Talk:Energy drink/Archive 1

message: Atcually i think that you guys shouldnt leave coments that only a board 8th grader would read i win! haha respect me
1
Actually, I'd say that physical addiction is possible, as I've been there, done that. Then again, you need to consume a lot of caffeine very often to become addicted to it. Like me, last spring. When I finally decided I had a "caffeine problem", I quit cold turkey and had horrible withdrawal for a week. --DylanL 11:51, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Whtat is pasty-ness? Jclerman 00:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caffeine addiction 

message: Can someone explain how energy drinks are different from sports drinks? Is there even a difference? --Lowellian 00:36, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, question answered. See Talk:Sports drink. --Lowellian 17:00, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
XS points to the XS disambiguation page, which does not list XS the energy drink. It should point a page for XS the energy drink and the disambigiuation page should be updated.
Although this question is answered in the Sports drinks and Energy Drinks articles, I am not convinced. Lucozade was marketed as an Energy Drink when it was re-positioned in the 1980s. Caffeine and Taurine don't give energy as much as glucose, so the distinction is a strange one. Similarly I am not convinced there is a need for a list of energy drinks, if a definition is given. There are always new products coming on the market, and it's impossible to list all products in all markets. Perhaps it should be deleted. User:DavidFarmbrough 13:41 BST 3 June 05
I believe I've heard that caffeine increases your blood sugar levels. Something along the lines of it causing the liver to break down some of the stored glycogen and releasing it into the blood stream as glucose. --Peter Knutsen 10:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy drinks vs. sports drinks 

message: I have no confidence in my knowledge of the subject, which is why I only bring up that I think a topic about the health risks of energy drinks might be a nice addition to the page.  And yeah, I could just google it.  ;)
:There's mention about concern over caffine and taurine overdoes, but nothing about the effects of long term Vitamin B overdose like nerve damage. --gwc 23:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Risks? 

message: I made the list a table to hopefully make it a bit more useful. It looks a bit long right now (although this isn't a new problem with the table), not sure if it should be simplified slightly, or at least if non-existant articles should be removed to keep it a reasonable length.
:Correct me if I am wrong, but this looks like a table of drinks available on the US market. It is pretty long now indeed so there is no point for me adding info from other markets. I would vote for limiting this list to, let's say, 20 with the greatest worldwide sales (although I haven't got such data at the moment). Cezary Okupski 20:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you seem to be the head of this, I guess I should point out the newly added Crunk!! energy drink.  It doesn't have a page on wikipedia and thought that you would be interested in making one.  Good luck.  --Damien Vryce 17:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Assuming "mg/oz" means milligrams per ounce, I've converted the numbers to ppm which I think is more universal. (Exceedingly easy:  divide the number by 28349.523125 [the number of mg in an ounce] and move decimal points accordingly.) Dyfsunctional 15:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: For future reference, an even easier way: Multiply mg/oz by 35.273962. Dyfsunctional 16:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ppm is used for trace amounts. More than trace caffeine is in drinks. Conversion factor was OK, but a ppm value makes it difficult to rapidly evaluate how much caffeine is in a cup or other serving size usually given in ounces (the average mortal doesn't know the SI). You could give two columns. One in ml/oz (an aberration popularized by the US FDA) and the other in per mil.  Jclerman 19:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Need to add "Unbound" to the energy drink table. Not sure where to gather caffeine, etc. data though. Or if it's made by another company as a spinoff. --Lskkat 09:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Relentless' (manufactured by the Coca Cola company and sold in the UK) should be added as well; it contains 32mg/100ml of caffeine but the can size is 500ml, providing 160mg per serving, which is unusual as the cans are usually 250ml or 330ml. [no user account]
I just skimmed through the article and the table, but noticed one of my favorite drinks is missing. NOS is a pretty powerful energy drink and shouldn't be left out. Just my opinion. Kojax 15:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy drink table 

message: Anyone know what '9+9+9++998+9+8+98+9' was about? I figured it was gibberish so i got rid of it.
Jive Monk 09:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a very smart user that confused addiction with addition=sum. Jclerman 13:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equation or something? 

message: I feel that such a section is crucial to this article, and that it goes in parallel to the "Addiction" section. Thus I made a top level "Criticism" section and added a new Health Hazard + moved the "Addiction" sections to it as subcategories.
However, I have no clue about what I wrote nor the references I quoted. I just made a quick google search. These are research page, but there are better ones for sure, and perhaps if you guys read them you can post some more conclusive info within this article. 
I felt the need to warn you guys of this so that you may look at my section with scepticism and modify it as fitting. Beltz 19:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important, new health hazard section 

message: Should the title of the article be "energy drink"? Doesn't all food and drink contain energy, thus making it "energy food" or "energy drink". It appears as though the term "energy drink" is a marketing term by the companies that make these drinks. Thus, wouldn't it be an infraction of a neutral point of view? I suggest that we change the name. Gold Stur 12:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: my friend told me, this true? -Dragong4
:Howdy and welcome to Wikipedia!  What your friend was probably thinking of was Taurine, which was first extracted from ox bile (not sperm).  It is an ingredient in many energy drinks.  I don't know the source of Taurine used for the drinks, although my guess is that it is botanical, since growing plants is usually cheaper than raising cattle.  That is just a guess though.  A better bet for asking questions on wikipedia is to go to Wikipedia:Where to ask a question.  For this type of question, the reference desk might be helpful.  You can also sign your name (this is a good idea on talk pages) by adding four tildes (~~~~), and your name (or IP address in your case) and date will appear automatically.  Cheers, --TeaDrinker 07:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Taurine is a conditionally essential amino acid and, like all amino acids, vitamins etc nowadays it is made synthetically. The Bulls testicles/sperm whatever rumor you've heard is false, and probably came from Taurine --> Taurus (the bull). - Glen 17:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  is there a chemical in all energy drinks that includes bull sperm? 

message: Most energy drinks list a whole bunch of "medical" ingredients other than caffine.  Are any of them stimulants, or do they mearly imply it?
:They are all usually the chemical names for common vitamins and minerals (for example vitamin B6, wont be listed as B6, it will be pyridoxamine) It is a marketing gimmick so the drink sounds "high tech". As for the stimulants, well they use 3. Caffeine, caffeine and caffeine. But from different sources, some use synthetic pure caffeine hydrochloride, some guarana, some kola nut, some green tea extract... its all the same stuff. Hope this helps - Glen 17:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the stimulant effects of energy drinks with caffeine, taurine, glucuronolactone, see . Jclerman 18:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link. What the should have done is also had a third group that had the caffeine alone - the results would have been the same as the non-control group. Glucurolactone and taurine have no stimulatory properties at all. - Glen 20:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: While I essentially agree that caffeine is the central/primary/dominant stimulant in energy drinks, and that Taurine and Glocuronlactone are not (which is the big joke of the energy drink category), some drinks contain mild stimulant's such as ginseng, whose adaptogenic and hence stimulant properties are reasonably well established, the D and L forms of Phenylalanine, which are precursors to phenylethylalanine and the catecholamines, and L-Tyrosine, also a precursor to the catecholamines.  Again, caffeine does all the heavy lifting, but these particular ingredients should be noted both as mild stimulants, and for their ability to affect the central "energy" neurotransmitters that caffeine potentiates, the catecholamines.Teloscientist 03:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Some of them, like Sobe Essential Energy, contain Yerba Mate, which is a non-caffeinated stimulant. Arinna 15:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately Arinna, it is a myth that Yerba Mate is non-caffeinated.  Its active stimulant ingredient is caffeine - just like coffee, tea, and guarana.  Teloscientist 02:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which ingredients (besides caffeine) are stimulants? 

message: Not an energy drink. The manufacturer states: "Jolt contains the maximum permissible level of caffeine. It is regarded as a caffeine-enhanced beverage, which 
is a segment different than isotonics and energy drinks."
Jclerman 03:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jolt Cola 

message: 1) How come BURN energy drink (and its variants) are listed in yellow? Also, why is it at the top with the more popular drinks (the orange area)? It's even listed twice. I've noticed all of it's entries have links (to the same site), whereas Coca-Cola and Red Bull don't even have a non-wiki link. I never heard of BURN. I'm calling link-spam on this one. Change it back if I'm wrong but please tell me why.
2) I don't think alcoholic drinks should be listed, even if they're "energy" drinks too. They're a different thing all together. Since this is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Soft drinks, I think they should be removed.  What do you guys think?
3) Is "Adrenaline Rush" and "SoBe Adrenaline Rush" one and the same?
- Rocket000 05:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few things... 

message: It seems to me that the table, while dominating the article, does not substantially contribute much to the article.  The :Category:Energy drinks allows browsing by drink, and the additional information about caffeine can be part of the individual drink articles.  Thoughts?  --TeaDrinker 22:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly in favour of this. If it's not removed, it should be converted to a separate list article and maintained there. - Zeibura (Talk) 06:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the table 

message: they harm the brain, please call it caffEine
Jclerman 09:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bann caffiene and caffine 

message: Does anyone have any information about health issues of energy drinks and high caffeine consumption? I am particularly interested in habitual energy drink usage and relation to cardiovascular health. 
Baskind (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Concerns 

message: Everyone knows what caffiene does, but I could spend less on a cup of coffee.  I came here to see if there's anything more to these drinks than caffiene and calories.  I didn't find the answer.  To me that's the most pressing question anyone might have. Pburto 02:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no real yes or no answer to that question. Energy drinks do have lots of caffeine, more then in coffee ounce per ounce. So looking at it that way yes they provide more energy. However as to the other ingredients there is no definite answer. Sorry, but the answer to your question only exists in peoples opinions Superstarwarsfan (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The most obvious question in the world: Do they really do anything different? 

message: As of April 1st, 2008 Red Bull is sold in France.  In the past France has banned many caffinated beverages, not just Red Bull.  Other energy drinks and soda's that were permitted, adjusted their formula's to stay below the legal limit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.40.171 (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Bull in France 

message: This section cites no sources. I did a quick google search for these statements and found nothing to support them. If no sources can be found then the section should probably be deleted. 
Stoutpants (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Risk of Overdose 

message: Energy drinks are commonly priced around US$200 per can, much higher than soda pop and most beers.  Why are they priced so high?  Is there anything about their ingredients, manufacture, or marketing that would call for such a high price?  Why are people willing to pay such a price?  The article ought to have a section covering these points.  And then there is the occasional discount store that sells for way less -- Joker brand is available in a certain store here for fifty cents.  How do they do that? Jm546 (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows for sure? They are probably higher priced because it implies that you are getting a more sophisticated drink (technically if not culturally) - I doubt it's possible to do a cost by cost analysis of all the ingredients, manufacture, packaging, distribution and marketing, but I'd be surprised if there were any major cost differentials once mass-production began - people will often pay through the nose for sophistication even if it's implied rather than substantive. That discount stores can offer the same product at much less is also probably indicative of a healthy mark-up. Mighty Antar (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price 

message: I added (and referenced) a section about the purpose of energy drinks right at the top. Does it look ok? Superstarwarsfan (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose 

message: Alright, this section is ridiculous.  The very first sentence I had to change because the source said something completely different than what was fuck.  I added a disputed neutrality tag to the whole section because there is nothing that talks about contradicting studies, and there are plenty out there.  If nobody gets to this soon, I will.  Thanks. Crh0872 (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Concerns 

message: I changed the second sentence of the summary because the source did not support the claim that "there is scientific basis for concluding that the non-caffeine elements in these drinks contribute to mental alertness and physical performance." In fact, it said just the opposite--that any evidence is speculative at best. If anyone has real evidence that taurine, ginseng, etc. are actually effective I'd love to see it. Ψαμαθος 05:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: Can an honest & educated person actually call a zero Calorie "energy drink" an energy drink?  Food energy is measured in Calories therefore if something has 0 calories it has 0 energy. right?(153.24.130.61 (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just assume it means "energy" in the figurative sense. More Deepak Chopra than Isaac Newton --64.255.164.53 (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

text: First, the term ("energy drink") is the standard terminology used in the industry and by regulatory bodies; nitpicking the nomenclature is unlikely to change that. Also, caffeine and its major metabolite, paraxanthine increase lipolysis in fat cells, thereby increasing the amount of usable energy in your cells (fatty acid oxidation --> increased mitochondrial production of ATP). So, even without carbohydrate "energy," caffeine has an effect on energy. More importantly, though, in the colloquial sense of the term, any CNS stimulant in an effective dose gives a person more "energy" in the form of increased probability to act (increased wakefulness, vigilance, and locomotor activity are consistent findings in animal and human studies with low and moderate doses of caffeine). People and their physicians commonly refer to increases or decreases in "energy" level to describe changes in motivation due to medical, neurologic, or psychiatric (CNS) disease.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel.geerling (talk • contribs) 17:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misnomer? 

message: Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics 

message: I don't think Gatorade and Powerade drinks should be included in the article (the History section) - they are NOT "energy drinks", they contain NO caffeine or any other stimulants. Those are formulated to restore electrolytes and sugars lost from the body after great physical efforts and have nothing to do with this article. If nobody objects, I'll remove all those references alltogether... Arny (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the points above. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: Somone needs to add a picture of the Venum Energy Drink Portfolio line as well as a picture of an American retail display of these drinks under the Canadian one showing the various American brands. 2602:306:C518:62C0:E57D:CDD6:E9D9:C0FD (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venum Energy Drink..... 

message: It also does not feel joy or fear, nor will it ever ponder its existence. Same goes for bottles and jugs. Suggest changing it to "...which boosts..." or "which is purported/intended/assumed/believed to boost...". In the third sentence, "traditionally" should probably be "generally" or "typically" or "commonly". It's not technically wrong, but it implies this shit has been around for generations, instead of a decade or so. I'd change it, but touching the lead of large articles hangs my browser. Thanks for understanding. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, the wording is much better now! David1217 22:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. Sorry for undoing you edit! David1217 What I've done 19:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A can of liquid does not "strive" to do anything. 

message: >On June 7th, 2012, the parliament of Latvia approved changes in the legislation of sale of consumable goods, to prohibit sale of energy drinks to persons under the age of 18.[34]
No such legislation is passed or approved. Oh yes, some totally corrupt parliamentarians want to push such legislation, but they had not succeeded. It is not likely that it may happen at all, because there isn't any legal grounds for such changes.78.84.22.115 (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't read Latvian, so I can't verify what the source says. David1217 What I've done 20:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cynical misinformaton in article about Latvia ban 

message: Aside from any factual issues (which I am not in a position to judge), this article is full of needless repetitions, circuitous illogic, non sequiturs and unexplained references.  For example:
"An energy drink is a type of beverage containing stimulant drugs, chiefly caffeine...generally contain large amounts of caffeine..." in the first and second sentences alone and on an on on that subject.
"In 1985, Jolt Cola was not introduced in the United States."
Wait.  What?  "not introduced..."  Then why mention it???
And like that.
I wish I knew enough about the subject to do this myself, but I came here to learn about it not check it's accuracy, which is apparently in question.  Perhaps this article has been "edited" by so many hands that it has become disjointed.  If so, someone needs to review it and get it back in shape.  If there isn't some method already in place to flag an article after a certain number of edits so that someone -- the original author? -- can review it and make it more cohesive, then there should be.  Zlama (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello . I did not check the text so closely, but I did try to organize the sections so that different topics would flow more easily and so that there would be less repetition. You were correct about there being a lot of repetition. I based my reordering on the style guide at medical guide for drugs. Thanks for commenting on this a year ago.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a General Overhaul 

message: There is an article called Ban on caffeinated alcoholic beverages. I moved information here about that ban to that article, and then linked to the main article.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Ban on caffeinated alcoholic beverages

message: Here are some review articles on energy drinks:
*
*
*
*
*
*
This one presumes that a lot of people use energy drinks to help them improve sports performance. I am not seeing this in other sources.
*
This one is about alcohol and energy drinks
*
Here is a review of animal research.
*
 Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Review articles from medical journals

message: I work for Consumer Reports, which is a United States based non-profit organization which does product testing. My organization often expresses concerns about products which make advertising claims which they do not keep, and I developed this article in part because of our research into energy drinks. I added one of my organization's claims into this article along with some of our other information. I feel like as an established testing organization, Consumer Reports is a reliable source for making the claim that I presented here. If anyone has any concerns about my bias for my organization's research then message me here.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Energy drink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825175301/http://www.mayoclinic.com:80/health/relaxation-drinks/MY01227 to http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/relaxation-drinks/MY01227
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.joltenergy.com/about.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified