S

Athletes and Energy Drinks: Reported Risk-Taking and Consequences from the Combined

Use of Alcohol and Energy Drinks

By: Manny Ozoa, Jaclyn Medel and Brandi Tillman

Purpose

The first purpose of this study was to measure athletes’ alcohol, energy-drink-only, and combined-use consumption rates.

The second purpose was to compare athletes’ reported risk-taking and consequences when they used alcohol-only compared to when they combined alcohol-only and energy drinks.

Hypotheses

Within combined users, there will be significant differences in reported risk taking behaviors when they use alcohol by itself compared to when they combine alcohol and energy drinks.

Within combined users, there will be significant differences in reported negative consequences when they drink alcohol by itself compared to when they combine alcohol and energy drinks.

Variables

Independent Amount of alcohol and/or energy drinks one consumed on

different occasions in the past year

Dependent Differences in risk taking behaviors Increase/decrease in binge drinking, more occasional drinking,

etc.

Relationship Being Examined The effects of energy drinks combined with alcohol on risk taking

behavior among college athletes.

Sampling

Participants 401 (out of 456) intercollegiate athletes volunteered for the study

from a large Midwestern Division I University Consisted of 257 males and 144 females Average age = 19.80 years Recruited as entire teams at designated meetings in which all the

coaches and personnel were removed from the area to protect the athletes’ privacy

Participation was confidential and voluntary with no consequences for not participating

Groups

The assessment the participants took part in split them into three groups based on their results: Nonalcoholic users Alcohol only users Combined users (alcohol and energy drinks)

Procedure

Prior to the study, the research obtained permission and approval form the campus Institutional Review Board, athletic department’s director of compliance, team coaches, and academic coordinators.

Recruited as entire teams at designated voluntary meetings in which all the coaches and personnel were removed from the area to protect the athletes’ privacy.

Participation was confidential and voluntary with no consequences for not participating.

Procedure

All participants (401) took the Quick Drink Screen (QDS) along with a brief 27 item assessment (B-CEOA & B-CEOCU) in which he or she indicated their expectancies for particular effects to happen to them while under the influence of alcohol and combined use on a scale ranging from 1 (disagree) to 4 (agree).

Higher scores from the assessment indicated more negative health consequences.

Procedure

The QDS and Assessment determined which athletes use both alcohol and combine energy drinks with alcohol on separate occasions.

It also measured differences in risk taking behaviors and negative consequences within the same user.

Comparisons were then made between these athletes’ reported risk taking behaviors and negative health consequences on the alcohol and combined used expectancy measurements.

Results

315 (78.55% of 401) of the athletes reported using alcohol within the past year

290 (92% of 315) of the athletes reported binge drinking in the past year. (5 or more drinks on one occasion for both men and women)

165 athletes only used alcohol.

150 athletes reported combining alcohol with energy drinks and had riskier drinking habits than athletes who only used alcohol.

86 were non-users.

194 athletes reported using energy drinks without alcohol.

81 athletes reported consuming 3 or more energy drinks with alcohol. (“energy binge”)

Results

Compared to athletes who only used alcohol, results indicated combined users drank more often, consumed more alcohol per occasion, and used more than double the amount of alcohol.

Compared to athletes who only used alcohol, results indicated combined users have a higher risk for negative consequences such as not being able to sleep well, feeling nervous or jittery, and experience a rapid heartbeat.

External Validity

Generalized to all athletes Sample group consisted of 401 intercollegiate male and female athletes

with an average age of 19.80 years. The study could have produced different results between gender and

amount of alcohol and energy consumed. Only testing one age group of “athletes” cannot produce a

generalization for all of them

Setting and Treatment Participants were recruited as entire teams at designated meetings. Coaches were removed from the area to protect the confidentiality of

the athletes’ results There were no consequence for not participating.

External Validity

History and Treatment Could the results have varied if the time frame and the amount of

drinks consumed were specified? The study did not specify what days each athlete drank and how

much on each day (weekdays vs. weekend).

Improving External Validity The study could have specified which days each athletes drank if

they drank along with the amount of alcohol consumed on the given day.

It could have addressed tolerance levels between men and women.

Construct Validity

Inadequate Preoperational Explication The QDS was a valid test for measuring a person’s average alcohol

consumption because when it was compared to the TLFB test, the results were very similar and consistent.

TFLB was a more thorough version of the QDS (20 minute test vs. 5 minute test) and the QDS still came out with similar results.

The B-CEOA (brief test) compared to the CEOA (thorough test) had the same relationship as the QDS to the TFLB.

Mono-operation Bias The study could have specified which days an athlete drank and the amount of

alcohol consumed on that given day. The study only asked how many days in a week and a year an athlete drank

and the average amount of alcohol consumed on one occasion.

Construct Validity

Interaction of Testing and Treatment and Interaction of Different Treatments There weren’t any actual given treatments to the participants

since the results were confidential therefore specific athletes couldn’t receive any treatment anyways.

The study was only meant to discover the effects of energy drinks combined with alcohol, not to treat the participants of the study.

Internal Validity

Single Group Threats Mortality Threat = 18 cases were dropped for missing or

incomplete data which could thrown off the final results No regression threat because taking the tests over a second time

would not change their results since the tests are confidential. There is an instrumentation threat for the B-CEOA pretest

because it was modified to include the threats of mixing alcohol with energy drinks compared to just testing for alcohol.