A favorite pastime of some MSMS students is consuming caffeine or energy drinks. These are common aids to help get through the occasional grueling day at MSMS. MUW kindly supports this by occasionally giving out free Monster Drinks in their convenience store. At face first, this appears as a great kindness bestowed onto the students of MSMS. However, among the MSMS student population, there are some who believe that energy drinks are a plague to the human condition and should not be given out.

“It’s just not good for you, all the caffeine and sugar. It raises your heart rate and, it’s not natural,” states Jim Zhang.  

But what does the evidence state about this?

Like everything else, energy drinks require a definition. Energy drinks are drinks that contain stimulants and generally sugar to provide an energy boost. In almost all cases, the primary stimulant is caffeine. In the amazing modern world, we have too many varieties to count, with different flavors and some that have low to no sugar. For the sake of the argument though, let’s analyze the 16 oz (most common size) Original Monster Energy Drink.

In one can, there is 160 mg of caffeine. This may sound like a lot, but research, cited by the Mayo Clinic, states that up to 400 mg in a day is fine for adults. In adolescents, the research states that up to 250 mg is fine. Hey, look at that! Both numbers are greater than 160! So generally, assuming you aren’t taking ridiculous amounts of caffeine from other sources, caffeine usually won’t be an issue.  

The other important thing to consider is sugar. To understand this, it is important to distinguish the difference between added sugar and non-added sugar. Added sugar is sugar that a processing plant would add to a product while non-added sugar in this context means sugar that occurs naturally. There is a great deal of research showing links between added sugar consumption and a great deal of health problems. This is likely the cause of the World Health Organization’s recommendation that added sugar intake should be no more than 10% of their daily calories with additional benefits coming from a reduction below 5% or 25 grams.

In one can of regular Monster, there is 54 grams of added sugar. So, at first glance, this appears to be quite a slam dunk against regular Monster. But in my opinion, it is much more nuanced than this. If we are talking about the same sugar, whether it is “natural” or “synthetic” is utterly irrelevant. The chemical structure is the same. The body cannot distinguish the difference. So why is fruit good for you when the primary macronutrient is sugar? Well, it also contains a great deal of fiber and other nutrients that are theorized to balance out the negative effects. What I’m trying to say is the context of a person and their entire diet is important here.

Much of the data that shows problems with sugar are all observational studies. Studies such as this can show an association between sugar intake and problems but they cannot imply cause and effect.  When it comes to people’s health, there are too many confounding variables. However, randomized controlled trials have been done, which can imply cause and effect. In a summary of randomized controlled trials looking at sugar, Dr. James Rippe, a cardiologist, states, “Data from many randomized control trials (RCTs) do not support linkages between sugar consumption at normal levels within the human diet and various adverse metabolic and health-related effects.” Based off this, it is likely that the people who tend to eat a lot of sugar generally care less about their health and do other things that are confounding results. However, in the conflict of interest section, Rippe discloses that he was funded by certain soda companies. This does cast some doubt on the credibility of his statements, but they are not likely blatantly wrong or it would not have passed peer review.

The World Health Organization’s recommendations are meant to bring health benefits as a whole to the masses. It does not consider individuality. It would be ridiculous to assume that an NFL linebacker would have the same sugar “cap” as a desk worker. It also does not account for diet. Avoiding added sugar for the average American is likely to reduce the amount of calories consumed and improve the quality of foods. Sugar is not all that different from starches and complex carbohydrates. It is the building block of these longer chain carbohydrates. All carbohydrates hit your bloodstream as glucose. If fiber and calories were controlled for, I doubt there would be a massive difference between sugar and complex carbohydrates outside of placebo. Also, MSMS students are resilient due to youth. The occasional one would be fine, or more frequently if one knows what they are doing. There is another elephant in the room we aren’t addressing: sugar-free drinks.

Sugar-free energy drinks have similar ingredients to sugar-based energy drinks except that they have some artificial sweetener/sugar alcohol in place of sugar. These do not have the problems of sugar, and they are generally considered to be very safe at normal doses. In sugar free Monsters, the common ones are Erythritol, sucralose, and acesulfame potassium. Erythritol has an excellent safety profile. Dentists even like it because it helps prevent cavities when compared against sugar. Sucralose has an acceptable daily intake of 5 mg/kg bodyweight per day while the average intake being 1.6 mg/kg per day. The primary drawback is an association with migraines in a small fraction of the population. Most people don’t experience this. Acesulfame Potassium is 200 times sweeter than sugar. While it does metabolize into acetoacetamide which is toxic at high doses, the levels in a drink are not high enough to be dangerous due to the sweetness. I don’t know where the myth that artificial sweeteners is worse than sugar came from, but it is completely wrong.

So where have we gotten after all of that? I think that everybody who has gotten a free Monster from the W store should send them a thank-you note. Hopefully, I have convinced you that the good taste and pick me up outweighs the very minuscule or non-existent negatives. If you’re worried about sugar, just drink the non-sugar ones. While beggars can’t be choosers, if they were to give out free drinks again, I would prefer non-sugar. I like the orange kind. And remind me to ask Dr. Hester how giving out free stuff fits into economics.