Slashdot Mirror
Coffee Maybe Not a Health Drink!
perbert writes "Canadian researchers have published a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association indicating that excess coffee drinking (4+ cups a day) could lead to an increased risk of heart disease if you have the wrong gene. In light of other studies linking antioxidants in coffee to a reduction in heart disease, who is right? Or will they cancel out in a coffee death-match?"
As with anything related to toxicology, the dose is the poison.
"the difference between medication and poison is the dose"
So say we all
What happens is that conflicting summaries get posted around the Internet and everyone thinks scientists are just having them on.
If you look carefully the summary for the research is saying the caffeine is bad for you, and that the study concluded this based on research into coffee consumption. The other studies that claim coffee is good for you were actually referring to other chemicals in coffee, not the caffeine, nor the entirety of the coffee.
Also people seem to think that scientists study everything about a topic before releasing results. But that is a misunderstanding about how science works. Generally scientists focus on very small areas of large topics and then propose more sweeping conclusions. Usually the media then make even more generalised conclusions that result in complete misunderstanding in non-scientists.
Peer review is also important, often these studies are fundamentally flawed and even though the submitted paper offers a conclusion, the scientist writing it is well aware that in science, nothing is proved by one paper. Instead wait ten years for more supporting evidence, rinse, repeat and progress.
Well, I think what is missing is a technology of personal genomics.
Salt is bad for you. Except if you don't have the gene that links salt to hypertension. In which case it isn't bad for you. If you do have that gene, then salt is very bad for you. In aggregate, given ignorance of your genes, it poses a risk.
Experiments to date have been crude, in that they don't effectively control for genetic variation. Thus a slight bias in the genetic make-up can easily push an experiment to one or the other side of statistical significance.
If we ever do get an efficient, fast and affordable way to do a comprehensive genetic screening, it will be of tremendous benefit to humanity. That is, after the fighting and chaos dies down, as insurance companies manage their risk to the point they become irrelevant, and families come to grips with uncomfortable holes in their pedigrees.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Blame the media's lousy science reporting or poor reading comprehension skills, but what people see as conflicting results are often nothing of the kind, they just miss the details.
I saw one study that said a single cup of coffee a day was good for athletic training, and another that said that the more coffee you drink, the lower the risk of heart disease.
This study says that more than four cups of coffee a day are bad for you if you have a particular gene.
None of these things are contradictory-- just like how a glass of wine may be beneficial, but 10 glasses may cause liver disease. Or how some types of cholesterol are good, but others are bad.
As with all addictive substances, it's best not to become addicted.
Two cups a day means you are addicted. If you "need" a cup a day, you are addicted.
A lot of who is right depends on who funded each study and what they set out to prove (or disprove) in their study.