16 oz can of white monster (stereotypical energy drink) has about 150mg of caffeine. A grande (16 oz) black coffee from Starbucks has about 310mg of caffeine. You would need to drink 2 16 oz monsters to get the same amount of caffeine as a single grande cup of coffee from Starbucks.
If you're just looking at caffeine intake you'd be better off switching from coffee to energy drinks. You could drink about 3 per day and be close to the 400mg/day guidance.
edit: white monster has no sugar in case anyone was about to bring that up
Coffee varies. I've long understood that a normal (8 ounce, ish) cup of drip coffee averages around 100mg of caffeine[0].
Java Monster Triple Shot Mocha comes in a can, and has 300mg of caffeine per can[1][2].
This seems to suggest that getting the equivalent of 3 cups of coffee in one can is, in fact, a thing that people can accomplish.
[0]: https://www.aboutcoffee.org/beans/decaf-coffee/ https://ific.org/resources/toolkits/caffeine/ https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h...
[1]: https://www.monsterenergy.com/en-ca/energy-drinks/java-monst...
[2]: And they're delicious
> If you're just looking at caffeine intake you'd be better off switching from coffee to energy drinks
This is less true now than it used to be. I'm somewhat sensitive to caffeine and always look on the can to see how much is in it, and 150 is on the low side of most of the options available now-. 200 to 300 seems to be a lot more common among the brands that are newer than when monster and Rockstar first came out.
Caffeine ≠ caffeine.
Forget the numbers you’re being given - what does caffeine crop that goes into a Coke or Pepsi product look like, compared to green tea caffeine?
What does the sugar look like, as a supply chain, vs sugars ingested from fruit?
Hint: it’s disgusting.
Caffeine is caffeine. Sucrose is sucrose. Homeopathy isn't real.
No.
When a flock of geese shit into the pile of beets, gnaw on the beets for a few days, and then the beets get boiled down and put into your Gatorade, sucrose ≠ sucrose.
No idea what you mean with the homeopathy quip.
You know manure and the soils produced from composting are literally feces from animals and bacteria, right?
And that manure is an excellent natural fertilizer?
And that outside that, worms exist? And they poop?
Oh, and that if you were to take bird shit beets and worm poop beets and mash them up and extract chemically pure sucrose from both you'd have no way of determining which came from which?
Assuming that you do know all of these things, you're saying that horse shit and worm poop is fine, but you'll be damned if a bird is involved?
I mean, I can see where you're coming from. A potatoe coming from a toilet is probably not as clean as a potatoe coming from a sterile lab, but that's not what you're saying. You're saying that the toilet has somehow altered the physical chemical compounds involved in the structure of the potatoes rather than has potentially added other chemicals to the mix that was the potatoe. The starch is the same in both. The starch = the starch. The starch and the toilet =/= the starch and the lab because the toilet =/= the lab, but those are different arguments.
I think growing food on soil containing shit is a whole different world than boiling my food with shit,
and if you don’t, well, let’s just leave it here.
> You're saying that the toilet has somehow altered the physical chemical compounds involved in the structure
Nah - I’m pointing out the shit that comes along with your very simplified label should be known.
Same as the folic acid American rice is washed in - but never labeled with.
> if you were to … extract chemically pure sucrose
My point is: they’re not.
and in retrospect, it was weird that I ever assumed they did.