NY Bans marketing of Red Bull but misses the bull's eye

Suffolk County in New York recently passed legislation that limits the marketing of energy drinks* to minors, and while this sounds like a brilliant demonstration of the movement to protect children from over-caffeinating themselves, I have several huge concerns.

First of all, notice I put an asterisk by the words "energy drink", above. The US Food and Drug Administration considers a product with the word "drink" to be a beverage, as opposed to a supplement. Beverages and supplements have different regulations regarding their label and how product safety is monitored. [For the full discussion, see my previous blog: Beverage Vs Supplement]

 Does this regulation apply only to energy drinks, meaning caffeinated products with a Nutrition Facts panel, or does it also apply to caffeinated products with a Supplement Facts panel? Monster energy drinks have a supplement facts panel (for now), but Red Bull has a Nutrition Facts panel. Rockstar products are split: some are supplements, some are beverages. Are we limiting marketing of ALL CAFFEINATED PRODUCTS and does this legislation include measures to prevent minors from ordering a Venti coffee with over 5 expresso shots?
 


And what about these caffeinated products, Starbucks Refreshers, will these be included in the legislation? They have caffeine, and if you consume more than 3 in one hour you're bound to get jitters.





 
Second of all, the bill's sponsor, Willam Spencer, highlighted THE WRONG PROBLEM in his letter to the media. According to an article in Food Product Design, "William Spencer said energy drinks consumed by kids may contain up to 800 milligrams of caffeine" (Food Product Design article).

In my life, I have examined over 100 caffeinated product labels--beverages, supplements, shots and coffees from several different states and from quite a few different countries. IN MY LIFE, I have never seen a product with 800 milligrams of caffeine. I am not denying that there is a product somewhere in the world with over 800 mg caffeine in one container, but the most popular energy products--Rockstar, RedBull, Amp, 5-Hour Energy, Monster, NOS, Full Throttle, RedLine--do not have 800 mg of caffeine in one container.  

Check it out for yourself on this brilliant site from Energyfiend.com: The 15 top energy drink brands (and their caffeine content - click on the brand name) 

Notice I said above, "...in one container."

Alas - the true problem: minors (and adults as well) are consuming too many caffeinated products in a 24-hour window. Where is this issue addressed in the legislation? According to the NBC New York report, "The law prohibits the marketing of energy drinks to minors, prohibits the sale of the drinks in county parks and sets up an extensive public education campaign on the side effects associated with the beverages." NBC New York report

I will be very interested in reading what this "extensive public education campaign" entails. Is it led by physicians? Does it include information on the maximum daily dosage of caffeine considered safe? (400mg - see previous blogs) Does it carry a strong message that the AMOUNT OF CAFFEINE ONE CONSUMES is dependent on the product as well as THE NUMBER OF SERVINGS ONE CHOOSES TO CONSUME IN ONE HOUR?

For the sake of everyone, I sincerely hope this public education campaign includes a lesson on reading labels, and on the importance of NOT mixing energy drinks with alcohol. If we don't address these issues, this bold piece of legislation will be ineffective at protecting people from the true hazards of caffeinated products.

 

Another Reason I'm Not a Vegan

There are several pros and cons to going Vegan. If you are Vegan, more power to you, but an article from Food Business News on Nutrition and Bone Health is why I’m glad I drink milk.

Two-and-a-half to three servings of dairy products such as low-fat milk and yogurt were associated with higher bone density, according to a study by the Institute for Aging Research (IFAR) involving over 3200 participants.

What about calcium supplements?

Well, that study doesn’t specify, but this one does:

A high intake of supplemental calcium (but NOT dietary calcium) was associated with higher risk of death by cardiovascular disease or heart disease in men. This association was determined by scientists at the National Cancer Institute, who reviewed data on 388,000 participants in the National Institues of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study. Supplemental calcium was not associated with cardiovascular death (CVD) or heart disease death in women, but dietary calcium was not associated to CVD death in men or women.

If I am now weary about calcium supplements and I still don’t want to drink milk, what can I do?

The alternative to calcium supplementation is, of course, low-fat dairy, and also beans and green leafy vegetables.  In fact, vegan or non-vegan, EVERYONE should try to consume as many dark green leafy vegetables as possible.

OK, why?

Vitamin K! Okay? Okay.  Oh, K…

Dark green leafy vegetables are the best source of Vitamin K, and vitamin K helps a protein called osteocalcin get in the proper form (its ‘carboxylated form’) for bone building. Osteocalcin plays a significant role in maintaining bone strength, but it has to be carboxylated to get absorbed into the bone. (Unless you’re a chemist, don’t worry about carboxylation – the point is this protein has to be a certain way to work, just like your umbrella when it’s raining). Getting sufficient Vitamin K from the diet is the best way to make sure this bone-building protein can do its thing.

So I still don’t need to drink milk, do I?

Well…

Osteocalcin is a protein, and amino acids (the building blocks of protein) are needed for protein synthesis in bone. Getting enough protein is therefore just as important as getting enough Vitamin K and calcium. Dark leafy greens help you get calcium and Vitamin K, but not so much with the protein. Furthermore, it’s not just the amount of protein, but the type. You need enough of all the right amino acids for your body to work properly, hence the term “complete protein”. Milk is a complete protein but plant foods have to be combined to provide all the right amino acids (for example, beans and rice provide all the right amino acids, so they’re called ‘complimentary proteins’).

So I STILL don’t need to drink milk, I just have to plan my proteins so I make sure they’re complimentary.

Correct! That works, as long as you’re good at planning. Personally, I’d rather just do one-stop-shopping with a glass of milk and then add green leafy veggies to lunch and dinner. Vitamin K, check. Calcium, check. Protein, check.

The caveat here is that bone health depends on getting enough of all three: calcium, vitamin K and protein.  

Consuming three servings of milk or yogurt (ice cream doesn’t count) is great for providing the protein and calcium, but you really can’t afford to skimp on the green leafy vegetables. Not only do the leafy greens provide calcium and vitamin K, but they also help your body stay neutral. When you get too much protein and not enough veggies, your body gets a little acidic (think lemon juice). Oxidizing/metabolizing certain proteins results in excess acids that have to be excreted. Your body can only lower the acidity level in your urine so much (or it’ll REALLY damage your insides!). Using a buffer, something slightly basic (think baking soda or toothpaste) will make the urine as neutral (think water) as possible. Vegetables provide buffers, but without enough veggies your body will borrow the buffers from the bone.

Science hasn’t caught up to the boom in alternative milks (almond milk, rice milk etc) so no one can say for sure whether drinking these products will give your body the same benefits as low-fat milk. Since women reach peak bone mass before their thirties, I’m going to continue drinking plenty of milk and double-up on the leafy greens.

Guest blog on Shakeology.com

As a food technologist on the product development team for Shakeology, I know these shakes and their ingredients inside and out. Here is an article I recently submitted for the Shakeology blog site:

 How can Shakeology help give you energy?
 

 

My Dream Date with 3 Very Different Men

Given the opportunity to have dinner with anyone of my choosing, I would invite Klaus Badelt, John McClane and Sam Seaborn.

Klaus Badelt composed the score to the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie, and though it eludes me why Hans Zimmer took over for Pirates 2, 3 and 4 it is no mystery why the score of the first movie moves me so. I'm a sucker for a lot of things--biceps, blue eyes, sharp wit, dimples...and strings, especially the cello. Just as I feel some biceps look better than others (if it looks like a balloon about to pop, it's too big), some string arrangements sound better than others (Yellowcard-okay; Mumford-less okay). When it comes to the score of Pirates, Mr. Badelt has created the perfect balance between fluid movement and dynamic power. Though the strings and drums are prominent throughout the entire soundtrack, there's enough music from the other instruments to keep the music from becoming predictable or repetitive.
Honestly, when I listen to the soundtrack, it's like I can see it. As the music grows and fades I can almost feel the notes rising and falling like the chest of a living breathing body or like the rolling waves of the sea. Unlike other movie scores, there are enough different themes throughout the soundtrack to keep it interesting. I've listened to this soundtrack since the movie came out and it still grabs my attention and holds my interest. To this day, I am incapable of listening to "To the Pirates' Cave" without imagining a gymnastics floor routine, dynamic and dramatic.
There are times when you listen to a song and you can just feel the beat. Your foot or finger may start tapping without you realizing it because the beat has become a part of you, as much a part of you as the beat of your own heart. I want to have dinner with Klaus Badelt because this music is his creation. His ideas, his thoughts brought to life can affect me so, and thus I'd love the opportunity to tell him how much his music means to me.

John McClane is the coolest guy I know, much to the disappointment of the guys I know in real life. John McClane is a smart mouth, an alcoholic, a hero and a badass. He is not a good husband and not the best father (well,... he loses points for not being around but wins major points for the length he goes to save his kids). He is at times a bit of a jerk, but what I admire about this guy is his sense of humor and his perseverance.
 Those who know me are familiar with my sense of humor - it's difficult for me to NOT make a cheesy joke when the opportunity is presented. Case in point: my boss and I were discussing problems with protein powders and he said, "There's no way..." at which point I interrupted and said, "No 'whey', get it, hahaha..." (True story).
Suffice to say, I admire John McClane's sense of humor, especially because it comes through even during times of high stress. Like a lot of people, I tend to hunker down and solemn up when faced with extreme stress. Let's be honest, the 'stress' I'm referring to is nothing like being held in a hostage or life-or-death situation with a terrorist, but that's because A) I'm both cautious and lucky and B) I'm not in any action movies. Regardless, I'd like to be able to maintain a sense of humor and clear focus during high stress situations, and that's why I'd like to have dinner with this man--so he can teach me. If nothing else, we could swap cheesy jokes and one-liners all night, and maybe I could convince him to teach me to drive defensively on the 405.

Sam Seaborn is a bit of a nerd but he writes like no one else I know (with the possible exception of Justin Prochnow). For the moment, I'm going to ignore the puppet-master, Aaron Sorkin, who is undeniably the genius behind Sam's writing skills. If you don't know what I mean, watch Episode 1 of the show Studio 60, watch any episode of The West Wing, seasons 1-4, and watch the movie The American President (especially the scene in which Michael J. Fox yells at Michael Douglas).
Aaron Sorkin is a genius but for the moment, Sam Seaborn best personifies a great writer in my mind. Sam Seaborn once said, "Oratory should raise your heart rate. Oratory should blow the doors off the place." And it's true. A great passage in a book, a moving speech, a dramatic monologue--their greatness is measured by how strongly they captivate your attention and stir your imagination. Great writing should be clear and concise, but not formulaic or predicable. Great writing should pull you forward without losing you. Great, powerful writing moves you. Sam knows this. Sam believes this. Sam is a nerd and a bit of a do-gooder, but he is a great writer. I wish I could write like him (because wanting to write like Aaron Sorkin is simply out of the question). Maybe one of them or both of them could share some advice over dinner.

So there you have it: Klaus Badelt for his creativity, John McClane for his stress-management and sense of humor, and Sam Seaborn for his writing.  Maybe one day I'll be able to find a guy who embodies the qualities of these three, and the look in his eyes or the warmth of his hug will be able to move me like Klaus' strings, McClane's sense of humor and Sam's speeches. In the meantime, what moves you?

Is it a drug or a supplement or a beverage?

The FDA has increased its attention and output of warning letters regarding products that claim to belong in one category but truly belong in another. In the press, however, the distinction between these categories constantly gets blurred. Here is a perfect example of the press blurring this distinction, further confusing consumers.

This news story was just released through Nutritional Outlook's weekly newsletter:

First Functional Drink for Eye Health:

A New York ophthalmologist has created OJO, touted as the first beverage for eye health. The drink features the vitamins and minerals studied in the national Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) for macular degeneration: vitamins C, E, and beta-carotene, and zinc. The beverage features other eye-health ingredients as well, including lutein, omega-3s, B vitamins, and superfruits."

Nutritional Outlook article 


Here's the problem:

1. Beverages aren't supposed to treat or cure diseases; neither are supplements. The only products that can legally claim to treat and cure disease are drugs. HOWEVER, it's fine for foods to be associated with reducing the risk  of certain aliments, examples:

Adequate calcium as part of a healthful diet, along with physical activity, may reduce the risk of osteoporosis in later life. 

 - This claim is from Food Labeling 101 
(No, REALLY, it's Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 101: Food Labeling 
Food Labeling Claims that are allowed, per the Code of Federal Regulations 

There are several different claims permitted for particular nutrients, but there is currently no claim permitted for associating the vitamins and superfruits in this drink with a reduced risk of macular degeneration.


2. This product is based on the findings of the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS), in which 4,757 participants, ages 55-80 years, with varying levels of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) were given one of four daily oral tablets.

(Well gee, doesn't that sound like a supplement or a drug?)

The tablets contained either 1) zinc alone; 2) antioxidants alone; 3) a combination of antioxidants and zinc; or 4) a placebo. The good news is that the people who got tablet #3 (antioxidants plus zinc) had a lower risk of developing AMD.
AREDS Study Details 

So instead of taking these oral tablets, you can get the same benefits by drinking this new product, right?   

 The fact that this beverage is supposed to provide the same benefits to eye health as the tablets implies the product is working as a drug; the fact that the beverage is supposed to increase (ahem, supplement) the levels of vitamins and antioxidants that reduce the risk of eye diseases implies the product is a supplement.


3. The product being advertised in this Nutritional Outlook article is advertised as "The Visionary Drink". The word "drink" and "beverage" both imply this product is a food, and yet a trip to the website features a promising claim with the same fine print as your typical supplement: 

Designed for anyone who wants to help protect and preserve healthy vision.*

*These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

  main site for Ojo Nectar 

Did you notice the way they use the word "protect"? They could get in big trouble for saying the product protects healthy vision, but it's okay to say the protect is for people who want to protect their vision. Details, details....

The FDA has sent warning letters like this one to companies that sell supplements that look too much like beverages (FDA: "Hey, if you talk about it like it's a beverage, we're going to regulate it using beverage rules, even if you call it a supplement."). Though this drink is posing as a beverage, it's claims indicate the manufacturers view it as a supplement. These categories are distinct and mutually exclusive.


BOTTOM LINE: The lines between food, drugs and supplements gets fuzzier and fuzzier but becoming more aware of these little tricks and word-plays will help you get a firmer grasp of what you're putting in your body and why. A product like this one may in fact reduce your risk of age-related eye diseases, but only drugs have to be proven safe and effective before they can be sold to treat disease. Only certain nutrients have enough evidence to support health claims, so knowing what those nutrients and claims are increases your odds of actually improving your health. 

Beverage vs Supplement: What Monster Energy’s switch from supplement to beverage means to the consumer

Next time you pick up an energy drink, take a peek at the label – does it say “Nutrition Facts” or “Supplement Facts”? What difference does one word make? Well, in this case, it’s kind of a big deal.

Monster Energy announces plans to move many of its products from the supplement category to the beverage category. While this may seem like changing one word, this move involves significant changes to how Monster energy drinks are labeled, regulated and monitored for safety.

One of the most common mistakes regarding energy drinks in the news is the claim “the FDA does not regulate energy drinks”. Even the reputable Journal of the American Medical Association made this mistake!

First of all, “energy drink” is a term used to refer to both beverages and supplements, but these are two different categories of products, each with their own set of regulations. Second of all, both beverages and supplements are indeed regulated by the FDA. 

[Henceforth, the term "energy drink" will be used to specifically refer to products in the supplement category, whereas "energy beverage" will be used to refer to products in the food and beverage category]

1) Food/Bev vs Supplement Regulations:

·      Beverages are considered conventional foods; supplements are not food or beverages…or drugs (hence the supplement disclaimers “not intended to treat or cure disease”)

·      Ingredients added to FOOD must be approved food additives OR be classified as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS)

o   Example: Ginko biloba is acceptable in supplements, but not permitted in food because it’s not GRAS or covered by any food additive regulation

·      Ingredients added to SUPPLEMENTS must meet these two requirements:

1)   The ingredient must be a dietary ingredient* and

2)   If the ingredient was not sold in the US as a dietary supplement before October 15, 1994 (I’ll explain this date in a second), the manufacturer must file a special report that notifies the FDA of the intention to use this ingredient and must provide scientific evidence of its safety

*A “dietary ingredient” is defined by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) as a vitamin, mineral, herb/botanical, amino acid, metabolite/extract or some other substance intended to boost (or supplement) the level man already consumes.

A blueberry would be a food ingredient

Blueberry extracts would be a dietary ingredient

Why October 15, 1994?

Because that’s when DSHEA was signed into law. Before this time, dietary supplements were subject to the same regulatory requirements as food products. Now, dietary supplements are just “under the umbrella” of food, which is why their safety is monitored by the FDA’s Center for FOOD Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN).

 

2) Food Labels vs Supplement Labels

Food products and supplements are BOTH required to list all the components added to make the final formula

·      Food labels are required to list the ingredients by descending order, meaning the ingredient used the most comes first in the list while the ingredients that make up less than 2% of the total formula go last

o   NOTE: only certain ingredients (Calories, Total Fat, vitamins A and C to name a few) are required to be itemized with the amounts, other ingredients are only required to be mentioned in the list of ingredients

·      Supplements are required to list every ingredient in the formula, either in the “Supplement Facts” panel or in the “Other Ingredients” section

o   NOTE: the supplement label may group “proprietary blends” and list only the total amount of the blend, as long as there are no ingredients added to the supplement that are omitted entirely from the label

Special Circumstances with Caffeine:  caffeine is only required on the food label when it is added, not inherent—this is why dark chocolate does not mention caffeine in the ingredients list, but it is included within the product. When it is added, the word "caffeine" must appear in the ingredients list, but the amount of caffeine is not required to be listed.

If you don't believe me, here is the official FDA statement.

3) Food Safety vs Supplement Safety

·      The FDA limited the amount of caffeine in cola-type drinks to 0.02% (71 mg per 12 oz serving)

·       Neither coffee nor energy drinks are held to this limit (and BOTH have been found to exceed this limit)

·      SUPPLEMENT manufacturers, packers, and distributors are required by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FFDCA) to report any serious adverse events to the FDA

·      FOOD manufacturers, packers, or distributors are NOT required by the FFDCA to report serious adverse events to FDA

By definition, a serious adverse event is a health-related incident that results in death, a life-threatening experience, inpatient hospitalization, a persistent or significant disability or incapacity, a congenital anomaly or birth defect, or medical or surgical intervention to prevent any of the preceding outcomes.  

Want to know more about AERs? See Question #5.

BOTTOM LINE:  
Marketing energy drinks as beverages instead of supplements will theoretically prevent a manufacturer from using questionable ingredients in the product (no unpronounceable plant extracts from different planets allowed). But will this change make the product safer? That remains to be seen. True, the levels of caffeine in the drink may be cut, but only the word caffeine, not the level, is required to be listed on the label. With any supplement, such as a vitamin, reading the directions for how much to consume at once is crucial. However, energy drinks usually look like beverages, and the reports of people experiencing symptoms of caffeine overdose is a clear indication that the directions on the energy drink label are not being followed. With the move to the beverage category, it's still possible for people to consume more servings than they should, just as some people enjoy more than 3 sodas per day.

Remember to read the labels - with caffeinated beverages of any kind, personal responsibility is a key ingredient.

-Green-Eyed Guide

Extra Reading: Beverage Daily Article: Monster Energy switches to beverage

Energy Drinks and the ER - perspective

Energy drinks are in the news again, and this time the story is the reported increase in emergency room visits attributed to energy drinks. Consider this brilliant article from Food Navigator USA:
DAWN report on energy drinks and ER visits Correlation is not causation but something is going on here

A few very important points:

* 42% of the visits attributed to energy drinks also involved alcohol or other drugs
Mixing alcohol and energy drinks is indeed very dangerous, as people feel more alert but still have impaired reflexes: "The mix of behavioral impairment with reduced fatigue and enhanced stimulation may lead AmED (alcohol mixed with energy drinks) consumers to erroneously perceive themselves as better able to function than is actually the case." Published Study: Effects of energy drinks mixed with alcohol on information processing, motor coordination and subjective reports of intoxication.


* The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) report doesn't include any data on how much caffeine was consumed prior to the emergency room visit, or over what period of time it was consumed
"...for the healthy adult population, moderate daily caffeine intake at a dose level up to 400 mg day(-1) (equivalent to 6 mg kg(-1) body weight day(-1) in a 65-kg person) is not associated with adverse effects..."Published Study: Effects of caffeine on human health

* DAWN project leader Albert Woodward poses a crucial question: if it's the high caffeine from the energy drink causing the trips to the ER, why don't people who've consumed high caffeine intakes from coffee come in to the ER?
This is the million dollar question, because we don't know if the people admitted to the ER have had multiple energy drinks or energy shots in a short amount of time or if they were using the product as directed. How long does it take to drink one energy shot? How long does it take to make/brew/buy coffee? 

Are those admitted to the ER an indication that energy drinks (including energy shots) have some inherent danger that isn't apparent from the Generally Recognized As Safe ingredients on the label, or should we suspect these people are not using the product as intended - like a small child that likes the taste of vitamin gummies so much they eat half the jar? Would limiting energy drinks to single-serving containers alleviate the problem? (Perhaps, but go ask a New Yorker how much they like it when you try to limit their sodas to single-serving size)

No one knows whether energy drinks are inherently dangerous when used as directed, because the people making the news aren't always following the instructions and warnings on the label.  We should be cautious of using and abusing these products. We should keep monitoring the situation and collect as much data as possible about all the circumstances involved.

Remember these words from the "Father of Toxicology", Paracelsus:
All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.

Or, as the band Circa Survive put it, "The Difference Between Medicine And Poison Is In The Dose."





Other Resources:

Published Review (FULL TEXT - FREE): Caffeine (1, 3, 7-trimethylxanthine) in Foods: A Comprehensive Review on Consumption, Functionality, Safety, and Regulatory Matters 

Letter from FDA to Senator Durbin, addressing his concerns about energy drinks: (available as a pdf file through a link within this article from Food Products Insider)
FDA Tells Durbin It's Investigating Safety of Energy Drinks

Does drinking diet soda make you sad or do sad people drink diet soda?

As reported in the IFT Weekly newsletter:
IFT Weekly Newsletter article

A study to be presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 65th Annual Meeting in San Diego, Calif., March 16–23, shows that drinking sweetened beverages, especially diet drinks, may be associated with an increased risk of depression in adults. However, drinking coffee may be tied to a slightly lower risk. 

Any time you hear claims about "X is associated to Y", you should remember that a correlation does not mean a causation. Example: studies show that people who get less than 6 hours of sleep per night have a higher risk of health problems and tend to die younger than those that get more sleep. The question is are these night-owls dying younger because of the lack of sleep or are they dying because they're working two full-time jobs or jobs that are incredibly stressful--thus, their lives are too hectic to allow for decent sleep and it's the STRESS that's killing them?

In this case, we need to look at the details of this particular study:
* The study involved 263,925 people between the ages of 50 and 71 at enrollment
>>>This age group is not young, and not typically active; other studies have shown that exercise increases well-being because it releases endorphins and boosts both the mood and the immune system--already I have doubts about the claims of this study

*From 1995 to 1996, consumption of drinks such as soda, tea, fruit punch, and coffee was evaluated
>>>How was the consumption evaluated? Some methods are more accurate than others. For example Food Frequency Questionaires (FFQs) are usually given to patients in these types of studies. FFQs ask questions such as, "In the last year, how often do you consume food A: Less than 1/day, 1-3/day, More than 3/day?"
An alternative to the FFQ is the food diary, where patients are asked to record everything they eat and drink for a certain period, usually 24-48 hours. The problem with food diaries is that someone may record an atypical day or weekend, and those results are interpreted as the patient's normal habits.
Published studies, such as this one in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition demonstrate that FFQs are a good, valid method. The press release does not say whether FFQs where used to evaluate beverage intakes in the study participants


* About 10 years later, researchers asked the participants whether they had been diagnosed with depression since the year 2000. A total of 11,311 depression diagnoses were made.
People who drank more than four cans or cups per day of soda were 30% more likely to develop depression than those who drank no soda. Those who drank four cans of fruit punch per day were about 38% more likely to develop depression than those who did not drink sweetened drinks. People who drank four cups of coffee per day were about 10% less likely to develop depression than those who drank no coffee. The risk appeared to be greater for people who drank diet than regular soda, diet than regular fruit punches, and for diet than regular iced tea. 
>>>Depression is a serious condition that affects more than just the individual with depression. I do not in any way mean to mock this condition, those who have been diagnosed with it or who are at risk for developing it. I only wish to point out one part of this study press release that caught my attention: more than four cans or cups per day of soda 
Four cups or cans of soda is not a small amount of soda, in fact this significant consumption of soda is often attributed to OBESITY. That's what this study from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found. The authors of this study did a systematic review, meaning they looked at all the articles that have been published on the topic and determined the consensus among them. They found, "The weight of epidemiologic and experimental evidence indicates that a greater consumption of SSBs is associated with weight gain and obesity."

 So here is my concern:
Among the people in this study that consumed more than four cans or cups per day of soda and were diagnosed with depression, how many became depressed because they became obese? How many patients were already obese and is that why the "risk appeared to be greater for people who drank diet than regular soda"?

Furthermore, this study should not be used by those who wish to claim that no-calorie sweeteners used in diet drinks lead to obesity and/or depression, because we don't have any data on what types of sweeteners were used in the four cans of soda these patients were drinking every day.

BOTTOM LINE: This is an interesting study, one that is sure to catch the attention of many news and media outlets. HOWEVER, further inspection of this study brings up more questions than answers.
Press Release

Niacin - Sample Chapter of Forthcoming Book

Vitamin B3 / Niacin 

In many ways Riboflavin and Niacin are similar, but if they were related niacin would be riboflavin's cooler older sibling. Niacin exists as nicotinic acid (or niacin) and nicotinamide (or niacinamide). Note, nicotine is not a vitamin and while both nicotine and nicotinamide have chemical structures with nitrogen-containing rings, the difference between them is like the difference between laughter and slaughter. 

What is it?
Nicain is readily absorbed from the stomach and intestine which means it gets absorbed faster and more efficiently than other vitamins that are only absorbed in the small intestine. Almost all niacin consumed is absorbed. Unlike riboflavin, niacin doesn't need to be consumed with food because niacin absorption doesn't rely on stomach acids to make it absorbable. Unlike riboflavin, which needs to be escorted into the system, niacin is effortlessly absorbed via passive diffusion.

Riboflavin becomes part of coenzyme FAD, but niacin is transported from the liver to all tissues where it is converted to coenzyme forms NAD+ and NADP+ (the plus sign is to indicate that these molecules are charged, not neutral). Niacin coenzymes are stored in the liver and excess is excreted as a variety of metabolic products (which are NOT brightly colored, so that's one point for riboflavin). 

Where does it come from?
Niacin is so important to our bodies that, should we fail to consume enough of it, we can synthesize it from the amino acid tryptophan. Notably, this reaction requires the help of riboflavin coenzymes. Rich sources of niacin include mushrooms, wheat bran, tuna, chicken, turkey, asparagus, peanuts and animal proteins (which are rich in tryptophan). Approximately 90 grams of protein can result in 15 milligrams of niacin. The RDA is 16 milligrams per day for male adults; 14 milligrams per day for female adults. The Daily Value is 20 milligrams.

Niacin is so prized and popular that the niacin molecules in corn are under lockdown. Corn's content of niacin is similar to that of rice, and is considerably higher than that of most other vegetables. However, a protein in corn binds the vitamin and severely limits its absorption. Soaking corn in alkaline solution such as lime water releases the bound niacin, thus making it available for absorption. 

What does it do?
Niacin is everywhere in the body. Niacin is like that person everyone wants at their party. Riboflavin coenzymes FAD/FADH2 and niacin coenzymes NAD/NADP participate in redox reactions, but niacin coenzymes are undeniably more ubiquitous. Niacin coenzymes participate in at least 200 reactions, most of those used to produce ATP (the chemical form of energy). Like riboflavin, niacin's role is to collect hydrogens to "feed the dragon", the electron transport chain, which ultimately results in a release of energy (see riboflavin chapter for dragon metaphor explanation). Despite the similar role, niacin far outshines riboflavin by the sheer number of reactions it participates in. Really, there's no contest. Another reason adults should appreciate niacin is its role in alcohol metabolism. Niacin as NAD helps the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase convert alcohol to acetaldehyde.

A deficiency in niacin affects the whole body because NAD is used in so many metabolic reactions. Niacin deficiency leads to Pellagra, which comes from the Italian words pelle (skin) and agra (rough). When this deficiency was first discovered in 1735 by Spanish physician Casal, it was named mal de la rosa or Red Sickness. Signs of the deficiency included a red rash in the skin exposed to the sun, especially the neckline (hence the phrase "Casal's necklace"). Pellagra symptoms are more commonly known as the three D's: dementia, diarrhea and dermatitis. It can also be known for its dietary deficiency disaster.

Niacin is the only vitamin whose deficiency disease reached epidemic proportions in the United States. In 1915, more than 10,000 Americans died of Pellagra and an estimated 200,000 more suffered from the disease. Some people had dementia so severe they were put into mental institutions. How did this disease get so bad? It was the increase in corn consumption.

Niacin deficiencies became wide-spread through Europe during the 1700s as corn became more of a dietary staple. Spanish settlers in Latin American learned the ways of the native populations that soaked the corn in lime water before cooking, thereby releasing niacin from its protein lockdown. During the early 1900s, consumption of corn rose dramatically in the United States but the value of this soaking treatment was misunderstood. The cause of Pellegra was also misunderstood, and it affected so many lives for so many years because it was thought to be contagious.

Cue the hero: Dr. Joseph Goldberger. Dr. Goldberger, a public health specialist, proved that Pellagra was not contagious by exposing himself and his colleagues to biological samples from patients with Pellagra. One can only imagine the confidence and bravery it took to carry this out. Suffice to say, Dr. Goldberger helped resolve the dietary deficiency disaster by proving the cause and providing the cure. With the introduction of niacin-enriched grains in 1941 and post-wartime increases in protein consumption, Pellagra eventually disappeared in the United States.

One final reason to admire niacin is its role in combating atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries). When under supervision of a qualified physician and when combined with appropriate diet and exercise, doses 75-100 times the RDA ("mega-doses") of nicotinic acid may help lower "bad cholesterol" LDL levels and increase "good cholesterol" HDL levels. Prescriptions are normally provided in 1.5 – 2.0 grams nicotinic acid per day. One cannot and should not self-medicate and attempt to mega-dose without the help of a physician because this amount of niacin can cause serious side effects. Mega-doses of niacin are provided with a time- release coating that should minimize flushing of the skin, itching, gastrointestinal distress with nausea and vomiting, and liver damage. 

How does this relate to energy?
The sheer number of energy-related chemical reactions niacin participates in make it an excellent candidate to add to an energy drink. However, a note of caution: the upper level of niacin intake is based on an effect called the Niacin Flush. At a daily dose as low as 35 milligrams, some people experience a red flush of the skin and itching. At amounts around 1.5 grams, other, more serious side effects like GI distress and liver damage have been reported. This flushing does not occur with niacin consumed from food, only supplemental niacin.
 

PLEASE ALWAYS READ THE LABEL FOR AMOUNT OF NIACIN, SERVING SIZE AND SERVINGS PER CONTAINER.
Even if you're playing poker, a Niacin Flush is something to be avoided.

What's ten times zero again?

In what may be a case of bad reporting, the IFT Weekly Newsletter mentions a new study that shows "it may be possible to create cookies enriched with antioxidants from grape seeds that taste good and have an antioxidant level about 10 times higher than a regular cookie."
Ten times, hmmm? Well that's interesting...

[IFT Newsletter]

Raisins may have some antioxidants - are we considering oatmeal raisin cookies "regular" because to me those are always the ones left over, or the ones we eat when we're pretending cookies are healthy. I suppose chocolate chip cookies made with dark chocolate may show some antioxidant activity due to the cocoa polyphenols in the cacao, but again, when was the last time "dark-chocolate chip" cookies were considered "regular"?

This new study, published in the Journal of Food Science, does not mention this "regular cookie" comparison, but the abstract seems to be the work of competent scientists. [article abstract]. Essentially, they fed volunteers a "control cookie" and other cookies with polyphenol antioxidants mixed in through various means. Encapsulation makes sense because certain nutrients break down too quickly during digestion to do their intended job. However, I wish the abstract would provide more details about this control cookie. Shall we assume it's a sugar cookie?

This assumption is tricky because, according to the abstract, "Consumers rated the control cookie and 1 GSE encapsulated cookie at parity; they were equally well liked (P > 0.05)." While the P>0.05 notation shows that the scientists did statistics on their findings, it does not elucidate how much the consumers liked the cookies. "Well-liked" does not mean that they'd eat it willingly, only that they wouldn't spit it out if it was up for grabs on a tray in the company break room.

Finally, the abstract concludes with a statement of false confidence and undue optimism: "When provided with information, nearly 60% of consumers stated that they were willing to purchase cookies enriched with antioxidants. This high positive percentage may increase if consumers received more education on the health benefits of antioxidant consumption."

Are these the same consumers that are willing to purchase vegan cookies under the assumption that they are healthier than non-vegan cookies? Are these the same consumers that buy Cherry 7-up over regular 7-up because (real) cherries have antioxidants?

Moral of the story - science is not as black and white as one might assume, and the details matter a great deal.

-Your Green-Eyed Guide ;D