Slashdot Mirror
Drink Decaf and Die
jose parinas writes "Decaffeinated -- not caffeinated -- coffee may cause an increase in harmful LDL cholesterol by increasing a specific type of blood fat linked to the metabolic syndrome, hints a new study presented at the American Heart Association's Scientific Sessions 2005."
For instance coconut water is better than Soda, Old Coke is better than New Coke, Coffee is better than the decaf crap.
Scientists are re-discovering that age-old medicines like Turmeric, etc., are in fact much safer and healthier than the new fangled ones on market today.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Life could be more a matter of equilibrium. It is known that a small quantity of caffeine is not poison for our bodies rather it has a number of good effects on it.
When we start to do things out of the equilibrium, the situations become unstable (as seen in physiscs).
It is the same as sugar, fat, proteins, vitamins alcohol and the likes.
Maybe the right move could be to get small amounts of plain coffee with a little of sugar (thus no sweeteners and no decaffeinated powders). If it is not healthy, it will be by little.
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
I also read once that sunscreen can give you skin cancer too, if used too much. I think these days dying is the ONLY safe option.
Things that have recently been found to have positive health properties: beer, chocolate, coffee. In moderation of course.
Personally I follow a very simple rule - eat and drink everything, just don't eat or drink too much of any one thing.
There was an interesting study recently - the French (yes, we hate them, yawn) apparently eat lots of stuff that is supposed to be bad for you, and yet remain healthy and slim. How do they do it? Basically, eat in moderation and don't snack between meals.
Everything in one way or another in some sort of situation or in excess is going to make us "die" ... but generally I don't see anyone a shortened life for the sole reason that they drank a cup of decaf every day or normal coffee for that matter.
I've always understood that the reason decaffeination removes flavour is that the caffeine tastes bitter. The solution is not to use different beans, but to roast a little darker to restore the strong bitter taste.
My favourite decaf comes from a little boutique that measures it out at the point of sale. Next to their darkest roast coffee, it is clearly even darker still!
I think the reason most decaf is so bad is that you have to get it pre-ground (even at restaurants and cafes) and thus it's stale and the wrong grind anyway, or else it's such a fringe item that it sits around longer on the shelf going stale between roasting batches.
*#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
Well, there is actually only once rule for food. The more it is processed the more likely it is that it is useless or even harmful for your metabolism. Our metablosism is just best adapted to that. Soylent Green is probably better for you than anything packaged from a supermarket. Eat the fattest meat, eat all fried, revel in carbs whatever. But don't eat it once a food corporation had it's chemistry fingers on it.
Just a reminder...the only plant fat that is solid in room temperature is coco fat. Can you imagine what chemicals are needed to turn plant fats into something you can put on your bread? Just eat butter instead.
Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
Yep, some really nasty stuff, like, um, hydrogen.
Interesting that the decaf was only "theoretically harmful" to fatties. To normal or skinny people it has the reverse effect and the level of the naughty chemical dropped.
So maybe if you happen to be normal or skinny, decaf is even better for you than you thought.
Of course we puritanical vegan types aren't dying of a heart attack anyway because we barely eat enough saturated fat to make the cholesterol we need to bind our cells together (yay coconuts and avocadoes: necessary to bind our cells together).
Does anyone else have trouble actually bringing up the article without a bunch of stuff all over the top of it? (Say, in Firefox?)
*#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
"Drink decaf and die"? Gee I wonder why Slashdot gets accused of headline sensationalism ...
Attention !
Not all decaf process use chemicals. Some only use water to remove the caffeine, yes, just water.
If you read the article carefully you will see that they don't link the cholesterol change to the decaf process but they say on average manufacturers use different type of green coffee (robusta) to produce decaf and it's this green coffee that brings in more fat components, nothing to do with the decaf process.
You could use arabica to produce decaf as well and you could not conclude anythinh then. The title of the article is misleading, once more.
ANd don't forget that anti-oxidant are present in coffee, more than tea, and these are good for the health.
It's not all that simple I'm afraid.
my two cents,
Of course, this presumes that LDL is actually bad for you, i.e. the correlation between LDL and heart disease is strong and that those proposing the correlation is significant have actually proven causation as well. There are those who believe otherwise (http://www.thincs.org/). But hey, why buck the multibillion dollar drug industry? They will bury you.
Programmers in mirror are brighter than they appear
It's not an urban legend. A teenager was hospitalized close to death not too long ago where I live after drinking 25 liters while winning a water drinking contest.
I think the technical term would be "electrolyte imbalance" (although that might also be applied to the opposite where you eat too much salts and not enough water).
Your nerves (and probably a lot of other stuff) need ions to work (but I think it's mainly the axons and not so much the synapses) and drinking too much makes you piss those necessary ions away.
"Up to 50 years ago, most people had water most of the time."
Not really. Ordinary water tended to have nasty bugs in it, so the way to get rid of them was to either boil it (and make tea, as they did in the East) or ferment it (as they did in the West).
Because people in the East used the boiling method, rather than the fermentation method of purifying water, they didn't develop the same tolerance to alcohol that people in the West have.
The thing that I hate about Starbucks is that they burn the hell out of the coffee when they roast it. I can only guess this is so that it actually tastes like coffee after you fill it with a pound of cream and sugar.
"from the bricks to the booth...I predict the future like Cleo the psychic..."
The guy might be rated informative, but he's just a coffee or food snob, dissing Starbucks because it's too regular. I drink my coffe because it has caffeine in it. All the rest is just posing.
My hypothesis: We have more heart disease due to the aggravating factors, due to obesity increasing the bad effects of those factors in the U.S. In the US, people drive their cars and watch their televisions a lot more than in those other countries. (As opposed to walking more, to get around.)
Someone I met from the Netherlands told me he went to Chicago and expected to be amazed by the size of the huge skyscrapers... instead he was amazed by the size of the huge people. When I travelled in the Netherlands, and in France, I saw very few obese people. This is waaay different than the situation in the U.S. midwest.
I assume what you've said is essentially a troll, but I can't resist. You are actually a poseur, in the most basic sense - you are projecting an attitude about something in a way that implies it is the only correct attitude. Lamers who drink coffee because they like the way it tastes are simply deluded, from the view you present.
I will admit that there is some justice to your view - the amount of effort I spend making coffee in the morning is kind of bizarre. However, for what it's worth, the ritual evolved naturally, and I can in fact taste and enjoy the difference between the coffee I brew and what is typically served in a restaurant. I am sorry that you do not share this enjoyment, but as long as coffee does for you what you want, it's all good, right?
As for the whole robusta vs. arabica thing, espresso fiends should be aware that a lot of espresso includes robusta beans to sharpen the flavor. Robusta has a bad rep because a lot of cheap coffee is made with robusta, but it is a legitimate bean with a legitimate flavor that works well in some blends.
Maybe if you treated McDonalds workers better, you'd enjoy the food there more?
I've noticed over the years that there's this strong stratification in society, where some jobs are "okay", and some are "lower class." A person who sees themselves as "in" expects peopel with "lower class" jobs to provide them with good service, but has no respect for those who provide them that service.
Calling an espresso maker a "barista" adds some cachet to the job, and maybe gives some respect to the barista that is missing from the term "burger flipper". I have trouble seeing that as a bad thing. People who make food for you deserve your respect. The fact that you don't respect them is why it's so hard to find a decent food experience anymore these days.
it's so hard to find a decent food experience anymore these days
If you're ever in Southern California, go to In-N-Out. It's a fast food joint that only serves Burgers, Fries, Shakes, and Drinks (no fancy curly fries, onion rings, chicken sandwiches, no breakfast). Every different one I've been to (and I've been to well over 50 of them) has employees that always seem happy and cheerful, making it a great experience. They don't act ridiculous as if they're reading from a training script, but overall they seem like they enjoy their job and they're happier overall.
Maybe it's because thir starting pay is over $7 an hour, who knows? I do know that it's fairly difficult to get a job there, compared to a place like McDonalds. They're very selective on who they hire, and the overall employee attitude is proabably a result.
Honestly, don't assume. I cannot stand the regular Starbucks coffees -- I find them absolutely rank. I can barely deal with their espresso, but only in a milk-containing beverage. This doesn't mean I'm a coffee snob.
I think, like most things, it's a matter of taste. Some people like Starbucks, and find it worth the cost. I find it repulsive at any cost. Fortunately for me, my local coffee shop roasts and brews coffee much more to my liking, and even happen to be cheaper than the major chains.
The difference between a snob and not a snob, here, is evangelism: a coffee snob will not only be convinced Starbucks is bad, but will deride anyone who likes it. A non-snob might hate Starbucks and simply not care if other people like it.
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
Because if they put poison in your food, you die. If they make your food well, it gives you pleasure. And if you treat them like drones, you're encouraging them to give you drone food. Don't try to tell me it doesn't matter - even at a place like McDonalds it's possible to get comparitively good or bad service.
Furthermore, how do you want to be treated? With respect, or like a drone? If with respect, then you're just like everybody else. Why would you treat someone else differently than you yourself would like to be treated?
It's not so much that in treating someone else with respect, you ensure that they treat you with respect. That's not the case, as I'm sure you've experienced. But if you refuse to put negative energy into the world, that's less negative energy in the world, and ultimately that means less negative energy coming back at you, even if it doesn't work in the moment. And when you put positive energy into the world, then that's more positive energy in the world that can come back to you later. I know it sounds a bit lovey-dovey, but on a practical level it does seem to work.
When you say this, the long form of your argument goes like this:
1. There is a way that people should act. They should be respectful towards each other.
2. This person has been disrespectful to me - they have acted contrary to the way people should act.
3. Because of this, I am going to act the same way they have decided to act - I am going to disrespect them back.
Consider what would happen if every single person in the world thought this way. Would it ever be possible that people would stop disrespecting each other? Now consider this line of reasoning:
1. There is a way that people should act. They should be respectful towards each other.
2. This person has been disrespectful to me - they have acted contrary to the way people should act.
3. Just because this person doesn't know how to act properly doesn't mean that I should also act improperly, so I am going to treat them with respect even though they haven't treated me that way.
What would happen if 10% of the people in the world held to this way of thinking? How would the world change?