Coffee is Addictive

zpok writes "According to scientists, coffee is really addictive, which I guess must mean they'll come in and confiscate your latte any moment now..." Can't wait for the study proving sugar is sweet.

Comments

Irresponsibility

[the_mad_poster]

...who released a study that could result in the official classification of the condition as a mental disorder.

Seriously... is there ANYONE in ANY part of this country anymore that just takes a little bit of responsibility for their own goddamn actions? The idea that the effects of drinking a cup of coffee could even be considered being classified as a "disease" is absolutely ludicrous.

People are so pathetic these days. I think the only disease involved in all this "you're not an irresponsible jackass, you just need medical help!" attitude is an acute affliction of stupid.

Re:Irresponsibility

[andreMA]

The idea that the effects of drinking a cup of coffee could even be considered being classified as a "disease" is absolutely ludicrous

That's not what they're considering doing. They're talking about the symptoms that some regualt users of caffeiene experience upon sudden cessation. DSM is for the most part merely despriptive of various sets of symptoms and circumstances, including things like "Bereavement" (V62.82).

One can hardly claim that observing (and labelling) the fact that people are sad when a loved one dies is intended to absolve them of responsibility for their actions.

Re:Irresponsibility

[DigitalRaptor]

It may not be a disease, per se, but there is a very clear and very real genetic predisposition for some people to be alcoholics, and others to be able to drink half a glass and leave the rest on the table when they leave.

It's easy for the latter to judge the former, but that doesn't mean the condition is any less real.

It's like those that aren't succeptable to depression judging those that are, and telling them to just "shake it off" or "snap out of it".

That attitude shows a clear lack of understanding.

Re:Irresponsibility

[admdrew]

I think a big part of it is the amount people consume. I drink (on average) a few cans/bottles of coke a day, so I've become accustomed to the caffeine enough that it barely affects me. *Not* having it, however, ends up sucking.

I have friends whose caffeine intake is minimal (if at all) in a normal day, so a single can of pop or a cup of coffee can keep them up for hours. It's all relative tolerance, like a lot of other drugs out there.

Re:Irresponsibility

[0racle]

While true, eating the bean directly will give you more then almost any made coffee, and he also said scarf down a whole bunch which would be a whole lot more then any cup of coffee.

Ignoring all that and moving on to your, 'to be a man have a light roast' some of us like a darker roasted coffee, and actually like espresso. If your drinking a coffee to impress people, your going to be a dick no matter what level of roast you drink.

All the previous is anecdotal evidence, but I do have extensive experience with many different types of coffee's, I go for taste, and while I do often prefer a stronger, darker roast I try all sorts of different ones. its nice that one beverage has so many different subtleties that change the experience just a little each time.

Re:Irresponsibility

[drinkypoo]

Every stimulant, whether it be caffeine or methamphetamines, carries many of the same negative side effects. The results of consuming a stimulant compound are mostly a matter of scale. I guarantee if you consumed enough caffeine that your scalp would crawl and your heart would race and, if you continued to pound it down, you'd OD. Caffeine is never (?) served in such a concentration that such a thing becomes a serious risk but I've eaten enough chocolate-covered espresso beans to start sweating profusely and to be utterly unable to hold still. One imagines that someone with a weak ticker who chugged mountain dew while eating the aforementioned confection could keel right the fuck over and become an ex-human.

Many people DO consume too much coffee, and it keeps them up sweating at night, causes them to be jittery, and in general decreases their quality of life. However, on days when they skip their coffee, or even significantly cut back the dosage, they get headaches and turn into their Mr. Hyde equivalent. You know, kind of like the other legal stimulant you can buy at the gas station: cigarettes. Interestingly cigarettes also contain compounds which promote health, but I don't see too many people arguing that cigarettes are healthy. Guess what? Neither is drinking a whole bunch of coffee.

I agree that alcohol is far more insidious than coffee but don't pretend that there is a gigantic difference between them, other than the fact that one's a stimulant and the other's a depressant.

Re:Irresponsibility

[KyleCordes]

Here is a point of view on this seems ideally balanced, to get flamed from both sides:

For a person to get to a high, constant level of drinking, is an act of great irresponbility and foolishness, a wrongdoing against oneself and everyone around.

Having gotten there, the enormous physiological difficulty in stopping, appears to be a bona fide disease.

Re:Irresponsibility

[maxpublic]

You're ignoring the fact that the 'counseling' industry is a huge money-maker for the participating therapists. More mental disorders means more people who're convinced they need treatment means more money in the bank for the practitioners.

The real beauty of the system is that many of these classifications are specious at best and often vague to the point of being useless. Even better there's little evidence to indicate that most forms of therapy are in any way effective at treating the problem (real or imagined), so you can treat patients for YEARS - and then blame it on the patient if the treatment doesn't work.

There's a whole lot of snake oil on the counseling side of psychology, and no lack of salesment to sell it.

Max

Re:Irresponsibility

[TheLittleJetson]

Yet often American sitcoms will refer to coffee in reference to making people hyper, to the point where you'd think that half an espresso is meant to send you crazy.

I live in the states... I think the anti-drug message that has been beaten into peoples brains, makes them eager to feel effects of a drug. Mild mannered old ladies will still love to kid about how the anesthetic at the dentist made them feel. To anyone who has a decent first-hand understanding of how drugs work, it's not a big deal, but to someone with less experience, they might get a cup of coffee from starbucks and start on with their "I CAN HEAR COLORS" rant.

Much of this same behavior can be observed in children. They'll take a sip of dad's beer or whatever, and start acting drunk.

...I hope that made sense. In any case, caffiene definately does have noticeable stimulant effects. I don't notice it from sodas. I do notice it from tea but it's very gradual. If you want to see what I'm talking about, cut off your intake for a few days, then drink a double shot of espresso straight. I still don't get hyper, but I definately get some stimulant effects... Can't sit still for long, feel wide eyed and awake, etc... About like a bump or two of coke would do. :-P

Then soda must be too...

[datastalker]

...given that it has so much caffeine as well. I haven't had any soda in three and a half years, and I can tell you that it's still difficult not to drink it. Just smelling it really makes me want to drink some, so it definitely had an effect on me, regardless of whether that could be officially classified as addiction.

Re:So is alcohol

[Kick the Donkey]

Course the failed War on Drugs should be canned, all drugs should be legalised, taxed and the cash used for rehabilitation services.

Seriously... Think about this. Druggies have already proved they'll pay just about any price to feed their habit. So, if you leagalize it, you reduce the cost of getting the drugs here, and selling them (black market goes away...). So, lets say the markup on your tyipcal drug is 17,000% from the black market. What should the markup be if the drugs where legal? Lets just say 500%, for arguments sake.

The government could charge a 100% tax on the profit, and the end user would only see a markup of about 1000% (17 times less than the current markup, for those who suck at math).

So, the druggies win (cheaper drugs). And the government wins (more taxes, less money spent on the worthless drug war). And the tax payer wins, provided the shills we elect don't siphon off all these extra funds into some type of 'special account'...

That, and I think people would be happier :D

The War on Drugs funds Terrorists

[Dr. Evil]

...sorry, just had to say it. Prohibition funds organized crime of all sorts.

RE: -10 insight-less!

[King_TJ]

How did the parent post get a +4 for Insightful, anyway? I guess there are at least 5 of you out there who believe this B.S. statement.

Seriously, sugar is hardly the problem with obesity in America. The problem is primarily one of poor eating habits, coupled with lack of exercise. (Not that anecdotes prove anything, but just to pull out one random example; I used to know a gal who was a strict vegetarian, and I *never* once saw her eat a piece of candy or "junk food" - yet she was overweight.)

If you consume more calories than you use, you gain weight. It's really that simple. It doesn't matter if those calories come in the form of sugar or "healthy foods". If you're eating more than you're burning off - you'll eventually get fat.

If sugary foods are contributing to the obesity problem, it's only in a more indirect way. (Snack foods tend to be "ready to eat" and conveniently packaged. When you can just grab it, unwrap it, and stuff it in your mouth - you're more likely to do so often, hence increasing your overall intake of calories.)

Re: -10 insight-less!

[drinkypoo]

Sugar is a serious part of the obesity problem in America. It's not the whole thing - our eating habits are the real problem. Regardless, sugar is a carbohydrate and when your body is functioning "normally" your body will store unused carbohydrates as fat, barring those which are expelled from the body as waste.

Put simply, most americans have been relegated to eating prepackaged foods. Who makes their own spaghetti sauce any more, for example? I know several of you out there are jumping up and down in your chair saying "me! me! ima post and tell this fucker off!" but the fact is that you are statistically insignificant. But spaghetti sauce is loaded with excess sugar and so is just about everything else we eat. Even hot dogs tend to have a ton of sugar added to them - someone please explain to me why little fine-ground sausages need sugar.

Well, actually, don't explain it, because I know the answer: they don't need sugar but focus groups, taste tests, and other forms of research have shown that we like to eat food with sugar added to it. So, the food industry in America (and other places) adds a grip of sugar to just about everything, including many foods that ordinarily wouldn't contain any.

In short, everything you eat is sugary unless you make it yourself. This IS a serious problem and it IS totally unnecessary.

The problem really goes beyond sugar though, which after all is just a carbohydrate. No matter how you feel about no- or low-carb diets like atkins (which is just a new name on an old diet, which can be referred to as a low-carb modified fast) the fact is that we eat too many carbohydrates. As early as the 1700s you can find literary examples with people making observations that people who eat a lot of starch are fatter on average than people who eat a lot of meat. You can find carbohydrate-based fillers in just about everything on the store shelves; anything that doesn't have carb-based fillers is probably primarily a carbohydrate to begin with, like bread. The USDA food pyramid, promoted by the NIH after several billion dollars were spent trying to prove that eating fat makes you fat and failing, yet promoted on the "strength" of a study which showed that taking drugs to reduce your cholesterol decreased your risk of heart disease, suggests that we eat more carbohydrates than anything else. This is not only totally unnecessary (your body can quite efficiently derive energy from fats, it just doesn't do it as quickly) but completely ridiculous and utterly unfounded.

I don't know how you got a +4, Insightful for saying that sugar isn't a big problem, because it is. It's only a part of the problem, but the aggressive promotion of sugar-laden foods in the US is a big part of why we're fat. C&H sugar will happily tell you via a message printed on the packaging that SUGAR CONTAINS NO FAT. Well, whoop-de-do, it still makes you fat.

Come down off your high horse, which is headed in the wrong direction anyway, and join the parade.