| Revision as of 19:41, 29 January 2011 editKrioni (talk | contribs)27 edits →Is it safe and effective?: Pointed out that the "relatively safe" reference is not reliable← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:02, 7 April 2011 edit undo208.72.167.2 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{oldafdfull| date = 27 August 2009 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = 5-Hour Energy }} | {{oldafdfull| date = 27 August 2009 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = 5-Hour Energy }} | ||
| ==Who Owns 5 Hour Energy=== | |||
| Really | |||
| == Notability == | == Notability == | ||
| It seems notable enough to me. It is a nationally (at least) sold energy beverage. I came to Misplaced Pages because I wanted information on the health aspects of the drink. There could certainly be more information about the drink here, but I don't think notability should be an issue. ] (]) 13:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | It seems notable enough to me. It is a nationally (at least) sold energy beverage. I came to Misplaced Pages because I wanted information on the health aspects of the drink. There could certainly be more information about the drink here, but I don't think notability should be an issue. ] (]) 13:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 23:02, 7 April 2011
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 August 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Who Owns 5 Hour Energy=
Really
Notability
It seems notable enough to me. It is a nationally (at least) sold energy beverage. I came to Misplaced Pages because I wanted information on the health aspects of the drink. There could certainly be more information about the drink here, but I don't think notability should be an issue. JoshDuffMan (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, the claims in this commercial are too good to be true. Perhaps listing the individual health risks of the ingredients in the form of "Caffeine is known to cause the following health problems.." for each of the ingredients would be appropriate. However, I do not believe this would meet wikipedia standards unless the health risks were cited off site and not citing other articles on this site. Wolvenmoon (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted 2nd external link. Link was not to impartial review; rather to sales page for competing product.
Reads like an advertisement
Does it really have to be noted that the drink is sold in gas stations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.208.20 (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, on top of that, this article needs NPOV, and the "recommended use" section just reads like directions. Sorry I don't know enough about this stuff, but I didn't learn much visiting this page that I couldn't get from the TV commercials. --MMX (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it safe and effective?
There should be a section on this from independent sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowicide (talk • contribs) 23:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The reference (Dahl, Melissa (February 12, 2009). "Zip! 5-hour Energy packs a punch". =msnbc. Retrieved March 29, 2010.) used to support the idea "it remains that the drink is relatively safe in moderation" does NOT seem to do so. It is some kind of placeholder page that consists mostly of comments. It doesn't provide any material upon which that medical opinion can be reliably based. It has no place in this article, unless the article is supposed to be an advertisement. Krioni (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
"Too much" vitamin B
It should be worth noting in this article that Vitamin B is water-soluble, so extraneous amounts your body does not use is just flushed out with the urine. Huge, huge amounts will be around long enough to possibly cause health problems, but even the large %'s in this drink will not be a problem.
As for the health effects, the outside articles DO mention different things about different vitamins. For instance, read the Baltimore Sun article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.95.218.254 (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Reception
""Because the product does not contain anything that creates caloric energy, many consumers believe that the insinuated effects advertised by Living Essentials are nothing more than placebo. ""
I don't see how that comment is relevant ^. There is no evidence to support that because these products contain low caloric energy they produce low amounts of energy in the human body. This might mislead readers. Also, consider amphetamines, which have virtually no calories, but are some of the most powerful stimulants available today. Madman91 (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- I totally agree, it's not a stretch to realize that caffeine alone (in the drink) give a stimulant effect without caloric intake, not to mention the drink contains two chemical precursors to Dopamine and Norepinephrine. If consumers really do believe this, there needs to be citation. Removed! 98.203.237.248 (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)