Energy drinks as F1 sponsors

[wesley123]

don't fool yourself, it was only caffeine and glucose in there it would be no problem..
but check the ingredients... a lot of artficial stuff in high doses that are still considered safe by the legislators but only because they are no studies yet (or just a few), which study the long term effect of this mixture:

The ingredients include carbonated water, sucrose, glucose, citric acid, natural flavors, taurine, sodium citrate, color added, panax ginseng root extract, L-carnitine, caffeine, sorbic acid, benzoic acid, niacinamide, sodium chloride, glucuronolactone, inositol, guarana seed extract, pyridoxine hydrochloride, sucralose, riboflavin, maltodextrin, and cyanocobalamin.
(quickly taken from Wikipedia).
Especially Inositol and Glucuronolactone are very dodgy ingredients.

From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucuronolactone

Glucuronolactone is a popular ingredient in energy drinks with claims that it detoxifies the body. Although levels of glucuronolactone in energy drinks can far exceed those found in the rest of the diet, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has concluded that exposure to glucuronolactone from regular consumption of energy drinks is not a safety concern. The no-observed-adverse-effect level of glucuronolactone is 1000 mg/kg/day

There's also not very much claiming Inositol to be "dodgy".


Which brings us to the following: Everything is bad for you consumed in large quantities.

[Chene_Mostert]

as far as I know Tobacco advertising in F1 was banned.. alcohol advertising is banned in some countries France etc. and Energy drinks advertising will soon be banned... also it will be banned to sell this (overpriced) poison (not just junk) to youths under 18.
and rightly so... also Tobacco and Alcohol are not advertised towards children... and never directly were (maybe indirectly). Energy drinks are!

Tobacco industry used to, and arguably still very much does, market directly to kids/youth.

Some info on that http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/microsit ... istory.pdf
http://tobaccofreeca.com/smoking-proble ... ing/youth/

Also it has been proven empirically that tobacco highly damages your health, while it has not been proven the same for energy drinks, even of you personally don't like them (I don't either but I value scientific studies).
The only molecules that could be truly damaging are caffeine, which is also proven to have huge benefits in health and is present at a content similar to a normal usage. And sugar (in case of non sugar-free drinks) and in this case it is a big problem for health of young people and people in general. Although I don't see any difference to any other soft-drink, which also market directly to kids btw.

don't fool yourself, it was only caffeine and glucose in there it would be no problem..
but check the ingredients... a lot of artficial stuff in high doses that are still considered safe by the legislators but only because they are no studies yet (or just a few), which study the long term effect of this mixture:

The ingredients include carbonated water, sucrose, glucose, citric acid, natural flavors, taurine, sodium citrate, color added, panax ginseng root extract, L-carnitine, caffeine, sorbic acid, benzoic acid, niacinamide, sodium chloride, glucuronolactone, inositol, guarana seed extract, pyridoxine hydrochloride, sucralose, riboflavin, maltodextrin, and cyanocobalamin.
(quickly taken from Wikipedia).

Especially Inositol and Glucuronolactone are very dodgy ingredients.

So If you say it's safe drink as much as you can, but I'd rather safe my liver, kidneys and heart for truly entertaining stuff.

Chemical names for Vitamins does tend to scare people sometimes.

[Big Mangalhit]

as far as I know Tobacco advertising in F1 was banned.. alcohol advertising is banned in some countries France etc. and Energy drinks advertising will soon be banned... also it will be banned to sell this (overpriced) poison (not just junk) to youths under 18.
and rightly so... also Tobacco and Alcohol are not advertised towards children... and never directly were (maybe indirectly). Energy drinks are!

Tobacco industry used to, and arguably still very much does, market directly to kids/youth.

Some info on that http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/microsit ... istory.pdf
http://tobaccofreeca.com/smoking-proble ... ing/youth/

Also it has been proven empirically that tobacco highly damages your health, while it has not been proven the same for energy drinks, even of you personally don't like them (I don't either but I value scientific studies).
The only molecules that could be truly damaging are caffeine, which is also proven to have huge benefits in health and is present at a content similar to a normal usage. And sugar (in case of non sugar-free drinks) and in this case it is a big problem for health of young people and people in general. Although I don't see any difference to any other soft-drink, which also market directly to kids btw.

don't fool yourself, it was only caffeine and glucose in there it would be no problem..
but check the ingredients... a lot of artficial stuff in high doses that are still considered safe by the legislators but only because they are no studies yet (or just a few), which study the long term effect of this mixture:

The ingredients include carbonated water, sucrose, glucose, citric acid, natural flavors, taurine, sodium citrate, color added, panax ginseng root extract, L-carnitine, caffeine, sorbic acid, benzoic acid, niacinamide, sodium chloride, glucuronolactone, inositol, guarana seed extract, pyridoxine hydrochloride, sucralose, riboflavin, maltodextrin, and cyanocobalamin.
(quickly taken from Wikipedia).

Especially Inositol and Glucuronolactone are very dodgy ingredients.

So If you say it's safe drink as much as you can, but I'd rather safe my liver, kidneys and heart for truly entertaining stuff.

Yeah chemical names are very powerful to put people discomfortable, but it doesn't mean they are harmful, all life on earth would die without di-hydrogen oxide.

From that list most are present in most if not all soft-drinks (sweetners, colourings), other are naturally occurring amino acids (taurine, l-carnitine) some are vitamins and some of the extracts there are actually good for your health.
Inositol itself can be used to treat several diseases and several tests exist in terms of Glucuronolactone effects (another naturally occurring chemical in glycolysis).
Again I am not a supporter of energy drinks nor a consumer. I just say that there is no concluding test that it is damaging in moderation, and I actually think they are marketed in a responsible way in terms of moderation. I have never seen a red bull 1,5L bottle, and I think it wouldn't be much worse than to have 1,5L of coke, or 75cl of whisky.
Until further proof these drinks are deem safe to a certain extent, like soft-drinks I would say. So I think it is a very different case from tobacco or even alcohol.

Having said this I also don't like the heavy marketing they make towards youth especially when they distribute free cans of it on schools' doors, but I think that that could be applied to every highly youth-marketable company and not exclusively energy drinks, but at least F1 is far from kid related marketing I think.

[FrukostScones]

..
.

don't fool yourself, it was only caffeine and glucose in there it would be no problem..
but check the ingredients... a lot of artficial stuff in high doses that are still considered safe by the legislators but only because they are no studies yet (or just a few), which study the long term effect of this mixture:

The ingredients include carbonated water, sucrose, glucose, citric acid, natural flavors, taurine, sodium citrate, color added, panax ginseng root extract, L-carnitine, caffeine, sorbic acid, benzoic acid, niacinamide, sodium chloride, glucuronolactone, inositol, guarana seed extract, pyridoxine hydrochloride, sucralose, riboflavin, maltodextrin, and cyanocobalamin.
(quickly taken from Wikipedia).

Especially Inositol and Glucuronolactone are very dodgy ingredients.

So If you say it's safe drink as much as you can, but I'd rather safe my liver, kidneys and heart for truly entertaining stuff.

Chemical names for Vitamins does tend to scare people sometimes.

first of all not "Vitamins" I specifically mentioned and also some others.

second, also even Vitamins can be overdosed and be harmful, especiall when consumed via food supplements,

Every 500ml can is a overdose with a lot of substances (just read the nutrit. facts 286%/500% daily dose of B6/B12).. those B2, B3, B6, B12 might be the most harmless ones...

Just enjoy and props to all the self terminating arguments.

....but at least F1 is far from kid related marketing I think.

you mean F1 is not targeted at kids?

[superdowg316]

don't fool yourself, it was only caffeine and glucose in there it would be no problem..
but check the ingredients... a lot of artficial stuff in high doses that are still considered safe by the legislators but only because they are no studies yet (or just a few), which study the long term effect of this mixture:

The ingredients include carbonated water, sucrose, glucose, citric acid, natural flavors, taurine, sodium citrate, color added, panax ginseng root extract, L-carnitine, caffeine, sorbic acid, benzoic acid, niacinamide, sodium chloride, glucuronolactone, inositol, guarana seed extract, pyridoxine hydrochloride, sucralose, riboflavin, maltodextrin, and cyanocobalamin.
(quickly taken from Wikipedia).

Especially Inositol and Glucuronolactone are very dodgy ingredients.

So If you say it's safe drink as much as you can, but I'd rather safe my liver, kidneys and heart for truly entertaining stuff.

Chemical names for Vitamins does tend to scare people sometimes.

first of all not "Vitamins" I specifically mentioned and also some others.

second, also even Vitamins can be overdosed and be harmful, especiall when consumed via food supplements,

Every 500ml can is a overdose with a lot of substances (just read the nutrit. facts 286%/500% daily dose of B6/B12).. those B2, B3, B6, B12 might be the most harmless ones...

Just enjoy and props to all the self terminating arguments.

....but at least F1 is far from kid related marketing I think.

you mean F1 is not targeted at kids?

Ahem: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/116761

Formula 1 should not be chasing a younger generation of fans as they are the wrong target for the sport's sponsors, claims F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone.

After a year when F1 has been asking itself why television audiences are in decline, Ecclestone has suggested that a push to embrace a younger fanbase via social media would be wasted.

In a fascinating interview with AUTOSPORT's sister publication Campaign Asia-Pacific, Ecclestone says youngsters are of no value to F1.

"I'm not interested in tweeting, Facebook and whatever this nonsense is," said Ecclestone in the interview, where he talks about F1's financial problems and the future direction of the sport.

"I tried to find out but in any case I'm too old-fashioned. I couldn't see any value in it. And, I don't know what the so-called 'young generation' of today really wants. What is it?"

Asked if he believed there was no value in attracting a young audience, Ecclestone said: "If you have a brand that you want to put in front of a few hundred million people, I can do that easily for you on television.

"Now, you're telling me I need to find a channel to get this 15-year-old to watch Formula 1 because somebody wants to put out a new brand in front of them? They are not going to be interested in the slightest bit.

"Young kids will see the Rolex brand, but are they going to go and buy one? They can't afford it. Or our other sponsor, UBS — these kids don't care about banking. They haven't got enough money to put in the bloody banks anyway." That's what I think. I don't know why people want to get to the so-called 'young generation'. Why do they want to do that? Is it to sell them something? Most of these kids haven't got any money.

"I'd rather get to the 70-year-old guy who's got plenty of cash. So, there's no point trying to reach these kids because they won't buy any of the products here and if marketers are aiming at this audience, then maybe they should advertise with Disney."

Unless some 12 year old is willing to put $80,000,000 right now into Bernie's pocket, he doesn't care.

[FrukostScones]

Chemical names for Vitamins does tend to scare people sometimes.

first of all not "Vitamins" I specifically mentioned and also some others.

second, also even Vitamins can be overdosed and be harmful, especiall when consumed via food supplements,

Every 500ml can is a overdose with a lot of substances (just read the nutrit. facts 286%/500% daily dose of B6/B12).. those B2, B3, B6, B12 might be the most harmless ones...

Just enjoy and props to all the self terminating arguments.

....but at least F1 is far from kid related marketing I think.

you mean F1 is not targeted at kids?

Ahem: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/116761

Formula 1 should not be chasing a younger generation of fans as they are the wrong target for the sport's sponsors, claims F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone.

After a year when F1 has been asking itself why television audiences are in decline, Ecclestone has suggested that a push to embrace a younger fanbase via social media would be wasted.

In a fascinating interview with AUTOSPORT's sister publication Campaign Asia-Pacific, Ecclestone says youngsters are of no value to F1.

"I'm not interested in tweeting, Facebook and whatever this nonsense is," said Ecclestone in the interview, where he talks about F1's financial problems and the future direction of the sport.

"I tried to find out but in any case I'm too old-fashioned. I couldn't see any value in it. And, I don't know what the so-called 'young generation' of today really wants. What is it?"

Asked if he believed there was no value in attracting a young audience, Ecclestone said: "If you have a brand that you want to put in front of a few hundred million people, I can do that easily for you on television.

"Now, you're telling me I need to find a channel to get this 15-year-old to watch Formula 1 because somebody wants to put out a new brand in front of them? They are not going to be interested in the slightest bit.

"Young kids will see the Rolex brand, but are they going to go and buy one? They can't afford it. Or our other sponsor, UBS — these kids don't care about banking. They haven't got enough money to put in the bloody banks anyway." That's what I think. I don't know why people want to get to the so-called 'young generation'. Why do they want to do that? Is it to sell them something? Most of these kids haven't got any money.

"I'd rather get to the 70-year-old guy who's got plenty of cash. So, there's no point trying to reach these kids because they won't buy any of the products here and if marketers are aiming at this audience, then maybe they should advertise with Disney."

Unless some 12 year old is willing to put $80,000,000 right now into Bernie's pocket, he doesn't care.

LOL, 1st: Kids spend billions of money, 10 years old buy Monster everday from their pocket money because they want to be cool as MotoGP, F1,MotoX, BMX, Rallye, whatever
2nd: Kids are targeted as early as possible by all big companies even if they can't afford a Porsche or VW... or a Rolex.
If you are into marketing you know it. Building preference from early on etc.

No thing denying. It's not bad, but also not koscher. And the Bernie refernce shows just how biased you are because if you showed that Bernie talk some prof. marketer he would just facepalm.

[superdowg316]

first of all not "Vitamins" I specifically mentioned and also some others.

second, also even Vitamins can be overdosed and be harmful, especiall when consumed via food supplements,

Every 500ml can is a overdose with a lot of substances (just read the nutrit. facts 286%/500% daily dose of B6/B12).. those B2, B3, B6, B12 might be the most harmless ones...

Just enjoy and props to all the self terminating arguments.

you mean F1 is not targeted at kids?

Ahem: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/116761

Formula 1 should not be chasing a younger generation of fans as they are the wrong target for the sport's sponsors, claims F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone.

After a year when F1 has been asking itself why television audiences are in decline, Ecclestone has suggested that a push to embrace a younger fanbase via social media would be wasted.

In a fascinating interview with AUTOSPORT's sister publication Campaign Asia-Pacific, Ecclestone says youngsters are of no value to F1.

"I'm not interested in tweeting, Facebook and whatever this nonsense is," said Ecclestone in the interview, where he talks about F1's financial problems and the future direction of the sport.

"I tried to find out but in any case I'm too old-fashioned. I couldn't see any value in it. And, I don't know what the so-called 'young generation' of today really wants. What is it?"

Asked if he believed there was no value in attracting a young audience, Ecclestone said: "If you have a brand that you want to put in front of a few hundred million people, I can do that easily for you on television.

"Now, you're telling me I need to find a channel to get this 15-year-old to watch Formula 1 because somebody wants to put out a new brand in front of them? They are not going to be interested in the slightest bit.

"Young kids will see the Rolex brand, but are they going to go and buy one? They can't afford it. Or our other sponsor, UBS — these kids don't care about banking. They haven't got enough money to put in the bloody banks anyway." That's what I think. I don't know why people want to get to the so-called 'young generation'. Why do they want to do that? Is it to sell them something? Most of these kids haven't got any money.

"I'd rather get to the 70-year-old guy who's got plenty of cash. So, there's no point trying to reach these kids because they won't buy any of the products here and if marketers are aiming at this audience, then maybe they should advertise with Disney."

Unless some 12 year old is willing to put $80,000,000 right now into Bernie's pocket, he doesn't care.

LOL, 1st: Kids spend billions of money, 10 years old buy Monster everday from their pocket money because they want to be cool as MotoGP, F1,MotoX, BMX, Rallye, whatever
2nd: Kids are targeted as early as possible by all big companies even if they can't afford a Porsche or VW... or a Rolex.
If you are into marketing you know it. Building preference from early on etc.

No thing denying. It's not bad, but also not koscher. And the Bernie refernce shows just how biased you are because if you showed that Bernie talk some prof. marketer he would just facepalm.

I'm stating facts, no biased. I'm studying for sports science and I know the damage that energy drinks and soft drinks can AND will do, and I feel it's necessary to force those companies to tell everyone what's in them and what not so people understand what they put into themselves.

However, don't shoot the messenger at me when I show you an example that basically puts in front that F1 are not targeting kids right now. 10 year olds may drink Monster, Red Bull or whatever but it's 9/10 times that the parents pay for it not knowing what it can do for someone that young. We're not talking about energy drinks advertising to kids, we are talking about F1, and Bernie controls the commercial and advertising aspect of F1.

And please, let's be civil here and respect other member's opinions (for better or worse, right or wrong) and not turn this into an over the top ego slinging match. Cheers

[FrukostScones]

It no ego slinging match, If people come with "strange" facts that distort the truth they get answered.
I critisize Monster Engery and, people come up with cigarettes (there is always something worse, that need to bedealt with first !?), then the dosage is the problem etc... or you worked with them, and they are ok (of course the people can be very nice, but their ultimate cause is not in the end) etc. ,No Kids are targeted, no never, especially in F1(Kids sees Rosberg holding the Monster labelled drinking bottle, and thinks I want it tooooo!, no ??? , only cigarettes target(ted) kids ,
etc., or get riducule arguments (scared by sci. names of vitamins!).

So it gets a bit heated. But everything is answered.

See, what serious marketing companies can do, people fighting for the reputation of their sh*tty energy drink.

[Big Mangalhit]

No doubt red bull markets for adolescents, I agree with that. Again I have seen countless times the red bull mobile distributing free cans on schools' and universities' doors. They have x-sports, they have people jumping from space, football team etc. They are indeed cool. Having an F1 team also adds to that cool, no doubt.

But there is no deny that F1 is not targeting kids, even if some kids watch it. You know who has a pretty good idea of the demographics of F1 or any sport? The marketing departments of companies and if you look at F1 sponsor list you don't find any youth specific brand, why? well bernie as mentioned before but also because they simply don't watch it in enough numbers to be cost effective with the prices of F1 advertising.

Energy drinks already do a good marketing jog towards youth elsewhere, I think they like f1 to approach the adrenaline enthusiastic young adults.

[Big Mangalhit]

It no ego slinging match, If people come with "strange" facts that distort the truth they get answered.
I critisize Monster Engery and, people come up with cigarettes (there is always something worse, that need to bedealt with first !?), then the dosage is the problem etc... or you worked with them, and they are ok (of course the people can be very nice, but their ultimate cause is not in the end) etc. ,No Kids are targeted, no never, especially in F1(Kids sees Rosberg holding the Monster labelled drinking bottle, and thinks I want it tooooo!, no ??? , only cigarettes target(ted) kids ,
etc., or get riducule arguments (scared by sci. names of vitamins!).

So it gets a bit heated. But everything is answered.

See, what serious marketing companies can do, people fighting for the reputation of their sh*tty energy drink.

First I don't know what do you refer as the "truth" since no studies have proven that the chemicals in energy drinks in the doses they exist there are harmful. When you give a scientific empirical study that shows that then you can consider them harmful, not because you think you know.

Second, Kids don't even know who is Rosberg. I am not disputing the fact these drinks are evil and target kids, but they do it through pop kid idols, through Neil Patrick Harris etc... Not because of Rosberg...

Third, I don't defend them, nor do I like nor costume them. But I do value empirical science, and I hate people claiming something is bad for health or good (homeopathic) when hard scientific data and experiment don't corroborate such opinions. If you make a claim back it up with proofs. I know this is hardly important for the topic, but just to explain why it bothers me so much.

[FrukostScones]

It no ego slinging match, If people come with "strange" facts that distort the truth they get answered.
I critisize Monster Engery and, people come up with cigarettes (there is always something worse, that need to bedealt with first !?), then the dosage is the problem etc... or you worked with them, and they are ok (of course the people can be very nice, but their ultimate cause is not in the end) etc. ,No Kids are targeted, no never, especially in F1(Kids sees Rosberg holding the Monster labelled drinking bottle, and thinks I want it tooooo!, no ??? , only cigarettes target(ted) kids ,
etc., or get riducule arguments (scared by sci. names of vitamins!).

So it gets a bit heated. But everything is answered.

See, what serious marketing companies can do, people fighting for the reputation of their sh*tty energy drink.

First I don't know what do you refer as the "truth" since no studies have proven that the chemicals in energy drinks in the doses they exist there are harmful. When you give a scientific empirical study that shows that then you can consider them harmful, not because you think you know.

Second, Kids don't even know who is Rosberg. I am not disputing the fact these drinks are evil and target kids, but they do it through pop kid idols, through Neil Patrick Harris etc... Not because of Rosberg...

Third, I don't defend them, nor do I like nor costume them. But I do value empirical science, and I hate people claiming something is bad for health or good (homeopathic) when hard scientific data and experiment don't corroborate such opinions. If you make a claim back it up with proofs. I know this is hardly important for the topic, but just to explain why it bothers me so much.

Truths:
1. dogdy ingredients at very high levels (untested in concentration and mixture on humans)
http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scf/out22_en.html
2. marketed at kids


3. still not certain, but quite obvious, more studies needed:
harmful effect of Energy drinks:
http://www.albanydailystar.com/health/e ... -9491.html
http://www.fda.gov/Food/RecallsOutbreak ... 328536.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 114319.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2966367/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3038341/

[Big Mangalhit]

It no ego slinging match, If people come with "strange" facts that distort the truth they get answered.
I critisize Monster Engery and, people come up with cigarettes (there is always something worse, that need to bedealt with first !?), then the dosage is the problem etc... or you worked with them, and they are ok (of course the people can be very nice, but their ultimate cause is not in the end) etc. ,No Kids are targeted, no never, especially in F1(Kids sees Rosberg holding the Monster labelled drinking bottle, and thinks I want it tooooo!, no ??? , only cigarettes target(ted) kids ,
etc., or get riducule arguments (scared by sci. names of vitamins!).

So it gets a bit heated. But everything is answered.

See, what serious marketing companies can do, people fighting for the reputation of their sh*tty energy drink.

First I don't know what do you refer as the "truth" since no studies have proven that the chemicals in energy drinks in the doses they exist there are harmful. When you give a scientific empirical study that shows that then you can consider them harmful, not because you think you know.

Second, Kids don't even know who is Rosberg. I am not disputing the fact these drinks are evil and target kids, but they do it through pop kid idols, through Neil Patrick Harris etc... Not because of Rosberg...

Third, I don't defend them, nor do I like nor costume them. But I do value empirical science, and I hate people claiming something is bad for health or good (homeopathic) when hard scientific data and experiment don't corroborate such opinions. If you make a claim back it up with proofs. I know this is hardly important for the topic, but just to explain why it bothers me so much.

Truths:
1. dogdy ingredients at very high levels (untested in concentration and mixture on humans)
http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scf/out22_en.html
2. marketed at kids


3. still not certain, but quite obvious, more studies needed:
harmful effect of Energy drinks:
http://www.albanydailystar.com/health/e ... -9491.html
http://www.fda.gov/Food/RecallsOutbreak ... 328536.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 114319.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2966367/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3038341/

Exactly my point thank you.

No studies empirically prove the drinks are harmful. From those you quoted we can see SOME energy drinks have huge amounts os some compounds, yet they are not proven nor safe nor harmful at those concentration. So further knowledge is needed.
The last one is about energy drinks and alcohol which is not the point because monster is not sponsoring Williams .
The ones in between show an increase of blood pressure and norepinephrine (which causes the high blood pressure as an analogue of adrenaline). But is shows it agains a control without caffeine and that effect is a very well known and study of caffeine itself, and since the concentration of caffeine is similar to coke, tea or coffee. I still don't see how they are many times more harmful than those, nor I think they are much safer. I just say that it has not been shown.
Anyway I think its effects are quite harmless than tobacco and alcohol which have empirical data that shows how unsafe they are.

Again I have to repeat myself and say I agree with you, these companies are evil and do great imoral advertising to children who are not responsible for their own options in terms of consumption's and health as opposed to adults (at least it is our social paradigm). But I don't think they are in F1 to market for the children, I never heard a kid say he drinks monster because of Rosberg. I actually think it is the opposite sometimes, they like Red Bull F1 team, because the brand is taken universally as "cool" because of their big marketing operation outside F1.

[OneAlex]

No way would an Italian team sign any sponsorship deal that would result in bright red and lime green together, surely. Plus look at the clash of fonts... Enzo would be spinning in his grave. And not from a canned energy drink.

[GitanesBlondes]

disgusting product and abysmal company ethics poisening the youth, funny how the marketing victims of muppets on those crotch rockets endorse this sh*t for zilch. better kill yourself quickly.*

*of course ride safely, but think before you drink! (and waste your money and make free advertsing and identify yourself with a corrupted image of idiocy)

I think you're being rather dramatic. While there are instances of negative health implications due to energy drinks, it sounds more like it arises from habitual daily abuse of the drinks...and/or there are pre-existing health conditions with the individual. Depending on what one's health situation is, that should be the determining factor in whether or not one consumes them. When I do drink them, I opt for the low carb/no carb Monster drinks like their Rehab. I used to drink energy drinks every day years ago, not so much anymore. I didn't stop due to health concerns, I just stopped because I grew to prefer coffee more.

Interesting article...

http://lifehacker.com/are-energy-drinks ... 1741434707

[Pierce89]

It no ego slinging match, If people come with "strange" facts that distort the truth they get answered.
I critisize Monster Engery and, people come up with cigarettes (there is always something worse, that need to bedealt with first !?), then the dosage is the problem etc... or you worked with them, and they are ok (of course the people can be very nice, but their ultimate cause is not in the end) etc. ,No Kids are targeted, no never, especially in F1(Kids sees Rosberg holding the Monster labelled drinking bottle, and thinks I want it tooooo!, no ??? , only cigarettes target(ted) kids ,
etc., or get riducule arguments (scared by sci. names of vitamins!).

So it gets a bit heated. But everything is answered.

See, what serious marketing companies can do, people fighting for the reputation of their sh*tty energy drink.

Unless we're all sheep, all companies should be allowed to advertise their products as long as said product is not completely illegal.