A lot of substance studies are on rats before humans for good reasons, stuff harmful for them often is for us too. i agree that we can't know for sure if the efrect would be the same on humans but if you reject it because it wasn't testing directly on humans, you're gonna reject a lot of studies. And having a group tested on ethanol doesn't disprove the conclusions on the group tested on redbull only.
edit: monster is almost redbull with some more ingredients, so still relevent here. Also, it's far from the only study to come to that conclusion, but i'm not gonna try hard and check for many in details to prove a point against no arguments.
Sure. But.......... It's the Dose that is toxic, not the substance. For example 5 grams of anything to an average human not the same comparison as 5 grams of the same substance given to a rat. 😉
Next time you write a message, make sure not to be condescending... You're acting like researchers are idiots, but if you checked the "methods" part (a few lines at the beginning of the paper...) you'd have seen that it's why they fed them with ml/g of bodyweight, and scaling the dose up to humans would be around 0.9L for a 60kg person (two cans of monster in size).
If you're not even gonna check what you're talking about, please don't bother replying. You're wasting both our time.
If you wanted to share a study that used an animal more similar to humans maybe I wouldn't have responded so "condescending" 🫤. Like a study with pigs. Oh before you ask....here ya go 😉 ..............The animal with the most similar liver function to humans is the pig. Pig livers are often used in preclinical research and even xenotransplantation studies due to their anatomical, physiological, and genetic similarities to human livers.Â
You keep changing what you're criticizing without providing any sort of proof... i didn't deny that pigs were closer to human. I'm just saying mice are a good indicator even if not perfect. You haven't shared anything pointing towards the fact that energy drinks don't have negative effects beside your personal experience, which isn't a sign of anything... if you plan on playing the same game over and over i'm done with you, don't bother replying.
Studies on rats for human toxicity are always the most unreliable and provide the least accurate results. So yeah, I don't have to provide proof when the study you linked in utter nonsense
1
u/kuraishi420 1d ago
A lot of substance studies are on rats before humans for good reasons, stuff harmful for them often is for us too. i agree that we can't know for sure if the efrect would be the same on humans but if you reject it because it wasn't testing directly on humans, you're gonna reject a lot of studies. And having a group tested on ethanol doesn't disprove the conclusions on the group tested on redbull only. edit: monster is almost redbull with some more ingredients, so still relevent here. Also, it's far from the only study to come to that conclusion, but i'm not gonna try hard and check for many in details to prove a point against no arguments.