ggeiger wrote:
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/904972?src=soc_fb_181216_mscpedt_news_mdscp_energydrink&faf=1
"We found an approximately 50% reduction in the arteries' ability to dilate," Higgens said. "Our subjects weren't doing any physical activity, but many people consume energy drinks before they exercise and during exercise, and it is critical that arteries dilate properly to deliver the increased demands of oxygen to the brain, heart, and muscles."interesting. but i have complaints. first, i'd like to see "energy" drink defined. it's clear that it's monster and, i suspect, red bull he's talking about. nevertheless, for those who don't look too closely, might they throw fluid replacement into that?
second, the author says, "These drinks are becoming more and more popular, especially with young people. We need to determine what if any amount is safe and how this may differ in different groups. The marketing of these drinks to young people has to stop. The message should be spread that they can be especially harmful before strenuous exercise. Sales of energy drinks to children should be prohibited, and the label should clearly state the possible adverse effects and the groups at higher risk." i would prefer it if authors of medical studies don't make such sweeping and strident policy prescriptions based on a single study of 44 college students. the statement undermines the credibility of the study.
i've never had a red bull. or a monster energy. or anything in that category. i suspect the author's instincts are right. but when you throw down hard, politically, after your study is published, that makes me wonder whether your study's result was a foregone conclusion.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman