“…When consuming the same amount of alcohol, mixed with energy drink or placebo, experimental studies and on‐premise data showed no evidence of the existence of a “masking effect.” This finding is in line with those from studies examining mixing alcohol with caffeine (Benson et al (). Across various alcohol and caffeine concentrations, no significant difference was found in subjective intoxication scores on AMED and AO occasions.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…One study included two doses of caffeine in a within‐subjects design (Marczinski and Fillmore, ). The meta‐analyses by Benson et al () revealed that no significant masking effect was found with the higher or lower caffeine level ( p = .404 and .406, respectively). The authors concluded that Despite the large range of caffeine doses (2.0–5.5 mg/kg resulting in absolute levels of 46–383 mg) and alcohol levels 0.29–1.068 g/kg (resulting in blood alcohol concentration (BAC) from 0.032 to 0.12%) investigated, caffeine had no effect on the judgement of subjective intoxication.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…In , Benson, Verster, Alford, and Scholey () conducted a literature review and meta‐analysis on the effects of consuming alcohol mixed with caffeinated beverages on subjective intoxication. Sixteen articles were summarized, and nine were included in the meta‐analysis.…”
The purpose of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to critically review the (1) prevalence of alcohol mixed with energy drink (AMED) consumption, (2) motives for AMED consumption, (3) correlates of AMED consumption, and (4) whether AMED consumption has an impact on (a) alcohol consumption, (b) subjective intoxication, and (c) risk‐taking behavior.Overall a minority of the population consumes AMED, typically infrequently. Motives for AMED consumption are predominantly hedonistic and social. Meta‐analyses revealed that AMED consumers drink significantly more alcohol than alcohol‐only (AO) consumers. Within‐subject comparisons restricted to AMED consumers revealed that alcohol consumption does not significantly differ between typical AMED and AO occasions. On past month heaviest drinking occasions, AMED users consume significantly less alcohol on AMED occasions when compared to AO occasions. AMED consumers experience significantly fewer negative consequences and risk‐taking behavior on AMED occasions compared with AO occasions. Meta‐analyses of subjective intoxication studies suggest that AMED consumption does not differentially affect subjective intoxication when compared to AO consumption. In conclusion, when compared to AO consumption, mixing alcohol with energy drink does not affect subjective intoxication and seems unlikely to increase total alcohol consumption, associated risk‐taking behavior, nor other negative alcohol‐related consequences. Further research may be necessary to fully reveal the effects of AMED.
“…When consuming the same amount of alcohol, mixed with energy drink or placebo, experimental studies and on‐premise data showed no evidence of the existence of a “masking effect.” This finding is in line with those from studies examining mixing alcohol with caffeine (Benson et al (). Across various alcohol and caffeine concentrations, no significant difference was found in subjective intoxication scores on AMED and AO occasions.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…One study included two doses of caffeine in a within‐subjects design (Marczinski and Fillmore, ). The meta‐analyses by Benson et al () revealed that no significant masking effect was found with the higher or lower caffeine level ( p = .404 and .406, respectively). The authors concluded that Despite the large range of caffeine doses (2.0–5.5 mg/kg resulting in absolute levels of 46–383 mg) and alcohol levels 0.29–1.068 g/kg (resulting in blood alcohol concentration (BAC) from 0.032 to 0.12%) investigated, caffeine had no effect on the judgement of subjective intoxication.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…In , Benson, Verster, Alford, and Scholey () conducted a literature review and meta‐analysis on the effects of consuming alcohol mixed with caffeinated beverages on subjective intoxication. Sixteen articles were summarized, and nine were included in the meta‐analysis.…”
The purpose of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to critically review the (1) prevalence of alcohol mixed with energy drink (AMED) consumption, (2) motives for AMED consumption, (3) correlates of AMED consumption, and (4) whether AMED consumption has an impact on (a) alcohol consumption, (b) subjective intoxication, and (c) risk‐taking behavior.Overall a minority of the population consumes AMED, typically infrequently. Motives for AMED consumption are predominantly hedonistic and social. Meta‐analyses revealed that AMED consumers drink significantly more alcohol than alcohol‐only (AO) consumers. Within‐subject comparisons restricted to AMED consumers revealed that alcohol consumption does not significantly differ between typical AMED and AO occasions. On past month heaviest drinking occasions, AMED users consume significantly less alcohol on AMED occasions when compared to AO occasions. AMED consumers experience significantly fewer negative consequences and risk‐taking behavior on AMED occasions compared with AO occasions. Meta‐analyses of subjective intoxication studies suggest that AMED consumption does not differentially affect subjective intoxication when compared to AO consumption. In conclusion, when compared to AO consumption, mixing alcohol with energy drink does not affect subjective intoxication and seems unlikely to increase total alcohol consumption, associated risk‐taking behavior, nor other negative alcohol‐related consequences. Further research may be necessary to fully reveal the effects of AMED.
“…This counteracting effect may serve to impair the drinker’s awareness of their alcohol intoxication and increase total alcohol consumption. However, two recent meta-analyses have called this interpretation into question, based on within-subject analyses of AmED users that compared drinking occasions in which they mixed alcohol with energy drinks and drinking occasions in which they did not (Benson et al, 2014; Verster et al, 2016). An alternative explanation for the associations of AmED use with heavier alcohol use and risk behaviors is that there are phenotypical differences between AmED and AwoED users, such as personality traits or propensity for risk-taking, that manifest in group differences across a range of behaviors such as heavier drinking, other forms of substance use, poor grades, delinquency and so forth.…”
Background
Mixing alcohol with energy drinks is associated with heavier drinking and related problems among college students. However, little is known about how high school drinkers who mix alcohol with energy drinks (AmED) compare to those who do not (AwoED). This study compares high school AmED and AwoED users on their alcohol use during middle and high school, as well as key domains of functioning in high school.
Methods
Two surveys were conducted three years apart in adolescents initially recruited from 16 middle schools in Southern California. The analytic sample consists of 696 past month drinkers. Multivariable models compared AmED and AwoED users on alcohol use, mental health, social functioning, academic orientation, delinquency and other substance use at age 17, and on their alcohol use and related cognitions at age 14.
Results
AmED was reported by 13% of past month drinkers. AmED and AwoED users did not differ on alcohol use or cognitions in middle school, but AmED users drank more often, more heavily, and reported more negative consequences in high school. AmED users were also more likely to report poor grades, delinquent behavior, substance use-related unsafe driving, public intoxication, and drug use than AwoED users in high school. Group differences were not found on mental health, social functioning, or academic aspirations.
Conclusions
AmED use is common among high school drinkers. The higher risk behavioral profile of these young AmED users, which includes drug use and substance use-related unsafe driving, is a significant cause for concern and warrants further attention.
“…A recent meta‐analysis however showed that across a range of caffeine concentrations and BAC levels a masking effect could not be demonstrated (Benson et al ., ). In line, the 2015 EFSA scientific opinion on the safety of caffeine concluded that alcohol consumption up to 0.65 g/kg bw (leading to a BAC of about 0.08%) combined with caffeine up to 200 mg is unlikely to mask the subjective perception of alcohol intoxication (EFSA NDA Panel (EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies), ).…”
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
