Revista de Medicina Desportiva (English) July 2018 - Page 16
Health effects and public health
concerns of energy drink con-
sumption in the United States: a
Frontiers in Public Health, august, 2017; 5:225.
Dr. Laila Al-Shaar et al, from Harvard
University (Boston, USA), published a
mini-review about the energetic drinks
and they made because their concern
related to the increasing consumption,
especially among the youth. That is
a business that grew up a lot for the
last 20 years, that sold 9.7 billion US
dollars in 2015, where two brans contrib-
uted with 85% for the sales. One of the
referred studi es indicates that 51%
of the university students from USA
take a t least one drink each month.
As it is stated in the test, maybe they
are doing it because of the claims that
this kind of beverage gives more energy,
increases stamina, athletic performance,
and concentration. The sub-chapter con-
stituents and ingredients is very inter-
esting, and we realize that all of these
drinks include water, sugar, caffeine, B
vitamins and nom-nutritional stimu-
lating substances, like guarana (1gr =
40mg of caffeine), ginseng, mate erv
(78mg in 240 ml), taurine, l-carnitine,
d-glucuronolactone and inositol. The
content of caffeine varies between 47
and 80mg in 235ml can and 207ml in
only 60ml. Sugar is also a problem,
since a 500ml can has about 54 grams
Since they stimulants, they natu-
rally have some temporally benefits on
the physical and mental performance:
increase of the alert state, better recov-
ery of the fatigue and increase of the
physical performance and muscular
force and resistance. However, the
list of side effects is huge: behavior
changes (abuse of illicit substances and
aggressive behavior), mental changes
(stress, depression, suicide risk), car-
diovascular changes (increase of the
blood pressure), metabolic changes
(over weight and obesity, type II diabe-
tes, teeth alterations, kidney diseases
(risk of microvascular disease and pro-
gression to chronic kidney failure) and
others (sleep disturbances, to get late
to bed, headaches, stomach pains). On
the youth the problem gets worse when
they drink it to neutralize the depres-
sive effects of the alcohol just con-
sumed, which can later cause traffic
accidents. This is a paper that should /
can be red (and one should think about
it) at the site of this magazine: www.
14 july 2018 www.revdesportiva.pt
on the patients with and without
spur, the analysis is limited by the
low number of patients without
spurs (n = 4). The same happens
on patients with or without biome-
chanical ankle / foot changes and,
although there has been a statis-
tically significant difference, the
analysis is limited by the reduced
number of patients with static foot /
ankle changes (n = 6).
After all, the sample was relatively
small, and a longer follow-up time
would be needed to assess the long-
term benefits. There was also a lack
of uniformity, in particular in the
dose used in each session and in the
number of treatments performed in
each patient, since this was Indi-
vidualized according to the toler-
ance and symptoms of every patient.
Another limitation of the study was
the fact that uncontrolled variables
(comorbidities) that might have
influenced the outcome, and the fact
that we didn’t have a control group.
The reduced number of athletes,
only 17% of the sample, can be justi-
fied by the fact that we were analyz-
ing a hospital population.
Despite the limitations of the
study, we can conclude that the
treatment with extracorporeal
shock waves is an effective, low-risk
therapeutic tool for the treatment
of chronic plant fasciitis refrac-
tory to other therapies. This study
allowed the collection of data to
draw another prospective controlled
The authors declare that there are no
conflicts of interest or economic.
Maria João Cotter
Serviço de Medicina Física e de Reabilita-
ção do Hospital de Braga. Portugal
1. Sun J, Gao F, Wang Y, et al. Extracorporeal
shock wave therapy is effective in treating
chronic plantar fasciitis: a meta-analysis of
RCTs. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96:e6621.
[PMC free article]
2. Park JW, Yoon K, Chun KS, et al. Long-term
outcome of low-energy extracorporeal shock
wave therapy for plantar fasciitis: comparative
analysis according to ultrasonographic findings.
Ann Rehabil Med 2014; 38:534–40.
3. J.W. Park, K. Yoon, K.S. Chun, J.Y. Lee, H.J.
Park, S.Y. Lee. Y.T. Lee, Long-term outcome of
low-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy
for plantar fasciitis: comparative analysis
according to ultrasonographic findings, Ann.
Rehabil. Med. 2014; 38:534e540, https://doi.
4. J.N.C. Dizon, C. Gonzalez-Suarez, M.T.G.
Zamora, E.D.V. Gambito. Effectiveness of
extracorporeal shock wave therapy in chronic
plantar fasciitis, Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 92
(2013) 606e620, http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/
5. Kibler, WB; Goldberg, C; Chandler, TJ: Func-
tional biomechanical deficits in running athletes
with plantar fasciitis. Am. J. Sports Med.
6. Davis, PF; Severud, E; Baxter, DE: Painful heel
syndrome: results of nonoperative manage-
ment. Foot Ankle Int. 15:531–535, 1994.
7. Williams, PL: The painful heel. Br. J. Hosp.
Med. 1987; 38:562-563.
8. M.-C. Yin, J. Ye, M. Yao, X.-J. Cui, Y. Xia,
Q.-X. Shen, Z.-Y. Tong, X.-Q. Wu, J. – M. Ma,
W. Mo, Is extracorporeal shock wave therapy
clinical efficacy for relief of chronic, recalcitrant
plantar fasciitis? A systematic review and
metaanalysis of randomized placebo or active-
-treatment controlled trials, Arch. Phys. Med.
Rehabil. 2014; 95:1585e1593, http://dx.doi.
9. Lim AT, How CH, Tan B. Management of
plantar fasciitis in the outpatient setting. Sin-
gapore Med J 2016; 57:168–70. Quiz 171.
10. Theodore GH, Buch M, Amendola A, et al.
Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for the
treatment of plantar fasciitis. Foot Ankle Int
11. Ogden JA, Alvarez R, Levitt R, et al. Shock
wave therapy for chronic proximal plantar fas-
ciitis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; 47–59.
12. Hsu RW, Hsu WH, Tai CL, et al. Effect of
shock-wave therapy on patellar tendinopathy in
a rabbit model. J Orthop Res 2004; 22:221–7.
13. Luffy L, Grosel J, Thomas R, So E. Plantar
fasciitis: A review of treatments. JAAPA. 2018
14. Tong KB, Furia J. Economic burden of plantar
fasciitis treatment in the United States. Am J
Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2010; 39 (5):227-231.
15. Thomas JL, Christensen JC, Kravitz SR, et
al. The diagnosis and treatment of heel pain: a
clinical practice guideline-revision 2010. J Foot
Ankle Surg. 2010; 49( 3 suppl):S1-S19.
16. Schmitz C et al. Efficacy and safety of extra-
corporeal shock wave therapy for orthopedic
conditions: a systematic review on studies lis-
ted in the PEDro database. Br Med Bull. 2015;
17. Schmitz C, Császár NB, Rompe J-D, Chaves
H, Furia JP. Treatment of chronic plantar
fasciopathy with extracorporeal shock waves
(review). Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery
and Research. 2013; 8:31. doi:10.1186/1749-