Coffee Cuts Risk of Dying From Stroke and Heart Disease, Study Suggests (theguardian.com) 165
Research suggests that people who drink coffee have a lower risk of dying from a host of causes, including heart disease, stroke and liver disease. "The connection, revealed in two large studies, was found to hold regardless of whether the coffee was caffeinated or not, with the higher among those who drank more cups of coffee a day," reports The Guardian. From the report: The first study looked at coffee consumption among more than 185,000 white and non-white participants, recruited in the early 1990s and followed up for an average of over 16 years. The results revealed that drinking one cup of coffee a day was linked to a 12% lower risk of death at any age, from any cause while those drinking two or three cups a day had an 18% lower risk, with the association not linked to ethnicity.
The second study -- the largest of its kind -- involved more than 450,000 participants, recruited between 1992 and 2000 across ten European countries, who were again followed for just over 16 years on average. After a range of factors including age, smoking status, physical activity and education were taken into account, those who drank three or more cups a day were found to have a 18% lower risk of death for men, and a 8% lower risk of death for women at any age, compared with those who didn't drink the brew. The benefits were found to hold regardless of the country, although coffee drinking was not linked to a lower risk of death for all types of cancer. The study also looked at a subset of 14,800 participants, finding that coffee-drinkers had better results on many biological markers including liver enzymes and glucose control. But experts warn that the two studies, both published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, do not show that drinking coffee was behind the overall lower risk, pointing out that it could be that coffee drinkers are healthier in various ways or that those who are unwell drink less coffee.
The second study -- the largest of its kind -- involved more than 450,000 participants, recruited between 1992 and 2000 across ten European countries, who were again followed for just over 16 years on average. After a range of factors including age, smoking status, physical activity and education were taken into account, those who drank three or more cups a day were found to have a 18% lower risk of death for men, and a 8% lower risk of death for women at any age, compared with those who didn't drink the brew. The benefits were found to hold regardless of the country, although coffee drinking was not linked to a lower risk of death for all types of cancer. The study also looked at a subset of 14,800 participants, finding that coffee-drinkers had better results on many biological markers including liver enzymes and glucose control. But experts warn that the two studies, both published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, do not show that drinking coffee was behind the overall lower risk, pointing out that it could be that coffee drinkers are healthier in various ways or that those who are unwell drink less coffee.
Maybe... (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe for each cup of coffee you drink, that's one less chance that it could have been a cola or beer, which could be considered harmful. Perhaps orange squash instead of coffee would have had the same result.
Re: (Score:2)
Coffee, Eggs, Etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
Coffee is getting close to eggs when it comes to an endless stream of good for you, bad for you, no, wait, good for you again.
Butter is a close third.
Eat, drink whatever you like, just do it in moderation.
Re:Coffee, Eggs, Etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bacon is a close third it was recently published that bacon contains more monounsaturated fat than olive oil. Monounsaturated fat is considered "Heart Healthy."
Im beginning to think that 2 fried eggs, 2 strips of bacon, toast with real butter, and a cup of coffee is a healthy breakfast. lol
Re: (Score:2)
if that's the case, I'm living to 150
Re:Coffee, Eggs, Etc. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Bears have molars, actually. Please do some research before saying things that could be easily disproven by about three seconds on Google. Our teeth are omnivorous.
Well, for one - as I said earlier - most of our ape and monkey cousins aren't
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not arguing about what gorillas do or do not eat. We agree on that. They are the outliers amongst the great apes. Human, chimps, bonobos, and others all hunt and kill other animals for food.
Most gorilla teeth are larger than ours. They use their teeth for a lot of things, including defense. Comparing our teeth to an animal that is primarily carnivorous doesn't make sense either, since
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, it is a proven fact that coffee is good for you.
If you drink exactly one cup of coffee per day, there is an extremely strong correlation between drinking coffee and living longer.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
As is Jane Curtin.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What is the "worse and worse"?
When has there ever been a dispute that streamlining sugar into your body is terrible? Any heavily sweetened liquid is about the most nutritionally useless thing you can consume.
Sodas sweetened with sugar and processed sweets are cigarettes-lite, and perhaps one of the most detrimental affects of industrialization. These are all engineered to be as consumable and non-fulfilling as possible. The worst part is that no one takes them seriously and people are indoctrinated into
Re: (Score:2)
Cyanide is now called vitamin B-17 (aka Laetrile) by snake oil salespeople.
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe for each cup of coffee you drink, that's one less chance that it could have been a cola or beer, which could be considered harmful. Perhaps orange squash instead of coffee would have had the same result.
Chain drinking orange squash though will cost you a fortune in dental bills and won't do your blood sugar any favours, just like the cola. Swilling a gallon of coffee each day will only give you bad breath and have you waking up in a panic at night asking who drove a tank through the house whenever a car drives past.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yuck.
No, really, people do that? What a waste of coffee.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I hear everyone's sense of taste is a bit different. Were I taste a lot of different things, someone else's experience might be dominated by the bitter aromas. At least that's what I'm hearing quote often. For instance, a "supertaster" appears to have a heightened sensitivity for bitterness, often making them picky eaters and hating all
Re: (Score:3)
So why do they still drink coffee if they have to cancel the undesired tastes with copious amounts of sugar
I don't really drink coffee, but I have two answers.
One, chocolate doesn't taste great to a lot of people without added sugar either - do you expect chocolate to go away? Most foods are a combination of multiple flavors. And second, caffeine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not talking about people drinking cappuccino, latte macchiato, or similar things.
Milk doesn't balance/mask bitterness. Sugar does. And people who like sweet milk chocolate don't always like dark chocolate, hence my comparison. They still really like sweet milk chocolate.
to use another analogy imagine serving a fine single malt, aged 18 years or more. And then people mix it with cola
So now we're talking only about premium coffee? Most people in this study are likely drinking hot-brewed garbage with their sugar - which is better compared to a Hershey's bar than any fine single-origin Guatemalan dark chocolate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All chocolate starts as high-cocoa chocolate. Same with coffee. There is no real substitute for chocolate if you want sweetened chocolate. The bitter and the sweet together are what make the flavor. Same with coffee and sugar for the people that like that.
Your lactose argument is relatively meaningless. Sucrose is over 5 times sweeter [wikipedia.org] than lactose.
Re: (Score:2)
Guatemala? Not bad at all, but try the Madagascar, you won't regret it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Given how many people put a little bit of coffee in their cup of sugar, what's the big difference?
Putting a ton of sugar in your coffee is to drinking coffee as drinking cold Budweiser is to drinking beer.
You don't really like the flavor of the real thing (coffee/beer) so you try and drink something that doesn't taste like it, you're just drinking it to fit in with some preconceived notion of what your should be.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't really like the flavor of the real thing (coffee/beer) so you try and drink something that doesn't taste like it, you're just drinking it to fit in with some preconceived notion of what your should be.
I don't understand why people who don't seem to like coffee disguise the hell out of it instead of just drinking something else. On Friday, one of my co-workers came in early and brewed a carafe of some gourmet fudge-pinon stuff. Damnet, if I wanted hot chocolate, I'd fucking MAKE hot chocolate.
Re:Maybe... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To my palate, it was indistinguishable from hot chocolate. There's nothing wrong with gourmet fudge-pinon by itself, but it doesn't belong in the communal coffee carafe. I like hot chocolate, but I rely on coffee to fuel my coding.
I hold no ill-will. I still had the Keurig to turn to and the rules around here relax considerably on Fridays. He was doing something nice.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I stopped bothering with tea and went back to soda, I had to put in so much sugar to make the tea palatable and it was a chore to prepare it every time versus just going to the fridge and grabbing a can.
Have you tried drinking one of the naturally sweeter teas? (or tisane for the pedants)
Rooibos (red bush) is naturally a little sweeter... although a lot of people don't like it anyway. But you can get it mixed with other flavours if the plain rooibos isn't to your palette. There are some ginger, chai, hibiscus, or cinnamon blends that have no artificial sweeteners or sugars that naturally taste sweet without adding sugars.
Personally, I'm a big fan of lemongrass too, not really sweet but the flavor will ma
Re: (Score:2)
Bitter is a taste sensation in itself. Having travelled through Uruguay and Argentina, I'm partial to yerba mate - to the uninitiated it tastes like grass clippings filtered through a smelly sock! But once your tastebuds adjust, the bitterer the bettererer.
Thence switching back to black/green tea, sweetness or lack of isn't something I'd ever add sugar for. And for badly roasted coffee, the lactose in a dash of milk should suffice. (any vegans - check the ingredients on your soy or almond milk - it likely c
Re: (Score:2)
I drink it all... and all of it without milk or sugar. The cupboard above my computer in my office is filled with about a dozen different coffee beans, teas and tisanes. Black, green, red, etc. I really do drink it all... start the day with coffee but have all sorts the rest of the day. I could eat the same foods everyday, but I require variety in what I drink.
I like mate too. The plain is fine, but I think the chocolate mate is much better.
I'm a fan of bitter things. As you say, bitter can be appreci
Re: (Score:2)
American can coffee went to shit over decades of pure price competition. It's 100% robusta.
Nobody under 70 drinks that piss though. It gets less and less shelf space every year.
Re: (Score:3)
The upside: When death finally comes for you, it will be sweet relief.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the above. I don't like coffee either.
I'm an early-bird and don't need, or consume, caffeine. Never needed it, nor liked how it makes me feel.
Re: (Score:2)
Given how many people put a little bit of coffee in their cup of sugar, what's the big difference?
They'd probably use less sugar but even if they don't both cola and orange juice are considerably more acidic than coffee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Maybe... (Score:4, Interesting)
or maybe, perhaps... coffee drinkers are simply not the poor, part time, uninsured segment of the population..... they are wealthier (starbucks ain't cheap) and better employed (the office coffee pot is not something you find at part time minimum wage jobs) with health insurance..
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Funny)
Coffee flavour (Score:5, Funny)
Starbucks sells coffee now?
Yeah, it's one of their flavour that you can ask on your pumpkin syrup.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Starbucks? Please. Their coffee sucks. My wife grinds fresh beans for me in the morning.
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Funny)
Starbucks? Please. Their coffee sucks. My wife grinds fresh beans for me in the morning.
I grind my own beans each morning... it hurts... but it's worth it.
I also grind some coffee beans each morning for my French press. Best way to drink coffee... although when lazy I will sometimes use the Keurig. Not as good, but better than no coffee.
Re: (Score:2)
Standard Folgers is 100% robusta. Nothing makes it palatable.
Re: (Score:2)
Coffee can be made at home you know, for a fraction of the starbucks price.
Re: (Score:2)
Coffee can be made at home you know, for a fraction of the starbucks price.
At starbucks, you're not paying for coffee; you're paying to be waited on by someone and enjoy sitting in their café. It's about an experience.
You can certainly drink coffee for much less. You can certainly make your own better coffee for less. (not that I jump on the Starbucks hate train).
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, you can probably use any that's left over as a herbicide/insecticide.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed a negative somewhere. That's Starbucks you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt anyone could stand Starbucks or Costa for 16 years straight.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
This is probably the explanation. I remember a study from the early nineties that claimed drinking a glass of wine a day had all kinds of benefits, but it turned out the researchers had purposefully ignored what the participants were drinking instead of the wine.
And in large quantities coffee can be really dangerous as it can cause severe blood pressure and heart rhythm problems. And that's a problem since caffeine is highly addictive and a surprisingly large fraction of coffee drinkers slowly but steadily
Re: (Score:2)
LDS drop into every coffee thread with the same stupid claim.
Re: (Score:2)
This may be true, but the evidence for coffee's statistical association with liver health and plausible mechanisms of action have been well-established for years now. You can even measure the dose-related effects of coffee consumption on markers of liver function in small-scale experiments. What's unclear is the clinical significance of those effects; but any attempt to determine that is bound to run afoul of some counfounding factors, but in context those factors aren't all that likely to be significant.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know the link and haven't read a lot of studies, but it seems that bitter-tasting foods in general help the liver in some unknown way. Probably provides important components to chemical processes in some form.
Re: (Score:2)
Because I read the summary and the first thing I thought was, "Oh yuck. Now I'm going to have to start drinking coffee."
Re: (Score:1)
That might be the coffee.
Great news! (Score:5, Funny)
Only 30 cups of coffee per day to reduce chance of dying by 100%!
Re: (Score:1)
OK, I could probably cut back to that.
Re: (Score:1)
Fourth Study (to come out in 2 years): Drinking coffee will give you cancer.
Fifth Study (to come out in 3 years): Trying to determine health benefits and risks of coffee will cause mental insanity.
Sixth Study (to come out in 4 years): Revelations that the Mega-Coffee Lobbying Firm sponsored the third study and the Anti-Caffination League sponsored the fourth study
Causation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Another study that cannot distinguish if it's causation of just correlation. A very simple explanation for the second possibility comes to mind: Perhaps people with low blood pressure like to have more coffee as it's an stimulant. And that same people will, by virtue of their low blood pressure, not of the coffee, have less risk of stroke. More complex explanations can apply.
I understand the difficulties of making a double-blind controlled experiment in this case, but the fact that doing it right is difficult shouldn't be an excuse for doing it wrong.
Re:Causation? (Score:5, Informative)
It is most likely NOT a study that can't distinguish between causation and correlation but rather a study that checks for correlation to find out if it is worth to fund the next study checking for causation. It's usually the news outlets mixing that up. A study could even be titled "Correlation between polar lights and strawberry candy production" would make it to the news as "Scientists found out Polar lights produce strawberry candy!"
Scientists usually don't mix these two up, but finding one is the first step to find the other. Usually from correlation to causation, but not limited to that. e.g. a lab discovery may find some prior unknown chemical reaction between some food and enzyme/hormone/drug/whatever they may have found something that DOES disable/amplify something, but may still need to look for a visible correlation to find out if that effect is strong enough (or offset by something else) to be relevant.
Sensationnalist press article (Score:4, Insightful)
Another study that cannot distinguish if it's causation of just correlation.
Actually, it's not the studies' fault.
Both studies only use the term "association" (as in : "we found the number to be somewhat correlated") with the first one even in the title.
Even in the abstract the second study mentions it's only correlation, and there might even be reverse causation.
But then you can count on the press to spin it up as "Coffee cures death !!!!11!!1!!"
Ob. PHDcomics ref [phdcomics.com]
Re: (Score:3)
It's not the first time a study like this has been performed though.
Coffee is one of the most studied drinks of all time. All the studies back each other up. This is far from the first study to suggest coffee improves heart health or risk of stroke avoidance.
Either they're all making the same fundamental mistakes or coffee really does help.
Association (Score:3)
It's not the first time a study like this has been performed though. {...} Either they're all making the same fundamental mistakes or coffee really does help.
These specific 2 studies linked from TFS on /. specifically looked for association and nothing more.
i.e.: you put some health marker on 1 axis (here: low incidence of cardio-vascular problems) and put coffee consumption on the 2nd axis, and then you notice that the data point line-up nicely, which (again for these 2 studies) only suggest that there is a link between the two (*a* link. Any link. Causality is just one possibility).
these studies don't go beyond that, and clearly state this, even in the title a
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't proof, but it is evidence. Part of a growing body of evidence and a growing body of studies that say the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The study does that just fine. It is the fucking article "for the public" which transforms a correlation into causation. The only thing which we learn from the study is. Coffee does not shorten live significantly otherwise such effect would have been visible.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, you'd like to volunteer for a double blind interventional study? Excellent! Assuming you are young (20 or so should do it) we will give you a mystery beverage every day, which you must drink. When you die we'll record what killed you, and open up the envelope to determine what it was we were feeding you for the last fifty or sixty years.
Thanks for your contribution!
SJWs (Score:3)
The SJWs are gong to be all over this. There'll probably be lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
The SJWs are gong to be all over this. There'll probably be lawsuits.
Ban coffee! How dare it be biased against women
Re: (Score:2)
SJWs are the new boogeyman.
What about tea? (Score:2)
With all the positive buzz around tea, I would have liked to see another group in these studies for tea vs. coffee.
Re: (Score:2)
Debunking their own study. (Score:1)
"But experts warn that the two studies...do not show that drinking coffee was behind the overall lower risk, pointing out that it could be that coffee drinkers are healthier in various ways or that those who are unwell drink less coffee."
Did they just...debunk their own damn study?!?
It could be that people addicted to a stimulant might be healthier in various ways, or that those who are unwell drink shitty soft drinks in order to ingest the same addictive drug.
But hey, let's attribute the benefits to coffee anyway. It's not we're gonna find this study was bought and paid for by those who would profit the most from the product being studied. I mean, that never happens, right?
Re: (Score:2)
They did not debunk their own study. It is /. and other media outlets who report the results not as portrait in the publication. Typical bullshitting of the press.
Re: (Score:1)
But hey, let's attribute the benefits to coffee anyway. It's not we're gonna find this study was bought and paid for by those who would profit the most from the product being studied. I mean, that never happens, right?
Another randomly angry retard got thoroughly owned about this an hour before you posted.
Dupe? (Score:2)
Story from a couple months ago [slashdot.org]
Yeah, like butter vs margarine (Score:2)
... or 1/8 l of red wine a day vs total abstinence. I've grown fairly skeptical over the years about these kind of studies, because they seem to go back and forth without any type of final conclusion in sight. Maybe I'm wrong this time and this is the last word on coffee. Then again, maybe not... ;-)
No it does not (Score:2)
The study suggests that people who drink coffee are also people who live longer. Whether this is the effect of coffee, a socio-economic effect, or an indirect correlation, i.e., someone who drinks coffee also has a potential healthier lifestyle or even people who like coffee a in general healthier. This report on slashdot is a typical exaggeration of scientific results by media outlets, which are misleading and affect how the public see science. For example, next week another study suggests something opposi
Lower risk of death caused by it, sure.... (Score:2)
But unless that translates to a lower risk of having it in the first place, I'm not sure that l'd be happy with just a lower chance of death by it, because the way I see it is that I'm going to die eventually anyway, and simply surviving a stroke doesn't mean you will have any real quality of life afterward
Disclaimer... (Score:1)
Study was funded by Juan Valdez.
I hate the guardian. (Score:1)
"The first study looked at coffee consumption among more than 185,000 white and non-white participants"
You mean fuckin' people?
Best reason to drink coffee (Score:3)
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Higher Risk of Other Causes (Score:2, Informative)
Coffee may reduce the risk of dying from heart attack and stroke, but increases the risk of dying from a host of other diseases, such as Hydroxyl Acid poisoning. Hydroxyl Acid is nasty stuff that is found in all coffee-based beverages. It is stored in the coffee beans and small amounts of it are extracted during the brewing process. If the amount of it in the human body gets too high, it can result in severe, life-threatening electrolyte imbalances such as hypokalemia.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people even brew their coffee in a hydroxyl acid solution.
Back in reality... (Score:2)
This week it's 'flip', next week it'll be 'flop' (Score:2)
You want my advice? Ignore all of it and just do what you like. The list of things that will eventually kill you is even longer. Be as healthy as you can without paying attention to all the hype, and enjoy life while you can.
Antioxidants (Score:2)
Coffee has, by far, the most antioxidants of anything we eat or drink.
So does it cure cancer too?
Re: (Score:1)
I think an equally, if not more, valid question should be; Who paid for the "experts", who exactly are they, and why should we believe them over studies that have enough credibility to be published in the Annals of Internal Medicine (not exactly some sketchy 3rd-rate, no-name journal known for publishing junk-science)? Of course, I'm not saying the studies mean that coffee is necessarily all that good for you (but also possibly not so bad as well), but from the i
Re:Who Paid for That Study? The coffee industry? (Score:5, Informative)
"...but from the information in TFS there's no way to tell and equally no way to tell regarding who's funding either side and what their motivations might be."
You are both fucking stupid and fucking lazy. From the Link, Primary sponsors:
European Commission Directorate-General for Health and Consumers and International Agency for Research on Cancer.
From the Disclaimer Link within, everybody involved, their affiliations, and their funding:
*********************
This article was published at Annals.org on 11 July 2017.
* Drs. Gunter and Murphy contributed equally to this work.
Deceased.
From International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France; Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom; Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany; German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Nuthetal, Germany; Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, Denmark; Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark; Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Frederiksberg, Denmark; Public Health Directorate, Asturias, Spain; Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain; Andalusian School of Public Health, Granada, Spain; Public Health Division of Gipuzkoa, Basque Regional Health Department, San Sebastián, Spain; Murcia Regional Health Council, Murcia, Spain; Navarre Public Health Institute, Pamplona, Spain; University of Cambridge and MRC Epidemiology Unit, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Hellenic Health Foundation, Athens, Greece; Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; Cancer Research and Prevention Institute–ISPO, Florence, Italy; Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy; Federico II University, Naples, Italy; “Civic - M.P. Arezzo” Hospital, ASP Ragusa, Ragusa, Italy; National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands; University Medical Centre, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Malmö University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden; Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden; Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden; University of Tromsø, The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway; and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Note: All authors had full access to all of the data (including statistical reports and tables) in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. The authors are not affiliated with the listed funding institutions. Drs. Gunter and Murphy act as the guarantors of this article.
Acknowledgment: The authors thank the EPIC participants and staff for their valuable contribution to this research and Nicola Kerrison (MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge) for managing the data for the InterAct Project.
Financial Support: The coordination of EPIC is financially supported by the European Commission Directorate-General for Health and Consumers and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The national cohorts are supported by the Danish Cancer Society (Denmark); Ligue Contre le Cancer, Institut Gustave Roussy, Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale, and Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (France); Deutsche Krebshilfe, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, and Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Germany); Hellenic Health Foundation, Stavros Niarchos Foundation, and the Hellenic Ministry of Health and Social Solidarity (Greece); Italian Association for Cancer Research, National Research Council, and Associazione Iblea per la Ricerca Epidemiologica Ragusa, Associazione Volontari Italiani Sangue Ragusa, Sicilian Government (Italy); Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sport, Netherlands Cancer Registry, LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZorgOnderzoek Nederland, World Cancer Research Fund International, and Statistics Netherlands (the Netherlands); European Research Council (grant ERC-2009-AdG 232997), N
Study does not suggest this causation (Score:4, Interesting)
The original publication does not suggest any causation. This is media reporting wrong on science.
The people processed long time research data. The result is that coffee does not have severe negative effects otherwise the correlation would have been different. However, THIS DOES NOT IMPLY THE OPPOSITE, which is any positive health effect from coffee. The scientists also pointed out that such effects cannot be determined by the used approach at all.
Re: (Score:2)
The result of the study is precisely what the summary and the article say. From the first line of the article:
"People who drink coffee have a lower risk of dying from a host of causes, including heart disease, stroke and liver disease, research suggests...."
What comes after the ellipsis is actually this:
" – but experts say it’s unclear whether the health boost is down to the brew itself."
Re:Confusing race-baiting (Score:5, Funny)
Uh... ??
You can't just say "more than 185,000 people"? Why would race be injected into this reporting?
I thought that was referring to the way they take their coffee.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh... ??
You can't just say "more than 185,000 people"? Why would race be injected into this reporting?
It was poorly worded. I think the purpose behind that statement was to say they studied the effects on multiple races to see if all races have the same impact.
drinking one cup of coffee a day was linked to a 12% lower risk of death at any age, from any cause while those drinking two or three cups a day had an 18% lower risk, with the association not linked to ethnicity.
So basically- they tested to see if the benefit only applied to some races and not others and they found that it benefitted all races equally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You can't just say "more than 185,000 people"? Why would race be injected into this reporting?
Because in the past a lot of medical research had unreported sampling biases that were assumed to be unimportant at the time, but were later found to have significant consequences. For example, a lot of heart research was conducted only on white men, but it was later found women and black men have different reactions to various drugs.
So the problem is not that race is being "injected" but rather that it has been injected in the recent past. Mentioning it is therefore relevant. They also broke it down by se
Re: (Score:2)
Uh... ??
You can't just say "more than 185,000 people"? Why would race be injected into this reporting?
It's a European study and everybody in Spain would be hispanic.
Re: (Score:2)
No it does not. Media to stupid to report on science correctly. Again.
Re: What if... (Score:1)
You only get covfefe when you're tweeting at 3am while on the loo
That was actually the explanation for "one drink" (Score:3)
What if... Those who are unwell were strictly forbidden to drink covfefe by their doctors ?
I hear that WAS the actual explanation behind the research results that led to the "one drink a day (or very moderate drinking) is better than alcohol abstinence" advice.
The coffee numbers look more like actual benefits, though. Which is not too surprising, given that coffee has a lot of chemicals in it that are known to be, or suspected of being, good for you in appropriate ways (such as antioxidants).
The fun part w
Re: (Score:3)
Coffee is back to being great for you this month. Next month ... A single cup a year will give you CancerAids, warts and make you sexually attracted to the wrong gender for you. But red wine and chocolate will "cure" all those things.
Actually... almost all the studies involving coffee have been positive for decades now.
Back in the 80's everyone was convinced coffee must be bad for you like smoking, so they launched all these long term studies to prove it. Over the subsequent decades almost every study has come back saying the opposite.
Coffee linked to less of certain cancers. ..
Coffee linked to heart health.
Coffee linked to lower diabetes.
Coffee linked to less chance of strokes.
Coffee linked to less gout.
Coffee linked to better memory.
Re: (Score:2)
coffee is medium for you if you don't overdue it.
What? So if I drink it before it's too late, it will help me contact spirits?