Talk:Caffeine

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2023
Caffeine isn't a "mild cognitive nootropic" the wikipedia nootropic page classifieds it as a nootropic wrong information saying that it's a "mild one" James.Pater (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. HouseBlastertalk 01:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2023
Hello Wikipedia Community,

I am writing to propose an update to the "Caffeine" article. Specifically, the current citation number 243 ("Some Common Questions". Eagle Energy. Retrieved 22 May 2017), which is permanently dead and no longer provides valuable information to the article's readers, with my own recently published article titled "Caffeine Inhalers: An In-Depth Look at Use, Effects, and Regulation," which can be found at the following URL: https://thegoldenlamb.com/coffee-science/caffeine-inhalers/.

This report not only provides a high level of detail on caffeine inhalers but also has been structured and written to meet the standards of reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines.

Therefore, I propose that this article can be a suitable replacement for the dead link, thus improving the quality of the information provided on the "Caffeine" Wikipedia page.

I kindly request that a member of the Wikipedia community who has the ability to edit the page reviews this proposal and, if found suitable, replaces the current citation number 243 with the following:

"Caffeine Inhalers: An In-Depth Look at Use, Effects, and Regulation". The Golden Lamb. Retrieved 29 July 2023.

Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions or further clarifications needed regarding this request. Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards,

Kelsey HappyFhantum (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

- your blog would not qualify as a WP:RS source; WP:PROMO violation and WP:NOTBLOG. Also, misuse of bold in your message. Zefr (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2023
Error in table under Products, last line 'Coffee-flavored milk drink': the value in the mg/L column reads 660-3290, should read 66-354 according to the cited source. Also, although the caffeine per serving values agree with the cited reference, the stated serving size of 250 ml does not match the citation. 80.216.216.86 (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ Cited material states The mean (±SD) caffeine concentration was 1930 ± 90 mg/L, the median was 1745 mg/L and values ranged from 660 to 3290 mg/L. -- Wiki Linuz  { talk } 21:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence above from the body of the cited material is likely a typo. Refer to Table 3 of the same publication, where the stated values range from 6.6 to 35.4 mg/100 ml, i.e. 66 to 354 mg/l. 213.65.212.191 (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Or the values in the table are a typo. Given the situation, I'd take the text from the article body as more convincing, without some other RS saying otherwise. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I see several good reasons to believe that the values in Table 3 of the paper, rater than the Results, are more likely to be correct:
 * 1) the 'Caffeine per serving' values reported in the paper (and also in this Wikipedia article) are consistent with the values per 100 mL given in Table 3 of the paper, but not with those in the paper Results
 * 2) since the Results sumarise the information in Table 3, it is more likely that the text was composed after the table. It is unlikely that an error was first introduced in the table but then disappeared again in the Results
 * 3) the information in the table is more detailed; the liklihood of getting 20 numbers (or 40, including the consistent 'mg per serving' column) wrong is much smaller than getting just two numbers wrong
 * 4) the values in the Results are about an order of magnitude higher than for comparable beverages indicating an error
 * If this is not convincing I would suggest contacting the author for a clarification, or just delete this row from the table in the Caffeine page.
 * Regardless of the above, the serving size listed in the Wikipedia article table (250 ml) does not match the serving size of the paper (300-600 ml) from which the 'Caffeine per serving' of the Wikipedia article are derived. So either the serving size stated in the table should be changed, or the caffeine per serving in the same table recalculated. Joakim da Silva (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ - the values as they were are very obviously wrong. It appears the reason for the issue was likely that while converting from mg/100mL to mg/L, they multiplied by 100 instead of 10. Tollens (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2023
In the last paragraph of the introduction it says "A cup of coffee contains 80–175 mg of caffeine, depending on what "bean" (seed) is used, how it is roasted (darker roasts have less caffeine), and how it is prepared (e.g., drip, percolation, or espresso)." and cites here .

The claim that darker roasts have less caffeine isn't supported by the article, which agrees that the numbers are not statistically significant.

I suggest that this should either be reworded to reflect this, use a different citation, or be removed altogether.

Additionally, and I know this isn't a source, but I was a barista and learned a lot about coffee, I know that this isn't true - the type of bean matters way more than the roast for caffeine content. Padrillium (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * in the article it cites, it says, "it showed a positive correlation between the caffeine levels with the degree of roasting till a certain point where the levels dropped in the dark roasted coffee." so maybe just removing the darker roast part but still keeping the rest of it; like, "...on what "bean" (seed) is used, how it is roasted, and how it is prepared...". Frost.xyz  &#124; ( talk ) 16:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done by . -- Pinchme123 (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Lethal Dose Lower In Combination With Other Chemicals and Preexisting Conditions
@Zefr I am seeking other references about this death and I am thinking about a re-write of what I posted. I purposely avoided mentioning the origin of the drink and the law suit to avoid my post looking like news. Additionally, I argue my post does not fit squarely into any of the four categories listed in WP:NOTNEWS. While it might be difficult to find a case study on this event, my purpose was to draw attention to the additive effects of other chemicals and/or preexisting conditions that might lower the amount of caffeine necessary to cause heart damage or death, and therefore I used a reference that I could find. Using this specific event in this context does seem like a good example of additive effects. Lastly, I would like to communicate that point without casting a shadow on energy drinks in general. You might know there continues to be debate about the health effects of "energy" drinks. If you have any ideas or references I would be glad to follow up. I have searched PubMed and the CDC so far and found it will take more research to find a non-newsy reference. Perhaps a good re-write and the use of multiple references, including some from peer-reviewed research, might work better. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstengel (talk • contribs) 05:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Picture of chemical structure
The first picture of the structure does not include the 3 “CH3” groups in the molecule 149.88.21.138 (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I see dead-end lines, which are the standard skeletal structure representation for methyl groups. DMacks (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

physical Dependence
All sources mentioned physical dependence. It was not specified that physical caffeine dependence is classified as “low-moderate” in the DSM-5, specifically “Functional Consequences of Caffeine Withdrawal.” “Caffeine Withdrawal Disorder” was rated as Moderate 13% and I modified it and it was removed after a short period Frome page. Yungocdy (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Problem in citations with regards to the claim of caffeine being the most consumed psychoactive drug
It's a locked article so I can't edit it myself, but one of the sources in the caffeine article is wrong, specifically citation 24. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine "Caffeine is the world's most widely consumed psychoactive drug.[23][24]" It does not say anywhere in the paper that it's the most widely consumed psychoactive drug.

An alternative source that actually makes that claim can be eg. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3680974/

Link to the faulty paper in question https://academic.oup.com/jsh/article-abstract/35/2/269/965314?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false (edited) 82.147.167.3 (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC) ✅ GrayStorm (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP24 - Sect 201 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Kph7917 (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

L-Theanine reference needs better citation or should be removed.
"A systematic review and meta-analysis from 2014 found that concurrent caffeine and l-theanine use has synergistic psychoactive effects that promote alertness, attention, and task switching; these effects are most pronounced during the first hour post-dose." 1.This point's reference #56 is from a research article paid for by Glaxosmithkline using Glaxosmithkline employees. Glaxosmithkline produces products with L-theanine and caffeine Which is a conflict interest. 2.Does not establish how L-theanine adds any benefit when it lists things caffeine is already associated with by itself. You can see an example of one of Glaxo's products here with caffeine and L-theanine. https://www.amazon.com/Replenish-Excedrin-Electrolytes-L-Theanine-Caffeine/dp/B0BN71G5CD?ref_=ast_sto_dp&th=1&psc=1 2601:8C:4E80:7578:1DD5:595D:5CFB:52AB (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)