Clin Physiol Funct Imaging (2016)
doi: 10.1111/cpf.12357
Heart rate, blood pressure and repolarization effects of an energy drink as compared to coffee R. Matthew Brothers1,2, Kevin M. Christmas1, Jordan C. Patik1,2 and Paul S. Bhella3 1 2
Environmental and Autonomic Physiology Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Department of Kinesiology, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, and 3John Peter Smith Health Network, Fort Worth, TX, USA
Summary Correspondence Robert Matthew Brothers, Department of Kinesiology, University of Texas at Arlington, Box 19259, 500 W. Nedderman Dr., 147 Maverick Activities Center, Arlington, 76106 TX, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Accepted for publication Received 11 June 2015; accepted 22 January 2016
Key words arterial pressure; caffeine; cardiac function; physiology; QT interval
The goal of this study was to investigate the impact of energy drinks on haemodynamic and cardiac physiology. Comparisons were made to coffee as well as water consumption. In Protocol #1 the caffeine content was normalized to body weight to represent a controlled environment. Heart rate, blood pressure and cardiac QTc interval were assessed in 15 participants, on 4 days, prior to and for 65 h postconsumption of (i) energy drink (2 mg caffeine per kg body weight; low dose), (ii) energy drink (3 mg caffeine per kg body weight; medium dose), (iii) coffee (2 mg caffeine per kg body weight) and (iv) 250 ml water. In Protocol #2, the beverages were consumed in volumes that they are purchased to represent real-life conditions. The aforementioned measurements were repeated in 15 participants following (i) 1 16 oz can of energy drink (16 oz Monster), (ii) 1 24 oz can of energy drink (24 oz Monster), (iii) 1 packet of Keurig K-Cup Starbucks coffee (coffee) and (iv) 250 ml water. The order of the beverages was performed in a randomized double-blinded fashion. For both protocols, QTc interval, heart rate and systolic blood pressure were unchanged in any condition (P>005). Diastolic blood pressure and mean blood pressure were slightly elevated in Protocol #1 (P
doi: 10.1111/cpf.12357
Heart rate, blood pressure and repolarization effects of an energy drink as compared to coffee R. Matthew Brothers1,2, Kevin M. Christmas1, Jordan C. Patik1,2 and Paul S. Bhella3 1 2
Environmental and Autonomic Physiology Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Department of Kinesiology, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, and 3John Peter Smith Health Network, Fort Worth, TX, USA
Summary Correspondence Robert Matthew Brothers, Department of Kinesiology, University of Texas at Arlington, Box 19259, 500 W. Nedderman Dr., 147 Maverick Activities Center, Arlington, 76106 TX, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Accepted for publication Received 11 June 2015; accepted 22 January 2016
Key words arterial pressure; caffeine; cardiac function; physiology; QT interval
The goal of this study was to investigate the impact of energy drinks on haemodynamic and cardiac physiology. Comparisons were made to coffee as well as water consumption. In Protocol #1 the caffeine content was normalized to body weight to represent a controlled environment. Heart rate, blood pressure and cardiac QTc interval were assessed in 15 participants, on 4 days, prior to and for 65 h postconsumption of (i) energy drink (2 mg caffeine per kg body weight; low dose), (ii) energy drink (3 mg caffeine per kg body weight; medium dose), (iii) coffee (2 mg caffeine per kg body weight) and (iv) 250 ml water. In Protocol #2, the beverages were consumed in volumes that they are purchased to represent real-life conditions. The aforementioned measurements were repeated in 15 participants following (i) 1 16 oz can of energy drink (16 oz Monster), (ii) 1 24 oz can of energy drink (24 oz Monster), (iii) 1 packet of Keurig K-Cup Starbucks coffee (coffee) and (iv) 250 ml water. The order of the beverages was performed in a randomized double-blinded fashion. For both protocols, QTc interval, heart rate and systolic blood pressure were unchanged in any condition (P>005). Diastolic blood pressure and mean blood pressure were slightly elevated in Protocol #1 (P
