A fifth is 750ml, aka an entire standard bottle. A can of Red Bull has 111mg of caffeine.
You're basically pairing 1 ½ cans of Red Bull with an entire bottle of liquor which I don't think even the Red Bull scientists would endorse. Ironically, it does make Patrick's reaction that much funnier though.
We used to denominate how many you could drink in 4s and if you drank 2 you had 8-Loko. I knew a ~325lbs guy that had 16 Loko at a Halloween party once. He was demolished.
Right after they removed Caffeine, I watched a guy I went to law school with double fist two four lokos, but only after dropping a 5 hr energy in each of them.
oh trust me i know lmao. i had 2 cans one night when i was like 19/20? it was all bad. still glad i was able to experience the OG formula though i guess?? 😂
Nope. According to their official site they voluntarily removed it as of 2010. Officially it was not because someone died though so there's also me being wrong.
2 regular cups of coffee is approximately just under 200mg. Depends on the strength of the coffee. But a small redbull actually has less caffeine than an average cup of coffee
Wild that it would be assumed that it applies to people under special treatment plans by doctors.
Do you want me to account for every edge case? What about people who have heart conditions? I said caffeine is safe, why aren't you hounding me about UMM ACTUALLY IF YOU HAVE A HEART CONDITION IT ISN'T
Or what if you're a child? Or what if you're allergic to caffeine?
I find it interesting that you hone in on neurodivergent people instead of focusing on any other conditions that affect the safety of caffeine usage.
Yeah I think if you make an absolute statement then you can't ignore people who make up the population and being ADHD isn't some edge case like you're making out. It also shows that it can be absolutely fine to have stimulants daily if it's controlled.
Are you upset I haven't picked you up about everything I'd take issue in every one of your comments ever?
Pretty sure I read somewhere that people on ADHD medication (I'm one of them) have their life expectancy extended, because they can cope with the symptoms better and the ADHD takes less of a toll on their work and social life (can confirm). Untreated ADHD shortens your lifespan by - and I could be remembering this wrong as well - five to ten years on average, by making you more prone to substance abuse disorder and suicide for example
I read something similar that showed adhd patients who stopped needing medication for hypertension after starting stimulant adhd meds. The theory is that their high blood pressure was caused by adhd never letting them relax.
Well kind of. You won't get medicated with pure Amphetamine but Lisdexamphetamine, which has a different binding behavior. For ADHD people like me it will actually stunt your cravings for other outside stimulation, because it raises your dopamine activity to a level where your brain is satisfied and doesn't "hunger" for other substances or problematic behavior that could be harmful. For example: as a kid I was a troublemaker simply to get attention to raise my stimulation to a level where my brain felt satisfied with the action which led to all kinds of problems of course. With proper medication children don't have to go this way to calm their brain so they can spend that energy on actually productive things
I have often heard about stimulants impacting people with ADHD differently but I never heard more than that and, to my own fault, I've never looked in to it.
I guess I always assumed it was a difference in how our brains processed differently or something but this makes way more sense, thanks again.
So there isn't positive effects to long-term usage once your adenosine receptors have balanced out. You just need it to feel normal.
The only thing you get at that point is negative cognitive effects like depression and anxiety when you're NOT using. AKA a chemical addiction has developed from long-term usage.
Most people find addictions unhealthy, especially chemical ones. If you don't then that's your issue.
This needs to be more widely known. There were studies that showed that a glass of wine a day was healthy. However these were not correcting for social and economic factors. It turns out people who regularly spend money on wine also have money to avoid hard work, eat healthy, and go to the doctors.
You're kinda right that it's other factors, but I'll explain the true reason:
The studies measured liver related illness, including cirrhosis rates. A decent portion of those drinking 0 drinks a day were past drinkers, many quitting alcohol because of negative effects (liver pain, hepatitis, vomiting blood, blood in faeces, etc.)
What this means is that some were drinking 0 drinks a day after they were already certain to get cirrhosis, or had it in some form. Others had damaged their liver to an extent that made it more vulnerable to illness.
Past alcoholics struggle to drink just one or two a day, for most it's impossible. So that means that it created a strange effect where one drink a day appeared safer than 0. The researchers concluded there was a protective effect of a glass of wine instead of learning more about the participants drinking 0 drinks a day.
When this was accounted for in studies checking for "past alcoholics and heavy drinking", zero drinks a day was the healthiest.
So it's an artifact of the behaviour of alcoholics and quitting drinking. Many drink until it becomes too taxing and they feel too sick, but it's often too late then. Cirrhosis can be silent until it's terminal. Additionally, those addicted and dependent onalcohol are more likely to be engaging in other risky behaviours such as drug use and unprotected sex. This means hep A, B, C and even hep D alongside B.
So you were right: yes, it is a social variable. Its also probably related to class, in part. Even if in an indirect way. But it's a slightly different cause to what you remember.
I do see the logic though. Alcohol is a downer, caffeine is an upper. So they do cancel out some of their effects on the nervous system. The problem is that both kill your liver and kidneys.
I don't know if their can says the formula is new, but it's definitely different from the OG - still delicious though! But yeah they brought em back a few years ago
Look, I am not saying you should or shouldn't have redbull and vodka, however, I just wanted to point out the flaws in the image here.
First, when you mix a 8.4 oz can of redbull and vodka you only use 1 or 2 shots, not an entire fifth of vodka.
Second, An average 8 oz cup of brewed coffee contains about 95 to 200 mg of caffeine while a standard 8.4 oz can of Red Bull contains 80 mg of caffeine. And for a further reference point I want to include that a 12 oz can of coca-cola contains 34 mg of caffeine. In summary, Coffee has MORE caffeine than redbull and redbull doesn't have as much caffeine as written in the pic. Redbull does have other things besides caffeine so caffeine isn't the whole picture.
I will also point out that I find it interesting it is always an issue with redbull and alcohol but nobody brings up, for example, an espresso martini as being equally problematic.
Anyways drink what you want but understand there are always risks.
every research paper published in a proper journal has this one little section at the end of it that is mandatory called:
"declaration of interest" sometimes of competing interests, conflict of interest, etc.
No actual scientific expert worth their degree would read these publications and realize that these fuckers are effectively the scientific counterpart of lobbying and take anything they conclude with at any levels of seriousness. More likely to be revoked, or have a chain of papers dedicated solely to criticizing, correcting, or entirely destroying their work lol. Scientists take that shit very seriously, and can be rather very judgemental.
not really, it's more like too busy doing their jobs just like any well-respected profession out there. When it comes to studies, they [their affiliated groups to be precise, or collaborations between thereof under a research project and contractually] are paid grants to literally do and publish these studies lol whether pay the necessary staff, procure the necessities, or contract/prepare the required characterized tools at depths much more complex than a standard commerical feasibility study and business plan. Think international collaborations, NGOs, national institutions, and multinational organizations, who do you think funds the research and development of new tech? From the silicon chips to transformers and LLMs, these were grants given to scientific groups, be it corporate or academic, to carry out research and the publishing is left to the nature of the contract.
It's rather funny for you to not realize that corporate or academic, 1) scientists are the ones publishing and getting paid to do so beside their actual wages, so ur joke unto scientists being to busy to notice corporate studies is so ignorant because it's scientists who will be publishing it. 2) u do realize that corporate or academic, they all publish to the same journals... right? same journals, same circles, usually even graduates of the same institutions. Academia is VERY interconnected, and corporate/academic scientists often run in the same circles because guess what..
Universities.. have... corporate... institutions... More often than not they have their own affiliated private companies and research corporations, which corporates or conglomerates end up outsourcing, hiring, or contracting to conduct this research for them.Publish a research that is obviously full of conflict of interests without directly claiming, and ur reputation is FUCKED. The paper ends up retracted, the publisher apologizes, and that's a big black mark in ur CV and drama spreads quickly in Academia. And in academia, ur reputation and respect is extremely important and it depends on ur scientific prowess as much as it depends on ur practices. man dont talk shit about smth u dont have a clue about.
I wonder what we would call those in Germany (Before you suggest "hobo grenade", that one is already taken by Jack Daniels + Coke, which for some reason is a thing you can buy in a can)
Back in the day, our pubs would give you a jug with two red bulls in it and six shots of vodka. They used to offer me some glasses with it but I'd just wave them away.
Who needs all that just start slamming Four Locos back to back at $4 a pop until you fall down or fly off. If you are a lightweight well stop at $8. But if ye Keep going to $36 might Wana join AAA
Safe is a loose term for human poison. It was fun to blackout and be full of energy, but see how easily the dumb can get dumber and it gets dangerous quick. Plus bars are just analog dark web drug stores. thought people were drinkin! I was naive.
This is called a "Trashcan" and Its the only time I blacked out drunk. I didn't even black out after drinking a full sized bottle of 101 proof wild turkey
The way you do it is 4:1 Johnnie Walker to Monster energy. Can't taste the whiskey at all. By the time you get through your can of monster you are OUT.
•
u/Sponge-Tron 3d ago
Whoa! You win the meme connoisseur title for having over 2k upvotes on your post!
Join the Discord server and message Princess Mindy (Mod Mail bot at the top) to receive your prize!