Comparison of the effects of Monster, Celsius, and Coffee on the health and quality of life of adolescents aged 14-18

Introduction

Energy drinks, non-alcoholic beverages that can supposedly provide huge amounts of energy needed to stay up all night and study or as a quick refresher before a workout. Energy drinks are seen everywhere, and with their rise in popularity must also come an increase in research investigating their true effects on the human body. An energy drink is defined as a non-alcoholic beverage that provides a source of energy in the form of caffeine or other substances added into the drink. The question of whether energy drinks are safe has been ongoing with both sides of the debate providing evidence that they may be correct. With the increasing prevalence of energy drink consumption, especially in adolescents, it is important to address this question through individual investigations into energy drink brands. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety of two different energy drink brands, “Monster Energy” and “Celsius Energy”, regarding adolescents(ages 14-18) by assessing the individual ingredients rather than looking at the issue as a general problem. Monster and Celsius were chosen because of their varying branding choices, with Celsius having a “wellness” brand and Monster having more intense “energy boost” branding. Along with this, the popularity of the drinks was taken into consideration: Monster and Celsius are among the most popular drinks seen in adolescents in North Carolina. Although more energy drink brands may be available as safer alternatives to these brands, most adolescents choose these brands, therefore they must be evaluated.

Currently, various studies have been conducted on the effects of energy drinks as a whole on the cardiovascular system, digestive system, and nervous system among others, but there were almost no studies comparing energy drink brands to each other, especially when focusing on adolescents specifically. These studies had varying conclusions, with some finding energy drinks causing sleep disturbances, headaches, and even seizures (Mularczyk-Tomczewska et al., 2025), and others finding more positive effects such as an increase in lipolysis, providing useful for obese persons trying to lose weight (Dalbo et al. 2008). These studies provide general overviews of energy drinks with very few studying Monster and Celsius specifically as they are relatively new additions to the energy drink market. Because existing research groups energy drinks into a uniform category, consumers and healthcare providers are not able to make brand-specific judgments of relative safety. This is a significant limitation as many adolescents choose specific products rather than “energy drinks” as a class. By providing a direct comparison of Celsius and Monster, this study provides evidence that existing literature cannot provide. Another gap found in almost all of the current or past energy drink studies is that they have not compared results of the effects of energy drinks to the effects of regular caffeine alone, which can be found in a cup of black coffee. The comparison to coffee in this study provides insight into the effects of energy drinks beyond the caffeine content and looks at how the artificial ingredients added may cause various issues. 

Awareness and Marketing

Many adolescents consume energy drinks without fully understanding their ingredients or potential health risks. Without proper awareness of the drinks they are consuming, adolescents may put themselves in danger without knowing it. In fact, the majority of energy drink consumers are either adolescents or young adults, however only a small minority know their true effects (Cadoni, et al. 2023). While this unawareness may be due to blind trust in the drinks, social media plays a large role in the spread of energy drink consumption. A study conducted on Saudi Arabian adolescents showed that social media was the most common source of information regarding energy drinks that adolescents use with a 42% usage rate (Alissa 2024). For young teens, especially in high school, social media always feels trustworthy and many adolescents do not question the reality of what they are seeing. Because of this, marketing claims made by energy drink companies such as Monster and Celsius have a more enticing effect on young consumers. 

An example of this marketing strategy of promoting energy drinks as performance boosters or lifestyle drinks is the official Monster website. Although they do not utilize television advertisements or billboards as often as other brands, they use sporting events to promote their drinks, saying that their drinks should be used because they are “the most badass energy drink on the planet” (Monster Energy 2024) This claim is objective but still pulls in consumers who now feel that they will be able to do what the athletes in the promotion videos are doing. The claims made by the company also suggest that the drink does not have negative effects which could influence consumers, especially adolescents, to not feel the need to research the drink any further before purchasing it.

Another brand that exemplifies  misleading “healthy marketing” is Celsius. Everything on the official website from the mission statement to the specific product descriptions suggest that the drink is a completely healthy way to boost energy levels with no drawbacks (Celsius Energy 2024). The website also includes a section where consumers can look into the science of the drink, however the articles included on the site show primarily positive results. Without any articles showing potential negative effects of the drinks, consumers will assume that this is the reality of the drink even though other evidence suggests otherwise. Experts have concerned themselves with this issue as well with a pediatrician cardiologist from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia stating that “People just don’t have any idea of what they’re getting” (Todd 2025). More doctors around the world are giving similar statements, insinuating that energy drinks have hidden effects that may not be understood just with the marketing from the brands themselves.

Mental Health

With the mass marketing of energy drinks, mental health is a growing concern. Mental health, an aspect of an individual’s well-being that is often overlooked, but is essential to keep intact, especially in adolescents is put at high risk with energy drink consumption. Adolescence is a vulnerable time of growth where any substances an individual consumes may affect them in significant ways, whether physically or emotionally.  According to a meta-analysis study done with various case studies of people who drank energy drinks frequently, energy drinks generally had a positive association with negative mental health symptoms such as anxiety and depression (Richards, Smith 2016). Although the study’s results implicate that there is a moderate correlation between mental health problems and energy drink consumption, Richards and Smith indicate that they cannot establish causation due to the nature of the study. Another study of Korean adolescents showed similar results with occurrence of further mental health issues such as suicidal ideations/plans and severe stress ( Park et al. 2016).

This study also showed that students who consumed less than one energy drink per week reported significantly better health in all the survey questions than those who consumed 1-4 cans a week, and these students scored better than those who consumed over 5 cans a week. This pattern was prevalent with almost all the questions showing a clear correlation between mental health problems and energy drink consumption. 

Although the direct effects of energy drinks are easier to substantiate, it is also important to discuss the indirect effects energy drinks have on adolescents’ mental health. A study of adolescents in Slovakia showed a strong correlation of energy drink consumption with skipped breakfast and reduced sleeping time (Veselska et al. 2021). Reduced sleep already contributes to increased fatigue in school and sleeping in classes but combined with skipped breakfasts, various behavioral and emotional problems arose in the participants. Although these problems were prevalent within the sample, experts advised that they could be prevented as long as healthy habits are followed when consuming energy drinks. If students are still able to get sufficient sleep and healthy meals, the potential negative effects of energy drink consumption may be mitigated. 

Method

To answer this research question, a mixed-methods survey approach was used, gathering both qualitative and quantitative data. A mixed-method approach was taken because of the potential responses for various questions in the survey. By allowing free-response questions as well as fixed numerical responses in the form of a likert scale, participants were able to give full insight into their experiences with energy drinks. Specifically, participants had to rank how strongly they felt various negative and positive effects after drinking either Celsius or Monster.  In the survey, each likert scale question was arranged into one table where each row had an effect ( both positive and negative effects included) and 5 scale choices representing the strength of this effect after drinking either Celcius or Monster from their experience. The 5 numbers on the scale all had descriptions next to them (“never experienced this”, “mild”, “moderate”, “strong”, “very strong”) for easy understanding of the scale. 

Instruments Used

A survey was used for this research because of its ease of distribution to various participants and my ability to include all relevant questions in one form that participants may finish in under 20 minutes. Surveys are also useful for gathering both qualitative and quantitative information, providing valuable insights into the topic. The platform used to create the survey used in this research was google forms. Google forms provides various tools for customizing forms such as changing the section participants can go to based on their answers to specific questions. This was essential in my research because I first needed to assess demographics and whether the participant even consumes energy drinks to see whether they should continue in the survey. In addition, google forms excel at organizing data, allowing various formatting options such as pie charts and graphs to be created easily.

In the survey itself, various questions assessed energy drink consumption habits as well as the specific effects participants experienced differently in Monster and Celsius. Firstly, the survey asks for essential demographic information such as age and weight which are important due to their immense effects on how ingredients of energy drinks such as caffeine affect the body. If participants are over 18, they are allowed to consent on the form itself with the full information about the study included in a linked document, but if they are under 18, they are prompted to provide an informed consent form with a parent/guardian signature. After informed consent is received, participants are asked if they consume energy drinks at all, consume either monster or celsius, or consume both regularly. If participants choose the option that they do not consume energy drinks, they are asked why and then their survey is ended. For participants that choose either monster or celsius, they are taken to the corresponding brand section, and if they choose both, they are taken to a combination of both brand sections. In each brand section participants are asked how regularly they consume energy drinks, what effects they feel after consuming them(free-response), and a likert scale table which assesses specific general effects. For insight into general awareness about energy drinks, participants are also asked if they know how much caffeine is included in a standard can of celsius(12 oz) and/or monster(16 oz) depending on the section they are in.

After answering all of the questions about the brand(s) they consume, participants are prompted to answer if they ever drink more than one can of either Monster or Celsius at a time. They are then asked, as a free response question, what the extra effects of drinking multiple cans are compared to drinking just one can. They are then given a likert scale question which asks on a scale of 1 (no difference)-10 (extremely strong) how much stronger are the effects with each extra can consumed. After this section, participants are taken to a section where they must answer questions about coffee consumption. The purpose of this is to compare the effects of artificial ingredients combined with caffeine to a cup of just caffeine and milk(black coffee), another popular method of gaining extra energy. Participants were also asked if they drink any other types of coffee other than black coffee. This was done to see if the sugar content or other contents in coffee made a difference in the effects of caffeine.

Sampling

The main sampling method used was convenience sampling, however there was no bias when selecting participants for the study. Bias was minimized by distributing it to various people who were able to be contacted as well as one of my teachers to distribute it to her class. Before starting the survey, if the participant was over 18, they could consent to participating in the study on the form, and if the participant was under 18, they needed to get a parent signature. All participants were ages 14-19 ( high-school students) and attended a school in Union County. Participants who answered that they do not drink energy drinks were still taken into account when analyzing results as they provide insight into why people may not drink energy drinks.

Analysis Methods

To analyze results, various statistical analysis methods were used such as qualitative coding and creating charts with quantitative data. When looking at results, the independent variables were coffee, Celsius, and Monster, and the amount of energy drinks. The dependent variables used varied in each chart, but generally the effects of the energy drinks were the dependent variables. The coding method used for qualitative data was inductive coding which included analyzing the responses to questions first, then creating codes for the themes seen in the data. This was used instead of a pre-set framework of codes due to the variability of responses that were expected in the free-response questions on the survey. For qualitative data, the specific statistical tests used included the chi-squared test (tests if there is a correlation between the variables) as well as the Cramer’s V test (determines the strength of the correlation after the chi-squared test). In addition to these statistical tests, bar graphs were used to easily compare the data gathered about the effects of Celsius, Monster, and coffee consumption.

Results

Sample Characteristics

A total of 33 adolescents between the ages of 15 and 17 completed the survey. Of the 33 participants, 8 (24%) reported regularly consuming energy drinks, while 25 (76%) reported not consuming energy drinks. Among the 8 consumers, 3 consumed Celsius only, 1 consumed Monster only, and 4 consumed both brands (see Figure 3a). There were no statistically significant differences in age ( U = 103.5, p = 0.600) or weight (U = 126.5, p = 0.124) between consumers and non-consumers, indicating that the two groups were demographically comparable.

Non-Consumer Reasoning

Participants who did not consume energy drinks were asked to explain their reasoning in a free-response question. Using inductive coding, two primary themes emerged. The most common theme was health concerns, which was reported by 10 of the 25 non-consumers, with responses referencing cardiovascular risk and general perceptions of unhealthiness. The second theme was personal preference, which included disliking the taste or carbonation of energy drinks or preferring other caffeine sources such as coffee. Two participants indicated that parental restrictions prevented their consumption.

Caffeine Awareness

Among Celsius consumers, 6 of 7 (86%) correctly reported knowing the caffeine content of a standard 12 oz can. Among Monster consumers, 4 of 5 (80%) reported knowing the caffeine content of a standard 16 oz can. While caffeine awareness was relatively high in this sample, a small proportion of consumers were still unaware of the exact caffeine dosage they were ingesting, which is consistent with broader literature indicating that adolescents frequently underestimate the stimulant content of energy drinks.

Self-Reported Effects: Mean Likert Ratings

Across all three beverages, the highest-rated effects were positive: increased alertness (Celsius M = 2.43, Monster M = 3.00, Coffee M = 2.20) and improved focus or concentration (Celsius M = 2.86, Monster M = 2.80, Coffee M = 2.20). Increased physical ability was also rated moderately across all three beverages. Among the negative effects, heart rate increase received the highest average rating for both energy drinks (Celsius M = 1.86, Monster M = 2.00), while all three beverages rated around a score of 1 for depression and feeling unproductive (M = 1.00–1.14). Coffee consistently received the lowest negative effect ratings across all categories compared to both energy drink brands.

Table 1. Mean self-reported effect ratings by beverage type (1 = none, 4 = strong)

Effect	Celsius (n=7)	Monster (n=5)	Coffee (n=5)
Difficulty sleeping	1.00	1.00	1.00
Anxiety/nervousness	1.43	1.20	1.00
Irritability	1.43	1.00	1.00
Stomach discomfort	1.71	1.60	1.20
Exhaustion after boost	1.29	1.40	1.00
Jitters	1.57	1.80	1.00
Heart rate increase	1.86	2.00	1.00
Improved focus	2.86	2.80	2.20
Increased physical ability	2.29	2.40	2.20
Increased alertness	2.43	3.00	2.20
Feelings of depression	1.14	1.00	1.00
Feeling unproductive	1.14	1.00	1.00

Note. Celsius n = 7, Monster n = 5, Coffee n = 5.

Figure 1. Mean self-reported effect ratings for Celsius, Monster, and coffee across 12 symptom categories.

Chi-Squared Analysis: Celsius vs. Monster

Chi-squared tests of independence were conducted to assess whether the distribution of responses differed significantly between Celsius and Monster consumers for each of the 11 testable effects (difficulty sleeping was excluded due to zero variance across all responses). No statistically significant differences were found between the two brands on any effect (all p > 0.05). However, since the small sample sizes involved, these tests were substantially underpowered; therefore, Cramer's V effect sizes are the more informative measure of practical difference.

Irritability showed a medium effect size (V = 0.402, p = 0.091), indicating a practically meaningful trend toward greater irritability among Monster consumers compared to Celsius consumers. Jitters showed a small effect size (V = 0.180, p = 0.281). All remaining effects yielded negligible effect sizes (V = 0.000), suggesting that for this sample the two brands produced nearly identical self-reported experiences across most measured categories. These null findings are consistent with the mean rating data, in which most effects were rated within 0.20 points of each other across the two brands.

Table 2. Chi-squared and Cramer's V results: Celsius vs. Monster

Effect	χ²	p	V	Effect size
Anxiety/nervousness	0.686	0.408	0.000	Negligible
Irritability	2.857	0.091	0.402	Medium*
Stomach discomfort	0.171	0.679	0.000	Negligible
Exhaustion after boost	0.171	0.679	0.000	Negligible
Jitters	2.537	0.281	0.180	Small
Heart rate increase	1.577	0.454	0.000	Negligible
Improved focus	2.890	0.409	0.000	Negligible
Physical ability	2.400	0.494	0.000	Negligible
Increased alertness	1.920	0.589	0.000	Negligible
Feelings of depression	0.779	0.377	0.000	Negligible
Feeling unproductive	0.779	0.377	0.000	Negligible

* Trending toward significance (p < 0.10). Cramer's V: negligible < 0.10, small = 0.10–0.29, medium = 0.30–0.49, large ≥ 0.50.

Chi-Squared Analysis: Energy Drinks vs. Coffee

To compare the effects of energy drinks relative to plain caffeinated coffee, responses for Celsius and Monster consumers were pooled into a single energy drink group (n = 12) and compared against coffee consumers (n = 5) using chi-squared tests and Cramer's V. Again, no statistically significant differences were found on any effect (all p > 0.05), and interpretations are therefore based primarily on effect sizes.

Three effects showed medium effect sizes: jitters (V = 0.330, p = 0.145), heart rate increase (V = 0.330, p = 0.145), and stomach discomfort (V = 0.356, p = 0.079). These findings are practically meaningful: coffee consumers rated all three of these negative effects at the floor (M = 1.00–1.20), whereas energy drink consumers rated them moderately higher (jitters M = 1.57–1.80, heart rate M = 1.86–2.00, stomach discomfort M = 1.60–1.71). Anxiety, nervousness, and exhaustion after the initial boost also showed small effect sizes (V = 0.265 each). By contrast, the positive effects of improved focus, increased physical ability, and alertness showed negligible effect sizes (V = 0.000), suggesting that coffee and energy drinks may produce comparable perceived cognitive and physical benefits despite the energy drinks' higher caffeine content and additional ingredients.

Table 3. Chi-squared and Cramer's V results: Energy drinks (pooled) vs. coffee

Effect	χ²	p	V	Effect size
Anxiety/nervousness	2.179	0.140	0.265	Small
Irritability	1.518	0.218	0.169	Small
Stomach discomfort	3.085	0.079	0.356	Medium†
Exhaustion after boost	2.179	0.140	0.265	Small
Jitters	3.864	0.145	0.330	Medium
Heart rate increase	3.864	0.145	0.330	Medium
Improved focus	3.152	0.369	0.000	Negligible
Physical ability	1.633	0.652	0.000	Negligible
Increased alertness	2.711	0.438	0.000	Negligible
Feelings of depression	0.443	0.506	0.000	Negligible
Feeling unproductive	0.443	0.506	0.000	Negligible

† Approaching significance (p = 0.079). Cramer's V: negligible < 0.10, small = 0.10–0.29, medium = 0.30–0.49, large ≥ 0.50.

Figure 2. Cramer's V effect sizes for each comparison group. Dashed lines indicate small (V = 0.10) and medium (V = 0.30) thresholds.

Figure 4. Chi-squared p-values for effects with V ≥ 0.10. The dashed red line indicates the p = 0.05 significance threshold. No effects reached significance.

Multiple Can Consumption

Among participants who answered questions about multiple can consumption, 4 of 8 (50%) reported that they had consumed more than one can of an energy drink at a time. Among those who consumed multiple cans, the mean perceived increase in effects was 7 out of 10 (SD = 0.82, range = 6–8), indicating a strong amplification of effects with each additional can consumed. In the free-response descriptions, participants reported stronger alertness, greater wakefulness, and in some cases heightened heart palpitations when consuming multiple cans.

Conclusions

This study set out to evaluate the safety of two popular energy drink brands, Celsius and Monster, among adolescents aged 15 to 17, and to compare their self-reported effects against those of regular caffeinated coffee. The findings, while preliminary due to sample size constraints, offer several meaningful insights relevant to adolescent health and energy drink consumption.

Celsius and Monster Produce Nearly Identical Experiences

Despite their significantly different branding strategies, with Celsius marketing itself as a wellness-oriented fitness drink and Monster presenting a more extreme energy identity, participants who consumed both brands reported almost identical effects. Mean Likert ratings for almost every effect differed by 0.20 points or less between the two brands, and chi-squared analyses found no statistically significant differences on any of the 11 tested effects (all p > 0.05). The only notable trend was a medium effect size for irritability favoring Monster (V = 0.402, p = 0.091), which did not reach significance but still warrants further investigation. This is a significant finding in the context of Celsius's wellness branding as it shows adolescents should not assume that Celsius is significantly safer or gentler than Monster based on marketing alone, as the two drinks appear to produce comparable physiological and psychological experiences in this age group.

Energy Drinks Produce More Negative Side Effects Than Coffee

When energy drink consumers were compared to coffee consumers, positive effects such as improved focus and increased alertness were rated at similar levels across both beverage types, suggesting that coffee provides comparable cognitive benefits. However, energy drinks showed medium effect sizes over coffee for jitters (V = 0.330), heart rate increase (V = 0.330), and stomach discomfort (V = 0.356), with energy drink consumers rating all three noticeably higher. This pattern suggests that the additional artificial ingredients in Celsius and Monster may be responsible for elevating these negative physiological effects, since coffee drinkers rated all three symptoms at or near the floor (M = 1.00). This supports the concern raised in the introduction that energy drink ingredients beyond caffeine deserve individual scrutiny.

Adolescent Awareness Is Mixed

A majority of energy drink consumers in this sample (86% of Celsius consumers, 80% of Monster consumers) reported knowing the caffeine content of the drink they consumed, which is somewhat higher than what broader literature suggests. However, the reality that some consumers were unaware of the caffeine dosage they were ingesting, in conjunction with information obtained from the literature about adolescents’ main source of information regarding energy drinks being social media,  heightens the concern that marketing information from brands like Celsius and Monster may serve as a source of information to fill in gaps in knowledge in a way that is misleading and incomplete in nature.

Tolerance and Multiple-Can Consumption Are a Concern

Half of energy drink consumers in this sample reported having consumed more than one can at a time, and those who did rated the increase in effects at a mean of 7 out of 10. One participant described developing tolerance to a single can, requiring two cans to achieve the same effect. This pattern is consistent with what is known about caffeine tolerance development and points to a behavioral risk that is unlikely to be communicated through product marketing.

Implications

The findings of this study carry several practical implications for adolescents, parents, educators, and public health practitioners. The  almost identical effect ratings of Celsius and Monster suggest that Celsius's wellness branding is misleading in a meaningful way. Adolescents who choose Celsius over Monster under the assumption that it is a healthier option are not making a safer choice based on the evidence gathered here. This has direct implications for how energy drink marketing should be regulated, particularly for products that use health-adjacent language and imagery to appeal to young consumers.

The comparison with coffee also has practical relevance. If the main goal of energy drink consumption is to fight fatigue or improve focus, as the survey data suggest, then coffee provides comparable benefits with a lower chance of negative side effects such as jitters, elevated heart rate, and stomach discomfort. School counselors, pediatricians, and parents may want to present coffee as a lower risk alternative for adolescents seeking a caffeine source, while still encouraging moderation and awareness of caffeine sensitivity.

The tolerance pattern in this sample underscores the importance of early education around increasing consumption. If adolescents begin requiring more than one can to achieve the same stimulus, the total caffeine and additive intake increases substantially, raising the risk of the cardiovascular and psychological effects documented both in this study and in the broader literature. Schools and healthcare providers should incorporate energy drink awareness into existing health education curricula, with specific attention to ingredient literacy and the risks of regular  use.

Finally, the high rate of health-based avoidance among non-consumers suggests that accurate public health messaging does reach adolescents, but may be incomplete or imprecise. Campaigns that go beyond general warnings and instead provide specific, ingredient-level information about what distinguishes energy drinks from other caffeinated beverages could empower adolescents to make more informed choices regardless of whether they choose to consume these products.

Limitations

Several important limitations should be acknowledged when interpreting the findings of this study. The most apparent limitation is the small sample size. Only 8 of 33 participants consumed energy drinks, resulting in group sizes of 7 (Celsius), 5 (Monster), and 5 (coffee) for the Likert scale analyses. Chi-squared tests are considered unreliable when expected cell frequencies fall below 5, a threshold that was not met in many of the comparisons conducted here. As a result, the study was substantially underpowered, meaning that the absence of statistically significant findings should not be interpreted as confirmation that no real differences exist. The medium effect sizes observed for several comparisons show that true differences may exist but simply could not be detected with this sample.

A second limitation is the use of convenience sampling. Participants were recruited through personal contacts and a teacher's classroom in Union County, North Carolina, meaning the sample is not representative of the broader adolescent population. The demographic of the group limits the generalizability of the findings to other geographic regions and populations with different energy drink consumption patterns.

Third, the survey relied entirely on self-reported data, which is subject to recall bias and social desirability bias. Participants may have over or under-reported effects based on their expectations of how an energy drink should feel, or may not have accurately remembered their experiences. Likert scales capture subjective perception rather than objective physiological measurement, and individual differences in caffeine sensitivity, body weight, and baseline caffeine tolerance were not controlled for in the analysis.

Finally, the cross-sectional nature of the survey means that no causal conclusions can be drawn. The study can identify associations and descriptive patterns, but cannot establish whether energy drink consumption causes any of the reported effects or whether pre-existing characteristics of the participants influenced both their consumption choices and their effect ratings.

Future Research

The findings of this study allow several directions for future research. Firstly, larger and more diverse samples, such as at least 30 to 50 consumers per brand, would provide the statistical power necessary for reliable inferential testing. Longitudinal studies would also offer greater insight by tracking whether tolerance develops over time and whether health outcomes worsen with continued consumption of energy drinks.

Future studies should incorporate objective physiological measurements such as heart rate monitoring, blood pressure, and sleep tracking alongside self-report data to verify the effects participants describe. A more controlled coffee comparison, using a controlled dose of black coffee matched to the caffeine content of the energy drink being tested, would help isolate the effects of non-caffeine ingredients like taurine, guarana, and B vitamins that are common in energy drinks.

‘

‘

References

Alissa, N. (2024). The impact of social media on adolescent energy drink 

consumption. PMC. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11081538/

Celsius. (2024). The science. https://www.celsius.com/the-science/

Cadoni, Cristina, and Alessandra Tiziana Peana. “Energy Drinks at Adolescence: Awareness or 

Unawareness?” Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, vol. 17, Frontiers Media, Feb. 

2023, https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2023.1080963.

Dalbo, Vincent, et al. Acute Effects of Ingesting a Commercial Thermogenic Drink on Changes 

in Energy Expenditure and Markers of Lipolysis. https://doi.org/10.1186/1550-2783-5-.

Mularczyk-Tomczewska, Pauline, et al. “Regulatory Efforts and Health Implications of Energy 

Drink Consumption in Minors.” PMC, National Institutes of Health, 2024, 

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11960718/.

Park, Subin, et al. “Association between Energy Drink Intake, Sleep, Stress, and Suicidality in 

Korean Adolescents: Energy Drink Use in Isolation or in Combination with Junk Food 

Consumption.” Nutrition Journal, vol. 15, no. 1, BioMed Central, Oct. 2016, 

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12937-016-0204-7.

Monster Energy. (2024). Promotions. https://www.monsterenergy.com/en-us/promotions/

Richards, Gareth, and Andrew P Smith. “A Review of Energy Drinks and Mental Health, with a 

Focus on Stress, Anxiety, and Depression.” Journal of caffeine research, June 2016 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27274415/

Todd, S. (2025, May 13). Why new wellness-branded energy drinks have health 

experts worried. STAT News. 

https://www.statnews.com/2025/05/13/energy-drinks-embrace-wellness-branding-experts

-say-obscures-health-risks-high-caffeine-intake/

Zuzana Dankulincova Veselska, et al. “Energy Drinks Consumption Associated with Emotional 

and Behavioural Problems via Lack of Sleep and Skipped Breakfast among 

Adolescents.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 

18, no. 11, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, June 2021, pp. 6055–55, 

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18116055.