←back to thread

228 points curmudgeon22 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.226s | source
Show context
PragmaticPulp ◴[] No.26612365[source]
> Subjects ingested 3 mg/kg of caffeine or a placebo at 8am and 5pm

3mg/kg is over 250mg of caffeine for an average weight man. Twice a day makes that 500mg.

An 8.4oz can of Red Bull contains 80mg of caffeine. They were giving these people an amount of caffeine equivalent to 6 cans of Red Bull. Not a perfect comparison because Red Bull contains other ingredients, but that's still a lot of caffeine. For another point of reference, that's 2.5 shots of 5 hour energy (200mg caffeine per bottle).

To top it off, the subjects were caffeine-naive, so they had no caffeine tolerance. They must have been feeling extremely energetic.

No wonder they burned more fat. I'm not sure this is going to translate to your casual coffee drinker or someone with a high caffeine tolerance.

replies(16): >>26612399 #>>26612440 #>>26612446 #>>26612494 #>>26612558 #>>26612565 #>>26612569 #>>26612587 #>>26612607 #>>26612655 #>>26612813 #>>26612954 #>>26613385 #>>26613894 #>>26616191 #>>26623345 #
ApolloFortyNine ◴[] No.26612813[source]
It's odd they didn't speak of caffeine itself as a supplement, and instead mentioned coffee.

Caffeine is a pretty common ingredient in any pre-workout, and you can get 200mg pills online cheaply.

replies(2): >>26613044 #>>26616249 #
1. thinkingemote ◴[] No.26613044[source]
Not that odd if you consider science writing should appeal to as many as possible. The study itself used these workout pills you mention which were made from green coffee beans:

https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12970-020-...