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 mini-review 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 of sugar. 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 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 study. The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest or economic. Correspondence Maria João Cotter e-mail: Serviço de Medicina Física e de Reabilita- ção do Hospital de Braga. Portugal Bibliography 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. org/10.5535/arm.2014.38.4.534  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, PHM.0b013e31828cd42b 5. Kibler, WB; Goldberg, C; Chandler, TJ: Func- tional biomechanical deficits in running athletes with plantar fasciitis. Am. J. Sports Med. 1991; 19:66-71. 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. org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.01.042 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 2004; 25:290–7. 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 Jan; 31(1):20-24. 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; 116(1):115-138. 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- -799X-8-31.