Talk:Monster Energy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink / Beverages (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Would it be worth adding that the slashes have a left hook at the top that makes it resemble the Hebrew symbol "vav" which represents 6? I do have a few sources, one is but I'm not sure what people here constitute a worthy source. It seems noteworthy, even if it wasn't done on purpose the symbols are still there. (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really noteworthy; this would be more like fringe-theory trivia, and many articles (not all have) excise any trivia. Additionally, the concept is flawed as the value of waw-waw-waw (ווו) as a number actually is 9. Both Greek alphabetic numbers and Hebrew alphabet used as numbers have different letters for the hundreds, tens, and single digits (and any letters from the same category add among themselves, thus 60,30,3 would be 93). In the Greek text in which the so-called 'number of the beast' (a gematric value of a person's name) appears is six-hundred-sixty-six (or six-hundred-sixteen, depending on which tradition of Greek NT manuscripts) — just three single sixes in a row can have no relationship to either number. So, any way that you look at this, there is no reason to include anything in the article. — al-Shimoni (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


Why is the link to Mother energy drink the page for the word "mother" and not —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. NotAnonymous0 (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


I don't know whether it's just me, but it seems that Monster has a very different flavour to that of relentless, red bull and the likes. Any sources/references on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Unchanged Vandalism?[edit]

According to this article "Monster Lo-carb gives little to no "buzz" to a humans system. It was origanilly made to people who enjoy Monster for the taste, not the energy." I really hope that was a joke. Someone needs to clean up this article because it is currently pretty useless due to vandalism and a lack of correct information. And why are Rockstar and NOS under the Coca-Cola Company? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

NOS is manufactured by Coca-Cola Co, so that is why it is under that. NOS use to be distributed by CCCo, but is now (since 2009) distributed by PepsiCo, however the company that manufactures it is independent (it is currently listed as independent in the bottom Energy Drink template). So, these are all correct at this time. It looks like the question you had on M Lo-carb has been fixed since you posted years ago. — al-Shimoni (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Should each drink get its own detailed paragraph?[edit]

LISA I just thought I would throw this in I have watched this article grow smaller and smaller to the point any real importance relating to monster energy is lowered to only a sentence or two. I would like to know if you all agree that either the drinks should get a seperate article giving specific information regarding each one and updates that follow it or a its own catagory in the article regarding the drinks, Thank you. Flash512 (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like a great idea. I'd be glad to write those paragraphs, since I've reviewed all of the Monsters on my energy drink review website, And don't call this spam, it's not, I'm just pointing out that I would be glad to help. (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Monster is known for its high advertising budget.[edit]

How high is "high"? What is the source for this statement? I would bet their advertising budget would be "low" compared to some other beverage companies (like Coke and Pepsi). To the best of my knowledge Monster Beverage Company does no traditional advertising, although as mentioned later in the article they do sponsor many sports and concert events. Perhaps this could be rephrased and qualified (with a reference)? Dmarlin 05:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have rephrased it. Flash512 (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

At events such as grand openings they will serve free monster —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

On more than one occasion there have been people promoting monster energy drinks at my university, handing out free samples from the back of a monster-painted truck (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Monster is the best drink out in looks, taste and flavour —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Lo Carb Sugar Substitute[edit]

Please mention the particular sugar substitute(s?) used in lo carb Monster.

The can of Monster lo-carb I have here indicates it contains glucose, Sucralose (further down the ingredients list), and Acesulfame K (further down still). I guess these would all be considered sweetners. I'm not sure if this varies by distributor, or if it is the same for all distributors (and countries). Dmarlin 05:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

They had people handing out monsters at an event and we asked them what the substitute is and they said they use Splenda —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Splenda is the brand name for sucralose (one of the sweeteners mention by OP). Judging by the sweetness, there is probably less than 200 mg of pure sucralose in a 16oz can (less than 1/25th of a teaspoon), thus the reason it is so far down the list of ingredients. Monster isn't really using the glucose as a sugar substitute (it is a sugar, after all) but part of its energy mix (there's probably about 2-3 g of glucose in the 16 oz M Lo-carb — around 1/5th of a teaspoon — a rather small amount compared to the amount of sugars in other drinks). — al-Shimoni (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Caffeine Content[edit]

Can I add the amount of caffeine in the drinks to some of them? I did earlier but they were removed by a moderator -Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexPBenes (talkcontribs) 13:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This might be a stupid question but whatever, is it safe to drink one regular size Monster a day if breastfeeding? Really I need to know asap... if not what are the effects? (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Angie66.237.15.195 (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I usually drink no more than one can of Monster in a single day but I wouldn't recommend it during breastfeeding days. And if you drink Monster, don't drink too much and do it when you are healthy enough (and not right before and after having a baby). NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  17:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Major Updates[edit]

For reference, a cup of coffee is about 100mg of caffeine. Zhouj (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In refrence to the unsigned comment about the xxl Monsters, there is 240 mg of caffeine in an xxl. Three of those would be at 720 mg. That is not nearly enough to kill you, just make you sick. In fact, the lethal dose is around or above 10 g, or 10000 mg.

Sources: Energy Fiend[1], USA Today/Health Scout[2].

~Psycho (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So I was bored, and decided to make this entry into a full blown article, or at least a good start. This is one of my first articles ever on my account, so I hope it doesn't suck.


what kind of taurine do they use in monster??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 09:45, September 16, 2006 (UTC)

if you drink 3 double xl monster energy drinks you will die instantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hansen Beverage Company[edit]

The official web site for Monster Energy indicates that Monster Beverage Company is the owner of the drink. The Hansen Beverage Company does not list Monster Energy as one of their products, but their About Us page indicates that they distribute Monster Energy. Digging a little deeper, I found some press releases that indicated that they Busch would be taking over distributorship of the Monster products.

Does anyone know if Hansen Beverage Company actually owns Monster Beverage Company, or if they're just a distributor for them, or what the official relationship is today?

Without an official source other than the Monster Energy web site, I've changed the article to indicate that Monster Beverage Company is the owner. -Orayzio 21:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hansen Beverage Company is a subsidiary of Hansen Natural Corporation. Monster Beverage Company, or officially the Monster LDA Company (MLDA), is also a subsidiary of Hansen Natural Corporation. However, Hansen Beverage Company or Hansen Natural Corporation develops, markets, sells and distributes the Monster drink for MLDA. [3] [4]. --Yarnalgo 20:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Hansen's is the acknowledged owner and manufacturer of Monster Energy within the industry and in their stock reports, where Monster has been a central source of their growth in the last 2 years. I put Hansen's back in. Teloscientist 03:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

See also and Related Products[edit]

I am wondering how we should situate this. Currently, related products features "Lost Energy" and "Full Throttle," see also lists "Lost Energy" and "Red Bull." I do not see the connection to having Full throttle, as far as I can tell, full throttle is only a related product in that it is an energy drink. To list all energy drinks would be impractical, so perhaps the most popular should be listed? Lost Energy makes sense, since it is based on Monster. Red Bull also makes sense, as it somewhat 'paved the way' for energy drinks to make a market impact. But perhaps we should come up with a system and have some logical process for the See Also, and especially for the Related Products sections. --TheRealKuni 20:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

M pull tab[edit]

I'm seeing a whole bunch of monsters now with no cut out, just a scratched "M" monster logo. Is this just something regional, or what? Violask81976 02:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that that is a feature exclusive to the M-80's and the Mixxd cans. I collect the tabs, and noticed it as well.

Air Force Security Forces love Monster, especially on 12+ hour shifts.[edit]

Really? I'd love to see a source on this one :) Derekawesome 21:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Caffeine content?[edit]

Since this energy drink's "source" is its high levels of caffeine (I'd imagine 80-120 mLs) maybe the level should be listed in the article. --

Aren't ingredients listed by weight in descending order? There's 180mg of sodium per 8 oz in a can and caffeine is listed before sodium chloride in the ingredients list. Am I missing something? SubIgnition (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

IT is listed after sodium citrate. I don't know what the sodium label takes into acount and don't trust this assumption but I think that could be a possible explanation — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Monster logo.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Monster logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Its' fair use because it's a logo used for informational purposes. You can use any material, copyrighted, or not for educational, non-profit purposes. [5] User:AlexPBenes —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


i came across a review site, im not much of a wiki editor, more or a reader, and a minor corrector/grammar and punctuation. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [[12]] Photo or the new products by Monster


The article states: "In 2004, Hansen Natural Corporation did not announce a distribution agreement with Anheuser-Busch...." My guess is that they also did not invade Poland or create a mutant strain of supervirus. Why is something that they didn't do in the article? —  MusicMaker5376 18:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That was vandalized a while back, See the section below where I mention the specific edit. It's fixed now. —Random832 (contribs) 17:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What the hell?[edit]

[13] there isnt enough info. on monsters. —Austiniodor 16:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know the exact difference in the taste of the new "Monster Energy Import" from the old orriginal "Monster Energy" and some pictures would be nice... -Chodie —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a question...[edit]

Does Monster really have alchohol in it, or is it just an urban legend? If you look underneath the ingredients on a can of Monster, it says "Consume responsibly. Limit 3 cans per day. Not recommended for children..." Does that mean that it is alchohol, or is it something else? If anybody can tell exactly what it is, and if it's alchohol or not, it should be added to the "Ingredients" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if Monster contains any alcohol in any of its formulations, but it does contain a whole lot of caffeine, and caffeine can be deadly if you consume a lot in a short period of time (I hear that a few hundred concentrated milliliters of the stuff can kill an adult human). That's probably the reason for the warning. — EagleOne\Talk 18:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It takes around 5 grams to a kill an average adult, I wouldn't worry about killing oneself on monster. Vivarin would be easier, and if it was alcoholic the price would be much higher because of taxes. C6541 (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

is monsters made of bull yearn (pee) ?! ju

is monsters made of bull yearn (pee) just wanting to know?!

Monster does not have alcohol in it. If it did it would have to clearly say so, as well as list it on the ingredients. KearF (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


BFC doesn't stand for "big effin can". I've changed it 3 times now to "Big Fucking Can". If it were called "Monster Energy: BEC", then "big effin can" could be appropriate. We're not in gradeschool, let it be what it is.


What in the horse does "kosher" have to do with anything? Someone remove that line of garbage. —Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

International sizes[edit]

We have 473 mL cans here in Canada, not 16oz cans. Can we get updated sizes that included the metric system? (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Read the ingredients, then read the articles on them, some of the ingredients are actually prescribed to sexually dysfunctional men. I don't think it makes you smaller by any means, maybe a lower sperm count though —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


is monsters made out of bull yearn (pee) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

-facepalm- —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
*facepalm* Monster Energy is definitely not made of pee! See Monster_Energy#Ingredients if you would like to know what Monster is really made of! NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  17:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

is this good for kids[edit]

no it is not good for kids it can harm them —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not good for anybody. It's tasty, delicious, while having a caffeine content that deserves a Surgeon General Warning. There should probably be a section addressing the dangers of these kinds of drinks. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Well there is a section addressing the adverse effects of energy drinks (not just Monster) here (in the article Energy drink). Although I do drink Monster from time to time, I don't drink too much (no more than one in a single day) and I usually drink the blue Monster (lo-carb) due to less sugar, calories, and carbs. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  17:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Modern Warfare 2 + Monster[edit]

Activision has teamed up with monster to produce a new line of energy drink. [14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaleIX (talkcontribs) 14:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Rock Art[edit]

Has Vermonster been around for 10 years? I thought it was created for the 10th anniversary of Rock Art Brewery. My information is not sourced, so I won't change it... Also, I'm guessing this page should be watched for vandalism in the coming days. (Oh, and I'm not logged in... it doesn't matter I'm no one important.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The source didn't support the claim that it has been brewed for 10 years so I have removed the sentence. In fact, one of the other sources [15] claims Vermonster has only been brewed since 2007. Barret (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Nitrous Oxide claim[edit]

I'm not so sure about the claim that the Monster Nitrous actually contains Nitrous Oxide. The ingredients only lists "nitrogenated water," and the FDA prohibits the sale and distribution of products containing N20. The actual content of the drink is still a bit up for question as to how they actually "nitrogenate" the water. MasterNetHead (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Monster: Radioactive[edit]

My friend says there use to be a Monster flavor called Monster Radioactive. Does anyone have any proof to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I haven't heard of that before. I did hear, however, that as time go by, Monster is releasing new flavors. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  17:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

picture of Monster can on infobox[edit]

The picture on the infobox recently changed from a regular Monster Energy logo to a can of Monster Energy. The picture of the Monster can appears to be very large, and I am curious whether it's necessary to keep it like that, make it smaller, or revert it back to the regular logo. The large picture of the can is very big, compared with the rest of the infobox, so this is why I was questioning about this since I have never seen large infobox pictures like this (other than vandalism). NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  17:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Caffeine content was wrong[edit]

Per the reference, updated caffeine content to 10mg per fluid ounce. It had been 2 mg per, which is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I made the above change prior to making an account. ThugIntel (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


In the flavor section of the article it lists Jenoside, Nazi, and Kardiac Arrest as flavors (probably under different spelling, I don't remember exactly how they mis-spelled the words) none of which I've heard of. I fequently buy Monster from a variety of locations and havn't seen this. A Google image search didn't pull up any designs or anything with these names. Also I doubt Monster would title anything after cardiac arrest due to obvious reasons... But since I only know of Monster products in south-east U.S. I figure I should probably mention here before removing it myself. If I still can't find a credible source for these I'll remove them in a few days if no one disagrees. KearF (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no possible way that a mainstream company would create a Nazi flavored drink, and the other two were added in the same edit. I'm very confident this is missed vandalism and I've removed those "flavors" accordingly.--Kubigula (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
That's a very flavourful vandalisation... (yes this edit was entirely to make a pun, delete this if you want)

Monster Roo[edit]

I feel the Monster Roo fursuit should be noted in this article in one way or another. (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


Somebody recently deleted the Flavors section. I, and probably many others, feel that this section should stay in this page. On many other pages for products on Wikipedia there are sections for its' own flavors or products. If somebody deleted this section on this page then why would we keep it on countless other pages? The Flavors section is helpful for people who either do not have time to reach the company website or someone who needs to look it up fast. Also on the company website it does not have Coming Soon flavors or Discontinued flavors like we have here which is also helpful.

Ajfweb14 (talk) 05:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Why would anyone ever need to look it up fast? Or at all? Serious question. This needs a source, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

monster mini?[edit]

in maine i found an 8 oz monster called monster mini that had the same 2000mg energy bland and all. it was definitely legit, theres no way a copy of anything could be that good. anyway there is zero web prescence on it so should it be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to move "flavors" section to its own list.[edit]

What the title says. The list is ridiculously long, and also isn't supported by citations. I support the move to a list per WP:NOTDIR. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Then the list would fail NOTDIR. Just delete it. It's not informative. It's a bunch of words that describe nothing. If they had flavours readers could understand or follow a link to, like grape or blue, it'd be different. But Killer-B? Dub Edition? Ripper? Lobo shot? Useless. If they can be explained and sourced, they can stay. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted it. It's as useful in the infobox as it was in the article. but wastes less space. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

UK and Europe[edit]

Did the writer had geography? UK is part of Europe. If you insist of naming the UK separate, write it like: UK and the rest of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gewoonbart (talkcontribs) 06:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Technically speaking, the UK is a country who's mainland is an island off the coast of the continent of Europe. The UK is generally considered to belong to "Europe", but if you bring "geography" into it without mentioning political influence, you run the risk of defending your statement. The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire!, how far away from "Europe" are the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Bermuda? They might not be full fledged members like Scotland, but still part of "The UK". Is the United States of America only located on the North American continent? Is Hawai'i a full fledged member of the USA? Just some things to think about. I could be wrong, but be ready to defend your position when you decide to change the sentence. You are Wikipedia, like the rest of us, no need to wait for someone else to edit it for you. (Just make sure you have someone proofread your grammar before posting, or someone might ask "Did you had English?") --Billy Nair (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Controversy about being satanic?[edit]

Should this be noted under the "Controversies and warnings" section? -- (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Somebody removed sourced information about this "controversy"; I restored it. The Facebook video would not qualify as a reliable source.--Mojo Hand (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)