My friend sent me a link to the Times Online this morning, to an article titled Red Bull gives you wings - and heart trouble?. My husband drinks Red Bull, and my friend thinks I do too. I don’t actually. I drink Java Monster. It’s delicious and is in a 16 ounce can instead of the paltry 8 ounces you get from Red Bull. So of course I read the article because I don’t want my husband and I to be harming our health unknowingly.My friend - we’ll call him Sam to protect his identity - said that he always knew this stuff was bad for you. And that was that for him. Case closed. I said I wanted more data. He said, “I don’t.. that stuff’s loaded with enough caffeine to explode an elephant’s heart… no more data needed.”
What? Are you kidding me?
Why am I writing about this today? Because you need to be skeptical. You need to keep an open mind and question what you see and hear. It’s in your best interest. Sam changed his behavior and his thinking by reading one article online. Assuming he read the whole thing. He probably only read one paragraph. Still, he’ll never drink Red Bull again.
The study was done on 30 university students between 20-24 years old. That’s such a small group, don’t you think? It was done one time from what I can tell. That’s it? What about a double blind study? What about a control group and testing different age brackets? Men and women react the same, etc?
The doctor in charge, Scott Willoughby, of the Cardiovascular Research Centre at the Royal Adelaide Hospital and Adelaide University, was so alarmed by his tiny little study, that he released his findings to the press. But not the study itself, at least not that I can find anywhere.
From the article, I should mention: Red Bull today emphatically denied that the drink, which is distributed to 143 countries worldwide, was dangerous. In a statement, it said that Red Bull had been proved safe by “numerous scientific studies”, and that it had never been banned from anywhere it had been introduced.
To Sam’s claims of “enough caffeine to explode an elephant’s heart”, I’m sorry to say, Sam, you’re quite wrong. I don’t think there are any studies on exactly the amount of caffeine needed to stop an elephant’s heart. But one can of Red Bull isn’t going to do it.
Let’s find some more information on caffeine. Let’s try the Mayo Clinic, they seem like a good choice.
It seems that more than 500 or 600 mg of caffeine a day can lead to restlessness, anxiety, headaches and other problems. No mention of what those other problems are.
Oh, first there’s a link about if caffeine is dehydrating, let’s see if that’s true first, bear with me… This is awesome! Recent research has shown that caffeine is only a diuretic if you consume large amounts, over 500 or 600 mg of it in a day. Other than that, coffee and soda drinks hydrate as well as water.
Back to your regularly scheduled lesson for today on caffeine content. I’ve taken the information from the Mayo Clinic’s set of tables and turned it into one table for you here, listed in order of milligrams of caffeine. Just click the image to see it full size.
Sorry, Sam. I win this argument. Red Bull doesn’t really contain all that much caffeine. But wow, Starbucks packs it in, don’t they? Even so, you can have one coffee grande at Starbucks every day. It might give you the jitters, but it seems safe from what I gather. According to the Mayo Clinic, you could therefore drink around 5 or 6 Red Bulls in a day and it won’t harm you. That would be extreme, and I don’t recommend it, but that would be less than 500 mg of caffeine in the day.So, while we learned about caffeine content today, I hope you will also remember, not every news story is solid fact and truth. Not every study is done properly, and even if it is, it is only one study. More would need to be done to corroborate the evidence found.
People, news outlets, news networks, TV networks, churches, doctors doing studies and whoever gives funding, all of them, have their own agenda. Propaganda is rampant. Your only recourse is to be skeptical and question the information instead of accepting everything you hear as “gospel truth.”
right on!! I keep telling people the shit they hear about Mt. Dew is bogus!! I love carbonated caffeine!!!
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of skepticism, one should also be skeptical of sites which don't provide their sources. Should we just accept what Katherine said about dehydration because she said it on a seemingly reputable site? No. Where's the research she referred to? What was the study looking for and what exactly did they find? I'm a little surprised that you'd point out the need for critical analysis of another study, but then show almost none where other research results are concerned.
ReplyDeleteWhat Mayo clinic doesn't tell you is that caffeine's effects vary from person to person, and the effects can vary for any particular individual for a variety of reasons. In some circumstances caffeine has a definite diuretic effect, though I suspect it depends on many more factors than just the amount of caffeine consumed (e.g., hydration levels, frequency of consumption and tolerance, and many other things I'm not aware of). That's probably all mentioned in the research Katherine mentioned, but I for one wouldn't just take her word for it.
Seriuslytho, glad to be of service with the chart! WOOT! Funny thing, my neighbors were drinking tons of Mountain Dew because they heard it was a good way to keep from getting pregnant. They got pregnant about 4 months ago. Funny how that happens!
ReplyDeleteAny chemicals effects on the body will vary person to person. I'd like to think anyone would realize that. Blatantly stated by a research paper or not.
ReplyDeleteI think the underlying point that needs to be taken into consideration with any medical study is that there is no general model for health. What's good for you may not be good for the next person and vice-versa. Concerned? Talk to a doctor, not the internet.
Perhaps I'm reading into this a bit much but I think the general point that Fruitloop is trying to make here (with a fairly hefty example) is not to take these kinds of things at face value without doing a bit of personal research into the subject. While it would be nice to have copies of the the studies referenced we certainly don't need to have them in hand to see their contradictory nature.
*still wearing his Devil's advocate hat*
ReplyDeleteFeebleLance, if the point is to not take things at face value, why was the info on MayoClinic.com taken at face value? How is Sam's reading of one article which mentioned research any different from FruitLoop's rebuttal, which also just referred to second-hand information. At least Sam had more detailed information.
I know I'm reading into this quite deeply, but well, isn't that the point of skepticism?
The table provides a great summary of how much caffeine someone might be consuming, but what if the research into the affects of that caffeine were wrong? If that's the case the table doesn't help much.
And frankly not everyone realises that chemical effects vary. If that were the case Sam wouldn't have freaked out about the article he read. Why should he be concerned about what might happen to him if he knew the effects might not be the same as for the people in the study (or an elephant)?
It's great that you're showing some critical thinking Fruitloop, and helping others to do the same. But please don't stop at an authoritative appearance, such as displayed by MayoClinic. Why do they "seem like a good choice"? Why should we believe anything on their site any more than we'd believe a Times Online article which also references a seemingly reputable source? (there are reasons, but you haven't shown that other people should determine them for themselves)
Incidentally, here's the Red Bull research: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2008.05.055
Thanks for that link Mark.
ReplyDeleteThe devil's advocate hat is never a bad thing, assuming of course you have a logical goal, which you seem to. :)
Your right that none of it should be taken at face value. I was simply (and quite generically, as it seems to be the case) asserting that the given example makes a case for why one should be skeptical of such things.
You are most certainly correct in that one shouldn't be assumed as correct over the other given what information we have here, nor should it be presented as such.
As for people understanding chemical effects. While I'd still LIKE to think that people would understand, you've pointed out quite clearly (and easily) that they don't. I missed that connection within her post and damn thing could have bitten me too!
All the more reason to stand by my bottom line on such a thing: If you read something akin to this, and you're concerned for any reason, play skeptical by talking to your doctor about it. :)
This exchange is so interesting that I think I'll mull this over and blog about it again in my next post, and reply to you all properly that way. Stay tuned!
ReplyDeleteAnd thanks, guys, for the comments. Certainly excellent food for thought. :D
[...] « Be Skeptical Aug 17 2008 [...]
ReplyDelete[...] I talked about being skeptical. I wanted to show the importance of thinking for yourself, and not taking everything at face value. [...]
ReplyDelete[...] I talked about being skeptical. I wanted to show the importance of thinking for yourself, and not taking everything at face value. [...]
ReplyDelete[...] has been a great day for building foundations. I’m working on a good follow-up to Be Skeptical, but I really needed to put more time into it than I was able to allow. So it’s half done, [...]
ReplyDelete