13834278:Mike-O said:
I'm sure you've seen the effects of consuming a vast amount of energy drinks when it comes to kids, adolescents and teens - hyper, crazy, apparently a shitload of sleeping problems and inability to focus during school etc. etc. That's why I said it's regrettable we don't have any completed long-term research yet. They've banned kids under 15 buying energy drinks in Finland and for a good reason in my opinion. A regular 0,33 can of your favorite energy drink contains roughly the same amount of caffeine as your normal cup of brew, but people tend to chug them a lot faster and especially if going with Diet editions, the sweeteners/sugar substitutes are bad news bears, not to mention most of them have that glucose suryp shit as most soft drinks and a decent amount of E-codes swimming around.
Drink what you want, but just looking at the constitution of the drinks in comparison it's clear which are less healthy for you.
Your post has no relevant facts. All you say is that
a.) caffeine is bad for kids-- I wasn't arguing that caffeine wasn't bad for kids - I was comparing energy drinks to OTHER caffeinated alternatives, and more specifically, for adults.
b.) That people tend to drink energy drinks faster-- which I've actually never heard of...and actually again, that wouldn't make them worse for you than other forms of caffeine, that's just a behavioral problem.
c.) That sugar substitutes are "bad news bears"- but most of them are made with sucralose (Splenda) or stevia - sugar substitutes that a vast majority of coffee drinkers put in their coffee anyway. Are there studies that show that Splenda and stevia are super bad for you? I don't know if any are made with aspartame (the known bad-for-you sugar substitute)
d.) That "most of them have that glucose syrup shit" - false. I'm not even sure what glucose syrup you're talking about but it isn't found in sugar free energy drinks.
e.) That they have a "decent amount of e-codes swimming around"- assuming this means additives based on a quick google search, and again, that statement doesn't actually provide any factual evidence that there is something wrong or bad for you here.
So all I heard in your post is the same opinion that I hear all over the place--the "popular opinion--which is "energy drinks are terrible for you because they're full of sugar and caffeine and other junk and bad for you stuff"-- which is why I posted my unpopular opinion, which is that they're not bad for you, relatively. I mean sure, if we're comparing them to water, or green tea, then you're likely better off without them. However, when compared to your average Starbucks drinks, I'd venture to say that sugar free energy drinks are actually quite a bit better for you. *gasp!*
So no, I don't agree that its "clear which are less healthy for you."
If you asked me whether I thought a black cup of drip coffee was healthier than a sugar free energy drink, I'd probably guess that yes, it is. However, most people I know don't order black drip coffee. If they do they add cream and Splenda. Most of them order lattes, or flavored lattes, or mochas, or frappuccinos. The "popular" opinion around my place of work is that "energy drinks are so bad for you" while they all sip their fat and sugar laden designer lattes.
