Energy Drink Cocktails: A Dangerous Combination for Athletes and Beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT combined-use of alcohol and drinks (EDs) on college campuses and in communities has become a considerable public health concern. Among college students, intercollegiate athletes have been identified as being particularly at-risk for excessive alcohol consumption and resultant health and behavioral consequences. main purpose of this study was to measure patterns of alcohol, combined-use, and ED-only use among men and women student-athletes (N = 401; 257 male, 144 female), and to investigate whether or not significant differences existed within combined-users on risk-taking and consequences when comparing alcohol-only to the combined-use of alcohol and EDs. Among alcohol drinkers (n = 315), 92% participated in alcohol binge drinking and 150 (47. 6%) combined alcohol and EDs. Within combined-users, 68 of 107 males (63.6%) and 24 of 40 (60%) females reported participating in energy-binge drinking episodes (i.e., having 3 or more drinks on one occasion) when combining alcohol and EDs. When comparing alcohol-only use to combined-use within athletes who did both, results indicated that the combined-use of alcohol and EDs lead to a significant overall increase in reported risk-taking. There is a critical need to include more information about the effects of EDs and combined-use in existing substance abuse treatment and prevention programs. TERMINOLOGY Energy Drink (ED): An 8 ounce serving of drinks containing caffeine, taurine, B-vitamins, and other ingredients. Not coffee or drink simply high in caffeine. Energy-Binge: 3 or more EDs on one occasion--can be with or without alcohol. Combined-user: Used both alcohol and EDs together and alcohol-only on separate occasions. Alcohol-only use: Drinking only alcohol on that occasion and not consuming EDs. Since the introduction of Red Bull in the United States in 1997, the drink (ED) market has grown exponentially. ED sales have increased from an estimated $200 million in the U.S. in 2002 (Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, 2008), to $5.4 billion in 2006 (Reissig, Strain, & Griffiths, 2009). To reduce alcohols' depressant effects people have mixed stimulants with alcohol for decades, and evidence suggests that this behavior is increasing due to the proliferation of drinks (Malinauskas, Aeby, Overton, Carpenter-Aeby, & Barber-Heidal, 2007; O'Brien, McCoy, Rhodes, Wagoner, & Wolfson, 2008). As witnessed by widespread use and positive athlete testimonials (e.g., 5-hour energy), EDs appear to be perceived as safe. However, EDs are unregulated by the Food and Drug Administration and have not been 'recognized as safe' (FDA, 2003). Power of Advertising Strategic advertising campaigns claiming improved performance, alertness, concentration, and mood have been influencing the increased use of EDs (Miller, 2008a; 2008b). To further promote increased use, college students are regularly given free samples during nightclub promotions or during times of increased stress such as finals week (Woolsey & Kensinger, 2009). objectives of these strategies are simple, give students free samples to get them using. Then, once they are hooked, charge high prices ($2-4 per can) and take full advantage of the addictive properties. Miller (2008c) suggested that ED companies exploit the 'jock identity' of athletes and use enticing marketing ploys to attract young people. Historically, ED advertising has targeted young males and glorified the risk-taking lifestyle (Miller, 2008a; 2008c). More recently however, companies have realized the tremendous sales growth potential of targeting women. For example, VPX Sports Nutrition (2010) created a product called Redline Princess in bright pink bottles with flavors such as peach mango. According to the VPX Redline Princess product description (2010), The biggest concern women seem to have with most energy products is that they don't want to feel totally jacked up! …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".