Are sugar-free energy drinks pro or anti longevity? What are the best energy drinks? concerned about artificial sweeteners

The appetite suppressant effects are IMO the most important, since a reduction of even 200 calories a day is enough to induce the effects of mild calorie restriction (see CALERIE study and reduction of 15% of total calorie intake)

They single-handedly address half of the nutritional deficiencies vegans have (just not choline)

But the main concern is sucralose. That said, occasional use can suppress appetite enough to substitute for times when one is tempted to overeat.

If one needs sparkling water + caffeine to fill one up, maybe is an alternative

After doing my research I think is the best alternative => rowdy energy drink is the way to go.

or FocusAid Zero


But way too much sugar… And i am not sure what their sugar free versions use for sweetener.

If you drink it in the evening and it ruins your sleep no. Caffeine feels like a mild drug to me, it’s a bit interesting that everyone is pretty much constantly on mild psychoactive drugs.

They use sucralose. Sucralose is a bit sus (primarily b/c it can get into cell membranes) - super-hard to tease out its effects on longevity. I think you don’t want to have too much of it, but monster drinks can be good enough to substitute for compulsive eating every once in a while (like they can prevent a 2000+ calorie binge that happens once in a while) and that is good enough to reduce aging rates.

Nutrients | Free Full-Text | Potential Effects of Sucralose and Saccharin on Gut Microbiota: A Review (not as concerned about this)

I personally avoid ingesting sucralose and all non-nutritive sweeteners (“natural” or not) out of an abundance of caution.

Any intervention should always be carefully scrutinized. There is a theoretical potential for dysbiosis as well as a negative consequence for eating behaviors in a human trial - exactly the opposite of what you claim to be looking for.

The solution is simple - avoid the influence of biased claims of those who purport ideological veganism overtly/covertly (truly “pragmatic veganism” is very rare and mostly an oxymoron) and simply add at least 2 servings of fish per week - already has abundant amounts of taurine, creatine, B12, beta-alanine, niacin, etc. Not to mention, an extra dose of bioavailable omega 3 - EPA/DHA.

The extrapolation of PR studies from mice to humans is very, very low in the first place (generously assuming translation, which doesn’t seem to be the case from large human epi studies vegan vs pescatarian or Mediterranean diets - not to mention, my glycine intake is high) and such PR studies are fraught with study design issues (a major example would be part of any potential increase could be from measuring the far larger effect from CR as the mice may simply have mild CR from PR). If there is an effect in humans, consider that it is dwarfed by the effect on CR in animals - which doesn’t even necessarily apply to everyone and may shorten lifespan in some. If one is taking rapa and other CR like mimetics - you probably won’t even see as much effect from severe CR as opposed to say combined mild CR and CR mimetics.

The issue you have at hand appears to be extremely low bone mineral density with T around or under -2.5 - which in all likelihood will reduce your healthspan. Not to mention, you appear to have had hypoglycemic episodes which increases risk for dementia. All your organs talk to each other. You can’t just ignore major organ systems - adipose, bone, muscle/tendon (and it appears that you have a negative opinion on the reproductive system as well). Mice in a cage don’t have to particularly worry about that as much, but humans should be concerned - people die from falls all the time.

Obese individuals had greater neural reward responses after ingesting sucralose compared with sucrose with more consumed calories during a buffet meal after sucralose compared with sucrose in this human RCT:

Not to mention, they should definitively not be taken for those with bowel disorders. Has worsening gut inflammation.


You can also take a multivitamin, like this one, I take it:

Also ideological vegans shouldn’t be opposed to eating oysters or other bivalves as they have no brains or sentience. If supplements is out of the question and animal products are going to be eaten anyways. Lab grown meat seems to be close and there is already vegan whey supplements, which might actually be better than the regular whey.

1 Like

I don’t take multivitamins due to issues with manufacturing (not USP grade or at least very close to that standard) and particularly going over the RDA many fold for multiple vitamins, as well as a Cochrane review that showed slightly increased mortality with antioxidants and megadose vitamins. I prefer a more targeted approach to micronutrients (ie since no sunlight exposure - I personally take USP grade Vitamin D3 2,000 IU) after a carefully constructed “flexible” and “balanced” diet.

1 Like

I used to do that before, some of us just can’t keep a ‘clean’ diet, and the alternative is risking vitamin deficiency. I keep thinking “I have to make sure to eat vitamin A”, for example, or “remember to buy sweet potatoes”. I’m well aware of the causal risks with mega dosing vitamins. But they seem kind of small, and it is in relation with the hassle of making sure to reach RDA of everything etc.
Dr. Brad Stanfield mentions that 1000 IU D3 is better than higher, and he has switched to that. Don’t know his reasoning fully.

I understand the hassle and there are a few easy-to-remember options to mitigate that for practical reasons. I suppose taking a fraction of a dose of certain multivitamins intermittently may also be an option if you find the right trusted source.

I’ll also note that calcium supplementation and potentially food fortification may increase the risk of CVD. And Vitamin D mislabeled doses are common. >40 ng/dL Vitamin D is associated with an increased risk of fracture. It’s not just the issue with megadose “antioxidants” - so it’s both a serious healthspan and lifespan issue.

From my view of the total benefits vs cost (including adherence) vs harm tradeoffs - one can aim for a combination of a relatively “balanced” diet that is “flexible” (without a clean diet every single day, if you so desire) and targeted USP grade micronutrients down to 2-3 pills (or even a fraction of select multivitamin pills to get it down to 1 pill) to still be alright with getting well within micronutrient RDA. If you still have trouble, most insurance plans cover nutrition counseling with a RD and a general RD consult with the parameters I mentioned is not expensive if you have to go out of pocket.

No idea about what Brad Stanfield is doing on Vitamin D. I don’t really follow him or “influencers” in general closely, due to the risk of echo chambers and groupthink - this is not targeted to Brad but in general, it’s much worse with the consumer-facing “anti-aging” crowd who refuses to actually do independent full literature review to make sure they actually know what is actually going on in a study or trial to review whether a claim is justified or not. Too many times do I realize people are just reading abstracts or headlines.

I would note that I personally carefully selected the right Vitamin D assay for maximum accuracy and it has been consistently lower than 30 in the 20s. I used to do 1,000 IU actually for highly conservative reasons to avoid overshooting - just wasn’t enough.

I also have both suggestive genetic evidence and empirical data that shows that I don’t absorb as much or need slightly larger doses to increase Vitamin D levels, as well as maximal PTH suppression at ~30 is in fact true for me personally with a good margin of error. I aim for 30-40.

Vitamin D is a tricky thing with individual differences and has no conclusively definitive recommendations - this throws a wrench in all this - if one wants to go close to “optimal” and I assume a tighter window of the most likely range of where “optimal” lies with higher costs on testing on a relatively marginal benefit in the context of developed countries where insufficiency/deficiency is often not as severe. So I don’t recommend it generally as testing Vitamin D levels is not even cost-effective at a general population level and most people don’t realize the issues with typical consumer-facing commercial assays so they’re throwing money down the drain and risk acting on faulty data.

The current professional guidelines are above 20-30 depending on the source with no agreed upon upper limit (partly due to lack of truly conclusive evidence) besides 4,000 IU intake upper limit due to side effects in most humans, and 800-1,000 IU for older adults as a general recommendation, depending on the professional organization, and if you read deeply into their analysis (preferably after one does their own literature analysis) - you’ll see that the thought process is reasonable in terms of how they came up with it. I recognize that 2,000 IU for an adult male is above official population-level guidelines and no professional organizations recommend this, so I’m not making a general recommendation that it must be a 2,000 IU “magic number” - but rather I am simply showing how I arrived at that based on my personal interpretation of the literature to apply towards myself in a more rarer case of having enough reasons and data to go against guidelines. I’ll also note I consulted a researcher on Vitamin D once (I would seriously avoid biased “influencers” out there with no real good reason for megadosing) and he seemed to agree that my analysis is what he’d go by although going slightly above the level of maximum PTH suppression is still theoretical - so most of this is based on a mix of a guess based on the theory involved to derive what is a relatively small benefit and empirical human trials to avoid long term harm that is pretty well documented. I would also note that a 2,000 IU USP grade deal is probably fine for a relatively large amount of people within a range based on the VITAL trial, assuming minimal or no sunlight exposure, but it’s something they should talk with their doc about.

1 Like

Damning for all 3 damnit. Good thing I only rarely eat those things but I did buy an entire monster energy pack 2 days ago and it definitely helps energy/alertness

And I def binge when I have access

1 Like => rowdy energy drink is the way to go.

God, I only realized this after my impulsive monster energy drink purchase, which boosted my energy levels today BUT I drank 3 cans today. This ultimately took little out of me b/c I found that instead though.

I use the soda stream. Put in a couple teaspoons of glycine, then blast with CO2. This is a great drink, sweet and fizzy. Bicarbonate is an important buffer for the blood ph. One of the first supplements recommended to fight cancer.

Inulin is great in yogurt. By far the best is Yacon syrup. This stuff is sweet and wonderful on a salad, don’t exceed a teaspoon 3 times a day. It works as good or better than wegovy and is sweet and wonderful.

I’ve never had trouble with Erythritol and it is digested in the colon and turned into short chain fatty acids. I usually bake with this and monk fruit extract. Keto tricks.


i don’t know why you’ld wanna drink anything other than water. water tastes wonderful.

if you want appetite suppression, eat fat and protein at a higher rate than carbs. done.

and if you’re snacking AT ALL, you’re not using your fat cells. You should use your fat cells instead of snacking.

and the sugar replacement chemicals in those things will do things like disrupt quorum sensing in your gut. i’d stay away from any fake sugars (and sugar). stick with honey, maple syrup or fruits.
so says Dr Saladino at least. and it makes sense to me. he has the data.

1 Like

The BMJ atricle is correlative, not causational, and we know that obese and hence at risk people, are more likely to drink these beverages.

1 Like

I like “YerBae” from Costco and Sparkling Ice with Caffeine from Amazon.

1 Like

Aren’t energy drinks high in taurine?

It doesn’t make up for sucralose genotoxicity

or sodium benzoate + vitamin C toxicity