Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Energy Drinks May Trigger Future Substance Use, Says Study (medscape.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the foreshadowing dept.

New research suggests persistent consumption of energy drinks may predispose young adults to substance use. "Investigators, led by Amelia M. Arria, PhD, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, found that college students who regularly drink highly caffeinated energy drinks were at increased risk for later use of alcohol, cocaine, or prescription stimulants," reports Medscape. From the report: The research included students enrolled in an ongoing longitudinal study that began in 2004 at a large public university. The analysis included 1099 participants (54% women; 72% non-Hispanic white) who completed at least one annual assessment in which patterns of energy drink consumption were assessed. In interviews, participants were asked which energy drinks they had consumed, and how often, in the past year. They were categorized into three patterns of use: Frequent (52 or more days); Occasional (12 - 51 days); Infrequent (1 - 11 days). The investigators found that sensation seeking, conduct problems, and behavioral dysregulation were all positively associated with a higher probability of energy drink consumption, with the nonuse group having the lowest and the persistent group the highest risk scores. The study was published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence.

23 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. Same relation as income? by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It would surprise me if the relation was anything else than social. The same social groups that drink energy drinks also use more drugs. If there is a hard reason for this, my first guess would be to look at the income.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    1. Re:Same relation as income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is advertising to kids. Or just advertising. Ban advertising of all shitfoods and consumption will drastically fall.
      Might seem radical today, but banning tobacco advertising was radical at the time.

    2. Re:Same relation as income? by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Yep. Making these drinks the social norm for kids is wrong.

      Then again, CocaCola has been doing it for decades. Banning this would be anti-American.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:Same relation as income? by ffreeloader · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As someone who spent a decade in active drug addiction I can say from experience that this research has it right. The people who drink highly caffienated drinks on a daily basis over a period of time are developing a psychological, and physical, addiction to a mind altering substance. They drink massive amounts of caffience for the buzz it gives them. And they come to rely on that to get them to an altered mental state.

      That altered state is the goal. And that is what addiction is all about. People get to depend on that altered state, and that is the psychological part of addiction, and actually the worst part of addiction. Why? Because the physical addiction is fairly easy to break compared to the mental habit of relying on something outside of yourself to make you feel good. That mental habit is extremely hard to break. That memory that feeling good is only a substance use away.

      That buzz off caffiene is a gateway drug effect. Scoff if you want, but as an addict I can tell you that is how an addict thinks. I've been clean for 25 years now and the urge is less than it used to be, but that thought still crosses my mind when I'm having a really bad day.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    4. Re:Same relation as income? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If one goes to any 12 Step Meetings then they will discover that there is coffee and lots of people that claim, like you, that they "know how addicts think". If you go to your local Starbucks you will find coffee and lots of people who claim they have no idea how "an addict thinks". If you can't see what is wrong with your claim that coffee leads to addiction now, you should probably stop filling your head with the nonsensical cognitive distortions prevalent in said meetings.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    5. Re:Same relation as income? by Kazymyr · · Score: 2

      Getting high on covfefe is wrong.

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    6. Re:Same relation as income? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      Actually caffeine addiction exists, but it is quite rare.

      I for my part used to drink "out of habit" about 6 coffee a day.

      But since 4 or 5 years I stopped (without any special afford).

      I still drink green tee, though. About a can a day when I work ... none at all when I'm not working.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:Same relation as income? by nasch · · Score: 2

      My parents once accidentally ran a double blind study on caffeine addiction. My dad gave my mom decaf in the morning thinking it was regular. She felt sick all day and he discovered later that it was decaf. Only problem with the study is n=1.

  2. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I smoked weed first and drank energy drinks second.
    I can see now what triggered my drinking...

  3. How many times? by Marcpek · · Score: 2, Informative

    Correlation causation. Correlation causation. Correlation causation. The original article acknowledges this and it does not reach that conclusion. Yet, the title reads "energy drinks MAY trigger future substance use". By the same logic I guess we can also say "eating vegetables may trigger schizophrenia" or "eating hamburgers may trigger a healthy lifestyle" or "doing drugs may trigger a happy and fruitful life" or "staring at the sun may trigger improved gaming skills". Those are all true statements, aren't they?

    1. Re:How many times? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Correlation causation. Correlation causation. Correlation causation. The original article acknowledges this and it does not reach that conclusion. Yet, the title reads "energy drinks MAY trigger future substance use". By the same logic I guess we can also say "eating vegetables may trigger schizophrenia" or "eating hamburgers may trigger a healthy lifestyle" or "doing drugs may trigger a happy and fruitful life" or "staring at the sun may trigger improved gaming skills". Those are all true statements, aren't they?

      You do realize that the only way you ever conclude "causation" is by first finding "correlation"?

    2. Re:How many times? by Cigaes · · Score: 2

      Indeed, I was about to post that this was a typical “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy, but you beat me to it.

      In this particular instance, there is an obvious common cause: being open to artificial stimulations of the mind.

    3. Re:How many times? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You do realize that the only way you ever conclude "causation" is by first finding "correlation"?

      True. Very observant and astute of you.

      Why does the idiot slashdot editor need to come to that conclusion without evidence?

      Clicks.

      This place is getting retarded. They found a way to get lots of clicks (post lots of political bullshit) and now it's in the tank. Just like long time users predicted would happen when a marketing company run by millennials bought it.

      It's going to be a steady stream of "this housewife figured out how to impeach trump with this one trick" crap very soon.

    4. Re:How many times? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      The problem isn't the research. The problem is the sloppy reporting about the research.

      For my part, I'd hypothesize that the more likely trigger is something else that is responsible for driving BOTH energy drink use and substance abuse. For instance, people who have their lives together generally have no reason to turn to energy drinks; they've structured their lives so that they don't need them. On the other hand, many folks are poor at sleep and time management, resulting in more stress as they move from one matter that they've allowed to become unnecessarily urgent to the next unnecessarily urgent matter. Energy drink use would be a natural result in that situation for many people, as would turning to other mind altering substances to alleviate the underlying stress.

      Again, the research did nothing to suggest a causation, so it's possible my little theory may one day be proven right (or not), but sloppy headlines suggest conclusions beyond those that are backed by science.

  4. So... what the study found... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

    People who use stimulants are likely to use stimulants.

    Where do I apply for money for such studies? I'm asking for a friend...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:So... what the study found... by Kiuas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      People who use stimulants are likely to use stimulants.

      Where do I apply for money for such studies? I'm asking for a friend...

      My thoughts exactly.

      What's interesting to me is that in so far as I can tell they did not do any kind of comparison with regular old coffee, you know, the age old stimulant that's even more potent in caffeine than some energy drinks. As a curiosity this sort of panic over 'energy drinks' such as coffee is not new

      Coffee first arrived in Sweden around 1674, but was little used until the turn of the 18th century when it became fashionable among the wealthy. In 1746, a royal edict was issued against coffee and tea due to "the misuse and excesses of tea and coffee drinking". Heavy taxes were levied on consumption, and failure to pay the tax on the substance resulted in fines and confiscation of cups and dishes. Later, coffee was banned completely; despite the ban, consumption continued.

      Gustav III, who viewed coffee consumption as a threat to the public health and was determined to prove its negative health effects, ordered a scientific experiment to be carried out.

      The king ordered the experiment to be conducted using two identical twins. Both of the twins had been tried for the crimes they had committed and condemned to death. Their sentences were commuted to life imprisonment on the condition that one of the twins drank three pots of coffee, and the other drank the same amount of tea, every day for the rest of their lives.

      Two physicians were appointed to supervise the experiment and report its finding to the king. Unfortunately, both doctors died, presumably of natural causes, before the experiment was completed. Gustav III, who was assassinated in 1792, also died before seeing the final results. Of the twins, the tea drinker was the first to die, at age 83; the date of death of the surviving coffee drinker is unknown.

      In 1794, the government once again tried to impose a ban on coffee. The ban, which was renewed multiple times until the 1820s, was never successful in stamping out coffee-drinking. Once the ban was lifted, coffee became a dominant beverage in Sweden, which since has been one of the countries with the highest coffee consumption per capita in the world.

      The experiment has jokingly been called "the first Swedish clinical trial"

      The arguments raised then were pretty much exactly the same as they're now with energy drinks, namely that 'oh the youth of today does nothing but sit at cafes sipping this brown liquid, it's going to make them decadent idiots and losers!"

      As a Finn I do have to point out as the centuries long neighborhood 'feud' between us and the Old Kingdom necessitates that we've got the nr. 1 place in coffee consumption. Filthy casuals. ;)

      I've got to go now, my IV drip of Ecuadorian dark roast is running empty and the typing speed is falling to below 500 words a minute.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
  5. Maybe unrelated by skovnymfe · · Score: 2

    Cool kids drink energy drinks, and they drink alcohol and they do party drugs. So conversely drinking energy drinks and alcohol and doing drugs makes you one of the cool kids, right? Only you'll never be one of the cool kids, because frankly you're just an imitating loser, only now you're also an addict, and a point in a statistic which has no basis in reality, and which is created by people who never experienced being one of the cool kids, or one of the addicts. Or possible was one of the addicts at one point, but got better and had their opinion of the cool kids turn sour. So now they're after the least prickly of the three - can't chase down the drugs, that doesn't work, and can't chase down the alcohol, that doesn't work either - DEATH TO ENERGY DRINKS!

  6. Makes sense. by CODiNE · · Score: 2

    There's a particularly nasty case of ADHD on one of my parents family's, on the other multigenerational alcoholism.

    It's as if the two families were in competition for which side can screw their lives up the most. Knowing this from an early age I've always been careful to avoid ending up in any kind of dependency situation. I'll keep alcohol consumption limited to 2 or 3 drinks, and refuse any non-prescription drug, heck I even avoid painkillers.

    Personally I've noticed a real sensitivity to things as simple as sugar messing with my moods. I can have a soda or juice and a short time later "What the heck am I saying??" Yep, there was corn syrup in that.

    So definitely, I'm the people in the article, who can't even have an energy drink without increasing their chance for ending up in heated arguments, lack of impulse control and general sketchy behavior.

    At least I've never been arrested.

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    1. Re:Makes sense. by CODiNE · · Score: 2

      You're right, my meth head cousins are so brave. Just like my imprisoned brother. Nobody told him what to do. Being the only undivorced person in my generation is so boring, I hate my life, hand me the Red Bull. Gonna get CRAZAAAY.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
  7. Re:If you want a kick to the system energy drink by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
    Hmm.....

    So, let' see, if energy drinks are "gateway drugs", shouldn't they too be classified as Schedule I drugs, like heroin, and marijuana?

    Hell, like pot, shouldn't mothers milk be also schedule 1, as that it really leads to all other substances and possible abuse of them...?

    [/sarcasm]

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  8. Re:If you want a kick to the system energy drink by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I expect that is the reason between the correlation of Energy Drinks and drug dependencies.
    If you take a substance any substance, because of the buzz or numbing feeling, (which these feelings often happen when your body is chemically out of wack) then chances are you will get addicted to that feeling and move up.

    I drink coffee in the morning, I don't get a buzz, but I like the taste. If I don't have coffee in the morning I function just fine. If I have too much and get a buzz, I don't like the feeling, so I stop. The same is if I am drinking a hard drink. Once I start feeling it, I stop, because I know I had too much. But if I was in search for the Buzzed feeling, chances are I would keep drinking to keep that feeling.
     

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  9. Yes, but in the opposite direction... by denzacar · · Score: 2

    Most "highly caffienated drinks" can't hold a candle to espresso coffee, and even "regular" coffee contains more caffeine for the same amount of liquid.
    And that's using the lower-end quantities of caffeine found in brewed coffee.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Those "highly caffienated drinks" are made to strict, regulated rules, regulations and recipes.
    Which are created in such a way to match or be lower than amounts of caffeine "found in nature" and which has been proven to be non-harmful to most humans.
    I.e. They are made to contain the same or lesser amount of caffeine as the same amount of coffee.
    For safety reasons, they mostly contain lower-end rather than the average values.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  10. No Surprise -- Intended Consequences by Mkkby · · Score: 2

    The corps selling this stuff know exactly what they are doing. Get your customer hooked and you have a customer for life.

    Caffeine, nicotine, sugar/hfcs, the original coke with cocaine, etc... It's an endless cycle of sociopaths who will sell anything for a profit.