Are energy drinks unique mixers in terms of their effects on alcohol consumption and negative alcohol-related consequences?

© 2018 Johnson et al. Introduction: Previous research has suggested that consuming alcohol mixed with energy drinks (AMED) increases overall alcohol consumption. However, there is limited research examining whether energy drinks are unique in their effects when mixed with alcohol, when compared with alcohol mixed with other caffeinated mixers (AOCM). Therefore, the aim of this survey was to investigate alcohol consumption on AMED occasions, to that on other occasions when the same individuals consumed AOCM or alcohol only (AO). Methods: A UK-wide online student survey collected data on the frequency of alcohol consumption and quantity consumed, as well as the number of negative alcohol-related consequences reported on AO, AMED and AOCM occasions (N=250). Results: Within-subjects analysis revealed that there were no significant differences in the number of alcoholic drinks consumed on a standard and a heavy drinking session between AMED and AOCM drinking occasions. However, the number of standard mixers typically consumed was significantly lower on AMED occasions compared with AOCM occasions. In addition, when consuming AMED, students reported significantly fewer days consuming 5 or more alcohol drinks, fewer days mixing drinks, and fewer days being drunk, compared with when consuming AOCM. There were no significant differences in the number of reported negative alcohol-related consequences on AMED occasions to AOCM occasions. Of importance, alcohol consumption and negative alcohol-related consequences were significantly less on both AMED and AOCM occasions compared with AO occasions. Conclusion: The findings that heavy alcohol consumption occurs significantly less often on AMED occasions compared with AOCM occasions is in opposition to some earlier claims implying that greatest alcohol consumption occurs with AMED. The overall greatest alcohol consumption and associated negative consequences were clearly associated with AO occasions. Negative consequences for AMED and AOCM drinking occasions were similar, suggesting that energy drink was comparable with AOCM in this regard

An on-premise study to investigate the effects of mixing alcohol with caffeinated beverages

Objective: The purpose of this on-premise study was to determine if mixing alcohol with caffeinated mixers had an impact on objective and subjective intoxication. Methods: The study was conducted across eight drinking occasions in the City of Bristol, UK. Participants (N = 1041) were recruited outside popular night-time entertainment venues and interviewed regarding their alcohol consumption for that particular evening, including whether or not they had consumed caffeinated beverages with alcohol. Subjective intoxication was rated on an 11-point scale and objective intoxication determined with a breath alcohol test. Depending on their consumption on the night of the interview, participants also reported whether they consumed alcohol mixed with caffeinated mixers or alcohol-only on other consumption occasions. Results: Between-subjects analyses found that alcohol–caffeine consumers consumed more alcohol and had higher objective and subjective intoxication than those who consumed alcohol-only. These results remained significant regardless of whether or not they mixed alcohol with caffeinated mixers or consumed alcohol-only on the night of the interview. Within-subject analyses revealed that alcohol–caffeine consumers drank the same or less alcohol on alcohol–caffeine occasions compared to alcohol-only occasions. Conclusions: These findings provide support that alcohol–caffeine use does not increase overall alcohol consumption, and may be one manifestation of a high risk-taking personality

A comparison between ecological momentary assessment and the adapted-quick drinking screen: Alcohol mixed with energy drinks

Aims: To compare alcohol consumption and risk-taking behaviours on alcohol mixed with energy drink (AMED) and alcohol-only (AO) drinking occasions collected via ecological momentary assessment (EMA) versus retrospective survey methods (adapted-Quick Drinking Screen: a-QDS). Methods: Completing participants were 52 university students who reported AMED consumption during the 30-day data collection period. Alcohol consumption and risk-taking behaviours were captured for recreational AMED and AO consumption occasions using a smartphone-based app across 30 days. Data were aggregated for comparison with the a-QDS conducted at the end of data collection. Results: Irrespective of data collection method, alcohol was consumed more frequently and at higher quantities on the heaviest drinking occasions when consumed alone compared with when it was mixed with energy drinks. Consistent with this finding, more risk-taking behaviours were experienced on AO occasions compared with AMED occasions. Compared with the a-QDS, the quantity of alcohol consumed on the average and heaviest drinking occasion was significantly higher when reported via EMA. This was consistent across both AO and AMED drinking occasions. Conclusion: EMA provides a more valid measure of consumption quantity compared with retrospective recall, which was susceptible to under-reporting, although this was not differentially affected across consumption occasions. In line with previous research, this study demonstrated that mixing alcohol with energy drinks does not increase alcohol consumption or risk-taking behaviours

A Comparison Between Ecological Momentary Assessment and the Adapted-Quick Drinking Screen: Alcohol Mixed With Energy Drinks

AIMS: To compare alcohol consumption and risk-taking behaviours on alcohol mixed with energy drink (AMED) and alcohol-only (AO) drinking occasions collected via ecological momentary assessment (EMA) versus retrospective survey methods (adapted-Quick Drinking Screen: a-QDS). METHODS: Completing participants were 52 university students who reported AMED consumption during the 30-day data collection period. Alcohol consumption and risk-taking behaviours were captured for recreational AMED and AO consumption occasions using a smartphone-based app across 30 days. Data were aggregated for comparison with the a-QDS conducted at the end of data collection. RESULTS: Irrespective of data collection method, alcohol was consumed more frequently and at higher quantities on the heaviest drinking occasions when consumed alone compared with when it was mixed with energy drinks. Consistent with this finding, more risk-taking behaviours were experienced on AO occasions compared with AMED occasions. Compared with the a-QDS, the quantity of alcohol consumed on the average and heaviest drinking occasion was significantly higher when reported via EMA. This was consistent across both AO and AMED drinking occasions. CONCLUSION: EMA provides a more valid measure of consumption quantity compared with retrospective recall, which was susceptible to under-reporting, although this was not differentially affected across consumption occasions. In line with previous research, this study demonstrated that mixing alcohol with energy drinks does not increase alcohol consumption or risk-taking behaviours

The impact of alcohol hangover on simulated driving performance during a ‘commute to work’—zero and residual alcohol effects compared

Driving is increasing across the world and road traffic accidents are a major cause of serious injuries and fatalities. The link between alcohol consumption and impaired driving has long been established and has led to legislation in many countries, with enforcement of legal limits based on blood alcohol concentration levels. Alcohol hangover research is an emerging field with a range of laboratory and naturalistic studies now clearly demonstrating the significant impairments that can result from hangover, even when alcohol levels are measured at or close to zero the day following a social drinking occasion. Driving is a commonplace activity but requires competency with a range of complex and potentially demanding tasks. Driving impaired can have serious consequences, including death and serious injury. There have been only limited alcohol hangover driving studies. The studies presented examined the consequences of alcohol hangover with a driving simulator contrasting a group with zero residual alcohol (N = 26) next day and another with residual alcohol (N = 26) assessed with breathalyzer in the morning before undertaking a 20 min commute to work. All participants completed a morning drive after a night without alcohol consumption and another after a night of social drinking. The driving scenarios were relatively demanding including traffic and pedestrians, traffic lights and other potential hazards in a mixed rural and urban journey. Subjective hangover and workload were assessed in addition to a range of driving performance variables, including divided attention, steering control and driving violations. Analyses contrasted driving in the no alcohol condition with the residual alcohol condition. The combined groups data (N = 52) was contrasted with the zero and residual alcohol groups. Significant contrasts were found for a range of driving measures, including divided attention, vehicle control, and driving violations as well as perceived workload. The pattern of impairment was broadly similar across both groups, indicating that whether or not residual alcohol was present, consistent driving impairment was seen. The relatively high number of significant variables may reflect the increased cognitive demand of the 20 min commute drive including busy and complex urban environments. This was also reflected in the significant increase in perceived workload recorded across the 6 dimensions of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). Associations between subjective measures and driving performance with hangover suggested a potential lack of awareness of impairment, though were limited in number. The overall findings indicate that the levels of impairment seen reflect those seen with alcohol impaired driving, even when breath alcohol is zero

Depression, anxiety, and stress among hangover-sensitive and hangover-resistant drinkers

This study investigated potential differences in baseline (i.e., non-hangover-related) levels of depression, anxiety, and stress between individuals who are sensitive to and those resistant to hangovers after consuming alcohol. Participants included 5111 university students from the Netherlands and the U.K., including 3205 hangover-sensitive and 1906 hangover-resistant drinkers. All participants completed surveys on their demographics, alcohol consumption, and hangover susceptibility (whether they experienced a hangover in the past 12 months), as well as their baseline levels of depression, anxiety, and stress on the DASS-21 scale. The results showed that hangover-sensitive drinkers had significantly higher levels of anxiety and stress, but not depression, compared to hangover-resistant drinkers. However, the observed differences between the two groups were small, with a magnitude of less than 1 out of 42 points on the DASS-21 anxiety and stress subscales, and are thus unlikely to be clinically meaningful

Risk-taking behavior and the consumption of alcohol mixed with energy drink among Australian, Dutch and UK students

The relationship between risk-taking behavior, alcohol consumption and negative alcoholrelated consequences is well known. The current analyses were conducted to investigate whether alcohol mixed with energy drink (AMED) is related to risk-taking behavior and if there is a relationship between the amount of energy drink mixed with alcohol consumed, risk-taking behavior and negative alcohol-related consequences. Data from N = 1276 AMED consuming students from the Netherlands, UK and Australia who completed the same survey were evaluated. The analysis revealed that, compared to AMED occasions, on alcohol only (AO) occasions significantly more alcohol was consumed and significantly more negative alcohol-related consequences were reported. On both AO and AMED occasions, there was a strong and positive relationship between amount of alcohol consumed, level of risk-taking behavior and number of reported negative alcohol-related consequences. In contrast, the level of risk-taking behavior was not clearly related to energy drink consumption. Across risk-taking levels, differences in the amount of energy drink consumed on AMED occasions did not exceed one 250 mL serving of energy drink. When correcting for the amount of alcohol consumed, there were no statistically significant differences in the number of energy drinks consumed on AMED occasions between the risk-taking groups. In conclusion, alcohol consumption is clearly related to risk-taking behavior and experiencing negative alcohol-related consequences. In contrast, energy drink intake was not related to level of risk-taking behavior and only weakly related to the number of experienced negative alcohol-related consequences

A cross-cultural comparison of the effects of alcohol mixed with energy drink (AMED) consumption on overall alcohol consumption and related consequences

There is a growing body of scientific literature examining the effects of alcohol mixed with energy drink (AMED) on alcohol consumption and related negative consequences, such as risky behavior or negative health effects. It is unknown whether differences in cultural context may influence these AMED effects. The current cross-cultural study compared the data of N = 6881 students from The Netherlands (N = 4424), UK (N = 1594), and Australia (N = 863). Demographics, alcohol consumption, its consequences, and motives for AMED consumption were assessed. Analyses included (a) between-groups comparison of AMED and alcohol only (AO) consumers, (b) within-subjects comparison of AMED and AO occasions among AMED consumers only, and (c) comparisons between the three countries. The between-groups analysis revealed that AMED consumers drink more alcohol than AO consumers (p < 0.001). AMED consumers differed from AO consumers in many other aspects. For example, AMED consumers were significantly more often a smoker and had higher risk-taking scores. Within subject analysis among AMED consumers showed that significantly less alcohol was consumed on AMED, compared to AO occasions (p < 0.001). These findings were observed for both typical drinking occasions and the past month’s heaviest drinking occasion, and were consistent across the three countries. Comparisons between countries revealed that on both AMED and AO occasions, the UK sample consumed significantly more alcohol than the Australian and Dutch samples. Across countries, neutral motives such as ‘I like the taste’ and ‘I wanted to drink something else’ were the most frequently reported motives for consuming AMED. The most notable difference between the countries was the finding that consuming AMED ‘To get drunk’ was endorsed significantly more often among the UK sample (45.6%) than the Australian (31.2%) and Dutch (8.0%) samples. Negative alcohol-related consequences were significantly less frequently reported for AMED occasions compared to AO occasions. Some country-specific consequences of AMED consumption were observed, but these were more likely related to characteristics of the country and their drinking culture (e.g., the Australian sample reported more often driving a car after AMED consumption compared to the other countries, and this pattern of results was also found for AO occasions). In conclusion, there were limited differences between countries with regard to demographics of consumers and motives for AMED consumption, but the UK sample consumed significantly more alcohol and reported the highest frequency of negative alcohol related consequences. Consistent across countries was the observation that AMED consumers consume significantly less alcohol on their past month heaviest AMED drinking occasion, compared to their past month heaviest AO drinking occasion