Energy Drinks Linked To Risk-taking Behaviors Among College Students

[JonLP24]

Source: Science Daily

ScienceDaily (July 24, 2008) — Over the last decade, energy drinks -- such as Red Bull, Monster and Rockstar -- have become nearly ubiquitous on college campuses. The global market for these types of drinks currently exceeds $3 billion a year and new products are introduced annually.

Although few researchers have examined energy drink consumption, a researcher at the University at Buffalo's Research Institute on Addictions (RIA) has been investigating links between energy drinks and public health concerns like substance abuse and risky behaviors.

Two new research reports by RIA Research Scientist Kathleen E. Miller, Ph.D., examine the relationships between energy drink consumption and risk-taking in college students as well as "toxic jock identity" -- characterized by hyper-masculinity and risk-taking behaviors among college-age athletes.

Miller's research validates and expands upon existing concerns about energy drink consumption: "The principal target demographic for energy drinks is young adults ages 18-25, but they're nearly as common among younger teens," she explains. "This is a concern because energy drinks typically contain three times the caffeine of a soft drink, and in some cases, up to 10 times as much. They also include ingredients with potential interactions such as taurine and other amino acids, massive doses of vitamins, and plant and herbal extracts."



Read more: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724150438.htm

[Mojambo]

1. I usually have one or sometimes two in a day.

I have a very low motor naturally and they actually do seem to help.

I'm not naive enough to think that they are in any way healthy for me though.

[TomInTib]

2. I drank some energy tonic water the other night.

With Bombay Sapphire Gin.

I am not altogether sure it made any difference.

But we were also playing music, so maybe I just didn't notice.

However, I did manage to knock back almost an entire fifth and leave a few incoherent phone messages (one of which was left on the phone of one of my favorite DUers).

[texastoast]

3. Strong coffee does it for me

Those energy drinks coat the hell out of my tongue and feel very nasty.

[cobalt1999]

4. because College Age guys were never risk takers before these products.

I think beer has a bigger impact on risk taking.

[Richardo]

5. Hm. And the Savage Weiner's son owns Rockstar.

...just pointing that out for no reason.

[KamaAina]

43. Mrs. Savage Weiner is its CFO.

No reason, except that I enjoy typing "Savage Weiner". See? I did it again! :-)

[Buns_of_Fire]

50. There's a MISSUS Savage Wiener? And they're reproducing little Savage Vienna Sausages?

I did not know that. It was just as well. Now, I must drink mass quantities of cerebral depressants to get back to sleep. :beer:

[sudopod]

45. DAMMIT, I love that stuff

Now I won't be able to enjoy it nearly as much.

Thanks, lol. :P ^_^

[Mz Pip]

6. Most probably less of this

risky behavior is to the engergy drink and more to the cup of Jack Daniels added as a mixer.

[DemoTex]

7. I think I'll fly under the Throg's Neck Bridge .. upside down!

Red Bull MiG-17F

[endarkenment]

17. My dad flew under the GW bridge back in the day

They didn't have any red bull then. Go figure. He probably wasn't upside down.

[aspergris]

8. lol.. talk about nerd revenge

"as well as "toxic jock identity" -- characterized by hyper-masculinity and risk-taking behaviors among college-age athletes"

riiiiiiiiight.

Iow, this researcher resents athletic guys, and makes up "toxic jock identity" to slag jocks, whom he dislikes.

keeeerist.

What a bunch of ridiculous rubbish.

Note also that correlation =/= causation. I'm not surprised that those that are more aggressive/type-a/etc. drink energy drinks. they are probably more likely to listen to aggressive music, and not Maroon 5 CD's

let's link music to "toxic jock identity too"

how about frats!

Pile it on!


duh

[Indenturedebtor]

12. You know for not having read the article you summed up the gist of it pretty well

"Although energy drink consumption can be used to predict other problem behaviors, it does not necessarily follow that drinking these substances is a gateway to more serious health-compromising activities," Miller cautions. "It is entirely possible that a common factor, such as a sensation-seeking personality or involvement in risk-oriented peer sub-cultures, contributes to both. More investigation is needed to study these relationships further, over longer periods of time."

The study just basically found that jocks tend to drink this stuff more than most other "social groups" in college, and that the jocks who do also tend to engage in other high risk behaviors like drug use. Hence the term "toxic-jock". It's a silly term but seems like a valid label to me. :shrug:

[aspergris]

14. it's pop science

and not very useful. I read an article in a strength training journal years ago, that talked about the bias that science has against muscularity . It was actually fascinating.

Scientists are PEOPLE. Science doesn't exist in a vacuum. Researchers can invent terms like "toxic jock" that beg all sorts of questions. and help support people's biases and prejudices against muscularity and athletes as dumb, misogynyst jocks.

For example, this article pointed out (I think it was an old Milo Strength Journal, but I honestly don't recall) that athleticism is POSITIVELY correlated with intelligence. This is the EXACT opposite of the "conventional wisdom" that even many (so called) enlightened liberals as well as the rest of society falls into that trap- guys with muscles are dumb.

SOme of the most obvious biases towards "jocks" was seen in the duke lacrosse case. Despite TONS of problems with the case from the outset (as a person trained in sexual assault investigation, the case looked problematic from the beginning and only got worse), etc. they HAD to be guilty. Cause they were rich , white, privileged jocks.

the metanarrative was more important than the fact pattern.

A large component of duke professors actually got together and wrote a Letter (gang of...) condemning these athletes, the culture of rape among jocks etc. etc. while IGNORING the exculpatory evidence. I've investigated dozens of rapes. When the suspects FROM THE START bend over backwards to cooperate with the prosecutors, voluntarily provide alibis, make statements, etc. that is also STORNG evidence of innocence. These guys didn't plead the fifth. they fought BACK. and they were vilified. and the fact that they were "toxic jocks" played into everybody's stereotypes and prejudices. they MUST be guilty.

The same people who are fooled into sympathy for convicted killers (on a mountain of evidence) mumia abu jamal and willing to embrace any cockamamie theory as to his innocence, wouldn't even give the benefit of the doubt to several suspects who HADN'T been convicted and who had bent over backwards to provide EXCULPATORY evidence on their behalf from the start. Even when the DNA came back in their favor, the bigots still ignored that - they were jocks. they were therefore guilty of rape.

Sorry for the RANT !!! :)

But it disgusted me.

As a former skinny runner type who has been a strength athlete for years, I know firsthand the ridiculous bias and assumptions people make about correlations of muscularity and anti-social behavior, iq, etc.

again, </RANT> :)

[Indenturedebtor]

15. While those biases may well exist, it's difficult to argue with the data

And frankly I don't want to send you into a tailspin here but... the majority of rapes on college campuses are committed by fraternity jocks. Sorry.

"Toxic Jock" is a distinction for those jocks who take drugs and drink energy drinks. Just because the word is distasteful, I think it's more of a commentary on what these people ingest.

And I'm a sensation-seeking sometime athelete so I hope that factors into your perception of bias.

[endarkenment]

18. The data goes nowhere

with you demanding others to "read the article", did you read this:

"Although energy drink consumption can be used to predict other problem behaviors, it does not necessarily follow that drinking these substances is a gateway to more serious health-compromising activities," Miller cautions. "It is entirely possible that a common factor, such as a sensation-seeking personality or involvement in risk-oriented peer sub-cultures, contributes to both. More investigation is needed to study these relationships further, over longer periods of time."


No shit. Another day another correlation without causation. I'm shocked.

[Indenturedebtor]

22. Descriptive science is still science and can be very useful

Yes I did read that. I didn't say anything about it being a gateway, and frankly I think that the whole concept of "gateway drugs" is bullshit. Matter of fact I don't ever recall hearing about the term "gateway drug" except in the media and other government propaganda.

[aspergris]

24. yes

my point is simple. Just because a (symphonic music) SCIENTIST!!! uses a term doesn't mean it has descriptive or objective validity, and scientists, as human beings, are just as prone to prejudice, partisanship, ideology, etc. as anybody else.

History is full of junk science being used for ideological/political purposes.

I LOVE when science conflicts with my beliefs. It means I learned something . And I have no problem changing my mind even if the science supports a conclusion that is NOT leftwing. I care more about truth than I do about ideology.

But I accept that scientists have their biases and I take the studies accordingly.

[Indenturedebtor]

26. They do. But all up in arms about the term? How would you have put it...

"Druggie Jocks"? Well that's unfair to responsible druggies...

"Caffeiney Jocks"? Well no because it's not just about caffeine, it's about toxic substances in general.

Hmmmm How about "Toxic Jocks" since they're jocks who use toxins :P

[aspergris]

28. I don't think there's any doubt

that "toxic jocks" is sensationalist and inherently negative.

See my other post about when scientists (social or otherwise) impose THEIR value judgments about what risks are and aren't acceptable to take for the given rewards, as to whether that behavior is "disfunctional" or even "pathological" or "deviant".

I say, as a surfer, cop, and stock trader (all of which involves risk) that I readily accept that few rewards come without risk, and that there are VERY subjective aspects to how somebody OUTSIDE a niche (not a jock, not a trader, not a strength athlete) determines whether or not a risk is evidence of "deviance" "disorder" or "pathology"

[Indenturedebtor]

31. Don't confuse the media's representation of psychology for psychology

Anymore than you should confuse the media's representation of politics for what is really going on eh? :shrug:

[aspergris]

32. I'm not. I went to grad school for psychology. I am speaking firsthand experience

Both classroom, and from reading some ABSURD studies.

[Indenturedebtor]

35. How long has it been though and in what discipline? It matters it really does

I would suggest taking another look. Like I said - astronomy before the telescope is what psychology was a few years ago. Now we KNOW alot of things without complicated studies. And might I add that the brain is probably more complicated than just about any field of study.

We've got our best people working on it Sir! ;)

[aspergris]

38. 5 years ago

and counseling psychology.

My point is that i am NOT relying on the media.

I am (largely) discounting the media, and the CW that goes along with it.

I still occasionally read APA publications etc.

I am well aware that psychology is a soft science, and thus very prone to value judgment crap and low predictive/analytic ability.

[Indenturedebtor]

41. Counseling is by necessity generally a soft area of psychology

Very useful when done properly, ESPECIALLY when used with other forms of treatment. When I was a kid I personally went through 5 counselors before I found one that actually made a positive difference in my life. They all used different methods and different schools of thought. (I was violent, doing a lot of drugs, and was forced to go so I could stay in school hehe).

Now that the hard is being coupled with the soft though some amazing things are happening!

[LostinVA]

48. What don't you have firsthand experience in?

[aspergris]

20. that may very well be true

that the majority of rapes are committed by frat members.

Frankly, the more important metric is whether PER CAPITA frat guys commit more rapes than the general college population.

Since frat members make up a small %age of almost every college, I doubt your statement is true. The latter (per capita statistics) MAY be true. I don't doubt it is. I have no idea either way, because I haven't looked at the stats.

regardless, the duke boys, REGARDLESS of their membership in the "jock club" didn't deserve to be vilified as obviously guilty. It was especially heinous because to any IMPARTIAL observer, the fact pattern suggested if not screamed that the victim was a lying piece of garbage and they were probably innocent (as opposed to merely not guilty... iow, it became more and more likely and then clearly evident that there was no frigging way they DID it.) It's just as odious to assume somebody is a rapist based on their white race and jock status as it would be to assume based on one's race (black or hispanic). prejudice is prejudice. see the word:PREjudge.

Toxic jock is "anti-scientific" in the same way that the term "body dysmorphia" is as a term used to describe bodybuilders.

To a NON-bodybuilder, it appears DISFUNCTIONAL (in the same way psychology once considered homosexuality a DISFUNCTION), to be "overly concerned " (an entirely subjective metric) with bodyfat levels, muscle size, etc.

Well, sure --- compared to the average sedentary / fatass, it IS unusual to actually count every calorie that goes into your body in order to win your latest contest, during your diet phase.

But by calling it a DISFUNCTION vs. calling it a STRATEGY TO HELP ENSURE success, the scientists employ their bias.

It's not disfunctional in their eyes to engage in little to no exercise, eat one's way towards obesity,e tc. but it's DISFUNCTIONAL to pay "too much attention" to muscle size, bodyfat levels, whether one is holding water, etc.

This is how junk science can incorporate biases based on societal "norms" (and norm in many cases means AVERAGE not "the good") and people's deviation from same

psychologists in the APA used the DSM to categorically state that homosexuality was a DISorder. It deviated from the norm (most people aren't homosexuals, etc.). So, it's a DISorder.

We know they were wrong.

The same is true of many biases employed against "bodybuilder dysmorphia" or "toxic jocks" etc.

People who don't (whether by choice or design) CHOOSE TO EMBRACE the NORMS OF SOCIETY risk being called deviant, disfunctional etc. by "social scientists" (the very term being oxymoronic) and even by so called "hard scientists" such as those who promote anti-muscularity myths.

[Indenturedebtor]

23. Having had to study dysmorphia I never once heard/read it applied to bodybuilders

Though I'm sure that some have it. It's a diagnosis for people who have a completely unrealistic perception about their appearance. It's not a problem until they start engaging in harmful behaviors like say binging and vomiting.

The APA has been wrong in the past, that doesn't generalise to the entire field of psychology.

As it seems to be used in this article/study "toxic jock" is a term to describe people who engage in the health behaviors of sport/atheletics but engage in toxifying dangerous behaviors such as binging on stimulants and other drugs.

I really don't see what the problem is here?

Look at the synopsis below... especially the third one. Personally I think that what's important to consider (as seemingly to me did the author of the study in question here), is that there is likely a similar drive that predisposes people to engage in competitive sports, high intensity activities, drugs, and aggressive behavior. I fit the classic definition of a sensation seeker myself and though I'm no rapist I like sports, dangerous activities, drugs, and I've gotten in a lot of fights and often verbally abuse people who piss me off. More so face to face than over the interweb heh. No adrenaline over the web eh? :shrug: If the shoe fits...

----------------------

Frat rape studies. I'm not even going to offer my anecdotal evidence here, as it's anecdotal


Brown, T. J., Sumner, K. E., & Nocera, R. (2002). Understanding sexual aggression against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 937-952.

This article describes a study of 139 male college students attending a predominantly White, midsize, Midwestern university. These students responded to five questionnaires: the Psychosocial Function of Sports Scale (to assess sport ideology), a questionnaire measuring the types and amount of sports they participated in or viewed, the Attitudes Toward Women Scale (to measure attitudes towards women in society), the Coercive Sexuality Scale (to assess college males’ level of involvement in sexually coercive or aggressive behaviors), and a brief demographic questionnaire (which asked about age, class standing, and fraternity membership). Analysis of these data indicated that fraternity membership, conservative attitudes towards women, and viewing contact sports were significant predictors of sexual aggression against women. Higher scores predicted higher levels of aggression. Oddly, low scores on men’s contact sports participation also predicted higher levels of sexual aggression towards women.


------------------------

Flack Jr., W. F., Caron, M. L., Leinen, S. J., Breitenbach, K. G., Barber, A. M., Brown, E. N. et al. (2008). "The red zone": Temporal risk for unwanted sex among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, online.

Key Points: First-year college women were not found to be at elevated risk for unwanted sex, but second-year women were at elevated risk during a period corresponding to sorority and fraternity pledging activities.

Summary: There is a popular perception that inexperienced college freshman women are at greatest risk for sexual assault, especially during the first few weeks or months of the fall semester. To test this, the researchers surveyed first-year (n=104) and second- year (n=101) male and female college students about unwanted experiences of sexual contact. Those who had experienced unwanted sex were asked to place the event(s) in one of 7 time periods.

---------------------------------------

Frintner, M. P., & Rubinson, L. (1993). Acquaintance rape: The influence of alcohol, fraternity membership, and sports team membership. Journal of Sex Education & Therapy, 19, 272-284.

This study determined the extent of sexual victimization among undergraduate women at a large Midwestern university, with specific attention paid to alcohol use, fraternity membership, and sports team membership. The Sexually Stressful Events Survey was utilized with modifications clarifying the level of intoxication, and whether or not the accused was a member of a sports team or fraternity. Previous research documenting the high rate of occurrence of sexual assault and other sexually stressful events on college campuses was affirmed. In addition, it was found that alcohol was involved in the majority of the reported sexually stressful events, suggesting an association between alcohol and sexual violence. Both fraternity and sports team members were over-represented among the crimes of sexual assault, attempted sexual assault and battery, illegal restraint, and intimidation. Fraternity men represented approximately 25% of men on the campus, and were reported as 47.6% of the men involved in sexual assault or attempted sexual assault. Sports team members make up less than 2% of the campus population and were found to comprise 20.2% of the men involved in sexual assault or attempted sexual assault.

[aspergris]

27. it has been

"Though I'm sure that some have it. It's a diagnosis for people who have a completely unrealistic perception about their appearance. It's not a problem until they start engaging in harmful behaviors like say binging and vomiting. "

feel free to google "bodybuilder dysmorphia" etc/.

and again, you miss the point. What is "harmful/deviant" is largely (and sometimes entirely) a value judgment, not a scientific one.

Playing football can be harmful- need we discuss injuries, etc. That doesn't mean it's deviant or a disorder to be "overly obsessed" with it.

Sport in general, often entails Immense risk.

as does extreme dieting to make weight, for instance, in sport.

the point is that the balance between risk/reward and whether it's deviant or disorder is largely a value call. For somebody who doesn't value sports achievement, a bodybuilder, strength athlete, or mixed martial artist may very well be dysmorphic or self-destructive. That's because it's a VALUE call as to what is important. They did a poll a while ago of olympic athletes and most would voluntarily give up 5 yrs of longevity to get a gold medal, if they could make that trade.

these are value judgments.

"The APA has been wrong in the past, that doesn't generalise to the entire field of psychology. "

The point is that the field of psychology ( I say as somebody who attended graduate school FOR psychology) is a soft science. It has little predictive ability, and is largely based on very soft and non-scientific analysis despite it's attempts to be treated more like a hard science e.g. physics or biology.

The homosexuality as disorder thang is just one example.

"As it seems to be used in this article/study "toxic jock" is a term to describe people who engage in the health behaviors of sport/atheletics but engage in toxifying dangerous behaviors such as binging on stimulants and other drugs. "

Sports are dangerous in general. To what extent using performance enhancing drugs, extreme training, stimulants etc. is DISFUNCTIONAL is largely a value judgment on the part of the observer. That's my point.

I know bodybuilders who regularly shoot insulin (which is a legal over the counter drug in my state btw). Is that risky? yes. Is it DISFunctional? That is a value judgment. Insulin is immensely dangerous if misused, but also a very effective drug for nutrient partitioning.

What I am trying to get across is that a NON-athlete (non-jock) etc. looks at strength athletes/bodybuilders/or even models and say a behavior is disfunctional, pathological, deviant, etc. they are largely making a subjective value judgment based on their frame of reference about what is and isn't "acceptable" risks to take.

They have no problem with people, for example, choosing jobs that entail commutes (that necessarily involve the #1 risk to any middle aged person in the country - traffic accidents) vs. those that don't. That's not a deviant, risky behavior. Because it's socially accepted to strap oneself in a deadly weapon and hurl oneself 60 mph through space-time. Despite the fact that it's very dangerous, statistically speaking.

I have no doubt (and I read the studies) that there is a syndrome compatible with so called "type A" personalities and they ARE more likely to engage in risky behaviors, or even SEEK risk for the sake of risk.

Fwiw, that is one strong difference between men and women. Men are, on average less risk averse than women. This affects job choices, income, workplace death rates (men's being much higher than women).

Female bodybuilders, who take large doses of exogenous AAS (anabolic androgenic steroids), tend to experience personality changes and BECOME more "man-like". Numerous studies of transexuals (who also take exogenous hormones obviously) confirm that a large component of aggression, risk seeking, etc. is hormonally based. It's to some extent what makes men biologically different from women. vive la difference.

Studies have also shown that men who engage in professions such as firefighters, cops, test pilots, etc. also fit the "type A" mold and also tend to have higher T levels than the norm.

Again, my primary point is that every time I step outside my door, I voluntarily engage in risky behaviors- such as driving, etc. ANd that we all (consciously or not) weigh the risk/rewards and make our own personal decisions as to what benefits are worth engaging in what risks.

And when scientists make VALUE judgments about jocks, etc. claiming that THEIR judgment as to whether the risks they take are worth the rewards they receive, they are making value judgments that are 90% subjective, not scientific.

As a former surfer, I chose not to engage in big wave surfing (hawaiian scale of big). I considered the risks not worth the rewards (for me at least). Or maybe I was just a wimp :)

regardles, big wave surfing entails serious risk, and I personally know a surfer who died doing what he loved, and others who have come close.

I have no problem with science showing these differences and studying them., I have a problem when categorizations such as "disorders" etc. are used for people who weigh DIFFERENTLY the relative risk/rewards of their chosen behaviors.

[Indenturedebtor]

30. I agree with you that "disorder" can be used improperly and further

That alot of the time when the term disorder is applied it is mostly a value judgement. I think that you'll find that most of this is done by the media.

HOWEVER (notice the BIG HOWEVER), describing something as a disorder is PROPERLY done when you're describing something that is not controllable by the individual, presents common symptoms,factors, causes, treatments among the population with this same uncontrollable behavior, and is generally harmful to many aspects of the patient's life AND negatively effects their happiness overall. Most disorders dramtically effect a person's ability to sleep, be intimate, socialise, eat in a healthful way, work, get enjoyment from pleasurable activities, etc.

For example - someone who chooses to eat excessively but works out to compensate and maintains a general level of health, can still go to work, doesn't let it interfere with other activities that they would enjoy more, etc does not have an eating disorder. Someone who weighs 2,000 lbs and wishes they had a normal life but simply can't stop eating has a disorder/disease.

---------

Type A/Type B personality scales have very little to do with high activation seekers/low activation seekers. Type A/Type B, is a sloppy 30 year old categorization having to do with anxiety levels, obsessiveness, organization, etc. Such gross generalizations do have some benefits but in the modern era of Psychology (last 15 years), behavioral, cognitive, and neuropsych have proven far better predictors/models of behavior, and provide far better treatments and understanding. Though psychotherapy, etc have their uses, I don't disparage biology based on Leuwenhook's theories of cell biology, anymore than people should disparage psychology based on Freud's cocaine habit.

Compare 2008's psychology with 1990 psychology as you would compare astronomy before the telescope. Unfortunately some people haven't learned how to use the telescope yet, and though they can still offer some insights... well you know where I'm going I'm sure.

This is a VERY "soft" general article about sensation seekers (ie for popular consumption). The neurochemical underpinnings and associated structural/functional differences are very well understood actually. http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20001101-000035.html

------------

Psychology has changed since you went to gradschool, or perhaps you studied one of the softer disciplines. Since the advent of PET scans, the implementation and discovery of new drugs, new brain injury, genetics, microscopy, protein analysis, statistical tools, and on and on and on in the last 15 years or so psychology is a very hard science. Descriptive studies like these are not terribly useful but they are still useful. There are soft elements to Psychology just like there are Physicists who quote niche and spend their lives building mathematical models that are based on an untested fallacy. That's science.

But go ahead and tell the guy with an artificial eye implanted in his brain, or the schizophrenic gentleman who can now have a job, or the former drug addict who was treated with behavioral modification, or the OCD person who doesn't have to wash their hands 100 times a day anymore, that psychology is not a science. They'll laugh in your face.

[aspergris]

36. These are good points

And again, I am speaking from the experience of going to (but not completing thank god) grad school for psychology, and reading tons of studies.

And I said - psychology is a SOFT science.

Fwiw, even the power of prayer, and stuff like 12 step programs etc. can help people with disorders.

Doesn't make them SCIENCE.But again, I didn't say it wasn't a science at all (that i recall ) :)

I said it was a soft science, and not in the same realm as biology or physics.

Iow, just because psychology has some ability to make people better, which it certainly does, doesn't detract from the fact that it is a soft science, and thus MORE prone to value judgment,bias, non-scientific crap than a hard science.

[Indenturedebtor]

40. I would agree with you 15-20 years ago :D

And again I would state that some of the disciplines are quite soft. But behavioral, cognitive, and neuro are hard sciences to the core. I had to write papers on things like the precise chemical cascade of nicotinic acetylcholine in the dopaminergic system and explain how that quite natural cascade compares to the activation and suppression of neural circuits in the presence of nicotine at different concentrations. Extra credit for also exploring the effects of nicotine on both muscle types in the body (hint why do ciggarettes make you poop?).

I'm not bragging, it's just a different field than it was a few years ago. People just didn't have the tools to explore such things. At some universities they don't have professors yet who are proficient in the new stuff! I went to one of the best in the world for psych (lot of good it did me lol). However, being able to pinpoint chemical cascades, and neuron activities, etc would be worthless without the softer observation science. There would be absolutely zero way to find context/meaning/etc. Another analogy - biology both concerns itself with the mating and breeding patters, calls, etc of different species as well as examining their DNA, anatomy, etc. Psych is no different.

[Odin2005]

21. To play Devil's Advocate...

...IMO the stereotype has a ring of truth when put in the correct context, the context (and probably where the stereotype originated) being that in many situations athletes in high school and college are often given a free ride even though many may not be particularly bright.

[aspergris]

29. that is undeniably true

and may help account for the prejudice that (falsely) equates muscularity with lower iq (when studies show the opposite is actually true).

Iow, it's a case of selection bias. Talented jocks will get through and into schools/professions solely or partly based on their mad skillz and thus be examples of LESS THAN INTELLIGENT persons .

But my point was that the stats show the prejudice to be unfounded, and in fact contrary to the data about the overall populations - namely that ceteris paribus, the more athletically inclined tend to be slightly ABOVE average intelligence.

[Indenturedebtor]

33. And in fact atheletics increase blood flow to the brain

And good looks, longer lifespans, etc, are also highly correlated with above average IQ.

Also most serial killers have a high IQ. :shrug:

I think however that the "stupid jock" perception might be somewhat relevant during the school years. People tend to compensate for their weaker areas. I've met plenty of people who are considered very talented and intelligent in their individual fields but their general problem solving abilities, social skills, general knowledge, etc are crap. Eggheads -people who threw themselves into their books and latched onto one specific area of study as a sphere in which to excel and create a sense of social and self-worth. :shrug:


There are also smart druggies, slackers, whatever... but highschool and college jocks I think get a bad rap as well because most aggressive people are athletic, and aggressive people who are also stupid tend to be really in your face about it. Take the athletic-rape correlations for example. No one has definitively shown that playing sports = rapist. But perhaps people who are more likely to rape are also more likely to play sports. And stupid weak people tend to not make a lot of noise. They slink around I would imagine no?

[aspergris]

39. also

jocks are under pressure NOT to appear to be "brainiacs" so to speak.

Iow, they are under pressure to HIDE their smarts in many respects, in order to fit in, at least in some circles.

High School is all about fitting in.

[Indenturedebtor]

42. Absolutely true! And eggheads are encouraged to not excercise! n/t

[aspergris]

yup

and if they do take sports, it's gotta be something like x-country.

(former x-country)

[CreekDog]

9. Oh yeah, energy drinks

that's the problem. :eyes:

[jberryhill]

10. "Like Having Sex With A Tractor Trailor"

Win with Brawndo:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5601469480290619214

[frylock]

11. hyper-masculinity and risk-taking behaviors among college-age athletes never manifested..

itself till the advent of energy drinks. give me a damn break. i suppose they'll try to list Monster as a gateway drug. i wonder how many lattes Ms. Miller threw down during the course of her study?

[Indenturedebtor]

13. Read the article n/t

[endarkenment]

16. OFFS: Calling Planet Stupid!

Let's just get it over with and make everything illegal and wrap everyone in bubblewrap and bright colored soft plastic wrapped spring bumpers and monitor everyone 24/7 to make sure there is no risk taking (also known as 'fun') going on.

[Odin2005]

19. Repeat after me: Correlation does not equal Causation!!!

I bet, if anything, it's the other way around, the dumb-jock types drink more energy drinks then average.

Oh, and I can't stand Red Bull and similar drinks, I think they taste NASTY!!! :puke:

[Indenturedebtor]

25. Read the article. No assertion of causation was made whatsoever. None. n/t

[benEzra]

34. The headline would be interpreted by a mass media audience as implying causation.

It was a bit of weasel wording, IMO; those schooled in the sciences would recognize that it is not technically making a claim, while at the same time most readers would assume that it is saying "energy drinks cause risk taking" because of the high dose of caffeine and nutrients.

It was also a bit deceptive to compare it to soft drinks instead of espresso or strong coffee, IMO (it is more comparable to coffee than to soda).

[Indenturedebtor]

37. Yes the media drives me crazy with this shit. And they still present the crap from 80 years ago all

the time. Drives me nuts. When I tell people I have a degree in psychology they start telling me about their dreams and shit lol. I should start messing with them "It means you want to hump your mother. I suggest giving a stranger your wallet. That's a proven treatment for Oedipal feelings jackass."

[benEzra]

44. LOL (n/t)

[frylock]

46. i did..

what was the control? is it even remotely possible that the subjects in the study were predisposed to risky behavior or had addictive personalities?

i drink on average 9 cans of Monster per week. i have not noticed, nor has anyone pointed out any changes in my behavior. it just happens to be my caffeine vector of choice. how is it any different than a cup of coffee from Starbucks? they both contain approx 10mg of caffeine per ounce.

http://www.energyfiend.com/the-caffeine-database

[meow2u3]

47. Toxic Jock Syndrome

:rofl:

[LostinVA]

49. It sounds like a STD