Exposing claims by Commercial
Energy Drink Companies
Cairns SDE 2025
Year 11 Science in Practice
FIA2 U1T2 Investigation
Teacher: Mrs Machado Medeiros
Student: Tomihiko Arai
Introduction
This report is addressed to the Australian Consumer Association (ACA) an
independent body that has demonstrated an interest in energy drink
consumption in the excellent article in “Choice” in 2014 providing the
consumer public with an evaluation of a range of Energy Drinks on sale in
Australia (Clemons, 2014). By contrast in 2024 “The Journal of the
International Society of Sports Nutrition” published a scientific paper titled
“Acute effects of commercial energy drink consumption on exercise
performance and cardiovascular safety: a randomised, double-blind,
placebo-controlled, crossover trial” (Nile F. Banks, 2024). An imposing title
for a paper reporting on an experiment funded by the manufacturer of the
products being assessed and certainly adding to the confusion about the
difference between a sports drink and an energy drink (Nile F. Banks,
2024).
This study aims to debunk the claims that energy drink corporations have
advertised. The experiment set out to compare the effect on athletic
performance of the standard Monster and its sugar free counterpart C4. It
was anticipated that the sugary drink would have a stronger influence on
performance than the sugar free version. Both drinks were expected to
have an effect on heart health (Nile F. Banks, 2024).
Method and Procedures
The two drinks (independent variables) were tested on thirty similar
participants that were healthy, physically active, young adult males
(controlled variables). All participants took identical tests that underwent
procedures which improved the validity of the results. This was done
through:
Placebo-controlled: by adding an unaffecting drink to the
tests to reduce risk of placebo effect manipulating results.
Randomized: Each participant was tested three times, a
test for each drink and the placebo. The test order was
randomized to reduce the risk participant, or researchers
knew which drink was tested
Double-Blind: Both the researcher and participant were
blinded to the drink when consumed.
Crossover Trial: Each participant would be tested once for
each beverage with a 4–10-day gap between each trial to
flush out prior energy drinks effects.
The method assessed how each energy drink affected the
exercise performance of participants through isometric leg
extension fatigue testing (ISOFTG) and maximal graded exercise
testing (GXT). It also measured the cardiovascular and mental
effects on participants’ health through leg blood flow
measurements, electrocardiogram, blood pressure and heart
rate measurements, mood surveys, and lifestyle controls. The
order of these events is displayed in figure 1.
Figure One: Diagram illustrates the procedure for each test (Nile F. Banks, 2024).
Results
Exercise Performance:
The findings from GXT and ISOFTG have shown that MED did not
have an impact on the participants’ exercise performance.
However, C4E has shown to improve impulse by a 9.9% average
on the isometric fatigue test at a sub-maximal work rate. The
data suggests habitual consumption of C4E will improve
consumers’ force-generating capacity in a semi-fasted state
during short exercise periods.
Cardiovascular Health and Mental Health:
MED increased the respiratory exchange ratio (RER) during
exercise and reduced Maximal Fat Oxidation (MFO) while C4E did
not affect these aspects. Both drinks had caused an increase in
the participants resting Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) and heart
rate, while leg blood flow, ventricular repolarization, and other
cardiac electrical activity was unaffected. The findings suggest
further prolonged testing is needed to understand how sugar-
free and sugar-containing energy drinks influence cardiovascular
and metabolic health. Both beverages had no influence on
participants’ mood.
Figures two, three and four, in the appendix present the exercise
performance and cardiovascular health of participants using
graphs.
Discussion
The findings show that the acute consumption of commercial energy
drinks does not have the effects that the manufacturers suggest they do.
Branding such as ‘Unleash the Monster’ – MED or implies that these
beverages will give you substantial amounts of energy and strength.
These results from the tests have found that these kinds of claims are
false or overly exaggerated to say the least. The claims the report made
did not align with the results as C4E had a benefit on exercise
performance while MED did not at all.
The report recognised its limitation of only selecting male participants that
were late adolescents. Including females would have found how menstrual
cycle phases effects caffeine metabolism.
Conclusion
The manufacturers C4 energy drink (C4E) and Monster energy
drink (MED) have both made claims that have implied that their
product will enhance exercise performance. However, the
findings from this report only show C4’s statement to be true.
Leg extension tests and graded exercise test were done by the
participants after consuming each energy drink to measure
exercise performance. C4E improved the impulse of the leg
extension test by 9.9% while MED had no noticeable differences
compared to the placebo.
These findings show that MED doesn’t improve the physical
abilities of consumers, meaning their claims are false. In
contrast, C4E also makes claims that state their product
improves exercise performance, however these results show that
it is true.
Evaluation
The layout of the tests in the method as well as its structure improved the
reliability and validity of results. Having all participants fit a similar
description was effective to ensure results would be less dependent on
their gender, age, health, diet, etc.
The weakness of this method was the metabolization time. During the 30
minutes after the first leg extension test (before metabolization), no tests
or measurements were performed. MED contains a high amount of
glucose, which gets metabolized in minutes for the body to use as energy.
This could possibly mean that the peak physical benefits of MED from the
high sugar content had already worn off after 30 minutes.
This study was funded by a research grant from Woodbolt Distribution,
LCC, also known as Nutrabolt. Nutrabolt is also the parent company of
C4E. This raises suspicion on how the experiment was conducted and set
out as Nutrabolt would be biased and in favor of C4E having better results
than its competitors. The weakness I mentioned earlier could possibly be a
strategic move by Nutrabolt to make MED have no effect on the tests
while C4E does.
The laws and regulations that energy drink companies must follow should
be improved to keep customers safe and inform them of the real effects
that these products have. Currently they are obligated to have a
disclaimer on the packaging that states ‘Product contains caffeine. This
product is not recommended for children, pregnant or lactating women, or
individuals sensitive to caffeine, consume responsibly’. However, this is
always put in writing that is unnoticeable and takes thorough inspection to
notice. The law should set this disclaimer that takes up a certain
percentage of the packaging space, at least 10%, as well as large signs
with this statement in the areas of the store where energy drinks sit. Laws
that prohibit false advertising including statements with fallacies should
be implemented to ensure honest marketing and consumer safety. This
law should only allow advertisements that promote their energy drink
product if it mentions a valid scientific investigation or tested reasons that
the product is beneficial.
References
References
Clemons, R. (2014, August 7). Energy drinks and health. Retrieved from
CHOICE: [Link]
drinks-energy-drinks-and-soft-drinks/articles/energy-drinks
Nile F. Banks, E. M. (2024). Acute effects of commercial energy drink
consumption on exercise performance and cardiovascular safety:
arandomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial.
Taylor & Francis.
Appendix:
A Field Trip was conducted at a local Woolworths to further understand
how energy drinks are marketed in the average supermarket.
There weren’t any advertisements of energy drink brands within the
Woolworths. After doing online research, most brands will do a majority of
their advertising online and have sponsorships with athletes.
Doing your advertisements online is strategic as your product will get
more visibility and appeal because phone usage, and ownership has
rapidly increased in the past decades.
Sponsoring famous and world-class athletes is another strategic way of
advertising. They sell the idea that their product will give the consumer
the abilities of high-level athletes.
There were three locations in the Woolworths where energy drink products
were being sold. In total there were 14 brands of energy drinks in the
store and 69 different energy drink products.
Brand Products
Monster 14
Red Bull 10
V 20
Celsius 1
C4 3
Red Eyes 1
Mother 7
Rockstar 1
Oxyshred 3
Gatorade 3
Rockit 1
MuscleNation 1
Musashi 2
Alani 2
*Each flavour, can size, and package size being sold counted as its own
product
The first area, the energy drinks section of the drink’s aisle occupied the
most space out of the three locations. It had the largest variety of product
and brands. The shelf layout had singular beverages at eye level while
larger packs were lower.
This is a marketing strategy. This structure has been put in place because
having singular beverages in the most noticeable position will make it
more likely for new customers to try the product. Also, larger packs are
mainly purchased by frequent consumers of the product, who have the
product on their shopping list.
The second area was also located in the drink’s aisle, except it was in the
sports drink section. This unusual placement is deceiving customers by
making them unknowingly choose an energy drink product when they
believed it was a sports hydration drink.
The last area that had energy drinks was at the front of the store by the
checkout. All products were singular cans in a mini-fridge that you can
easily grab out of. This marketing strategy makes it appealing for
customers because of the placement and cool temperature of the drink.
These strategies are usually made by the store and not the energy drink
company. However, energy drink brands advertise the packaging
effectively to increase attraction of their product.
Most brands were different to one another and used different tactics to
sell their product. Some even used deceptive and false advertising to
increase consumption.
V had a unique approach to the energy drink market that no other
company matched. The brand was simple designs, calming colours, and
smaller, cheaper beverages. This gives the impression that V tries to
appeal to a wide range of consumers, anybody that is interested in trying
an energy drink. Having simplicity, and a cheap small drink is much more
appealing and less confusing to new customers.
Other brands such as Monster and Mother were the opposite to this. Their
approach to increasing consumers was by using vibrant colours, trendy
designs, and unique flavours including rainbow sherbet, mango loco,
razzle berry, etc. Those who already regularly drink energy drinks would
probably find these new exciting flavours more appealing. However, this
would be much more overwhelming to those that consistently have
energy drinks.
Results of experiment:
Figure Three: Graphs showing the
energy drinks effects on exercise
Figure Two: Graphs showing energy drinks effects on maximal
performance at a sub-maximal work
exercise performance during GXT.
rate.
Figure Four: Graphs showing the cardiovascular effects of the
commercial energy drinks.