Being a developer I don’t drink tea or coffee. That’s not exclusively true, if we’re making proper coffee at a dinner party I will have a cup but I tend to play that down as I feel a slowly developing taste for coffee and the fact we throw dinner parties are both signs that I am getting old. But back on the point, when I need that pick me up, it’s all abou the energy drinks. You just can’t beat them.
Just reading over the front of my can of Red Bull though I notice is proudly announces…
0g fat
123 calories
0g salt
Which is great. Though it makes me question why it would be an achivement to have no fat or salt in a drink. I mean, is that normal? Did it used to? It’s like when you see “suitable for vegitarians” on a chocolate bar and wonder why it wasn’t before (interestly, McDonald’s strawberry milkshakes only became suitable for vegitarians about 6 months ago, think about what that means :p).
Futher round the back of the can it goes on to say…
A serving (250ml) contains the equivalent of approx. 0g of salt
What does that mean? Approximately means it actually does contain some salt I presume. And equivalent means it has some kind of salt substitute equal to the amount of salt that would be in there if there was salt in there? Which means none as there isn’t any? So they have replaced the salt with 0g of something similar?
What are the betting lawyers were involved here?
Don't have time to check my blog? Get a weekly email with all the new posts. This is my personal blog, so obviously it is 100% spam free.
Tags: coffee, diet, energy drinks, red bull
This entry was posted on Friday, September 12th, 2008 at 8:30 am and is filed under Thoughts. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.