View Full Version : Energy Drink LifeCycle
I was just wondering if this is the beggining of a truly established ctaegory or the end of the life cycle. I say this because in my opinion I think it is the begginnning of being a staple in all retail outlets.
What I saw this weekend floored me. I do not "shop" much but this weekend my wife convinced me to go to Super Target with her. I was floored when I saw that Target(Archer Brands) has not one but two flavors of their own Energy Drink.(16oz)
When retailers start putting out generic brands of products I think that is a huge statement about the product.
What do you guys think?
07-17-2006, 01:21 PM
I personaly think the Energy Drink catagory has lived past just a simple craze and will be a staple in the beverage catagory. It will still evolve as most other drinks do, but it is here to stay. We are 9 years past the introduction of this catagory, and sales are still reaching new record numbers each month. No slowing in sight. It's the new coffee for this generation.
07-21-2006, 01:21 AM
I agree with Ron; however, I think the gold rush is over. A lot of the "pioneering" brands we see in the energy drink review will be a distant memory next year.
07-22-2006, 10:19 AM
SumPoosie has seen many come and many go. Too many think this is an easy business. One thing I know is drinks have to have something more than a fancy package or celebrity name on it. Quality matters!
Quality matters huh?
Then why did you go from real cane sugar to corn syrup?
You constantly like to talk about your product and disrespect threads with it, were you ever going to let your customers know about the switch?
Copyright © 1995 by Jack Challem, The Nutrition Reporter
All rights reserved.
If you consider fructose a safe, natural sugar, think again. You've been had by one of the biggest nutritional bait-and-switch ploys in years.
Fructose and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) have been aggressively promoted as natural sugars. After all, we've been taught since childhood that fructose is fruit sugar.
The truth is that fructose and HFCS, as large-scale commercial sweeteners, didn't exist 20 years ago. Now, they're almost as common as sucrose-plain old white sugar. HFCS is routinely added to processed foods and beverages including Coca-Cola, Snapple, and many health food products.
"Fructose is not from fruit. It's a commercial, refined sugar," asserted Robin Rogosin, a buyer and research coordinator at Mrs. Gooch's Natural Foods Market in Beverly Hills, Calif.
In fact, a trail of medical studies dating back a quarter of a century doesn't paint a terribly sweet picture for fructose. High fructose consumption has been fingered as a causative factor in heart disease. It raises blood levels of cholesterol and another type of fat, triglyceride. It makes blood cells more prone to clotting, and it may also accelerate the aging process.
"People should avoid it," urged John Yudkin, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus at Queen Elizabeth College, London, and an expert in the health effects of sugar.
Most fructose sneaks into the diet in the forms of sucrose and HFCS. Sucrose breaks down during digestion into equal parts of glucose and fructose. HFCS consists of 55 percent fructose blended with 45 percent glucose.
As is the case with any other refined food, a little fructose won't hurt you. The problem comes with the sheer quantity of "hidden" fructose being consumed through the HFCS and sucrose in processed foods. For example, conventional and "new age" soft drinks almost universally contain 11 percent HFCS by weight-2.2 pounds per case.
"The consumption of fructose has not increased over the last 40 years. We have the data to show that we're not increasing fructose consumption," contended Mark Hannover, Ph.D., a researcher at the A. E. Staley Manufacturing Co. of Decatur, Ill, the second largest maker of HFCS in the United States.
Hannover is right about the past 40 years. But he sidestepped the larger historical context. Overall sugar (sucrose) consumption remained very low - a few pounds a year - until the industrial revolution. Advances in processing made it easy to manufacture from sugar cane and sugar beets, and people began eating more of it.
Although pure fructose has been available in small quantities for decades, its use as common sweetener dates only from the early 1970s. That's when the Finnish Sugar Co. developed a method to efficiently synthesize it from cane and beet sugar. Now, Staley and five other American companies make fructose from corn.
Staley's principal product is HFCS, which has captured a huge chunk of the market once owned by makers of sucrose. The advantage of HFCS, from the standpoint of food manufacturing, is that it's much sweeter than sucrose, it's easier to handle during processing, it has a longer shelf life - and it's cheaper than sucrose.
"We have improved the quality of sweeteners since the advent of HFCS," insisted Hannover. "It's clean microbiologically, it contains few sodium ions, and it's more stable than sugar."
HFCS may be better than sucrose for manufacturing, but it's not any better for health.
Because refined sweeteners - and refined foods, in general - lack bulk, it's easy to consume large quantities of them. Staley grinds up a mind-boggling 500,000 bushels of corn a day and turns them into more than 3 billion pounds of HFCS annually. Amazingly, that's only 20 percent of the 16 billion pounds of HFCS consumed each year in the United States.
These days, our per capita intake of refined sugar is almost 150 pounds a year. HFCS accounts for 51.7 pounds of that, and sucrose for 64.5 pounds, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That translates to about 60 pounds of fructose per person.
There's good reason to believe that, from an evolutionary standpoint, our bodies can't handle such large quantities of sugar, particularly fructose. Eating it poses a health hazard, and it doesn't matter whether it's from HFCS or sucrose. But HFCS may be more dangerous because it sounds more natural - and therefore healthier - than plain old white sugar.
"We felt the healthiest approach was to stay away from refined sugars. That way, we're not offering a lot of empty calories," said Bill Knudsen, whose Chico, Calif., company has steered clear of fructose sweeteners for its health food juices. "A pure fruit juice product is healthier for you than a refined sugar because of the micronutrients that come with the juice."
In medicine, the first alarms about the link between sugar consumption and heart disease were sounded by Yudkin in the late 1960s. At the time, he was chairman of the department of nutrition at Queen Elizabeth College, London. Disturbed by inconsistencies in the evidence linking animal fats to heart disease, Yudkin began searching for another dietary factor.
An expert in carbohydrate metabolism, he initially focused on sucrose consumption. In laboratory and human tests, he found that sucrose increased blood levels of cholesterol, triglyceride, uric acid, insulin, and cortisol - all associated with an increased risk of heart disease. Sucrose also raised blood pressure and increased the fragility of blood platelet cells, making them more prone to clotting.
As dramatic as those findings were, the real surprise came when Yudkin substituted fructose for sucrose in his experiments. "The effects of eating sucrose in the quantities we eat are magnified with fructose. Fructose is the dangerous part," he said. In contrast, glucose did little more than cause cavities.
Although he has been retired for almost 20 years, Yudkin regularly publishes articles and letters about sugar and heart disease in the leading medical journals. In a phone interview, he was surprised to hear that fructose and HFCS had become common sweeteners in the United States. He said they were virtually unheard of in England, where overall sugar consumption has been declining.
Other researchers have confirmed Yudkin's findings, but sucrose and fructose are still recognized as generally safe by the Food and Drug Administration. Many widely used products, like sucrose, were grandfathered in as a safe product when food and drug regulations were created early in 1938, and the safety of fructose was assumed based on the perceived safety of sucrose.
"Fructose is part of the sucrose sugar. Sucrose is affirmed as GRAS (generally regarded as safe)," explained Judy Folke, a spokesperson at the FDA's Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Press Office in Washington,D.C. "Fructose is not GRAS, but it was treated under prior sanction because it had been used for so many years."
But the research suggests that, in retrospect, the FDA may have assumed too much.
For example, fructose has been touted for years as a safe sugar for diabetics because it doesn't trigger a rapid rise in blood sugar. That's true, but the cardiovascular consequences may outweigh the benefits for diabetics,who already face a higher than average risk of developing heart disease.
In a recent study, John Bantle, M.D., of the University of Minnesota sequentially placed 18 Type I (insulin-dependent) and Type II (noninsulin-dependent) diabetics on two diets. The only difference between the diets was that one contained carbohydrate as starch, which is digested as glucose, and the other contained carbohydrate as fructose.
When they consumed the fructose, the diabetics had fewer spikes in bloodsugar levels. Three of the Type I diabetics were able to reduce their insulin intake, a positive change. However, according to Bantle's report in the Nov. 1992 Diabetes Care, the diabetics' total cholesterol rose an average 7 percent, and their "bad" low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol rose almost 11 percent. The fructose increased their risk of heart disease.
But fructose doesn't play havoc with only the hearts of diabetics. Bantle noted the same effects in a study of 14 healthy volunteers who sequentially ate a high-fructose diet and one almost devoid of the sugar. While on the fructose diet, the subjects' total cholesterol levels increased by 9 percent and the LDL fraction increased by 11 percent.
"There is some data that if you consume a lot of fructose, you can get an increase in lipoproteins," Hannover told Natural Health. "A lot of this is mediated by consuming fructose with other carbohydrates. We recommend using a blend of carbohydrates - fructose may be the primary carbohydrate with glucose or more complex carbohydrates."
"I'm not trying to ignore the data," he added, "but I'm not trying to blow it out of proportion either."
There's another wrinkle. Add fructose to the typical American high-fat diet - as most people do - and the risk of heart disease increases even more. Sheldon Reiser, Ph.D., of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Human Nutrition Research Center in Beltsville, Md., studied 21 men eating two kinds of high-fat diets. The diets were the same except for the carbohydrate. One used simple starch, the other 20 percent fructose.
The cholesterol and triglyceride levels of all the men increased while they consumed the high-fructose/high-fat diet, but not while they ate a high-starch/high-fat diet. Ten of the men began the study with high blood levels of insulin - another risk factor for heart disease - and their cholesterol and triglyceride levels rose a whopping 30 to 50 percent.
Should people with moderate to high cholesterol reduce their intake? The answer seems apparent.
"They might benefit from that," Hannover conceded. "We presume you're under a doctor's care, and if you're not, you should be. If I had high cholesterol, it would be on the list of foods to avoid - not on the top of the list, but I wouldn't leave it off either, since there is some data to support this view."
Fructose and other sugars contribute to heart disease in yet another way. Dietary sugars increase what doctors call "spontaneous platelet aggregation", an unnatural tendency toward blood clotting. But according to a study published in the Aug. 1, 1990, Thrombosis Research, fructose promotes abnormal clotting much more than does any other common sugar does.
There's even more. Recent research by Forrest Nielsen, Ph.D., of the USDA's Human Nutrition Research Center in Grand Forks, N.D., found that fructose interferes with absorption of copper, an essential mineral needed to create hemoglobin in red blood cells.
"Copper is affected by fructose," Nielsen told Natural Health. "With a high intake of high-fructose corn syrup, people might show signs of a copper deficiency and may need to enhance their copper intake."
In addition, when five volunteers ate a diet with 20 percent fructose, their total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol shot up. But the combination of suppressed copper and high fructose also increased the number of free radicals, damaged molecules that contribute to cancer and aging.
Does Nielsen think fructose is safe? "I'm not going to damn fructose because in small amounts it's not a bad substance," Nielsen said. But he later acknowledged, "I'm not convinced it's completely safe."
There's one more significant side effect of fructose. It cross links - that is, ties up - proteins in what biochemists call the Maillard reaction. This cross linking occurs during the cooking of food, affecting both the taste and the nutritional value of food.
But the Maillard reaction also occurs in the human body, and it's suspected as a factor in diabetes and aging, according to William Dills, Ph.D., a chemist at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. Dills noted in the Nov. 1993 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that the relationship between the "Maillard reaction-related cross-link in proteins, cells,and tissues and the overall aging process appears indisputable."
All this should not dampen your taste for fresh fruit or fruit juice. The hazards associated with fructose appear to be dose dependent, according to Yudkin and other experts. If you eat predominantly natural foods, and avoid large quantities of processed foods, you have little to worry about.
Fructose accounts for only 5 to 7.7 percent of the wet weight of cherries,pears, bananas, grapes, and apples. That's about 5.5 to 8 teaspoons per pound of fresh fruit. There's even less fructose - 2 to 3 percent, or roughly 2 to 3 teaspoons per pound - in strawberries, blackberries, blueberries, oranges, and grapefruit. Honey, refined by bees, contains 40 percent fructose, but its extreme sweetness deters most people from consuming it in large amounts.
Calls to health food stores around the country indicated a fairy high awareness of fructose as a refined sugar.
Rogosin, at Mrs. Gooch's Natural Foods Market, pointed out that carrying fructose-containing products would be contrary to the chain's mission statement that emphasizes natural foods. "It has known health effects - it increases cholesterol and triglyceride levels," she said.
Tim Connor, a buyer for Nature's Fresh Northwest! in Portland, Ore., pointed out that "there's no question that it's a highly refined sugar." The health food grocery chain carries some products with fructose, though not many.
"We have not taken a no-sugar stance," Connor said. "We have taken a no-excessive-sugar stance. We carry a broader range of products than what's found in more traditional health food or natural food stores."
Is there a safe amount of fructose? Yudkin reiterated that people should avoid it and that they should be wary of sugars hidden in processed foods. "Rather than switch to another sugar," he advised, "they should gradually reduce the amount of sweetness in foods," he said.
And what's the view of the FDA, mandated by Congress to ensure food safety? "We don't have any studies that show health effects (of fructose)", said spokeswoman Folke, after checking with a scientific staff member she declined to name. "We do not have any safety studies on it. If a safety issue had come up, it would be big news."
This article originally appeared in Natural Health magazine. The information provided by Jack Challem and The Nutrition Reporter newsletter is strictly educational and not intended as medical advice. For diagnosis and treatment, consult your physician.
07-22-2006, 11:04 PM
07-23-2006, 12:45 AM
SumPoosie has NEVER been made with anything but Pure Cane Sugar. I don't like HFCS and will not use it.
I pay quite a bit more in making my product because they add a labor charge to open and pour in bags of sugar.
07-23-2006, 03:28 PM
Dizz, I don't see your point?? This long article is about the negative effects of sugar, HFCS or other. It's not an article praising one type of sugar over another. I think you should remove it from your website unless you are only catering to ignorants.
If you read the article carefully, it states several times that Sucrose is almost as bad as HFCS. For your information, Sucrose IS Cane Sugar.
Originally posted by TallThinBlonde:
SumPoosie has NEVER been made with anything but Pure Cane Sugar. I don't like HFCS and will not use it.
I pay quite a bit more in making my product because they add a labor charge to open and pour in bags of sugar. You better hurry and report this typo to Bevnet.
Originally posted by DudeMan:
For your information, Sucrose IS Cane Sugar. Don't you think I know what's in my product?
I know sucrose is table sugar. And the major difference is that the human body registers sucrose as a "sugar" where HFCS isn't.
That's why my product is sweetened with sucrose.
07-23-2006, 08:06 PM
lol... I wouldn't dare... we all know BevNet is always right. ;)
So the canned version of your product is sweetened with corn syrup.
07-23-2006, 11:10 PM
No...Pure Cane Sugar.
Then why does Bevnet.com showing your brand being sweetened with corn syrup?
Who should we believing here? You(haha) or Bevnet?
07-24-2006, 10:14 AM
Dizz... believe whatever you want. If I were you I would be a little more focused on selling that blow stuff. :cool:
07-24-2006, 04:43 PM
Lol... your just not a very nice person are you. SumPoosie is made with Real Cane Sugar since you called me a liar... call Krier foods and ask them.
Grow up Dizz.
And why don't you own up and take resposibility for your product?
07-24-2006, 08:02 PM
Good luck dizz, I am sure Liquid Blow is going to be a big hit.
Originally posted by Dizz:
I'll believe Bevnet because you're obviously a liar.
And if I were you, and thank God I'm not, I wouldn't try to poison my consumer's with HFCS.
"Sum Poosie (Can)
Ingredients: Water, citric acid, natural flavor, caffeine, corn syrup , sugars, taurine, glucosamine sulfate, sodium benzoate, methyl sulfonyl methane, ginseng, sucralose, acesulfame K" I'm holding a can in my hand right now and it says exactly what Dizz is saying: 5th ingredient on the label is "Corn Syrup".
07-25-2006, 12:01 PM
We are aware of the misprint. The new cans have Pure Cane Sugar on the can. We caught the mistake late and corrected it on the new can. If you have a can with Ava on it you will notice it has been corrected if you have a Raquel can you will see corn syrup listed by mistake.
07-25-2006, 12:02 PM
To be honest anyone with any beverage knowledge can tell the second they taste SumPoosie that we use real cane sugar.
Originally posted by TallThinBlonde:
We are aware of the misprint. The new cans have Pure Cane Sugar on the can. We caught the mistake late and corrected it on the new can. If you have a can with Ava on it you will notice it has been corrected if you have a Raquel can you will see corn syrup listed by mistake. I understand your situation and I know it can be a frustrating mistake. We have 10 sets of eyes look over our graphics and everyone passes it and then once the final print is done it seems obvious where the mistakes are. Then once you have 20k cans in the warehouse what are you going to do???? Those cans have to be filled and sent on there way to make room and money for more.
Been there and done that.
Originally posted by TallThinBlonde:
We are aware of the misprint. The new cans have Pure Cane Sugar on the can. We caught the mistake late and corrected it on the new can. If you have a can with Ava on it you will notice it has been corrected if you have a Raquel can you will see corn syrup listed by mistake. By the way, AVA, is she the girl from Poland or the Czech republic with the short blonde hair???
07-25-2006, 01:52 PM
07-25-2006, 01:54 PM
Lol...in my case I had 500k cans of Raquel... what was one to do ? We fixed it on the new Ava can.
07-25-2006, 03:38 PM
TallThin...I'd love to chime in...but I never got any samples of the cans. So I am going to have to agree here and call you a liar.
TTB may be a little stuborn in some of this persons opinons, but TTB has not resorted to lieing about anything. If SP had something other than Pure Cane Sugar, I am VERY SURE we would see numerous threads about how Pure Cane is bad for you and HFCS is the new healthy alternative. That sucks for the misprints...
I have tasted Sum Poosie and I think it taste GREAT!!!!! Obviously no HFCS in this drink. But as TTB knows I am not a fan of the name.
BUT AGAIN. AWESOME TASTE!
07-25-2006, 11:33 PM
So Im going to be a rebel and get back to the main topic here, instead of arguing about the contents of a certain "feline" oriented beverage. IMO energy drinks are here to stay. They are becoming more mainstream now, and have become a prominent fixture in coolers at every beverage retail locationin America. However, I also agree that the "rush" is coming to an end, and now only the strong will survive. Hopefully this means the end of RB, unless they can finally get in the game with a 16oz version. And I would also hope to see lower prices, due to a sort of marketing war, as doubtful as it seems.
Can Sumpoosie or Liquid blow be purchased in Oregon or Washington? I would like to try both but have never seen them anywhere. I understand BLOW is new to the market but Sumpoosie should be everywhere from the sounds of it. I have yet to ever see one.
Originally posted by redchucks219:
Hopefully this means the end of RB, unless they can finally get in the game with a 16oz version. And I would also hope to see lower prices, due to a sort of marketing war, as doubtful as it seems. Red Bull isn't going anywhere. As for the price, I wouldn't expect much variation from RB. The product is still made in Austria and imported, so they're most likely not enjoying anywhere near the same margins as domestic brands.
Originally posted by NutriVation:
Can Sumpoosie or Liquid blow be purchased in Oregon or Washington? You can buy Liquid Blow online now.
I have nothing but praise for it. Dizz put alot of thought into all aspects of the beverage and it has really paid off. It's very good.
[ 07-26-2006, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: -VV- ]
07-26-2006, 08:40 AM
What I do know is that the Red Bull experiment did not go well in Vegas. People are just not willing to pay that kind of money for Red Bull in a bigger can. Redchucks we are still in the early stages of the energy drink movement. Its only going to get bigger.
07-26-2006, 01:43 PM
That is a shame if the 16 oz Red Bull doesnt work out. But the great thing about the product, is in their smaller can, and more expensive product, they still outsell everyone. I tried a Rockstar a few weeks ago, and could not finish it and wanted to throw up. I think it was the aftertaste which I could not handle. I will admit, I would like more energy drinks to have better tatses, but not change the effectivnes of the product (Sobe Adrenaline and AMP and some others seem to not be as effective when I drink them, but taste better). Red Bull and the E drink are here to stay. But I do think we will see more of a change to more drinkable and thirst quenching energy drinks. What is that new Energy Drinks slogan "Drinks like a soda, powers like an energy drink", something like that...and that is were we are all going.
07-26-2006, 07:15 PM
TallThinBlonde, that's interesting about the 16oz Red Bull trial in Vegas not going well. How did you gather that? btw I agree it might be too high of a price for the market to bear - did you hear from distributors there that it didn't sell well or something?
Does anybody else have any insight into the trial?? - I'd definitely be interested to know if this has any chance of wider/ongoing distribution.
07-28-2006, 06:13 PM
I heard some things about the Red Bull trial also - from one of my customers. The retail was about $3.49 in Circle K stores. He heard that Red Bull sat on the idea for a while before trying it and that much of the 16oz product was sitting in warehouses (in the Vegas desert) while the bigwigs made their decisions. If that's true, it couldn't have helped the taste any...then you have that god awful price point. Again, this is what I heard from a customer...I would love to see some actual numbers from the test.
07-28-2006, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Ron Swedelson:
(Sobe Adrenaline and AMP and some others seem to not be as effective when I drink them, but taste better).Maybe you just need more! Adrenaline Rush is coming in a 16oz can and Amp is about to launch in a 24oz can!!
Originally posted by -VV-:
Red Bull isn't going anywhere. As for the price, I wouldn't expect much variation from RB. The product is still made in Austria and imported, so they're most likely not enjoying anywhere near the same margins as domestic brands. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Does anyone know of the reason why RB hasn't set up some type of manufacturing here in the states? It would obviously help their bottom line in the long run. I know they have the KASHE!
They must have ships constantly moving product into the states by the volume they do.
07-28-2006, 06:50 PM
Putting that in a bigger can just spreads the caffeine out over a larger volume, therefore making it weaker. Think about it. 160 mg of Caffine in an 8oz is going to give you much more of a kick than the same amount of caffeine in a 24 oz.
08-05-2006, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by Ron Swedelson:
That is a shame if the 16 oz Red Bull doesnt work out. But the great thing about the product, is in their smaller can, and more expensive product, they still outsell everyone. I tried a Rockstar a few weeks ago, and could not finish it and wanted to throw up. I think it was the aftertaste which I could not handle. I will admit, I would like more energy drinks to have better tatses, but not change the effectivnes of the product (Sobe Adrenaline and AMP and some others seem to not be as effective when I drink them, but taste better). Red Bull and the E drink are here to stay. But I do think we will see more of a change to more drinkable and thirst quenching energy drinks. What is that new Energy Drinks slogan "Drinks like a soda, powers like an energy drink", something like that...and that is were we are all going. An Energy Drink with a good taste and not having the copycat taste. I urge anybody to try CHEETAH ENERGY DRINK.
This drink has been in retail outlets in the Bay Area of California since Oct. 2005. The parent company is City Ice Beverages, Inc.
Taste tests along with the active ingredients bring back rave reviews.
08-05-2006, 10:14 PM
Let me take a guess at what you sell....Cheetah Energy Drink?
08-07-2006, 12:32 PM
have never seen it...what stores is that in?
08-07-2006, 12:44 PM
I found Cheetah in a convenience store on Larkin or Leavenworth at Sacramento in San Francisco. I really liked it, it's got a different flavor than most of the other drinks out there with a more peachy like flavor.
08-07-2006, 08:56 PM
Lion's, Bulls, and Cheetah's oh my...!
08-07-2006, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by ALLPRO:
Let me take a guess at what you sell....Cheetah Energy Drink? Hey ALLPRO,
You are absolutely correct. I won't deny it. If you happen to see it, just give it a try.
Ron, if you are looking for chain stores, the authorization is pending for now. You will find it in some franchise stores for 7-11 and others, but mostly in independently owned dts accounts throughout the Bay Area and some Sacramento stores.