Energy drinks

Public forum for topics that don't fit into the other categories.
User avatar
SamBee
Posts: 5435
Joined: 14 Mar 2010, 04:55

Energy drinks

Post by SamBee » 24 Nov 2016, 12:49

Image
DASH1730 "An Area Authority...[was] asked...who...would go to the Telestial kingdom. His answer: "murderers, adulterers and a lot of surprised Mormons!"'
1ST PRES 1978 "[LDS] believe...there is truth in many religions and philosophies...good and great religious leaders... have raised the spiritual, moral, and ethical awareness of their people. When we speak of The [LDS] as the only true church...it is...authorized to administer the ordinances...by Jesus Christ... we do not mean... it is the only teacher of truth."

User avatar
DarkJedi
Posts: 6894
Joined: 24 Aug 2013, 20:53

Re: Energy drinks

Post by DarkJedi » 24 Nov 2016, 20:52

I saw this and a similar one about soft drinks recently.

I'm just curious what your point is? I'm a pretty strong advocate of not adding to the Word of Wisdom. Caffeine is simply not in there. I take the same stance with drugs like marijuana or even stronger. There is no mention of them in the WoW. I have no problem with people advising against things like addictive drugs, but I do have an issue when people connect them to the WoW when it's not in there. And most of us really aren't doing the stuff that really is in there to begin with. Just saying. And I think Elder Cook backs me up here:
While there are many examples of looking beyond the mark, a significant one in our day is extremism. Gospel extremism is when one elevates any gospel principle above other equally important principles and takes a position that is beyond or contrary to the teachings of Church leaders. One example is when one advocates for additions, changes, or primary emphasis to one part of the Word of Wisdom. Another is expensive preparation for end-of-days scenarios. In both examples, others are encouraged to accept private interpretations. “If we turn a health law or any other principle into a form of religious fanaticism, we are looking beyond the mark.”
In the absence of knowledge or faith there is always hope.

Once there was a gentile...who came before Hillel. He said "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

My Introduction

User avatar
SamBee
Posts: 5435
Joined: 14 Mar 2010, 04:55

Re: Energy drinks

Post by SamBee » 25 Nov 2016, 03:05

I'm for the decriminalization of cannabis but for its inclusion in the WoW.
DASH1730 "An Area Authority...[was] asked...who...would go to the Telestial kingdom. His answer: "murderers, adulterers and a lot of surprised Mormons!"'
1ST PRES 1978 "[LDS] believe...there is truth in many religions and philosophies...good and great religious leaders... have raised the spiritual, moral, and ethical awareness of their people. When we speak of The [LDS] as the only true church...it is...authorized to administer the ordinances...by Jesus Christ... we do not mean... it is the only teacher of truth."

User avatar
Reuben
Posts: 466
Joined: 05 Nov 2016, 10:04

Re: Energy drinks

Post by Reuben » 25 Nov 2016, 04:54

Nit: If the half life of caffeine is 6 hours, the quarter life is 12. It's definitely not fully gone by then, though the therapeutic effect probably is. I did a cursory check on some other bits of info, and they seem to be accurate.

I'm surprised Red Bull has only 80mg caffeine. A cup of coffee usually has more. (Starbucks' Venti Caffe Americano is an outlier, with 2-3 times the amount of caffeine as a typical cup of coffee.) A can of Coke has 30-40mg, which I think varies by country. (Local tastes are different, and caffeine is bitter.)

Red Bull also contains B vitamins, which our bodies use to build neurotransmitters that help regulate mood (serotonin), help us concentrate (dopamine, norepinephrine) and regulate sleep (melatonin), among other things. So that's another possible plus.

I think anything with caffeine in it is best thought of pharmaceutically. DW, for example, uses caffeine to help manage anxiety: jump-starting her brain makes pushing back negative thoughts easier. My brother has found caffeine is the best drug for him for ADHD - other drugs haven't worked at all. Most people seem to use caffeine as a cognitive enhancer, but I often wonder if most people are self-medicating for something, even if it's just sleep deprivation. But whatever the reason, caffeine works for them.

Pharmaceutically speaking, to make the most of caffeine, find a minimum dose that has the required therapeutic effect, take it in a regular pattern, and cease taking it early enough in the day so it doesn't affect sleep. Titrate it like any other cognitive drug: start small and go up gradually. Keep watch for negative effects. Recognize that increasing the dose for any reason (such as feeling extra tired one day) will have cognitive and behavioral costs when decreasing the dose.

FWIW, I'm in favor of medicalizing every drug. Pretty much all of them have good uses.
My intro

Love before dogma. Truth before loyalty. Knowledge before certainty.

User avatar
DarkJedi
Posts: 6894
Joined: 24 Aug 2013, 20:53

Re: Energy drinks

Post by DarkJedi » 25 Nov 2016, 05:34

SamBee wrote:I'm for the decriminalization of cannabis but for its inclusion in the WoW.
I am also in favor of legalization of marijuana, but I don't see the leadership making any changes to the WoW nor do I feel they are inclined to do so. It is also not our place to add to the WoW. We are welcome to our own opinions on anything health related, and I do believe caffeine is addictive and can be harmful in large quantities. I do not use energy drinks, and while I do limit my caffeine intake I am by no means caffeine free. However, those are my opinions that I do for my own health in the same way I try to limit salt intake. Salt is also not mentioned in the WoW, but it certainly can affect the health of some people. Just because I limit my caffeine and salt intake does not make it a commandment, and there is no justification for "anything bad for you falls under the WoW" - it doesn't say that anywhere in the WoW. I'm sure anyone who has been a member of the church for a few years has heard a justification similar to that, and if you've been a member long enough it's likely you've heard about processed sugar and bleached flour with intimations that these things may be violations of the WoW when in reality they are personal decisions. I recently mentioned Elder Cook's quote to a very orthodox friend who eschews caffeine but I did not mention caffeine, I just asked him what he thought of the quote (we talked about preppers too). His take on the quote was that it was directed at vegans who try to posit that not eating meat is in the WoW. Different example, same principle. Have your opinion, share it as appropriate, do the things that you think are good for you and avoid those you think are bad - but don't try to make it look like your decisions are God's will for everyone.
In the absence of knowledge or faith there is always hope.

Once there was a gentile...who came before Hillel. He said "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

My Introduction

Ann
Posts: 2573
Joined: 09 Sep 2012, 02:17

Re: Energy drinks

Post by Ann » 25 Nov 2016, 07:29

Lately I've been checking Preach My Gospel for what (I assume is) the church's simplest official bottom line. So now I'm curious about what the handbook I don't have access to defines as harmful substances. Does anyone know?
Remember that our bodies are sacred. We should treat them with respect and reverence. The Word of Wisdom teaches that we are to eat healthy foods. It teaches very specifically that we are to avoid harmful substances, including alcohol, tobacco, tea, and coffee. We must also avoid harmful drugs in any form. To be baptized and confirmed, those you teach must give up these substances. People who obey the Word of Wisdom are more receptive to spiritual truths.

Your mission president will answer questions about whether other specific substances in your culture are included in the Word of Wisdom.
"Preachers err by trying to talk people into belief; better they reveal the radiance of their own discovery." - Joseph Campbell

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes." - Marcel Proust

"Therefore they said unto him, How were thine eyes opened? He answered and said unto them, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes...." - John 9:10-11

User avatar
nibbler
Posts: 4262
Joined: 14 Nov 2013, 07:34
Location: Ten miles west of the exact centre of the universe

Re: Energy drinks

Post by nibbler » 25 Nov 2016, 07:42

I want to revisit a portion of Cook's quote:
[take] a position that is beyond or contrary to the teachings of Church leaders
Right after that he gives the example of the WoW and specifically says "advocates" which to me means something completely different than "taking a position," I can take a position but not advocate for it.

I remember that quote from the most recent general conference. I remember not liking it very much. Where does personal revelation fit into the picture? Does this mean that all personal revelations must be vetted against what a leader says? Or maybe only in cases where you might be tempted to teach a personal revelation? The hair on my neck is standing up, almost as if two lines of communication is looking at me from behind some bushes. It's nothing new though, this Coke/WoW thing has been discussed for almost 100 years now. Seriously. By now everyone already knows the answer, it's just a mental exercise/teaching device used to remind everyone of who is in charge.

I get it though, if everyone is out there giving their personal revelations on everything there's no order or doctrinal purity. There's no church... under one definition of the word.

It's still a problematic quote for me. I don't think the idea that "Coke is against the word of wisdom" took root because Brother Insistent said so during Sunday school, I think it came about because at some point a church leader said something. All it takes is one GA giving a talk at stake conference about how they don't drink Coke (they can even do what SWK did and preface it with a "this is not a part of the WoW, just something that I decided to do... and I hope no one does") and suddenly "no Coke" is the path to a more righteous life and people can cite authority.

The label "church leaders" may be a little too nebulous; after all, a bishop is a church leader. Perhaps with the example of the WoW he would have been better off citing a policy as the gold standard because what a church leader says can vary from Sunday to Sunday and from leader to leader. Here's the church policy:
Handbook 2: Administering the Church wrote: 21.3.11 Word of Wisdom
The only official interpretation of “hot drinks” (D&C 89:9) in the Word of Wisdom is the statement made by early Church leaders that the term “hot drinks” means tea and coffee.

Members should not use any substance that contains illegal drugs. Nor should members use harmful or habit-forming substances except under the care of a competent physician.
Emphasis added. So... no Coke then? ;) I kid but that's usually what people cite when they explain why they don't drink soft drinks.
It is the end of the world. Surely you could be allowed a few carnal thoughts.
― Connie Willis

User avatar
LookingHard
Posts: 2933
Joined: 20 Oct 2014, 12:11

Re: Energy drinks

Post by LookingHard » 25 Nov 2016, 11:15

nibbler wrote:...
Here's the church policy:
Handbook 2: Administering the Church wrote: 21.3.11 Word of Wisdom
The only official interpretation of “hot drinks” (D&C 89:9) in the Word of Wisdom is the statement made by early Church leaders that the term “hot drinks” means tea and coffee.

Members should not use any substance that contains illegal drugs. Nor should members use harmful or habit-forming substances except under the care of a competent physician.
Emphasis added. So... no Coke then? ;) I kid but that's usually what people cite when they explain why they don't drink soft drinks.
And now that gets into "addictive" vs "habit-forming."

Some people will put carbs into "habit-forming" (just talk to someone that has gone on the Atkins diet).

It all seems to be a bit of a tricky slope and for many a slippery slope. I look at a lot of it as "outward appearances" and as Nibbler mentioned - showing that we are more righteous.

Curt Sunshine
Site Admin
Posts: 16728
Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 20:24

Re: Energy drinks

Post by Curt Sunshine » 25 Nov 2016, 17:59

I like the wording of the policy, since "addictive" and "habit-forming mean different things to different people.

Seriously, I have a friend who quit cigarettes. It was hard, but he did it. He never could quit coffee. Trying to quit gave him migraines. I also have had friends who drank at least 12 caffenated sofas per day. Seriously unhealthy.

I wish the "hot drinks" had remipained undefined, as well - and I'm sure it got defined because enough people didn't want to exercise their own agency and demanded one true answer.

This is a good case of the spirit of the law being enough to let each person be an agent unto herself.
I see through my glass, darkly - as I play my saxophone in harmony with the other instruments in God's orchestra. (h/t Elder Joseph Wirthlin)

Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

User avatar
LookingHard
Posts: 2933
Joined: 20 Oct 2014, 12:11

Re: Energy drinks

Post by LookingHard » 25 Nov 2016, 22:25

It seems to me it was a bit progressive in its time, but not exclusive. But it seems we are kinds of stuck now on something from over 100 years ago and does not focus on the major health issue in the US - obesity. If we were really super health focused there would be talked about at least a bit.

Post Reply