Comparing the caffeine content of caffeine-containing dietary supplements in British Columbia
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background and Purpose: The use of dietary supplements is on the rise in Canada. This raises questions about the safety of the supplements when taken in the recommended dosage. One ingredient of concern in dietary supplements is caffeine, which can cause adverse health effects when consumed in great enough quantities. Given the lack of research into the caffeine content of dietary supplements, along with few regulations that exist regarding labelling or limits on caffeine content within Canada, a major concern is whether or not these supplements pose a risk to the public. The purpose of this study is to compare the caffeine content of various types of dietary supplements, and to determine if the caffeine content warrants a risk to the public. Methods: Supplement stores within the Vancouver Metropolitan Area were visited online and in person, and supplements were categorized as an energy drink, pre-workout supplement, energy bar, fat-loss supplement, or caffeine pill or capsule. The caffeine content per recommended dosage of each supplement was recorded from the label. Results: It was found that the caffeine content did vary between supplement categories (Kruskall-Wallis one way ANOVA test had a p-value < 0.000), and that fat-loss supplements and pre-workout supplements had the highest caffeine content with a mean 221.19mg per serving and 249.68mg per serving respectively. Caffeine pills had a mean of 186.90mg per serving, energy drinks had a mean of 166.84mg per serving, and energy bars had a mean of 85.06mg per serving. Discussion: Health Canada recommends that healthy adults not exceed 400mg of caffeine per day. Exceeding this limit can lead to adverse health reactions, such as anxiety, insomnia, heart palpitations or more serious symptoms such as convulsions or death. It was found in this study that 5% of the samples exceeded 400mg, and can be considered hazardous. Taking multiple doses of supplements, or consuming additional caffeine from alternative sources, such as coffee, also puts consumers at a greater risk of exceeding the recommended limits. Currently there are no regulations in Canada regarding how much caffeine is permitted within these products, or any labeling requirements for caffeine in dietary supplements. Conclusion: Given the increase in popularity of dietary supplements in Canada, along with the limited regulations on labelling requirements, caffeine-containing supplements could potentially pose a risk to consumers. This study shows that the caffeine content differs between types of dietary supplements, and that some supplements exceed the Health Canada guidelines of 400mg. More regulations and guidelines on labeling requirements for these supplements may be necessary to protect the public.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».