have any long-term negative effect. Plenty of people lived to 100 years or more in good health while doing this all their lives. Would they have lived to 120 years if they didn't? No.

If you want to find something that kills you slowly, that's called time

In terms of caffeine specifically, it has many positive aspects too but as with many other things it can be easy to use it too frequently or in too large amounts which can sort of reverse many of the advantages it gives. So again moderation or planning carefully how you consume it would be best, just as you would with say vitamins, ginseng, protein drinks etc.

Well I think that this response, in general, is good....but in practice I think the real danger is not the person who has an energy drink once-in-a-while.  Nothing is really that bad for you "once in a while" aside from maybe eating a burning coal.  I do understand that you are pushing moderation, though, to which I agree.

The problem with energy drinks, like everything else, is when you overconsume.  Overconsuming these drinks is VERY easy...especially when the "limit" they post on the can is 3 cans per day.  I know plenty of people who ONLY drink energy drinks...bad news.  This is why I am hesitant to be 100% objective here and say "well its not bad for you in moderation.." because you don't even really need it in moderation. 

If you need a jump start you are better off with a small cup of coffee and avoid consuming caffeine otherwise -- that will keep you wired for hours.

[tombb]

They are not really bad at all.

And especially not because of caffeine, plus you often don't have sugar in them unless you want it, e.g., light or diet versions etc.

Of course they are not all that good either, and possibly unnecessary, depending on how and why you take them, but no, they don't make your brain bleed or any such nonsense.
You could say the same unrealistic negative remarks for anything good as well, like exercise: it momentarily increases blood pressure so if you had a faulty blood vessel in the brain it would 'make your brain bleed' too. And it could make a bad heart fail etc. And if you suddenly exercised way too much all of a sudden it could actually cause serious health problems (anything you do in too large sudden amounts is).
But you know very well that exercise done properly is actually very good.

In general I think it's just the wrong attitude to want to try to tell people something is killing them slowly before you put things into a proper context. The majority of things, even things that are not exactly ideal for you, are not killing people slowly. Take the example of small amounts of alchool in wine, it's definitely much worse than energy drinks, as it's a toxic product your liver has to metabolize. Yet again in moderation (say a small glass every few days) despite not being good for you, it really doesn't have any long-term negative effect. Plenty of people lived to 100 years or more in good health while doing this all their lives. Would they have lived to 120 years if they didn't? No.

If you want to find something that kills you slowly, that's called time

In terms of caffeine specifically, it has many positive aspects too but as with many other things it can be easy to use it too frequently or in too large amounts which can sort of reverse many of the advantages it gives. So again moderation or planning carefully how you consume it would be best, just as you would with say vitamins, ginseng, protein drinks etc.

Well I think that this response, in general, is good....but in practice I think the real danger is not the person who has an energy drink once-in-a-while.  Nothing is really that bad for you "once in a while" aside from maybe eating a burning coal.  I do understand that you are pushing moderation, though, to which I agree.

The problem with energy drinks, like everything else, is when you overconsume.  Overconsuming these drinks is VERY easy...especially when the "limit" they post on the can is 3 cans per day.  I know plenty of people who ONLY drink energy drinks...bad news.  This is why I am hesitant to be 100% objective here and say "well its not bad for you in moderation.." because you don't even really need it in moderation. 

If you need a jump start you are better off with a small cup of coffee and avoid consuming caffeine otherwise -- that will keep you wired for hours.

Definitely, I agree 

But from the opening post it didn't seem this was necessarily the case and it looked more like wanting to find a reason why even taking them in moderation would have catastrophic effects on your body, which is something I wanted to clarify and eliminate while also stressing the importance of being careful not to take things in excessive amounts.  I think that's the general point we've mentioned and agreed on in the threads you linked too.

The same general recommendations of paying more attention to when, how much, why and what you eat apply here as well and can help people avoid going overboard or taking things unnecessarily.
This is always much better in my opinion than an approach that doesn't plan things out but just makes a list of 'no'-ingredients which are supposedly bad no matter what (which is true in few cases, for example mad-cow-meat, while often actually unjustified in many others), and even worse some tend to then go around on a crusade trying to blame protein or random other nutrients based on shaky reasoning (e.g., thinking Tibetan monks live longer while eating less protein, so it must be bad for you or some similar hastily concluded nonsense  ).

[Muse_of_Fire]

* puts duct tape over her mouth and sits on her hands *

I have an almost irrational, very emotionally-driven visceral hatred for the whole energy drink industry, so I am really really resisting totally going off in this thread.

I agree with the above posters that moderation with energy drinks is pretty much the same as moderation with anything else. On the whole, once in a while, it's not going to kill you any more than any other edible/potable substance will, provided you are in decent health and don't have a pre-existing condition that would be aggravated by excess sugar, caffeine, epinephrine, and Super-Patented Hyper Monkey Hormone (TM) or whatever the hell else they put in that crap.

* struggles to remain rational *

My issue with energy drinks, or rather, the energy drink industry, has to do with the fact that so many of these energy drinks are marketed as "healthy," or at least there is an association made in the marketing between the drinks and super athletic sporto types. People in general are so clueless about health and nutrition that I find this line of marketing dangerous. It's not beyond reason IMO for someone to think that because they're drinking an energy drink advertised by some really extreme hardcore bad-ass snowboarders, that they are somehow drinking something "healthy" and therefore the energy drink is in some way a necessary supplement for training. They're in business to sell energy drinks and to make money, so they're going to do what they're going to do; and it's not like what they're selling is on the same level as, say, cigarettes or rat poison, but it just makes me mad because people in this country have a hard enough time knowing how to eat healthy without that kind of marketing muddling things up.

That said, everyone has their own boundaries for stuff. Alcohol, for example, is essentially a toxin. I personally try to eat very healthy but I also drink alcohol in moderation. Plenty of people look at that and disagree, pointing out that it hinders my training, and they're right. Same with caffeine. However these are choices I make to consume in moderation. It's not ideal/optimal but it's certainly not deadly. However I draw the line at things like energy drinks and HFCS. These are things I have decided to patently not put in my body. However there are plenty of people out there who do (in moderation) and it's no different than my choice to consume alcohol and caffeine in moderation as my "little cheats."

[tombb]

Muse, I think the problem you have is more with marketing in general, wouldn't you say?

In general you could start with even a decent product that is just what it is, and people will attach the most absurd claims on it based on whatever they think will sell that product.
If people are into a health fad that year, even the most unhealthy things will have a marketing spin on being more healthy, like, say, selling tobacco with 0.1% less nicotine and showing ads of people smoking and saying "I smoke brand X because I care about my body and I want to be healthier", because technically that might be 0.1% less chance of cancer than the normal brand (it's not, but it might hold in court with good enough lawyers )

But it's important to separate the bad aspects of marketing from products themselves when possible, some might be inferior or useless products once you remove all the hype, others are just nice decent options. For example every now and then it's good to have the option to have some chocolate or ice cream or energy drink or whatever as part of enjoying life, even if a piece of celery might be more healthy and tends to have less marketing claims around it.

Part of the fault of marketing is our own, the problem is that those hyped claims work on many people. It's like that for many things, politicians often get elected because they say what people want to hear, while the honest and intelligent ones that actually tell you how things really are don't get elected.
Ultimately I think most people wise up to marketing claims and take them with a grain of salt.
I have bought drinks because of new flavors and colors however, because it's fun to try new things, even if that's part of marketing too. Maybe sometimes you want to know how a green waterberrytangerine drink would taste like, nothing wrong with that.

And in general people should stay more informed about the actual physiology, human nutrition and biochemistry because it's that lack of knowledge that makes people so easily swayed and falling for fads or marketing or nonsensical claims against this food or that food.

If someone is satisfied with answers like "wrong" or "lies!" or "trust me" without any follow-up explanation, they will not be able to make good decisions, it doesn't matter -who- says something, what matters is the explanation itself.  If you have explanations for each side of an argument you can use logic, reasoning and knowledge to figure out which ones don't hold up and are just hand-wavy arguments based on hasty conclusions that don't actually reflect reality.

[Chris Salvato]

Ultimately I think most people wise up to marketing claims and take them with a grain of salt.

I think this is the only real big hole in your argument...

People do not wise up.  My mother is 55 years old and has no idea what the hell is going on with nutrition.  Is she an idiot?  No, but she doesn't dedicate any time to learning that -- she is too busy working her ass off so she can live.

We all only have so much time.  I spend a ridiculous amount of time reading about nutrition, training, exercise, longevity, etc....and I am STILL in the dark to a lot of the details -- just too much information to know.  This is a single domain -- by this logic, I should be knowledgeable of all useful domains - Finances, Mechanics, Engineering, Politics, Law, First Aid, Medicine, Nutrition, Training, etc.

While I do agree that learning about the body is important and we should make the time to learn these lessons, I really don't think its practical to say that everyone can.  With this in mind, what these companies are doing is not just marketing -- it is unethical marketing. 

Marketing is not a bad thing -- you need to let people know what you have to offer so that they can be informed and decide to buy.  However, unethical marketing is telling something they are getting Item A for Reason X when they are really getting Item B for Reason Y.  This is despicable no matter what the circumstances.

[tombb]

We all only have so much time.  I spend a ridiculous amount of time reading about nutrition, training, exercise, longevity, etc....and I am STILL in the dark to a lot of the details -- just too much information to know.  This is a single domain -- by this logic, I should be knowledgeable of all useful domains - Finances, Mechanics, Engineering, Politics, Law, First Aid, Medicine, Nutrition, Training, etc.

While I do agree that learning about the body is important and we should make the time to learn these lessons, I really don't think its practical to say that everyone can.

I'd say there's actually an easy way to address that problem (limited time -> limited knowledge), and that is to look into things that have the most impact or that you care about most.
So for example people shouldn't be very opinionated on something without taking a little time and looking into it carefully. If they care enough to feel strongly about an issue, they should care enough to find out if that's really true or not. If you are about to swear off all protein from your diet for example you should check if it's really a good idea.
Remember when Ken PKChiro thought milk was bad for you? He eventually looked into it and realized it was not true and it was an example of the type of misinformation you can find on the web

Again if you sit down and look at what you normally eat and what you eat in larger amounts, you can just ask yourself if it's good to eat, say, so much candy or so little vegetables. You don't necessarily have to look into things you don't even really do or are not a concern in your life, but if it's something you spend say 10% of your awake time doing, I think we can all spend a few hours every now and then answering our own curiosity with complete and accurate answers instead of just someone else's hasty conclusions or mislead opinion.

Now, don't get me wrong, you should still also learn about Finances, Mechanics, Engineering, Politics, Law, First Aid, Medicine, Nutrition, Training, etc.  But you don't necessarily need to start from remote topics in finances that will never even affect you.  What you most want to avoid is encounter a situation often, have strong opinions about it, and being completely wrong and clueless on that common situation and feeling strongly about a wrong conclusion just because you didn't take time to look into it carefully and logically (not you you, you in the generic sense).

[Jake Vigil]

If you need a jump start you are better off with a small cup of coffee and avoid consuming caffeine otherwise -- that will keep you wired for hours.

Not with all people though. I find that I have a pretty big tolerance to caffeine now. I dont feel a large cup of coffee at all now. When i was at the point of drinking 6+ SPIKES in a day, One wouldnt do anything to me, and those are some of the most potent drinks I know.

Not like I didnt just get used to it and didnt feel it, it just didn't affect me. Pop or Coffee still does nothing for me, and even some energy drinks. Its kinda like drugs. The more you do them, the more you need for it to affect you.

[tombb]

If you need a jump start you are better off with a small cup of coffee and avoid consuming caffeine otherwise -- that will keep you wired for hours.

Not with all people though. I find that I have a pretty big tolerance to caffeine now. I dont feel a large cup of coffee at all now. When i was at the point of drinking 6+ SPIKES in a day, One wouldnt do anything to me, and those are some of the most potent drinks I know.

Not like I didnt just get used to it and didnt feel it, it just didn't affect me. Pop or Coffee still does nothing for me, and even some energy drinks. Its kinda like drugs. The more you do them, the more you need for it to affect you.

Jake, definitely, but that's part of the bad effects of taking large doses for longer periods of time, the fact that your body adapts to it and when you are not taking it you might actually feel somewhat of the opposite effect, feeling less energetic etc.
Basically you don't want to get used to high doses unless it's part of a plan, like if you had to drink large amounts for some competition or something odd like that, in which case yes you would be better off gettin used to large doses gradually first to avoid sudden shock to your system when you do this type of competition/bet or whatever. Or not do weird competitions like that in the first place

Otherwise you are should figure out if you really need it normally and you are better off being less used to it and more sensitive, or use it strategically like say before a fat-burning workout or during crunch time staying up for an exam or big project. Moderation or careful planning are always better than just doing things by default without paying attention to why and how much.

[Jake Vigil]

Oh yeah, that's way true. After I had been drinking spikes all day, every day, I felt like crap when Spike Wasnt in my system. Crap

[Muse_of_Fire]

Muse, I think the problem you have is more with marketing in general, wouldn't you say?

No, the problem I have is with how energy drinks are marketed. I stated this to separate my personal feeling about energy drinks (they are something I choose to never buy or put into my body, even though I can see how other people may benefit from them and choose to drink them in moderation) from my very powerful personal feeling about the energy drink industry's marketing tactics. I made this point to clarify that while I personally feel strongly about energy drinks being "bad," I recognize that it's my personal opinion and not the absolute black-and-white truth on them.

Marketing in general, I could give a cul de raton about. It is what it is. I respond to the marketing that appeals to me, and not to the marketing that doesn't, just like any average modern human.

(Edited to be in keeping with my general desire to conduct myself with grace).

[tombb]

Muse,
you forgot to say pardon my French on that second paragraph (just kidding, I just couldn't resist using it as a double-entendre )
Err..., you edited your post after I finished writing my reply to your original version, but it should make sense anyways.

But yes I can see better now that you are trying to make multiple point especially ones that are not so much about analysis but more to honestly express your feelings and opinions while admitting that they are biased by your views which is commendable.
Without trying to limit you from expressing yourself I was focusing on just the objective discussion points and the one that was there was on marketing, hence my reply.

Going on my earlier point however I think ideally you would want to match your strong opinions (hate of this, anger about that) and strong actions (choosing to never do this or that) with a greater deal of understanding and detailed examination of those issues before matching them with that level of emotion.
For example, as I mentioned before, people tend to make inconsistent decisions on HFCS because they don't understand biochemically what it is and what it isn't. For example I know people that will not touch anything that has even just 1% of HFCS, but they will instead still consume natural bee's honey, which is biochemically 70% pure HFCS, with some extra stuff like a little water and some vitamins.

As far as marketing, there is terrible unethical marketing out there, myabe I could see that for tobacco, but for energy drinks I don't really see it. The commercials are "Red bull gives you wings!"... Ok obviously it doesn't, I don't think they actually intend to fool anybody into thinking you will actually grow wings, they are just giving you a nice figurative mental analogy to having more energy or feeling more alert, I don't see a problem with that. Other ads like "now with x mg of caffeine, like 2 cups of coffee" doesn't seem bad either. Most people are already familiar with caffeine does, and giving them some reference numbers is definitely good.

As I mentioned before the extra ingredients like adding extra aminoacids, ginseng, and some vitamins along with the caffeine is nothing bad, all those are good nutrients that you would get with normal food (except for the ginseng, but that's still nothing bad with that).

[Chris Salvato]

Remember when Ken PKChiro thought milk was bad for you? He eventually looked into it and realized it was not true and it was an example of the type of misinformation you can find on the web

heh, I am not sure he actually conceded there, but that's aside from the point...

I agree we should learn the basics about those things that impact our lives the most.  For example, in regards to finances, I know how compounding interest works but you won't catch me reading a prospectus for any of my investments in the near future -- in regards to law, you may see me fighting a speeding ticket but never defending myself in arbitration.  To this extent, I agree.

When it comes to the basics, especially of something like nutrition, it is best, in my experience, to speak to people in black and white, not shades of gray.  People want to know:
1) What should I eat
2) How should I eat it

That's it.  This is why I feel my article is such a great resource because it sums up the answers to those two questions in 1.5 pages of text (maybe less?).  If you start saying "well it's not BAD for you, but it's not good for you if you have too much" it leads to a lot of bad results.

With this in mind, I am wary to tell people that are not yet intimate with nutrition that "HFCS is ok in moderation" or that "Energy drinks are ok in moderation".  In my experience coaching people on their diet the words "a little bit should be ok" is nothing short of a green light.  If you are lucky, it starts out with small doses of the "bad" food.  It almost always ends up with a full out neglect for concern because the natural tendency to cheat (especially in those new to eating properly) overcomes any mumbo-jumbo the experts say about the topic.

In regards to HFCS being the same as honey, I think that is a bold step.  Sure, the sugary compound and concentration of water may be very similar...however there are still many mysteries as to what is actually in our whole foods (e.g. simulin).  There are likely other molecules in honey that we are not aware of that likely make it more beneficial to us.  Similarly, there are likely other processing byproduct molecules in HFCS that we are not aware of that likely make it more dangerous.

When it comes to processing I always err on the side of caution and when it comes to whole foods I will always lean to their favor for this fact alone.

In summary, I just prefer to speak to those who are new in more definitive, negative terms and present the facts.  In my experience dealing with many people who are interested in fixing their diet, it is better to wise up and realize something is ok in moderation than to have someone attempt to wise up and realize something is bad for you.

[tombb]

I definitely agree with you there Chris, focusing on what to eat is a lot better than just scapegoating bad nutritional judgment on one or two foods and then still eating poorly while going to excesses just to avoid those one or two foods.

Rather than planning their nutrition in a balanced way, people tend to like just going by rules like "as long as I avoid X in the ingredients, I will be ok", where x is not necessarily bad in itself, but rather became a problem because people were consuming it in excess. People felt that way about fat, and would buy anything that was completely 'fat-free' even when all the fat was replaced with tons more carbs, and we know a lot better now (essential fat is very good for you etc).

I would say whole foods tend to be good for example because they mix fiber with carbs, and therefore give you a more balanced controlled absorption.
On the other hand I wouldn't say processed carbs are necessarily bad, it depends on what they are processed into, what you eat them with, how much etc. Of all molecules, carbs really remain mostly unaffected by processing (not like fats that can go from essential to saturated/hydrogenated if done wrong for example, or vitamins which will denature). The main problem is that you can carelessly consume too much and not re-balance them with other nutrients.

In practice ultimately I would give the same advice on most things as you, but I just want to make a strong point that people need to put things into context rather than seing everything as if it was the strongest poison in the world, where even trace amounts would immediately make any healthy food unfit for consumption.

On the issue of HFCS that's just the point I was making. Yes, honey has many useful molecules in that extra 14% that is not HFCS or water. Absolutely. But the same could be true for whatever else they categorically refused to consume because it had just 1% HFCS instead of 70% like honey does. I was just pointing out that's logically inconsistent. If I just gave them the molecular breakdown of two foods without telling them what they were, they would never touch honey and might be outraged that something could be sold and contain 70% of the 'evil' HFCS, but if I told them it was 100% natural honey they would have the opposite reaction.
On the other hand, you know exactly what's in HFCS because, well, it's highly processed and purified. It does have trace amount of some vitamins and minerals just because it's not worth trying to remove them, but really everything is accounted for (you can do spectrophotometry and make sure all peaks are accounted for).

[Alec Furtado]

[...]people need to put things into context rather than seeing everything as if it was the strongest poison in the world, where even trace amounts would immediately make any healthy food unfit for consumption.

The tendency to take things that literally is rare from my experience. But I get what you're saying and completely agree.

You both have great points of view, but Chris's is much easier to accomplish and follow. As long as people don't take things completely literally and use their head they should be fine. The hard part with your approach, tombb, is that it just takes way too much time that many don't have to delve so deeply into these subjects. Even Chris, who does a hell of a lot of research himself (more than anybody I have ever met), still admits to not knowing a large amount. People need things spelt out basically in simple black and white in a way that follows the most logical contexts (outside of moderation for one thing). If the thread is asking for a certain case like an analysis of their meals, then the answer can be better tuned to addressing the asker's situation. Chris's answer might not explain the situation entirely but I'd say he tries to get the person the answer they need and I usually trust his knowledge/experience.

It's just how it is. Answers gotta be more definite in most cases. Your explanations are usually very in depth and thorough (which I appreciate as well) but they can stray away from the direct needs of the asker. Everything pretty much follows the rule of moderation, so I don't think it needs to be the focus of a reply. Actually, what you should do is put it in your signature so it doesn't need to be said every time. With that out of the way, more time can be spent on the aspect outside of moderation that the asker is probably looking for (but it still wouldn't hurt to have a short reference toward your signature at the beginning).

Then less time can be spent on this rabble.