Cited by 42Coffee research and impactsBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy

The blood pressure-elevating effect of red bull energy drink is mimicked by caffeine but through different hemodynamic pathways

Open access
Miles-Chan, Jennifer L., Charrière, Nathalie, Grasser, Erik K., Montani, Jean-Pierre, Dulloo, Abdul G.·2015·Physiological Reports

Abstract

The energy drink Red Bull (RB) has recently been shown to elevate resting blood pressure (BP) and double product (reflecting increased myocardial load). However, the extent to which these effects can be explained by the drink's caffeine and sugar content remains to be determined. We compared the cardiovascular impact of RB to those of a comparable amount of caffeine, and its sugar-free version in eight young healthy men. Participants attended four experimental sessions on separate days according to a placebo-controlled randomized crossover study design. Beat-to-beat hemodynamic measurements were made continuously for 30 min at baseline and for 2 h following ingestion of 355 mL of either (1) RB + placebo; (2) sugar-free RB + placebo; (3) water + 120 mg caffeine, or (4) water + placebo. RB, sugar-free RB, and water + caffeine increased BP equally (3-4 mmHg) in comparison to water + placebo (P < 0.001). RB increased heart rate, stroke volume, cardiac output, double product, and cardiac contractility, but decreased total peripheral resistance (TPR) (all P < 0.01), with no such changes observed following the other interventions. Conversely, sugar-free RB and water + caffeine both increased TPR in comparison to the water + placebo control (P < 0.05). While the impact of RB on BP is the same as that of a comparable quantity of caffeine, the increase occurs through different hemodynamic pathways with RB's effects primarily on cardiac parameters, while caffeine elicits primarily vascular effects. Additionally, the auxiliary components of RB (taurine, glucuronolactone, and B-group vitamins) do not appear to influence these pathways.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14814/phy2.12290

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The European Commission's Scientific Committee of Food Safety Authority and Health Canada both recommend that women consume no more than 300 mg of caffeine/day during pregnancy.

    “The European Commission’s Scientific Committee of Food Safety Authority and Health Canada both recommend that women consume no more than 300 mg of caffeine/day during pregnancy (121, 253).”

    From The Safety of Ingested Caffeine: A Comprehensive Review (2017) · cites this paper as [253]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miles-Chan, J. L., Charrière, N., Grasser, E. K., Montani, J.-P., & Dulloo, A. G.
Affiliations
University of Fribourg (CH)
Corresponding author
Miles-Chan, Jennifer L.
Venue
Physiological Reports
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-02
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
e12290
ISSN
2051-817X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2102054167
Cited by
42
References
41
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1
FWCI
4.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physiological Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Swiss National Science Foundation (122554)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Coffee research and impacts
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Keywords
caffeine, blood pressure, hemodynamics, systemic vascular resistance, cardiac output, stroke volume, heart rate, rate-pressure product, taurine, glucuronolactone, B vitamins

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review