Research Article

Relationship Between Energy Drink Consumption

and Nutrition Knowledge in Student-Athletes
Richard Hardy, MA, ATC, CSCS1; Nathalie Kliemann, MSc2; Taylor Evansen, BA3;
Jefferson Brand, MD1

ABSTRACT
Objective: To identify the relationships between energy drink consumption, nutrition knowledge, and
socio-demographic characteristics in a convenience sample of student-athletes.
Design: Cross-sectional.
Setting: Online survey.
Participants: A total of 194 student-athletes (112 female and 82 male).
Main Outcome Measures: Socio-demographic characteristics, knowledge of human nutrition, energy
drink consumption habits.
Analysis: Chi-square tests of independence, independent t tests, and hierarchical regression analyses were
applied.
Results: Most student-athletes in the sample (85.5%) did not consume energy drinks, but those who did
tended to be male (P ¼ .004), had lower overall knowledge of nutrition (P ¼ .02), and had a lower grade
point average (P < .001) than did nonusers. Also, energy drink consumption was associated with the over-
all nutrition knowledge score when adjusted for socio-demographic characteristics, with nonusers having
greater nutrition knowledge (P ¼ .007) than users.
Conclusions and Implications: Student-athletes tend to refrain from energy drink use but those who
use it have a tendency to have lower nutrition knowledge than do nonusers. Therefore, nutrition education
targeted toward student-athletes should encompass the consumption of energy drinks because limited
evidence shows the benefits of collegiate athletes consuming energy drinks.
Key Words: nutritional supplements, energy drink consumption, nutrition knowledge, student-athletes,
sports, college students (J Nutr Educ Behav. 2017;49:19-26.)
Accepted August 17, 2016. Published online October 6, 2016.

INTRODUCTION may enhance athletic performance. In magnesium, potassium, total fat, die-
general, nutrient requirements can be tary fiber, and phosphorus) and low
Gaining a competitive advantage in achieved through a healthy diet with in fruits, vegetables, and dairy prod-
sports goes beyond traditional training no need for nutritional supplements ucts.2-4 Moreover, studies found that
measures such as working harder in the or ergogenic aids.1 However, studies ergogenic aids such as energy drinks
weight room and on the practice field exploring athletes' diet quality showed are popular among student-athletes.5
compared with competitors. There is that their diets tend to be inadequate Energy drinks are often a combina-
also a need to consider athletes' dietary in nutrients (especially vitamins E and tion of caffeine (main active ingredient),
behaviors, because optimal nutrition D, folate, pantothenic acid, calcium, taurine, guarana, glucuronolactone, B
vitamins, and ginseng.6,7 Regulation of
these highly caffeinated beverages has
been challenging.8 Energy drinks contain
1
Heartland Orthopedic Specialists, Douglas County Hospital, Alexandria, MN 72–300mgcaffeine/8-ozservingcompared
2
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Health Behaviour Research Centre, with 65–125 mg caffeine/8-oz serving
University College London, United Kingdom of percolated coffee.7,9 Consuming
3
Department of Biology, University of Minnesota Morris, Morris, MN 150–200 mg/kg caffeine can lead to
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: The authors’ conflict of interest disclosures can be found online fatal caffeine overdose as a result of
with this article on www.jneb.org. ventricular tachycardia.10 Although
Address for correspondence: Richard Hardy, MA, ATC, CSCS, Heartland the consumption of excess caffeine can
Orthopedic Specialists, Douglas County Hospital, 111 17th Ave E #101, Alexandria, be life-threatening, energy drinks man-
MN 56308; Phone: (320) 760-2031; Fax: (320) 589-6428; E-mail: hardyr@morris. ufacturers tend to target young males,
umn.edu claiming that their product increases
Ó2016 Society for Nutrition Education and Behavior. Published by Elsevier, Inc. All rights energy and alertness and improves ath-
reserved. letic performance.8,9 Emond et al11 sug-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2016.08.008 gested that adolescents are exposed to

Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior  Volume 49, Number 1, 2017 19

20 Hardy et al Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior  Volume 49, Number 1, 2017

these claims by advertisements that are program budgets are lower and ath- of the 5 participating universities and
run on television channels popular letic scholarships are not available to at least age 18 years.
within their age group. This is concerning student-athletes.27 Overall, Division
because frequent energy drink con- III athletes tend to play for the enjoy- Procedure
sumption has been correlated with ment of the sport.28 Academically,
higher intake of sugar-sweetened bev- Umbach et al29 reported that students Athletic directors from the partici-
erages, which contributes to undesired at Division III institutions undergo a pating universities directly e-mailed
weight gain and obesity.12-14 greater degree of academic challenge the survey link and informational let-
It has been suggested that collegiate and have more interaction with fac- ter to their student-athletes. Student-
student-athletes consume these bever- ulty than do students at Division I in- athletes received 2 separate e-mails.
ages to improve athletic perfor- stitutions. Furthermore, they reported First, they received an introductory
mance.15 However, there is conflicting that students at Division III institu- e-mail that explained the investigation
evidence regarding whether perfor- tions engage more in active and col- and a link to the online survey. Four-
mance actually improves as a result laborative learning activities than do teen days after they received the in-
of consuming energy drinks.6,16-22 Per- their peers at Division I institutions. troductory e-mail, student-athletes
formance improvements may result Robst and Keil30 found that student- received a follow-up e-mail that reiter-
from the content of caffeine and/or athletes competing at NCAA III ated the introductory e-mail and the
carbohydrates in the energy drinks, schools have higher grade point aver- link to the survey was again provided
and questions exist regarding whether ages (GPAs), enroll in classes of greater to them. In total, 984 eligible stu-
energy drinks are the proper mode of difficulty, and have higher graduation dent-athletes were invited to take part
delivery for high doses of caffeine rates than do non–student-athletes at in this study. A cookie was placed on
required to stimulate neuromuscular the same institutions. their computer to prevent respondents
performance.20,23 Regardless, studies Based on that, the current re- from taking the survey more than
showed that athletes have low overall searchers formulated 2 hypotheses. once. No incentives were provided.
nutrition knowledge, especially con- The first hypothesis was that NCAA Di-
cerning the relationship between diet vision III student-athletes who did not Survey Design
and diseases.4,24 Evidence from the consume energy drinks would have
literature also showed that nutrition higher knowledge of nutrition than The survey was administered using
knowledge is related to dietary intake would student-athletes who consumed the online tool, Qualtrics (Qualtrics
in the general population.4,25 Studies energy drinks and competed within Labs, Provo, UT, 2014). All participants
looking at this relationship within the same athletic division. The second completed the online survey consisting
athletes found that fruit and vegetable hypothesis was that NCAA Division III of questions regarding gender, age,
consumption seemed to be weakly student-athletes who did not consume college cumulative GPA, nutrition
predicted by athletes' nutrition knowledge, energy drinks would have a higher courses taken during high school and
but no study was found exploring the GPA and would more likely be female college, student-athlete status, sport(s)
relationship between nutrition know- compared with student-athletes who in which they currently participated,
ledge and the consumption of energy consumed energy drinks and competed the General Nutrition Knowledge Que-
drinks.4 Therefore, there is a need to within the same division. stionnaire for adults (GNKQ), and con-
better understand whether nutrition sumption of energy drinks. The GNKQ
knowledge is related to energy drink is a valid and reliable scale that has
consumption in athletes, because con- METHODS been deemed useful for assessing the
sumption of these drinks has increased Survey Design and Participants relationship between knowledge and di-
in the young adult population (aged 18– etary behavior.31 The GNKQ was designed
25 years), especially among males.8,26 The University of Minnesota Institu- by Parmenter and Wardle31 for the UK
This study aimed to identify the re- tional Review Board determined that adult population and consists of 4
lationships among general nutrition this investigation was exempt from sections: dietary recommendations,
knowledge, energy drink consump- review under federal guidelines. This sources of foods/nutrients, choosing
tion, and socio-demographic charac- cross-sectional study was administered everyday foods, and diet–disease rela-
teristics in a convenience sample of online to undergraduate student-ath- tionships. Some wording changes were
American student-athletes who com- letes. The student-athletes competed performed on the original GNKQ to
pete at the National Collegiate Ath- within the Upper Midwest Athletic adapt it for the American adult popula-
letic Association (NCAA) Division III Conference, a member of the NCAA, tion; these changes did not affect the
level. The NCAA consists of 3 separate at the Division III level. The survey validity of the questionnaire (Cron-
levels, I, II, and III, in which differ- was available to these athletes from bach a ¼ .74 for the overall score).
ences exist both athletically and aca- November 10 to December 21, 2014. This instrument was used in other
demically. Performance expectations Nine colleges and universities com- published investigations that assessed
are greater for NCAA I student-ath- peted within the conference, 5 of nutritional knowledge of student-ath-
letes because athletic programs have which voluntarily participated in this letes.32,33 The researchers obtained
higher budgets and athletic scholar- study. For athletes to be eligible for permission to use this instrument.
ships are available to student-ath- this study, they had to have been un- The research team designed energy
letes, whereas NCAA III athletic dergraduate student-athletes from 1 drink questions to be answered only
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior  Volume 49, Number 1, 2017 Hardy et al 21

by participants who identified them- from the current study. Therefore, the choosing everyday foods, in which
selves as energy drink consumers (see final sample was 194 student-athletes. males scored 0.57 (95% confidence in-
Supplementary Material). Most participants were aged 18– terval [CI], 0.93–0.21; P ¼ .002) higher
21 years (91.8%) and did not consume than females, representing a medium-
energy drinks (85.5%). The results of sized effect (d ¼ 0.47).
Statistical Analysis chi-square test of independence showed
Analyses were performed using IBM that student-athletes who reported con-
suming energy drinks were more fre- Energy Drink Users
SPSS Statistics (version 22, IBM Corp,
Armonk, NY, 2013) using only com- quently male (about 68%) and had a
The majority of energy drink users
pleted surveys. Descriptive analyses lower GPA (about 61%). However, no
consumed Monster (61%) and/or Red
were performed to characterize the sa- differences between user and nonusers
Bull (57%). They identified that they
mple size, including information ab- were found for age, type of sport in
consumed energy drinks because they
out gender, age, sports, energy drink which they participated, and comple-
enjoyed the taste (54%) or that energy
consumption, nutrition-related trai- tion of nutrition courses in high school
drinks enhanced their focus (50%)
or college (Table 1).
ning, and overall GPA. Descriptive (Figure). The majority consumed < 1
analyses were also performed to As reported in Table 2, participants drink/wk (54%) or 1–2 drinks/wk (29%).
characterize energy drink users. Chi- scored 58.4% on the GNKQ on average. Generally, the majority of users (64%)
square test of independence was app- The section about dietary recommen- felt that they benefited from consuming
lied to assess the association between dations had the highest scores (64.5%) energy drinks. Reported benefits included
socio-demographic characteristics and and the section about diet and disease increased alertness (79%), increased
the consumption of energy drinks. had the lowest scores (47%). There productivity (75%), and better focus
The normality of sample sizes was were no significant differences in age, (67%). Only 12.5% of energy drink
visually checked by plotting histo- GPA, or nutrition training regarding users reported that they felt that their
grams and a P-plot and by looking at nutrition knowledge in this student- athletic performance improved by
the distribution of the variables, such athlete population. No gender differ- consuming these beverages.
as measures of central tendency, vari- ences were observed for most sections The majority of energy drink users
ability, and shape. Independent t tests of the GNKQ apart from the area of (57%) reported that they did not
assessed relationships among nutri-
tion knowledge scores, socio-demogra-
phic characteristics, and energy drink
consumption. Table 1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Total Sample and Socio-
To estimate whether nutrition know- Demographic Differences Between Energy Drink Users and Nonusers
ledge scores were related to the number
of energy drinks consumed per week,
correlations (r) between the nutrition Total, % (n) Users, % (n) Nonusers, % (n) c2 of
knowledge score of each section and (n ¼ 194) (n ¼ 28) (n ¼ 166) Independence
the number of drinks consumed were Gender
calculated. Hierarchical regression ana- Female 57.7 (112) 32.1 (9) 62.0 (103) 8.78*
lysis was performed to examine the Male 42.3 (82) 67.9 (19) 38.0 (63)
relationship between energy drink Age, y
consumption and nutrition know- 18–19 49.0 (95) 42.9 (12) 50.0 (83) 1.69
ledge score at each section, controlling 20–21 42.8 (83) 42.9 (12) 42.8 (71)
for socio-demographic characteristics. $ 22 8.2 (16) 14.3 (4) 7.2 (12)
Residuals were examined for all out- Athlete of individual sportsa
comes and approximated normal dis- Yes 47.4 (92) 39.3 (11) 48.8 (81) 0.86
tribution in most cases. The presence No 52.6 (102) 60.7 (17) 51.2 (85)
of outliers was checked, but because
the results were not sensitive to its in- Athlete of group sportsb
clusion or exclusion, the full sample Yes 64.9 (126) 71.4 (20) 63.9 (106) 0.60
was used. P # .05 was considered to No 35.1 (68) 28.6 (8) 36.1 (60)
be statistically significant. Nutrition classc
Yes 52.1 (101) 42.9 (12) 53.6 (89) 1.11
No 47.9 (93) 57.1 (16) 46.4 (77)
RESULTS
College grade point average
Socio-demographic # 3.2 31.4 (61) 60.7 (17) 26.5 (44) 16.03**
Characteristics 3.21–3.8 40.7 (79) 35.7 (10) 41.6 (69)
3.81–4.00 27.8 (54) 3.6 (1) 31.9 (53)
Initially, 208 individuals opened the
a
survey and identified themselves as be- An athlete of cross-country, swimming and diving, golf, tennis, or track and
ing aged $ 18 years; however, 14 field; bAn athlete of baseball, basketball, football, soccer, softball, or volleyball;
stated that they were not currently a c
Have taken nutrition class in high school or in college; *P < .01; **P < .001.
student-athlete and were excluded Note: Users consume energy drinks; nonusers do not consume energy drinks.
 22 Hardy et al
Table 2. Nutrition Knowledge, Socio-Demographic Characteristics, and Consumption of Energy Drinks

Knowledge Section

4f
Overallb 1c 2d 3e
Variable n (Mean [SD]) Statistic (Mean [SD]) Statistic (Mean [SD]) Statistic (Mean [SD]) Statistic (Mean [SD]) Statistic
All participants
Scores 194 58.4 (8.5) 7.1 (1.5) 39.1 (6.1) 4.1 (1.3) 8 (2.9)
Gender
Male 82 58.9 (1.0) t ¼ 0.56 7.1 (0.17) t ¼ 0.48 39.4 (0.73) t ¼ 0.66 4.51 (0.13) t ¼ 3.1** 7.73 (0.34) t ¼ 1.3
Female 112 58.2 (0.76) 7.0 (0.14) 38.8 (0.54) 3.93 (0.12) 8.31 (0.26)
Age, y
18–19 95 58.1 (0.86) t ¼ 0.50 6.9 (0.15) t ¼ 1.3 39.0 (0.6) t ¼ 0.11 4.0 (0.13) t ¼ 1.3 8.0 (0.28) t ¼ 0.03
$ 20 99 58.7 (0.88) 7.2 (0.15) 39.1 (0.64) 4.3 (0.12) 8.0 (0.32)

Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior  Volume 49, Number 1, 2017

Nutrition classa
Yes 101 58.9 (0.78) t ¼ 0.72 7.0 (0.15) t ¼ 0.43 39.6 (0.57) t ¼ 1.3 4.1 (0.13) t ¼ 0.46 8.0 (0.27) t ¼ 0.27
No 93 58.0 (0.95) 7.1 (0.15) 38.4 (0.68) 4.2 (0.13) 8.1 (0.33)
College grade point average
# 3.2 61 56.8 (1.1) F ¼ 2.4 7.0 (0.19) F ¼ 1.9 37.9 (0.80) F ¼ 1.8 4.21 (0.15) F ¼ 0.02 7.68 (0.40) F ¼ 1.4
3.21–3.8 79 58.3 (0.98) 7.0 (0.16) 39.2 (0.71) 4.16 (0.16) 7.97 (0.33)
3.81–4.0 54 60.4 (1.0) 7.4 (0.20) 40.1 (0.77) 4.16 (0.15) 8.6 (0.37)
Energy drinks
User 28 53.6 (2.2) t ¼ 2.4* 6.8 (0.30) t ¼ 1.1 36.1 (1.5) t ¼ 2.0* 4.21 (1.19) t ¼ 0.63 6.5 (0.7) t ¼ 2.3*
Nonusers 166 59.2 (0.59) 7.1 (0.11) 39.5 (0.43) 4.2 (0.10) 8.3 (0.21)
F indicates F test; t, t test.
a
Nutrition class at school or college; bAll items, maximum score ¼ 100; cDietary Recommendations, maximum score ¼ 11; dSources of food/nutrients, maximum
score ¼ 65; eHealthy food choices, maximum score ¼ 7; fDiet and disease, maximum score ¼ 17; *P < .05; **P < .01.
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior  Volume 49, Number 1, 2017 Hardy et al 23

ders (33%), or had trouble sleeping

Enjoy the taste (n=15) at night (25%). Overall, the majority
(57%) of energy drink consumers
Focus your studying and/or work (n=14) indicated that the positive effects out-
weighed the negative effects of
Feel more alert (n=10)
consuming energy drinks.
Leisure and/or social reasons (n=7)

As a mixer for alcoholic beverages (n=5) Comparison of GNKQ Between

Enhance your athleƟc performance (n=4) Energy Drink Consumers and
Non-consumers
Other (n=2)
Based on the independent t test results,
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 student-athleteswhoreportedconsuming
Percentage energy drinks had an overall knowl-
edge score of 5.6 (95% CI, 10.46-0.91;
Figure. Participants’ main reasons for consuming energy drinks. P ¼ .02) points lower than nonusers,
which represented a medium-sized ef-
fect (d ¼ 0.7). Also, energy drink users'
nutrition knowledge scores were on
experience side effects from they experienced shaking and/or average 3.4 (95% CI, 6.74-0.07; P ¼ .05)
consuming these beverages. Those tremors (35%), experienced stomach- points and 1.74 (95% CI, 3.2-0.24;
who had side effects reported that aches and/or gastrointestinal disor- P ¼ .02) points lower than nonusers'

Table 3. Multiple Regression Predicting Nutrition Knowledge Scores From Gender, Age, College Grade Point Average (GPA),
Nutrition Class, and Energy Drink Consumption

Knowledge Section

Overallc 1d 2e 3f 4g

Model Model Model Model Model

B b Sum B b Sum B b Sum B b Sum B b Sum
Model 1
Gendera 1.3 .08 .21 .07 .94 .07 .62 .24** .41 .06
Age, y .49 .08 .10 .09 .33 .07 .007 .008 .06 .03
GPA .61 .17* .09 .14 .36 .14 .03 .05 .13 .10
Nutrition classb .50 .02 .16 .05 .93 .07 .13 .05 .14 .02
R2 .03 .027 .03 .054 .02
R2 Adj .014 .007 .01 .034 .001
F 1.6 1.31 1.5 2.70* .96
Model 2
Gendera 1.9 .11 .25 .08 1.3 .10 .66 .25** .24 .04
Age, y .53 .08 .10 .09 .35 .08 .004 .005 .07 .03
GPA .42 .11 .08 .12 .24 .09 .02 .03 .07 .06
Nutrition classb .18 .01 .18 .06 .75 .06 .15 .06 .22 .03
Energy drinksb 5.5 .22** .33 .07 3.3 .19* .34 .09 1.5 .18*
R2 .08 .03 .06 .06 .05
R2 Adj .05 .007 .04 .04 .02
F 3.3** 1.2 2.5* 2.48* 2.0
DR2 .04 .005 .03 .008 .03
DF 9.5** 1.04 6.4** 1.58 6.07**
B indicates the unstandardized coefficient; b, the standardized coefficient; R , the multivariate coefficient, the overall fit of
2

the model; R2 Adj, R2 adjusted; F, the F test; DR2, changes in R2; DF, the F statistic for R2 change.
a
Female ¼ 0, male ¼ 1; bNutrition class at school or college where yes ¼ 0 and no ¼ 1; cAll items, maximum score ¼ 100;
d
Dietary Recommendations, maximum score ¼ 11; eSources of food/nutrients, maximum score ¼ 65; fHealthy food choices,
maximum score ¼ 7; gDiet and disease, maximum score ¼ 17; *P < .05; **P < .01.
24 Hardy et al Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior  Volume 49, Number 1, 2017

scores in the areas of sources of foods/ that most students-athletes did not sumption was associated with lower
nutrients and diet and disease rel- consume energy drinks, but those who GPAs among college students in general.
ationship, respectively. However, no did tended to be male, had lesser overall Bulut et al40 reported that students who
differences in energy drink cons- knowledge of nutrition—especially in studied during nighttime hours were
umption were observed in the areas the areas of sources of food/nutrients 1.6 times more likely to consume energy
of dietary recommendations and cho- and the diet and disease relationship— drinks because of students' desire to
osing everyday foods. and had a lower GPA than did those remain awake or seek improvements in
The number of energy drinks who did not use energy drinks. mental performance. Results from the
consumed per week was positively and The results of this study showed that current investigation also showed that
significantly correlated to the nutrition most student-athletes scored lower in most participants tended to use energy
knowledge score in the area of dietary the diet–disease relationship knowl- drinks because they liked the taste and
recommendations (r ¼ .48; P < .001). edge section, which is in accordance these drinks helped them focus on their
However, it was also negatively and with results from other studies con- studies or work.
not significantly correlated to the nutri- ducted with athlete samples.4,24 The The results of this study also showed
tion knowledge score in the areas of study also showed that most student- that users of energy drinks scored
healthy food choices (r ¼ .18; P ¼ athletes did not consume energy dri- significantly lower on both the section
.35) and diet and disease (r ¼ .23; nks, and those who did were mainly about sources of food/nutrients and
P ¼ .23). No correlation was found be- motivated to do so because they en- that of diet and disease knowledge
tween energy drinks consumed per joyed the taste. Curiosity about energy than did nonusers. Because health risks
week and nutrition knowledge score in drink taste was a factor associated with are involved with consuming energy
sources of food/nutrients (r ¼ .09) and why college students decided to try en- drinks in large quantities as a result of
overall score (r ¼ .04). ergy drinks in the first place.34 Just a few to their elevated caffeine content, there
To determine whether the energy students-athletes mentioned consuming is a need to educate student-athletes
drinks were independently associated energy drinks to enhance their perfor- better about nutrition and energy drink
with nutrition knowledge, the researchers mance. This is contrasts with results consumption. Weeden et al41 sugg-
performed multiple regression anal- from previous investigations using ested that student-athletes complete a
ysis. The results in Table 3 show that NCAA I or elite student-athlete samples, nutrition course in college to improve
energy drink consumption was inde- which showed that most student- their nutrition knowledge. However,
pendently associated with overall athletes in this program tended to with regard to the sample in the current
GNKQ scores and the scores for sour- consume energy drinks to improve investigation, completion of a nutri-
ces of foods/nutrients and diet–dis- their athletic performance.5,26,35-37 tion class had no effect on nutritional
ease relationships, and that nonusers However, this research focused on knowledge. Karpinski42 suggested that
had greater nutrition knowledge. The NCAA III student-athletes, a level a nutrition course designed specifically
addition of the energy drink con- that did not get much attention within for the personal and unique needs of
sumption variable to the models ac- the literature. Differences exist be- student-athletes may be more effective
counting for gender, age, GPA, and tween NCAA III and NCAA I athletic for implementing behavioral changes.
nutrition class (model 2) led to a sta- programs in terms of performance ex- Without this type ofcourse,it is important
tistically significant increase in the pectations, which may explain the to examine where the student-athletes
multivariate coefficient (R2) of 0.047 differences in motivation and actual received their nutritional knowledge.
(F1,188 ¼ 9.575; P ¼ .002) in predicting consumption of energy drinks. The Further studies should explore better
the overall score and an increase in NCAA I student-athletes had greater ways to promote nutrition knowledge
the R2 of 0.032 (F1,188 ¼ 6.47; P ¼ .12) performance expectations because within this population and how to
in predicting sources of foods/nutri- these programs have higher budgets incorporate a section on energy drink
ents' scores. No significant increase and athletic scholarships are available consumption, because the consump-
in R2 was observed in the area of to student-athletes whereas NCAA III tion of these drinks has little impact
diet–disease relationships (F1,188 ¼ athletic program budgets are lower on performance and can be harmful
6.075; P ¼ .15). Most socio-demographic and athletic scholarships are not ava- to health when consumed in large
characteristics did not significantly ilable to student-athletes.27 quantities.6,16,17,43
predict nutrition knowledge, with the This study also found that the
exception of gender, which was inde- consumption of energy drinks was
pendently associated with the area of greater among male student-athletes IMPLICATIONS FOR
choosing everyday foods (P ¼ .001). and student-athletes with lower GPAs. RESEARCH AND
This is in accordance with results PRACTICE
from other studies; for example, Pettit
DISCUSSION and DeBarr38 found that males were There are some limitations that may
more likely than females to consume affect the generalizability of these re-
The purpose of this study was to identify energy drinks when the researchersex- sults. This convenience sampling study
relationships among general nutrition plored relationships regarding perceived had a cross-sectional design, which
knowledge, energy drink consumption, stress, energy drink consumption, and cannot indicate causality. Participants
and socio-demographic characteristics academic performance among college of this study were student-athletes par-
in a convenience sample of collegiate students. Furthermore, Champlin et al39 ticipating in an athletic conference in
student-athletes. The results showed reported that greater energy drink con- the Midwestern US. Therefore, this
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior  Volume 49, Number 1, 2017 Hardy et al 25

sample may not reflect the opinions of 2. Heaney S, O’Connor H, Gifford J, 15. Paddock R. Energy drinks’ effects on stu-
other populations of student-athletes Naughton G. Comparison of strategies dent-athletes and implications for athletic
who participate in different athletic for assessing nutritional adequacy in departments. 2008. http://thesportjourn
conferences across the US. Furthermore, elite female athletes’ dietary intake. Int al.org/article/energy-drinks-effects-on-st
only student-athletes who competed at J Sport Nutr Exerc. 2010;20:245-256. udent-athletes-and-implications-for-athle
the NCAA III level were surveyed. It 3. Jonnalagadda SS, Ziegler PJ, tic-departments/. Accessed September 9,
would be interesting to compare the re- Nelson JA. Food preferences, dieting 2016.
sults of the survey among NCAA III, behaviors, and body image perceptions 16. Astorino TA, Matera AJ, Basinger J,
NCAA II, and NCAA I schools or to of elite figure skaters. Int J Sport Nutr Evans M, Schurman T, Marquez R.
compare the results with those of stu- Exerc. 2004;14:594-606. Effects of red bull energy drink on
dent-athletes who compete within a 4. Spronk I, Heaney SE, Prvan T, repeated sprint performance in women
National Association of Intercollegiate O’Connor HT. Relationship between athletes. Amino Acids. 2012;42:1803-
Athletics–sponsored conference. A further general nutrition knowledge and die- 1808.
limitation of this study is that student- tary quality in elite athletes. Int J Sport 17. Uma~ na-Alvarado M, Moncada-
athletes self-reported energy drink Nutr Exerc. 2015;25:243-251. Jim
enez J. Consumption of an ‘‘energy
consumption habits, which may have 5. Gallucci AR, Martin RJ, Morgan GB. drink’’ does not improve aerobic
led to underreporting. The consumption of energy drinks performance in male athletes. Int J
This investigation suggested that among a sample of college students Applied Sports Sciences. 2005;17:
student-athletes competing at the NCAA and college student athletes. J Commu- 26-34.
III level tend to refrain from energy nity Health. 2015;41:1-10. 18. Prins PJ, Goss FL, Nagle EF, et al.
drink use. However, student-athletes 6. Gwacham N, Wagner DR. Acute ef- Energy drinks improve 5-km running
who consume them tended to be male fects of a caffeine-taurine energy drink performance in recreational endurance
and to have a lower GPA. Furthermore, on repeated sprint performance of runners. J Strength Cond. 2016;30:
student-athletes who used energy dri- American college football players. Int J 2979-2990.
nks had a tendency to have lower over- Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2012;22:109-116. 19. Del Coso J, Portillo J, Salinero JJ,
all knowledge of nutrition and lower 7. Higgins JP, Tuttle TD, Higgins CL. Lara B, Abian-Vicen J, Areces F.
knowledge in areas of the sources of Energy beverages: content and safety. Caffeinated energy drinks improve
food/nutrients and the diet–disease Mayo Clin Proc. 2010;85:1033-1041. high-speed running in elite field hockey
relationship than did nonusers. There- 8. Reissig CJ, Strain EC, Griffiths RR. players. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab.
fore, there is a need for nutrition edu- Caffeinated energy drinks—a growing 2016;26:26-32.
cation targeted to this population, problem. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009; 20. Quinlivan A, Irwin C, Grant GD, et al.
because optimal nutrition has an impor- 99:1-10. The effects of Red Bull energy drink
tant role in athletes' performance and 9. Clauson KA, Shields KM, compared with caffeine on cycling
health. Nutrition education for student- McQueen CE, Persad N. Safety issues time-trial performance. Int J Sports
athletes should also encompass the associated with commercially available Physiol Perform. 2015;10:897-901.
consumption of energy drinks, because energy drinks. Pharmacy Today. 2008; 21. An SM, Park JS, Kim SH. Effect of
it has little impact on performance and 14:52-64. energy drink dose on exercise capac-
can lead to health risks when consumed 10. Holmgren P, Nord
en-Pettersson L, ity, heart rate recovery and heart
in large quantities. Ahlner J. Caffeine fatalities—four case rate variability after high-intensity
reports. Forensic Sci Int. 2004;139:71-73. exercise. J Exerc Nutrition Biochem.
11. Emond JA, Sargent JD, Gilbert- 2014;18:31-39.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Diamond D. Patterns of energy drink 22. Kammerer M, Jaramillo JA, Garc
a A,
Special thanks to all athletic directors advertising over US television net- Calder
n JC, Valbuena LH. Effects of
from the participating universities who works. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2015;47: energy drink major bioactive com-
kindly invited their students to take 120-126.e121. pounds on the performance of young
part in this study. 12. Larson N, DeWolfe J, Story M, adults in fitness and cognitive tests: a
Neumark-Sztainer D. Adolescent con- randomized controlled trial. J Int Soc
sumption of sports and energy drinks: Sports Nutr. 2014;11:44.
SUPPLEMENTARY DATA linkages to higher physical activity, un- 23. Mora-Rodriguez R, Pallares JG.
healthy beverage patterns, cigarette Performance outcomes and un-
Supplementary data related to this smoking, and screen media use. J Nutr wanted side effects associated with
article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/ Educ Behav. 2014;46:181-187. energy drinks. Nutr Reviews. 2014;
10.1016/j.jneb.2016.08.008. 13. Ludwig DS, Peterson KE, Gortmaker SL. 72:108-120.
Relation between consumption of sugar- 24. Spendlove JK, Heaney SE, Gifford JA,
sweetened drinks and childhood obesity: a Prvan T, Denyer GS, O’Connor HT.
REFERENCES prospective, observational analysis. Lan- Evaluation of general nutrition knowl-
cet. 2001;357:505-508. edge in elite Australian athletes. Br J
1. Rodriguez NR, DiMarco NM, 14. Malik VS, Schulze MB, Hu FB. Intake Nutr. 2012;107:1871-1880.
Langley S. Nutrition and athletic per- of sugar-sweetened beverages and 25. Wardle J, Parmenter K, Waller J.
formance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009; weight gain: a systematic review. Am Nutrition knowledge and food intake.
41:709-731. J Clin Nutr. 2006;84:274-288. Appetite. 2000;34:269-275.
26 Hardy et al Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior  Volume 49, Number 1, 2017

26. Buxton C, Hagan JE. A survey of en- 32. Holden SL, Baghurst TM, Pugh SF, 38. Pettit ML, DeBarr KA. Perceived stress,
ergy drinks consumption practices Keshock CM, Heitman RJ. Compari- energy drink consumption, and academic
among student-athletes in Ghana: les- son of the nutritional knowledge of col- performance among college students. J
sons for developing health education lege athletes and nonathletes. Res Q Am Coll Health. 2011;59:335-341.
intervention programmes. J Int Soc Exerc Sport. 2014;85:A70. 39. Champlin SE, Pasch KE, Perry CL. Is the
Sports Nutr. 2012;9:9. 33. Dunn D, Turner LW, Denny G. Nutri- consumption of energy drinks associated
27. National Collegiate Athletic Associa- tion knowledge and attitudes of college with academic achievement among col-
tion. NCAA Recruiting Facts. 2014. athletes. 2008. http://thesportjournal. lege students? J Prim Prev. 2016;37:1-15.
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/ org/article/nutrition-knowledge-and- 40. Bulut B, Beyhun NE, Topbaş M,
files/Recruiting%20Fact%20Sheet% attitudes-of-college-athletes/. Accessed Çan G. Energy drink use in university
20WEB.pdf. Accessed September 9, September 9, 2016. students and associated factors. J Com-
2016. 34. Attila S, Çakir B. Energy-drink con- munity Health. 2014;39:1004-1011.
28. Grites TJ, James GL. Division III— sumption in college students and associ-
41. Weeden AM, Olsen J, Batacan JM, Peter-
another ballgame. NACADA Journal. ated factors. Nutrition. 2011;27:316-322.
son T. Differences in collegiate athlete
1986;6:23-26. 35. Hoyte CO, Albert D, Heard KJ. The
nutrition knowledge as determined by
29. Umbach PD, Palmer MM, Kuh GD, use of energy drinks, dietary supple-
athlete characteristics. 2014. http://
Hannah SJ. Intercollegiate athletes and ments, and prescription medications
thesportjournal.org/article/differences-in-
effective educational practices: winning by United States college students to
collegiate-athlete-nutrition-knowledge-
combination or losing effort? Res High enhance athletic performance. J Com-
as-determined-by-athlete-characteristics/.
Educ. 2006;47:709-733. munity Health. 2013;38:575-580.
Accessed September 9, 2016.
30. Robst J, Keil J. The relationship between 36. Woolsey C. Energy drink cocktails: a
athletic participation and academic per- dangerous combination for athletes and 42. Karpinski C. Exploring the feasibility of
formance: evidence from NCAA Divi- beyond. J Alcohol Drug Educ. 2010;54:41-68. an academic course that provides nutri-
sion III. Appl Econ. 2000;32:547-558. 37. Huang SH, Johnson K, Pipe AL. The tion education to collegiate student-ath-
31. Parmenter K, Wardle J. Development use of dietary supplements and medica- letes. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2012;44:267-270.
of a general nutrition knowledge ques- tions by Canadian athletes at the At- 43. Rath M. Energy drinks: what is all the hype?
tionnaire for adults. Eur J Clin Nutr. lanta and Sydney Olympic Games. The dangers of energy drink consumption.
1999;53:298-308. Clin J Sport Med. 2006;16:27-33. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2012;24:70-76.
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior  Volume 49, Number 1, 2017 Hardy et al 26.e1

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
JB is the deputy editor for the Journal of
Arthroscopy. The other authors have not
stated any conflicts of interest.