Coffee Wards Off Cancer

Thorfinn.au writes "A new study indicates that heavy coffee drinking staves off deadly prostate cancer in men. Some 47,911 US men were surveyed over the period 1986 to 2008 for the research. During this time some 5,035 of them developed prostate cancer with 642 dying of it. According to analysis by investigating scientists, men who drank the most coffee (a fairly normal six-plus cups per day) had a 20 per cent lower risk of developing any kind of prostate cancer. If they did get prostate cancer, the java-swillers were much less likely to die from it than others: their risk of deadly prostate cancer was no less than 60 per cent lower than normal. Even less thirsty coffee drinkers who only put away one to three cups daily saw their chance of deadly prostate cancer fall by a useful 30 per cent."

Comments

Missing from the summary

[pz]

According to the interview with one of the study's authors on NPR today, one of the very important factors is that decaf works as well. Which is to say, the measured benefit probably is not from caffeine.

Re:Missing from the summary

[mellon]

Ah, but decaf never tastes as good...

(delightedly wanders off to make some happy juice...)

Re:Missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't tell a difference between decaf and regular. Extra-super-strong-bitter-aroma coffee makes a difference but other than the whole "decaf tastes worse" is a myth in my opinion.

Anyway ... off to make another cup of coffee

Re:Missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is to say, the measured benefit probably is not from caffeine.

Not surprising, really, since coffee contains about 1000 different compounds...

Re:Missing from the summary

[PingSpike]

Does it? I thought caffeine caused the bitter flavor associated with coffee. I suppose one could argue that is desirable.

Re:Missing from the summary

[rwa2]

According to the interview with one of the study's authors on NPR today, one of the very important factors is that decaf works as well. Which is to say, the measured benefit probably is not from caffeine.

Yeah... TFA says they adjust for "potential confounding by smoking, obesity, and other variables" ... but I wonder what some of those other variables and more importantly control groups are.

I'd be curious if it simply works with water... 6+ cups of coffee sounds awfully close to the 8 cups minimum daily recommended servings of water daily. I'd suspect the people at risk of developing prostate cancer simply don't drink enough, period.
(eww, there's a gross non-sequitur)

Re:Missing from the summary

[tnk1]

Damn, I was hoping to avoid drinking burnt dirt water for this benefit. Maybe they will make a pill or something.

Re:Missing from the summary

[cayenne8]

Well, over the past couple years....been trying to change the diet...lower carb, more fresh foods.

One part of that change for me is....drastically cutting down caffeine...this mostly came from cokes and other soft drinks.

I read the headline and it said 6 or so cups a day of coffee are NORMAL?!?!?! Geez.....I'd be climbing the walls. Do people actually normally drink that much coffee a day?

Maybe it is me...I was not a coffee drinking till maybe the past 2-4 years. I like the New Orleans strong stuff...with chicory...and some times make some on Sunday mornings. It is strong and I like to cut it with heavy cream, and some booze (brandy, Kahlua, whatever's handy). But man..usually on the 2nd cup, I'm so wired that I can start to see my heart beat under my shirt....

I don't see how anyone could drink over 6 cups a day on average. I know I'm a bit sensitive to caffeine now that I've cut back a few years...but wow...

Re:Missing from the summary

[Talennor]

What's up with that? There's no reason for it. There's so many kinds of coffee, from single origin, to exact roasting times, to flavored. And then there's decaf. Plain old decaf. I'm trying to cut down my caffeine intake, but it's hard.

Re:Missing from the summary

[wiedzmin]

Or, you know, this could all just be coincidental. Statistics are great when you need to use them to your advantage, but can really mean squat if the sample size is not large and diverse enough.

Anyhow, if that is true, I don't know what I would rather die from - butt cancer or heartburn after drinking 6 cups of coffee a day :)

Re:Missing from the summary

[tibit]

Yeah, some people can drink it like water. I like my coffee without sugar, and in the morning I have it with milk, later on without anything added. I could go through 10 cups a day easy. I don't feel like the caffeine has any stimulating effects on me at all. If anything, it makes me sleepy early in the afternoon.

Re:Missing from the summary

[mrzaph0d]

i think maybe it depends on how quickly you drink it. i have a cup before i leave for work, another when i get to work, maybe one more before lunch. usually at least another after i get back from lunch, and sometimes one before i leave work.

Re:Missing from the summary

[interkin3tic]

It is surprising to those of us who think of coffee as "caffeine vehicle" first and foremost, followed closely by "good tasting" and "break from work." When I heard "coffee does good things" I was thinking "Caffeine does good things," not "phytoestrogens are undoubtedly what's doing the good thing in coffee!"

Not logical exactly, but yeah, the decaf part was a surprise to me. If for no other reason than "What type of horrible person would even think to test decaf."

Re:Missing from the summary

[ATestR]

I read the headline and it said 6 or so cups a day of coffee are NORMAL?!?!?! Geez.....I'd be climbing the walls. Do people actually normally drink that much coffee a day?

6 Cups a day is a little heavier than I usually do, especially in summer. Spread out over all waking hours, it isn't that much. A cup with breakfast, a cup mid-morning, a cup with lunch, a cup in the afternoon, a cup with dinner, perhaps a second with dessert. No, I usually stop after lunch, and switch to soda as the caffeine carrier of choice. But 6 cups isn't that extreme...

Re:Missing from the summary

[interkin3tic]

Which is to say, the measured benefit probably is not from caffeine.

But there was a report a while ago that said that caffeine might protect against Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

So from a disease prevention standpoint, you're still stupid if you buy decaf.

Re:Missing from the summary

[Anne_Nonymous]

If you don't like coffee, don't start drinking it because of this article.

There will be another paper/study/article sometime in the next three years making the case against coffee drinking on some grounds (pun intended) or another.

Re:Missing from the summary

[adonoman]

Coffee cups are a bit of a vague measurement though - I have a "12-cup" coffee that brews roughly 2 litres of coffee (5-6 oz per cup), which is unrelated to a 250mL/8oz "cup", and most coffee mugs run near the 9-10oz size, and many travel mugs are in the 16+oz range. In many european cafes, a cup amounts to 4 oz. I would assume from experience that the 6 cups of coffee is refering to half a 12-cup pot of coffee (34 oz, or two cups in my travel mug).

Re:Missing from the summary

[spun]

While caffeine is bitter, it is not the major component of the bitter flavor in coffee, which actually comes from tannins. Tannins take longer to extract than other flavor compounds, so be sure that you do not steep your coffee for longer than six minutes, Most drip coffee makers take at least eight minutes to brew, guaranteeing a bad cup of coffee. I have found that pre-heating the water before putting it in an automatic drip coffee maker can reduce the time it takes to brew. I use an electric kettle, and remove the water right before it boils so it retains its oxygenation and doesn't taste flat.

Re:Missing from the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

The 8 cups of water/day thing is a rogue meme. There is no evidence for it. Simply considering that there are 260 lb people and 98 lb people should make it clear that not everyone ought to drink the same minimum of water. We already have a mechanism to drive sufficient hydration: thirst.

Re:Missing from the summary

[Pharmboy]

Saying that heavy coffee drinkers consume more net water than non-heavy coffee drinkers simply is not supported by an evidence in this study, or anywhere else I have seen. I'm not questioning the benefits of drinking plenty of water, just the conjecture that coffee drinkers consume more than non-coffee drinkers. People who don't drink coffee still drink fluids, many drink lots of iced tea, or just water. They didn't benefit in this study.

Coffee (with caffeine or not) has other useful purposes as well. Bowel regularity is one of them. That tells me there is something besides water and caffeine that is at play here.

Re:Missing from the summary

[Peter Mork]

From NPR's blurb: "A Harvard study that followed almost 50,000 male health professionals for more than two decades." And, "More than 5,000 of them got prostate cancer — 642 of them the most lethal form." That's a healthy sample size.

Re:Missing from the summary

[Aceticon]

If the above mentioned cups of coffee are so called American coffee (aka Filter coffee) then 6 of them might be equivalent to about 2 expressos.

A single standard medium sized capuccino from one of the well known coffeeshop chains (such as Starbucks) usually contains 2 expressos.

Re:Missing from the summary

[emaname]

I'd be curious if it simply works with water... 6+ cups of coffee sounds awfully close to the 8 cups minimum daily recommended servings of water daily. I'd suspect the people at risk of developing prostate cancer simply don't drink enough, period. (eww, there's a gross non-sequitur)

The abstract says...

Background Coffee contains many biologically active compounds, including caffeine and phenolic acids, that have potent antioxidant activity and can affect glucose metabolism and sex hormone levels. Because of these biological activities, coffee may be associated with a reduced risk of prostate cancer.

So it appears as if coffee has more going for it. I would suspect the same would be true for certain teas.

Re:Missing from the summary

[Grishnakh]

Anyone who lives in the desert will tell you that thirst doesn't work very well as a self-regulating mechanism. By the time your body is telling you it's thirsty, you're already dehydrated. It's especially bad if you're hiking in the desert, because you're losing water so quickly.

Here in Arizona, we have to be very vigilant about drinking enough water throughout the day, even if we're just working in an office. I'll frequently feel a headache coming on if I don't.

However, you're right about the 8 glasses/day thing; it's total BS. For one thing, it doesn't account for the water in the food you eat, which can be substantial depending on what you eat, and yes, it doesn't account for body weight at all, so it's obviously stupid.

Re:Missing from the summary

[Duradin]

The sludge in the breakroom is not representative of all coffee.

I too hated coffee as all I had experienced was office coffee or the stuff set out for events or meetings. Then I had coffee that wasn't prepared in a crappy automatic drip coffee maker. (Norwegian egg coffee for the record.)

Now I have a water kettle and a french press and an aeropress in my cubicle as well as a hand powered grinder. When I have the time at home I've found Turkish Coffee to be well worth the effort.

Re:Missing from the summary

[metlin]

I've not consumed any soda for at least the past decade. However, I do drink a decent amount of coffee. The thing is, most "serious" coffee drinkers I know prefer espresso or variants thereof. Regular coffee, for the most part, tastes like swill in the US. Typically, I take a shot of espresso in the morning, and one in the afternoon. If I had a long night with little sleep, maybe a doppio in the morning. And if I had six shots of espresso, I'd probably have a heart attack.

And btw, the healthy eating practice is good. You'll notice an amazing change in how you feel, especially if you threw in a few workout sessions a week.

Re:Missing from the summary

[lbschenkel]

That is exactly what I thought: is 6 cups a day normal?? What's the normal size for a cup in U.S.? I'm from Brazil and we like strong coffee here; I heard that Americans coffee is weaker, that might also be an explanation.

Re:Missing from the summary

[X0563511]

You've developed a tolerance.

Not really a horrible thing it seems, caffeine isn't all that bad. But cut your intake off and you're gonna have some issues.

Re:Missing from the summary

[rwa2]

As far as I can tell from the abstract, they weren't measuring any of the other fluid intake (which would be difficult, since you could get it from food as well). As the GP mentioned, it's "something other than caffeine". And as the study mentions, there's no significant benefit until people start drinking more than 6 cups a day, which seems like a lot to me (also corroborated by the study - the mean coffee consumption for the group was 1.9 cups per day).

I'm not going to rule out "something else" in the coffee, I'm just saying that before we all rush out and drop $30 a day at Starbucks(TM), consider that the "something else" may simply be water :-P

To respond to the AC above... thirst is not exactly an good mechanism to drive sufficient hydration. If you're thirsty, you're already dehydrated. And even all of the snopes and other "8 cups-a-day debunked" sites say "lol 8-10 is too many; the real number is 4-6" ^_^

Anyway, I'm not a big drinker of coffee or even water for that matter, and this news release, while interesting, sounds too much like marketing to change my habits :-P

Re:Missing from the summary

[Grishnakh]

Not all coffee tastes like burnt dirt water; you'll just have to find your coffee at someplace other than Starbucks, or better yet, brew your own.

Re:Missing from the summary

[X0563511]

Do you prefer the aeropress or the french press?

Re:Missing from the summary

[Duradin]

For cleanup in the office, the aeropress wins hands down. The coffee can be ejected as a puck and a quick wipe down of the plunger is usually all it needs. The French press needs to go down to the sink with a strainer to keep the grounds from going down the drain.

The aeropress has the coffee ready sooner, as water is only in contact with the grounds for ten to twenty seconds plus the 'plunging' time. So it's faster but you have to be working at it the whole time unlike the French press which you can ignore while it brews.

Flavorwise, I'd have to give it to the aeropress. The shorter time in contact with the water seems to keep the bitterness down and since the bulk of the water is added after the pressing it is easier to adjust to taste. Not a world-shattering difference, probably not easily noticed by someone conditioned to live on office sludge, but it's there.

So in general, I prefer the aeropress. About the only downside it has is the quantity of coffee it can make in one go. If I'm making coffee for more than myself I use a French press.

Re:Missing from the summary

[Pharmboy]

There IS a significant benefit for those who drink 2 cups or more, but a pronounced effect for those who drink 6 or more. At least according to the article, which I actually read.

Re:Missing from the summary

[X0563511]

Thanks! I'll have to give the aeropress a try, the downsides you mention are minor/nothing to me, and I'm used to... well, calling it office sludge is a generous overstatement of it's quality.

Re:Missing from the summary

[WorBlux]

8 cups of water a day in not a minimum recommended daily serving. If you are sedentary and sit in an office all day it's way too much considering there's also a lot of water in some foods.. And you don't measure hydration by water input, but by urine output. If you pass less than 10mL of urine per day per pound of body weight, you should be drinking more.

Re:Missing from the summary

[thsths]

> I read the headline and it said 6 or so cups a day of coffee are NORMAL?!?!?! Geez.....I'd be climbing the walls.

Agreed. When I found myself up to 6 cups of coffee a day, I decided I need to change that. I am sticking to 3 or 4 now, and that works much better with me.

Unless of course they mean the cups that a coffee maker measures. A "12 cup" reservoir - more like 12 sips.

Re:Missing from the summary

[tibit]

On weekends I go with 2 cups in the morning and that's it, without any undue effects. Sometimes I skip it completely. That's just one anecdote, of course.

Re:Missing from the summary

[datsa]

It's even in TFA: "The association appears to be related to non-caffeine components of coffee."

Also, TFA says "The average intake of coffee in 1986 was 1.9 cups per day", while the summary says refers to "a fairly normal six-plus cups per day". Weird.

Still, kudos for the summarizer for posting a direct link to the study on oxfordjournals.org.

Re:Missing from the summary

[wiedzmin]

It's a large sample, sure, but it isn't diverse. It consists entirely of "male health professionals", which means that something specific to the male health professionals could be skewing the results. They could be more or less prone to prostate cancer, based on their profession. This does not represent an average male.

Wards off cancer?

[NickstaDB]

What doesn't? Then a week later the media is full of reports that it gives you cancer or vice versa..!

Re:Wards off cancer?

[UnknowingFool]

Well coffee has the distinct advantage in that if you drink 100 cups, you can move at nearly the speed of light. Or so I saw on a show once.

Re:Wards off cancer?

[milkmage]

speed of light is offset by frequent trips to the potty. /hamster bladder

Re:Wards off cancer?

[Attila Dimedici]

The difference here is that for years scientists (in particular nutritionists) have been telling us that drinking a lot of coffee is bad for us and doing studies to try and prove it. Gradually, bit by bit, the studies have been coming back showing that not only is coffee not bad for us, it is actually good for us. For every study that shows that coffee has some minor negative health affect, there are two studies showing that coffee has some significant positive health affect. Sometime in the last 10 years they finally gave up on the idea that coffee is bad for us.

Re:Wards off cancer?

[NevarMore]

If you can move that fast you can just wet your pants and walk away before your britches get damp.

Re:Wards off cancer?

[Gilmoure]

Try making instant coffee in the microwave some time.

Re:Wards off cancer?

[interkin3tic]

Sometime in the last 10 years they finally gave up on the idea that coffee is bad for us.

That's not really how research works, even in nutrition. You get a result, you publish it if you have reason to think it's real. Researchers don't get together and decide they're going to publish results saying coffee good or coffee bad. For one thing, researchers LOVE to overturn previous models and results. You don't get attention or much funding for "We did a study and it showed exactly what everyone expected it would show." For another, conclusions should come from results and not vice versa. Some researchers have enough integrity to discard their theories and hypotheses when results disagree with what they think. Others just realize that if they get a result that proves them wrong, someone else will eventually, and it's better to prove yourself wrong first than someone else do it later.

The researchers here are undoubtedly not drawing any broad conclusions like "coffee is good for you," they're just saying it might prevent some forms of cancer. Any overarching conclusions like that are made by people who want the TL:DR version. Realistically, any chemical you put into your body that doesn't kill you right away is going to have good AND bad effects, and it's up to doctors and you yourself to weigh whether it's an overall good thing or bad thing. Coffee probably encourages other forms of cancer while preventing some forms and waking you up. No one has given up on the idea that coffee has some of those negative effects, just as no one was convinced coffee was entirely bad for you.

Re:Wards off cancer?

[Attila Dimedici]

Maybe, it is not how research is supposed to work, but a lot of research does work that way, especially in the field of nutrition.

Re:Wards off cancer?

[interkin3tic]

I don't know how you'd prove that statement, but if you can find me a review article saying "As agreed upon at the last nutritionists meeting, we present more evidence here that coffee bad." Otherwise, it seems to me that I could come up with one nutrition researcher saying coffee is good for you, or at least not bad, for any given 10 year time period.

I -am- a researcher (though not in nutrition) and thus could be guilty of being overly optimistic, but I do not see researchers of any field eagerly lining up to prove someone else's theory that coffee = bad, I see them eagerly lining up to tear down anything any other researcher says to say "Ha! Everyone else is wrong!" and get more grants.

Re:Wards off cancer?

[grcumb]

Well coffee has the distinct advantage in that if you drink 100 cups, you can move at nearly the speed of light. Or so I saw on a show once.

Woohoo!!!! I'm nnneeevvveeerrr gggggeeeeeetttttiiiiinnnnngggg ccccccaaaaaannnnnnnnccccccceeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AndI'mgoingtotheMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!

Re:Wards off cancer?

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember reading in the 70's, when I was but a lad, about a study that "proved" caffeine would cause some kind of cancer. Of course when you read the details, the study was on rats and the rats had been fed the equivalent 15,000 cups of coffee per day for 10 years. Once again selective data usage was in play. My Dad about rolled off his chair when I summarized the article in science class as "Coffee causes cancer as long as you discount the fact the quantities required would drown you in your own tissues 10 years before the effect could seen."

Read with caution, apply with care.

Re:Wards off cancer?

[JimFive]

Researchers don't get together and decide they're going to publish results saying coffee good or coffee bad.

That's true, but it isn't the whole story. The researchers come from the same culture as the rest of us and have been inculcated with the idea that "coffee is bad for you" just like the rest of us (because anything pleasurable (and/or addictive) must be bad). So they start their research with "How is coffee bad for you?" It seems that it is only recently that the question has shifted to "Is coffee bad for you?" In an ideal world research would start with the questions: "What chemicals are in coffee and how do they affect the body?" and only then come to a conclusion about the benefits/detriments of coffee.

Realistically, any chemical you put into your body that doesn't kill you right away is going to have good AND bad effects,

That seems on its face to be an almost outrageously bold statement. I'm almost certain we can find a chemical that doesn't kill you right away that doesn't have any beneficial effects on the body. Let's start with asbestos.
--
JimFive

On an unrelated note, it is sentences like the ones above that have a quoted question at the end of a statement that make me wish there was a way to put a double space in html.

Damn!!!

[Darfeld]

I was trying to get motivated to drink less of the stuff...

Re:Damn!!!

[UnknowingFool]

Less?Youneedmore.More!Isay.I'vehad4cupsalready.Icanquitanytime.

Re:Damn!!!

[Darfeld]

I think it's bad for your keyboard... You killed the space bar!

Re:Damn!!!

[NatasRevol]

No, it just got up and went for a 17 mile run.

Diuretic

[Anonymous Coward]

Related to the fact the caffeine is a diuretic maybe?

Re:Diuretic

[roger_pasky]

Agreed. Statistics is a harmfull toy in wrong hands. According to statistics, "in Vatican there are 2 Popes per square kilometer".

Re:Diuretic

[Tx]

That's a myth; caffeine in the quantities you ingest it by drinking coffee, has very little diuretic effect at all.

Re:Diuretic

[turtledawn]

Well what the hell is it in the stuff that sends me running to the bathroom every half hour then? And stinking of coffee to boot.

Re:Diuretic

[icebraining]

Not to mention that they say decaf works too, so it could hardly be attributed to the caffeine.

Re:Diuretic

[Lumpy]

Maybe that you are drinking a large amount of fluid has something to do with it?

Drink the same amount of water in the same time period... Lookie same effect.

Re:Diuretic

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with this on personal experience. For a long time now, I have ingested over a gallon of water per day. There are certain times of the day when I drink more. For example, I drink a lot of water in the morning. I drink much more water in the morning than I drink coffee + water in the evening. I will have to urinate midday - once. After the coffee binge in the evening (approx. 5 6oz cups) I will have to urinate at least 4 times in the next 2 hours. I just started drinking coffee a couple of years ago, but I have been drinking water in high quantities for 5 years. I noticed the difference immediately. It all may be personal experience to me, but it is definitely not a quantity of liquid thing.

Re:Diuretic

[Neil Boekend]

On average people have one boob per person.

A fairly normal six-plus cups of coffee?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if you're one of those for whom it's only three sleeps 'till Christmas.

Quick! Someone tell the Daily Mail!

[RDW]

http://dailymailoncology.tumblr.com/
http://thedailymailoncologicalontologyproject.wordpress.com/

Re:Quick! Someone tell the Daily Mail!

[trash eighty]

they already reported this back in 2009 according to that Tumblr

Re:Quick! Someone tell the Daily Mail!

[wsxyz]

But when it was in the Daily Mail it was pseudoscientific nonsense fit only for troglodytes.

Now it's true.

Re:Quick! Someone tell the Daily Mail!

[loftwyr]

They've been told in 2009.... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1235310/Men-wake-drink-coffee.html

Coffee both cures and causes cancer

[Arancaytar]

It was in the Daily Mail!

can't wait

[alphatel]

A simple coffee jpg

Coffee...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I drink so much coffee. Or rather, it is now. Really, my body is just a coffee filter:
http://www.notquitewrong.com/rosscottinc/2009/02/11/the-system-150/

Re:Coffee...

[alphatel]

If I didn't have the coffee shakes, I wouldn't get any exercise at all.

10% contract prostate cancer?

[fantazem]

Hang on, nearly 10% of men in the study contracted prostate cancer?! That seems extraordinarily high doesn't it?

Re:10% contract prostate cancer?

[Hatta]

Nearly all men will get prostate cancer if they live long enough. It's slow growing and asymptomatic, so it might not even be the worst health problem grandpa has.

Re:10% contract prostate cancer?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

That's actually one of the big areas of research for that particular cancer now: the early stage stuff, at least, is pretty curable; but the methods are invasive and often result in incontinence or impotence. There is thus a good deal of interest in knowing which tumors are on track to kill you relatively horribly, relatively quickly, and need to be treated aggressively, and which ones are just going to sit there, with a scheduled breakout ~10+ years after you die of something else entirely.

You don't want otherwise reasonably healthy 65 year olds dying of metastatic cancer; but you also don't want to have somebody spend a decade dribbling urine in order to remove a tumor that wasn't even going to be noticable outside of a diagnostic setting until a few years after the pneumonia got them anyway...

Re:10% contract prostate cancer?

[nedlohs]

No. It's a 20 year study. 17% of men get prostate cancer over their lifetimes. If the study population were 50+ at the start that seems low. if the study population were under 30 at the start that that seems really high and I suspect their population consisted of Chernobyl residents...

Re:10% contract prostate cancer?

[pr0t0]

Not only does coffee help prevent prostate cancer, but so does regular masturbation too. A study came out in 2003, and then resurfaced in 2008 and 2010 that men who masturbate regularly can help reduce the risk of prostate cancer by as much as 40%.

So while nearly all men will get prostate cancer if they live long enough, I sure as hell won't!

Starbucks and Kleenex: the path to a long and happy life.

Re:10% contract prostate cancer?

[Lumpy]

So if I masturbate 3 times a day and drink 24 cups of coffee daily I have a 100% chance of never getting prostate cancer?

Re:10% contract prostate cancer?

[EvilStein]

Yes. An equal number of men die every year from prostate cancer as women from breast cancer, yet breast cancer receives an overwhelming majority of the press, funding, and research. Look up the article "Politics behind the pink." I guess it's because we all love tatas but the prostate just isn't very sexy. Kind of sad, really..

Re:10% contract prostate cancer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hang on, nearly 10% of men in the study contracted prostate cancer?! That seems extraordinarily high doesn't it?

Not really. Here in Sweden considerably more then half of the male population will likely get prostate cancer, some estimates is as high as 85%. Over 6.000 Swedish men get diagnosed with prostate cancer each year, out of a population of 3.5 million men over 15yrs old. The high number mostly depend on good diagnostic methods and free health care in Sweden, but likely the risks are also slightly higher in Sweden then in most other countries. Risk factors are:
1) Old age. Most Swedish men over 75 yr old have prostate cancer. It usually debute in the 70's.
2) Cold climate. If you've had prolonged prostatitis, or have had prostatitis several times during your life, you're risk to get prostate cancer increase considerably.
3) High levels of male and growth hormones, and low levels of female hormones. E.g. Swedish men are genetically predisposed because of this factor, Japanese men have low risk of getting prostate cancer because they have low levels of growth and male hormones and have high levels of female hormones, and the average US male is somewhere in between. This is also the reason male drunks (like most Russians, Frenchmen and Italians) is less likely to get prostate cancer, alcohol make the body produce less male and growth hormones and more female hormones. This has also been reported as a factor why heavy coffe drinkers or those that consume much sweets (the US diet seem to consist mostly of sugar and syrup) is less likely to get prostate cancer (similar effects on the hormone system as alcohol).
4) Sex with many different partners. Repeated and different infections in the urinal system throughout your life, even without any symptoms, increase the risk. (Se also 2) cold climate).
5) To little sex/masturbation. Most elderly Swedish men don't empty their prostate gland regularly.

Re:10% contract prostate cancer?

[ShavedOrangutan]

men who masturbate regularly can help reduce the risk of prostate cancer by as much as 40%.

THEN I WILL LIVE FOREVER!!

Re:10% contract prostate cancer?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say that's more about women being self-absorbed and 'organized' than actual discrimination. Very few dudes actually concern themselves with prostate cancer risks, certainly not enough to rally together.

Re:10% contract prostate cancer?

[Gilmoure]

No one wants to wear a cute drawing of a prostate t-shirt?

Re:10% contract prostate cancer?

[Gilmoure]

I don't want to know how you know about #5.

Re:10% contract prostate cancer?

[nobdoor]

Citation please?

Re:10% contract prostate cancer?

[Spykk]

Finally, proof that the colloquialism "Use it or lose it" is in fact grounded in scientific fact.

Re:10% contract prostate cancer?

[robot256]

That's because, even later in life, breasts are much more important to women than prostates are to men. Men are judged on money and power, but women are still judged on their bodies.

Re:10% contract prostate cancer?

[sexconker]

No. It's a 20 year study. 17% of men get prostate cancer over their lifetimes. If the study population were 50+ at the start that seems low. if the study population were under 30 at the start that that seems really high and I suspect their population consisted of Chernobyl residents...

No. 17% of men get diagnosed with prostate cancer at some point.
Nearly 100% of men who live past andropause will get prostate cancer.

The difference comes from prostate cancer often not being the thing that kills you, and from prostate cancer usually being diagnosed as "enlarged prostate" so your HMO won't have to deal with it.

Re:10% contract prostate cancer?

[mathmathrevolution]

meh. Men die of prostate cancer when they are in their 60s and 70s. Women get hit with breast cancer as early as their 20s.

From a public health perspective, I think it's more important that we treat young women because we can add 40+ productive years to their life. For prostate cancer, you're typically adding 5-10 years to the lives of people who are on the edge of retirement. It's a worthy goal, but it's not where I would concentrate scarce resources.

Re:10% contract prostate cancer?

[radtea]

I guess it's because we all love tatas but the prostate just isn't very sexy

Nope, it's because we think "Men last!" is a noble sentiment, although it's usually expressed in a more obfuscated but logically equivalent manner.

Men die of all causes at younger ages than women. Men are the majority victims in all forms of violent crime except (possibly) rape, where male victims are about 10% of the total, although under-reporting is such a huge problem no one really knows (or much cares) what the real number is. Men--especially young men--commit suicide up to five times as frequently as women. If a person dies on the job, the odds are over 90% they are male. And so on.

Tell anyone this and they will immediately start making stuff up, mostly in the vein of "Men are complicit in their own poor health, high rates of crime victimization and on-the-job fatalities." Because, you see, males are autonomous, powerful, independent individuals who are completely and totally responsible for their own behaviour and under no social influence of any kind whatsoever, whereas women are helpless little things who are never to blame for their own actions and must be carefully treasured and protected by society. That's the implicit message, anyway, however vile and nonsensical it may be in its characterization of both sexes.

Re:10% contract prostate cancer?

[dgatwood]

Some of your information is very wrong. There's actually evidence that testosterone levels and prostate cancer risk are inversely correlated, not positively correlated. People with low testosterone levels are more likely to get prostate cancer, not less. To my knowledge, however, no study has ever definitively determined how much of that is due to the hormone itself and how much of it is due to differences in sexual activity arising out of the differences in hormone level (pun intended).

Therefore, if the correlation with alcohol were caused by decreased testosterone, alcohol would be associated with an increased risk, not a decreased risk. We can therefore conclude that the protective effects of consumption of wine (not all alcohol) must come from something other than alcohol. Indeed, this is supported by recent studies that show that heavy beer drinking increases the risk of the more deadly form of prostate cancer.

Indeed, this coffee study further supports (albeit not very precisely) a causal link between low testosterone and prostate cancer, given that coffee increases testosterone levels. It is entirely possible that the entire difference in cancer levels among these populations stems from the differences in testosterone levels. It would be nice to see a second study that repeats this, but adds a third study group that takes other substances to raise their testosterone levels comparably, thus controlling for this particularly interesting variable.

Your second point is almost on the right track. It's not the cold temperature, but rather the amount of sunlight. There's a strong correlation between all types of cancer and vitamin D levels. The amount of vitamin D your body produces is directly correlated with the amount of sunlight you receive. Therefore, the farther towards the poles you live, the greater your risk of prostate cancer (and, indeed, all forms of cancer).

Your fourth point might be true, but AFAIK there has been no conclusive correlation between HPV and male cancer risk except for penile and anal cancer.

And your fifth point might be true, but I'm sure not going to try to verify it.

Re:10% contract prostate cancer?

[oldmac31310]

I'd mod you up if I had points.

Re:10% contract prostate cancer?

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding! Where are our brown ribbons already?

Re:10% contract prostate cancer?

[nedlohs]

Obviously "get prostate cancer" means "gets diagnosed with prostate cancer" in this context.

Or do you think the researchers had magical powers to determine how many people (that they never met) in their study had undiagnosed prostate cancer?

Re:10% contract prostate cancer?

[antifoidulus]

Or you could just freeze yourself and wait for the future, which, according to the movie Idiocracy, will include Starbucks that offer "full release lattes". Two birds with one stone!

This is unacceptable.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Coffee contains a known psychoactive stimulant, one which many people find pleasant. This makes it a drug. Drugs are axiomatically evil(unless associated with rugged American individualism and/or cowboys). Therefore, coffee cannot possibly have any positive effects. Scientists! Get back to the lab and produce better results.

Re:This is unacceptable.

[Nidi62]

Drugs are axiomatically evil(unless associated with rugged American individualism and/or cowboys).

What do you think cowboys drank on cattle drives and other long trips? Coffee

Re:This is unacceptable.

[stanlyb]

Nope, they did not. They ATE coffee, which amplifies the effect. Just for the record.

Re:This is unacceptable.

[xclr8r]

You are forgetting that if it makes some one work longer or harder for the bottom line then it is encouraged until you are burnt out and tossed aside for the next caffeine junky.

Re:This is unacceptable.

[FFFFFFffffffffffff!!]

No, caffeine is one of the good drugs, you know, like alcohol.

Re:This is unacceptable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cocaine does this and yet it is illegal.

Re:This is unacceptable.

[Lundse]

"We meant those other drugs. Those untaxed drugs. Those are the ones that are bad for you."

Re:This is unacceptable.

[smelch]

Or vitamin C!

Re:This is unacceptable.

[timeOday]

It is pretty foolish to lump coffee in with crack just because the umbrella word "drug" covers both. The risk/benefit ratio of one says nothing about the other. (It would make more sense to pick on alcohol, which is a commonly used drug with devastating effects for some users).

Re:This is unacceptable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Drugs are axiomatically evil(unless associated with rugged American individualism and/or cowboys).

But the definition of cowboy breakfast is coffee in a tin cup. Lose.

Re:This is unacceptable.

[NatasRevol]

Burn out time is too short.

Re:This is unacceptable.

[NatasRevol]

And many non-users.

Re:This is unacceptable.

[swb]

The two main forces opposing sane drug laws are law enforcement and the pharmaceutical industry.

The former knows that without the WoD, they will lose a lot of their funding and authority and the public will likely push back on expansions of power without the bogeyman of "drugs" to justify things like no knock searches.

The pharmaceutical industry is opposed to it because they can't patent the drugs and would probably fear losing millions of anti-depressant prescriptions of marijuana was legalized.

Re:This is unacceptable.

[circletimessquare]

make a graph: x axis is addictiveness, y axis is inebriation

something like caffeine is low on both x and y: harmless

something like nicotine is high in addictiveness, but low on inebriation: legal, because you can feed your habit but still have a relationship/ job

marijuana and alcohol are middling x and y: not harmless, but not harmful enough to warrant illegality: marijuana and alcohol should be legal

something like lsd/ psilocybin (mushrooms): high inebriation, low addictiveness: should be legal, because you can use these products and stop using them at will: not be addicted to them. although of course, you might rip your eyeballs out or walk out a window, so responsible use is a necessity: you should be properly babysitted or you are risking your life/ other people's lives

now, the final quadrant: high addictiveness, high inebriation: heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine. the problem with these drugs is you don't just use them and forget about them. like nicotine, once you start it is hard to quit. but, unlike nicotine, it blots out your entire day

meaning a force greater than your willpower draws you to use the chemical, and then you are unable to hold a job or a relationship. without economic support, you become a drag on society: we who are not addicted to heroin/ cocaine/ meth have to support you. well we don't want to support you, we don't want that drain on our economics, for what purpose? to feed an addict? not a valid purpose

we'd rather pay to fight a war on drugs, and prevent the creation of new addicts, because that's cheaper when compared to the cost of proliferating addicts (you do realize easier access means more addicts, and more addicts costs society, right?)

of course, addicts to these drugs will always exist, the war on drugs will never end. but the point never was to win it. its a maintenance function of civilization: minimize the addict population, by any means possible. the point is to minimize the amount of addicts to meth/ cocaine/ heroin, forever. that's it. there will always be murderers, rapists, and bank robbers. because murderers and rapists and bankr obbers will always exist, we should stop fighting them? does that make any sense to you? so why does it make sense to you that the war on drugs never ending means we should stop fighting drug addict proliferation?

and this is the cheapest route, in terms of loss of freedom (to a highly addictive drug, you do realize highly addictive drugs are a greater impediment to your freedom than any government ever could be, right?) and economic cost: minimize the addict population

what i DO accept as a criticism of the war on drugs is TACTICS. maybe our current tactics can be improved. ANY way you can minimize the addict population is valid. the war on drugs takes into account all methods of minimizing addict population. this includes healthcare efforts

you will also note, programs in portugal and switzerland are ALSO about minimizing addict populations. its not about legalizing these scourges on freedom and society, its about new TACTICS for the same GOAL. NO ONE wants these drugs to be used, even those in charge of the programs in lisbon and geneva. the portuguese/ swiss models HAVE THE SAME GOAL IN MIND

are they effective? if not, the portuguese/ swiss experiment should end. if they are effective (in terms of MINIMIZING ADDICT POPULATIONS) then we should adopt these models. but please note the goal is the same in washington dc and lisbon, even if the approach is different: minimize addict populations, in the name of maximizing freedom... since you understand drug addiction is a greater impediment on your freedom than the most orwellian government possible. right? right? unless... that orwellian government used heroin to turn people into slaves, weaponizing the greatest destroyer of freedom ever known to mankind: drug addiction

please understand the greatest enemy personal freedom has ever known is no government, but addiction. a constant interrupt cycle in your mind, greater than your willpower, to feed an essentially useless need. please understand the real relationship between drug use and freedom

Re:This is unacceptable.

[mcmonkey]

make a graph: x axis is addictiveness, y axis is inebriation

something like caffeine is low on both x and y: harmless

Actually, caffeine is quite high on x. And y as well. (Depending on how you define inebriation.)

Re:This is unacceptable.

[toxonix]

As a cowboy, I somewhat agree with that statement. I used to drink my coffee through my teeth, using them as a filter. However, as the number of teeth in my mouth decreases, the amount of coffee I'm eating rather than drinking increases. Coffee grounds are good roughage though.

Re:This is unacceptable.

[circletimessquare]

inebriation: inability to function in a job or a relationship. due to internal factors (altered senses) or external factors (altered behavior). so caffeine is quite low in that regard. something like lsd would be high

Re:This is unacceptable.

[InsertCleverUsername]

Where the hell is the "Like" button for this post?

Re:This is unacceptable.

[element-o.p.]

I personally have exactly ZERO interest in using high addiction/high inebriation drugs whatsoever, because I completely understand and agree with you that such drugs are a huge detriment to my well being. However, I started getting edgy when you began arguing that it is good for government to try to outlaw such drugs. Initially, my reaction was philosophical. I categorically disagree that any attempt to create an external discipline upon a population for any reason other than to prevent a person or group of people from denying others their rights. My views on government are very libertarian, and my views on discipline are heavily influenced by a guy named Danny Silk ("Loving Your Kids On Purpose", which, IMHO, works equally well on adults)

However, after thinking through your arguments, I see two other big problems with your arguments. First, you state that addicts of high addiction/high inebriation drugs (I'll just say "addicts" when talking about such users, sacrificing some accuracy for simplicity and brevity) are a drain on the economy. However, that is only because we choose to allow them to be so. We have the option of saying that if you choose to become an addict -- and I understand that once you are addicted, it is extraordinarily difficult to stop using, but I counter that you always have the option to not start using in the first place -- then you are on your own, in which case the drain on the economy would be minimal. A more compassionate approach would be to offer assistance to those you are honestly trying to break the addiction, but to be hands-off on those who have no desire to clean up. That sounds harsh, but I believe that if we are trying to force people to sober up, we are facing a practically impossible task. As I already said, breaking such powerful addictions is difficult enough, even for someone who wants to clean up; breaking such a powerful addiction for someone who is hell-bent on staying hooked is an exercise in futility. Second, if "NO ONE wants these drugs to be used" as you state, then they wouldn't. Someone has to want to use the drugs for there to be a market, and someone has to want to sell the drugs for there to be a supply. As long as anyone values profit over the lives of others, there will be a supply, and as long as anyone wants to risk the addiction and inebriation, there will be a demand...unless, of course, people simply don't know what it's like to be an addict. If that's the case, then education, rather than a war on drugs, is the answer. I rather suspect, though, that very, very few people don't understand that meth or crack or heroin are very addictive and that becoming addicted to such drugs destroys lives. A friend of mine in high school tried cocaine only once, because it scared the crap out of him. He told me that the high was so good he knew he'd become addicted if he ever tried it again. So why would any rational being choose to use such drugs, or having sampled them, why would they choose to continue using them until they become addicted? If you can answer what is the draw to such drugs that people are willing to risk using them, knowing that using such drugs is all but guaranteed to destroy your life, you'll have a much better solution to the drug problem than SWAT teams and full prisons.

Re:This is unacceptable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Got it right the first time; It's the coffee, not the caffeine.

Re:This is unacceptable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, American. You're so cute.

Diuretic

[Anonymous Coward]

Related to the fact that caffeine is a diuretic?

Correlation != Causation, title writer

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA:

coffee may be associated with a reduced risk of prostate cancer.

and

We observed a strong inverse association between coffee consumption and risk of lethal prostate cancer.

Show me biochemical interactions and a pathway of downregulation of metastatic prostate cancer cells and I'll buy your title.

That being said, I'm going to go have a couple cups of joe.

Re:Correlation != Causation, title writer

[Rob the Bold]

FTA:

coffee may be associated with a reduced risk of prostate cancer.

and

We observed a strong inverse association between coffee consumption and risk of lethal prostate cancer.

Show me biochemical interactions and a pathway of downregulation of metastatic prostate cancer cells and I'll buy your title.

That being said, I'm going to go have a couple cups of joe.

It took you 8 minutes to issue that "correction", AC. I have to wonder if slower "correlation is not causation" posting is correlated with time of day.

Re:Correlation != Causation, title writer

[Anonymous Coward]

Overly simplistic comment. Statistics, research & design, and the process are not religion.

Re:Correlation != Causation, title writer

[tibit]

Agreed. Good science needs theory: a mechanism that explains what's going on. For all I know, they didn't control it well and there was a third factor that lowered the risk, while somehow being linked with coffee drinking. Sigh.

Once again for the cheap seats

[Bacon Bits]

Correlation does not imply causation. For all this study appears to show, it could be that drinking hot water is the reason for the relationship. I'd like to see a study conducted where group A drinks coffee and group B takes a supplement that contains the components of the coffee bean which are present in brewed coffee.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[damburger]

One route by which a false causation could occur here is through one of the most obvious effects of caffeine - its a diuretic. The summary could have just as easily said "Pissing often helps prevent prostate cancer"

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[dreemernj]

The number of potential reasons for the correlation is staggering. Think of the other things that could be different in the lifestyle and diet of someone that drinks 6 cups of coffee a day versus someone that drinks 1?

It's painful everytime a horrible summary like this makes it through.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[symes]

But causation does imply corrrelation. Anyhow - don't dismiss this work because of the design. It provides a clue to something that might have great bearing on a rather nasty condition. With this epidemiological data in hand, scientists can now look at devising better designed more expensive research that will determine the relationship, if any, such as the one you propose.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[Darfeld]

Either way, I'll drink a cup more of coffe, just to be safe, since even if their is no direct link, it seems to imply less prostate cancer in the futur...
That is, until further experimentation find something more precise.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[stanlyb]

Add to this: pissing often without any side effect, and you will see why even then coffee drinkers are cancer-free.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[nedlohs]

Yes, if you ignore the decaf drinkers were the same as the normal coffee drinkers and hence the abstract finishes with: "The association appears to be related to non-caffeine components of coffee."

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[stanlyb]

What is first, the chicken or the egg? And to answer your correlation question, it does not matter, as long as you are the happy chicken, making a lot of eggs. Translated, it does not matter if the coffee or the life-style linked to the heavy coffee drinkers is the real reason, as long as the final result is cancer-free life.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[Rary]

One route by which a false causation could occur here is through one of the most obvious effects of caffeine - its a diuretic. The summary could have just as easily said "Pissing often helps prevent prostate cancer"

The study does point out that decaf coffee had the same effect as regular, so it's not the caffeine, or any effect of the caffeine, that does this.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[ceoyoyo]

Oh look, someone else who knows the snappy phrase, but doesn't understand it. Actually, that subject sounds familiar... you're the one who always posts this same crap, aren't you?

There are three possibilities - coffee reduces prostate cancer risk, reduced prostate cancer risk increases coffee consumption or a third factor increases coffee consumption and decreases prostate cancer risk. While the third one is possible, the first is much more likely, and even the summary says "indicates."

Your complaint doesn't have anything to do with correlation; it's that "coffee" isn't a specific compound. While true, objecting to a preliminary study on those grounds is silly. If the effect is real someone will eventually chase down exactly what the mechanism is.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[damburger]

Even without caffeine, extra fluids will make you piss more. Constantly cleaning out your urinary tract sounds like a more feasible mechanism of action than some unidentified chemical in coffee that isn't common in other parts of the human diet. Decaf coffee isn't a valid control, water is.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[Anonymous Coward]

"Pissing often helps prevent prostate cancer"

That claim is easy to test: compare with beer drinkers, tea drinkers, cola drinkers and also with diabetics.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it matters! If the cause for the correlation is not coffee itself, but that people who are more likely to drink a lot of coffee are also more likely to , and it is really X which causes less prostate cancer, then you can't simply start drinking coffee and hope for less prostate cancer, can you?

This is an unsubstantiated example, but what if people who drink more coffee are usually people who work a lot and thus have better jobs, and thus can afford to eat better food? Then you should be eating better food, not drinking more coffee..

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[dreemernj]

Is my sarcasm detector busted, or did that make no sense whatsoever?

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[icebraining]

But if that is the case, it's still causation; coffee does reduce the chances of prostate cancer, even if any other liquid mainly composed of water does the same. Causation doesn't mean it's the only cause.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[damburger]

No, because it being coffee is not the cause. The statement 'coffee prevents prostate cancer' contains the implicit assumption that coffee does so more than control. This may seem nitpicky, but summarising scientific research requires fairly precise use of language.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think he was dismissing the study, but the "coffee wards off cancer" title and the summary which says "heavy coffee drinking staves off deadly prostate cancer".

in general, "is associated with reduced occurrence of" != "staves off"

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[timeOday]

Actually that wouldn't be false causation, since drinking actually does cause pissing. It would just mean the result could be broadened to people who drink anything else that isn't too harmful. (Virtually all "causes" are indirect if you break things down enough.)

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's possible that there's something else going on (Being at high risk for prostate cancer makes coffee taste like shit). But it's certainly an interesting finding that should be further studied.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[DrgnDancer]

And no where in the summary, article or paper (OK, I didn't read the paper, but I seriously doubt it would make such a ridiculous claim) is it said that "Drinking coffee prevents cancer". The title kinda does if you read it that way, but a three word catchy title is hardly the "meat" of anything. All that's being claimed is a significant statistical correlation between drinking coffee and a reduced risk for this particular type of cancer.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[residieu]

There's a difference. If drinking coffee really did reduce the risk of prostate cancer, it would make sense to encourage men to drink coffee. If it's just that people who drink coffee are at lower risk for some other reason, then encouraging men to drink more coffee will not reduce their risk of cancer.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[stanlyb]

Apparently busted. If you actually bother to read any decent medical journal, you will find out that there was, and will never be a 100% proven correlation between drinking coffee, and less cancer risk for example. NEVER. All that this statistic does, is just that, statistic.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[stanlyb]

That was my point actually. Maybe it is not the coffee, but the lifestyle, which side effect is drinking more coffee.....

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[jmc]

Yes, I'm sure a Doctor of Science at the Harvard School of Medicine, publishing in the Journal of the Nancer Cancer Institute, has never taken a Stats 101 class, let alone attended even the first day of said class...

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[tibit]

You deserve a medal, or something ;) AGREED! Loudly so!

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[goombah99]

The number of potential reasons for the correlation is staggering. Think of the other things that could be different in the lifestyle and diet of someone that drinks 6 cups of coffee a day versus someone that drinks 1?.

Well yes and no. If Coffee intake is what promotes the alternative lifestyle rather than the converse then increasing coffee intake will be beneficial. even if it is just the affect of drinking 6 cups of hot water-- it's still easier to persuade people to drink a stimulant than to drink hot water (otherwise that would be a habit by now.)

Coffee increase libido. So maybe coffee drinkers just jerk off or have sex more often. Does this matter to the conclusion? it's still coffee causing the behavior change.

Your point is that perhaps chronic masturbation causes a thirst for coffee.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[dreemernj]

So, what was your point in responding to me originally? I was annoyed that the summary tried to paint a causal relationship between coffee and cancer when all there is is correlation right now, and then your response was it doesn't matter why there was a correlation, only that there was less cancer.

But that's dumb. It does matter why. You cannot take this article to mean drinking coffee will reduce your risk of cancer. You have to take it as men that do happen to drink more coffee are statistically less likely to get cancer. We need to figure out why in case there is a potential cancer treatment lurking somewhere in that correlation between the two.

But if you jump straight to a causal relationship you could end up doing more harm than good. Wasn't there a medicine that correlated with a lower risk of heart disease in a large study that, upon closer study, turned out to increase risk of that heart disease?

That's why I thought you were being sarcastic. Your response is so counter productive I actually thought you were making a joke that I missed since you are essentially arguing that correlation is enough and we shouldn't look for the actual cause. If that's not what you intended to say, then you worded your response poorly.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[dreemernj]

My point is more along the lines of: if coffee intake is a side effect of some other behavior that highly reduces the chances of cancer, drinking coffee alone could later be found to increase your chances of getting prostate cancer. That could be the case.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats

[element-o.p.]

Unless their drinking coffee pretty much always leads to the activity that is responsible for the reduction in cancer.

Non-coffee example: There's an apocryphal IT story about a man who called IT support because his keyboard worked fine while he was sitting, but when he stood up, the "G" and "H" keys would type the other letter (press "G", get an "H" and vice versa). Tech support tries to help the guy on the phone, but gets nowhere. Tech gets dispatched to the guy's work area, and has the guy demonstrate. Sure enough, when the man sits at his desk, everything works as expected. When he stands up to type, he gets an "H" when he presses the "G" key, and vice versa. The tech has the guy demonstrate several times, and finally figures it out: when the guy is sitting down, he's touch typing and knows where the keys are by feel. However, when he's standing, he's hunting and pecking...and the offending keys are swapped on his keyboard: the sequence is a-s-d-f-h-g-j, etc. on his keyboard, rather than a-s-d-f-g-h-j, etc. So when the guy is standing, he sees where the two keys are on the keyboard, and visually directs his finger to the incorrectly labeled key.

If you will *always* perform the action that leads to the cancer risk reduction when drinking coffee, then in practical terms, it doesn't really matter if coffee is really the cause as long as you like to drink coffee*. However, it might matter to people who don't like to drink coffee but could perform the action that causes the benefit sans coffee.

* except for technical accuracy and pedantic reasons.

Only in America

[hjf]

Only in America could anyone call 6 cups a day "fairly normal". Well yes, if you're drinking that dirty water you Americans like to call "coffee". Normal people on the rest of the world, drink decent, strong coffee.

I seriously don't get the point about doing that. If you want a light drink, go for tea. Coffee is such an amazing, rich, delicious drink, that drinking it as a replacement for water is just stupid. I prefer single cup of expresso in the middle of the afternoon, rather than sipping a giant plastic cup all day long.

Re:Only in America

[Daetrin]

Hey! That's not how we do things in AMERICA! In America we have one giant plastic cup of "expresso" (really? you go overboard with the superlatives but don't even know how to spell it?) in the morning, a second big giant plastic cup of espresso in the afternoon, and top it off with a Monster energy drink in the evening! Some people use "5 hour energy" instead, but that's for WUSSES because those bottles are small and small things are for WUSSES!!!!

Okay, seriously, i can't tell if the original statement was sarcastic or just totally out of touch. Six cups a day? I've lost track of the number of people in my office who have some method of making their own coffee in one cup batches (usually a french press or a one cup filter) bring in the their own coffee rather than using the office supply and have one or two cups a day at most.

Or maybe i'm the one who's out touch, but i suspect the people who go to Starbucks for breakfast lunch and dinner are like all stereotypes, seen a lot more in movies, TV and bad jokes than they are in real life.

(Although what's with the "dirty water" as opposed to "strong coffee" thing? The problem with Starbucks isn't that they make it too weak, the problem is that they burn the beans to a crisp. Weakness is about the last thing i'd complain about with their coffee.)

Re:Only in America

[Tx]

I'd think 6 cups a day is pretty average for many coffee drinkers, not just Americans. I'm in the UK, and certainly in my workplace we have a round of coffee/tea about once an hour, so 6 mugs of coffee a day is pretty typical. There's nothing wrong with using it as a replacement for water, it does the job just fine, and tastes better.

Re:Only in America

[dykofone]

As a heavy consumer of both the American dirt water and more "cultured" European styles of coffee, I will defend the American drip coffee as a product of utility. Cheaper, easier to make, can be kept in a pot for hours without degrading, and about 30% more caffeine per serving (130mg in a cup of drip coffee, 100mg in a shot of espresso). We drink that dirt water to survive, not to savor.

That doesn't mean we don't enjoy the finer coffees (I will obsess over a French-pressed dark roast Sumatran), it just means there's a place for both. I'm a beer snob too, but if I'm out fishing on a canoe in the Texas heat I have no shame reaching for a cold and refreshing Keystone Light. I'm not out there to pontificate on the malts used or the varietal of hops, I'm out there to get drunk on a boat, and you can't argue the utility of cheap canned beer.

Re:Only in America

[maxume]

Coffee left on a burner goes right to shit.

Re:Only in America

[icebraining]

Agreed; this is a proper cup of coffee.

In fact, there's a reason why in Europe the Americano is a diluted expresso cup.

Re:Only in America

[Greyfox]

The last few companies I've worked at have been going to progressively lower-quality coffee in the office. While they were good, you could hardly taste the urine in the coffee. After three or four rounds of coffee budget cuts, the urine actually improved the flavor.

I can't stand Starbucks' insipid brand after spending the last couple of years going to a local place where the coffee actually tastes like coffee (And almost never like urine.)

Re:Only in America

[hjf]

I drink clean, fresh water to survive.

Re:Only in America

[residieu]

Oh, I'm sorry. I prefer hot American coffee (no sugar, lots of milk) to hot tea. But, obviously my preferences offend you and I should stop drinking what *I* like and drink what *you* like. It's not like I'm over there stealing your cup of "expresso" (Ah, a coffee snob who can't even spell their own favored drink) and replacing it with a Venti Iced Caramel Frappaccino. I like a nice espresso in a coffee house sometimes too, but its not what gets me up in the morning.

Re:Only in America

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't miss a chance to take a shot at imaginary Americans, eh?

Re:Only in America

[Quirkz]

Well, somehow the summary indicated that 6 cups a day is "relatively normal" while also claiming only the guys who drink the most coffee get to those levels. Seems like it contradicts itself - they can't be the guys who are drinking the most and also the guys who are drinking normal levels.

Re:Only in America

[element-o.p.]

Please don't lump all of us Americans into such a stereotype. Personally, I really enjoy a good espresso. The problem, however, is that it is pretty difficult to find a GOOD espresso stateside -- it's almost always burned and bitter.

Java

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah another reason that Java is better then .Net =)

Re:Java

[smelch]

Yeah, because I want to program with a language that makes my piss smell even more appealing than it already does. Right.

Re:Java

[element-o.p.]

Personally, I try to avoid smelling the waste byproducts of digestion that my body produces as much as possible, but hey...whatever floats your boat.

typical US colored water or real coffee?

[kubitus]

a study without a null - hypothesis tested!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

Re:typical US colored water or real coffee?

[Anonymous Coward]

a study without a null - hypothesis tested!

Typical Euro poseur who has never had a real cup of coffee. You've definitely never ground beans in a canteen cup with a rock, and then broken open some .50 cal rounds to use the powder to start a fire to boil the water, then strained the coffee through your teeth. When it's 20 below, it's the best fucking coffee you've ever had.

A shot of espresso has about half the caffeine of an 8 oz drip-brewed coffee. And, really, the way Euros actually drink coffee (when they aren't posing in fornt of Americans) is basically milk with a little bit of coffee. In America, even little girls drink stronger coffee than effete European men.

Re:typical US colored water or real coffee?

[lahvak]

Be careful which part of Europe you are talking about. Europe is not all France and Germany, you know.

Coffee alternative

[tverbeek]

I don't like coffee. I've tried it, hated it, and have no intention of "learning to like it".

Fortunately there's another well-established way of warding off prostate cancer, which I enjoy quite a bit.

Re:Coffee alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, are you a ketchup lover too? My bottle says the lycopene from processed (but not raw) tomatoes can help prevent prostate cancer. You must mean that.

Re:Coffee alternative

[newcastlejon]

Fortunately there's another well-established way of warding off prostate cancer, which I enjoy quite a bit.

The preparation is a little more of a chore though, no?

Re:Coffee alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

Well? Don't leave us hangin' like that.

Re:Coffee alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this other well-established way of warding off prostate cancer, for those of us not in the know?

Re:Coffee alternative

[newcastlejon]

What is this other well-established way of warding off prostate cancer, for those of us not in the know?

In a word: ejaculation.

An active prostate is a healthy prostate, I guess.

Re:Coffee alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

I came buckets!!1!

Re:Coffee alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

Heavy masturbation?

Re:Coffee alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then it's a good thing we've got the internet!

Re:Coffee alternative

[datsa]

They don't encourage it at work quite as much, though (I assume you mean playing loud music).

enough with the statistics

[timlyg]

Why are all hopes of remedy in cancer stuck on statistics and not actual subsequent scientific medicine?

Re:enough with the statistics

[Samantha Wright]

Because actually solving problems is haaaaaard!

In all likelihood, drinking coffee is probably just correlated to working or living conditions that don't involve as much exposure to carcinogenic substances.

Re:enough with the statistics

[Anonymous Coward]

well, then you should know, soya bean is likely to prevent cancer.

Re:enough with the statistics

[Darfeld]

Because the subsequent scientific medicine cost money and times and that the later paper aren't nearly as news-worthy, because you never find a Cure For Cancer after all?

And maybe because cancer being cancer, there are lots of parameters you can't quantify precisely so you ends up forced to use statistic to get some result?

Statistics may be overrated, but it doesn't mean they are worthless or meaningless. They work, provided you don't do anything stupid with them.

Re:enough with the statistics

[timlyg]

Well, what I think is very scientific about it is every time a statistical claim on cancer 'remedy' is announced, there is no subsequent analysis of the case. But I suppose due to the definition of 'statistics', they aren't treated as badly as those in homeopathy.

Re:enough with the statistics

[smelch]

Your guess as to what the correlation is caused by seems pretty spot on. However, it really bugs me the way people bitch about cancer research. I know three people who had cancer who do not have cancer now. One breast cancer survivor (at age 22!), one prostate, and one leukemia. There is no silver bullet for cancer, and complaining about the lack of a cure is the same as complaining about a lack of cure for viruses. From what I can tell there is a lot of solid research on cancer, and a lot of health tips to avoid cancer the same way there are health tips to avoid every kind of malady.

Plants are your friend

[digitaldc]

With coffee - broccoli, green/black/white tea, soybeans, red grapes, turmeric, rosemary, garlic, berries and eating a plant-based high-fiber diet helps as well to ward-off cancer.

Re:Plants are your friend

[loftwyr]

No, not everything is good: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/play/snake-oil-supplements/

Great news

[soupforare]

Between the coffee and the masturbation, my prostate is safe as houses. I've just read that my heart loves booze, too. Everything's amazing now!

Re:Great news

[OhHellWithIt]

I hope these things work for you. I was a heavy coffee drinker from age 18-50. I'm sure I was average or better in the other department as well. When I turned 50, I was diagnosed with prostate cancer. As nearly as I can tell, the two best preventive measures are 1) make sure none of your male ancestors gets it and 2) don't live in the U.S. or other Western countries. (FWIW, wanking is pretty disappointing after a prostatectomy.)

Re:Great news

[Anonymous Coward]

As a heavy coffee drinker and masturbator for 40+ years and a cancer survivor for 5+ years, I suggest you go ahead and keep your appointment with Joe the Plumber, er Urologist.

Re:Great news

[Anonymous Coward]

Between the coffee and the masturbation, my prostate is safe as houses.

Just keep your backdoor locked!

coffee with a cig

[synapse7]

So I should keep drinking coffee with my cigarettes, check.

Re:coffee with a cig

[maxume]

Make sure to only eat the ripe cigarettes.

...of the summary; the abstract does say:

[dazedNconfuzed]

The association appears to be related to non-caffeine components of coffee.

- from the linked-to abstract.

Re:...of the summary; the abstract does say:

[Cytotoxic]

This definitely works. My Director of Technology drinks her coffee like a gerbil at a water bottle, and she's never had prostate cancer!

Did they die of heart strokes ?

[Anonymous Coward]

This would be an easy explication: heavy coffee drinkers do not die of prostate cancer because they die of something else
before.

Actual Research Paper and Conclusion

[eldavojohn]

According to the interview with one of the study's authors on NPR today, one of the very important factors is that decaf works as well. Which is to say, the measured benefit probably is not from caffeine.

Indeed. Here's a PDF of the paper which has all the actual numbers. It also lists in their conclusions several possible investigation routes:

Coffee contains chlorogenic acids (CGAs), which inhibit glucose absorption in the intestine and may favorably alter levels of gut hormones, which affect insulin response (1). Quinides, the roasting products of CGAs, inhibit liver glucose production in experimental models (1). Coffee also contains lignans, phytoestrogens with potent antioxidant activity, which may have positive effects on glucose handling (37). In humans, coffee drinking has been cross- sectionally associated with lower glucose levels after oral glucose loads and better insulin sensitivity (38–40). A cross-sectional study in women found a negative correlation between coffee consumption and circulating C-peptide, a marker of insulin secretion (41). Insulin may promote tumor progression through the insulin and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) receptors in cancer cells. Insulin levels have been associated with a greater risk of cancer progression or mortality among men diagnosed with prostate cancer (9–11), even though insulin has been unassociated (12,13) or inversely associated (14) with overall incidence. Coffee is a major source of antioxidants and is estimated to provide half of total antioxidant intake in several populations (2,3). Coffee has been associated with improved markers of inflammation in cross-sectional studies and in a recent trial (4,42,43). Inflammation is hypothesized to play a role in the development of prostate cancer through the generation of proliferative inflammatory atrophy lesions (15). Various dietary antioxidants may reduce inflammation and have been associated with lower risk of advanced prostate cancer (44,45). Coffee drinking may be associated with increased sex hormone–binding globulin (SHBG) and total testosterone levels (5). One study in Greek men found a positive association with estradiol levels but not with SHBG or testosterone (6), whereas another found no association between coffee and sex hormones in young Greek men (7). Coffee has been consistently associated with higher SHBG levels in women (46–49). Sex hormones play a role in prostate cancer, though the relationships between circulating levels within normal ranges and risk have been difficult to elucidate. It has been hypothesized that although testosterone is necessary for the initial development of prostate cancer, it may limit progression of the disease (50,51). A pooled analysis of 18 prospective studies found an inverse association between SHBG levels and prostate cancer risk (51).

Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence.

[Peter Trepan]

Three times is enemy action. Coffee has so many widely reported health benefits, it makes me wonder if some coffee growers association has discovered that it's killing people.

"(a fairly normal six-plus cups per day)"

[Anonymous Coward]

You poor man. Instead you die an early death, possibly cardiovascular such, from constantly being jacked-up on caffeine, negating those semantical extra years of life from not getting prostate cancer. Oh, the irony.

Re:"(a fairly normal six-plus cups per day)"

[element-o.p.]

My dad, who didn't drink coffee at all BTW, died five years ago of a massive aneurysm. My grandmother (mom's mom, not his mom, fortunately) was with him when it happened, and from her description, it probably wasn't a bad way to go. On the other hand, a friend of my family's died last year from cancer, after a long, protracted, struggle. Two examples do not constitute a rigorous study, but with the data available to me, I'll take cardiovascular over cancer every single time, thanks. Especially since a good exercise program and a healthy diet can go a long ways towards maintaining cardiovascular health, which I would expect to minimize the downside to "being jacked-up on caffeine" (any health experts care to chime in?).

Tea? More Fluids in General?

[wren337]

Disappointing that they didn't track hot tea drinkers as well. It would be interesting to know if this was associated with generally being better hydrated, or something specific to coffee. // just switched to green tea from coffee

Starbucks

[TimeElf1]

Well I suppose I should go get some stock in Starbucks.

Also helps against breast cancer

[Sven-Erik]

Another study published on Breast Cancer Research claims it also helps against a form of aggressive breast cancer.

Gerson Therapy

[inthealpine]

Oddly enough I watched a documentary on Gerson Therapy for cancer and coffee enemas were highly recommended to fight cancer. I'm not saying I buy into it and there was a lot of other less odd treatments Dr Gerson pushed for, but it is interesting...

Redundant?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? You track down the full paper of the research and you get modded redundant?! This site sometimes ... is just a pile of shit.

Re:Redundant?!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's become so bad here that I don't even pay attention to the scores - especially the +1 karma bonus that everyone has. To get a 5 score, just post something anti-American at the top of the comment thread. It doesn't even have to be on-topic.

Re:Redundant?!

[obergfellja]

Coffee grown in USA Sucks... Go Columbian and you will feel the Tweek.

Re:Redundant?!

[WorBlux]

I think the only place in the U.S. they really grow it is Puerto Rico or Hawaii , which is a low a altitude robusto coffee. All th real good stuff, arabica, is grown at high altitudes. I like Mexican beans, they seem to a slightly nutty but balanced flavor when just shy of a medium roast.

Re:Redundant?!

[obergfellja]

yes, that is true. Thanks for being informative, but I still like coffee being imported directly from Columbia.

Coffee is the only vegetable some people eat...

[Paul Fernhout]

As Dr. Joel Fuhrman says, overally coffee is bad for you because of the caffeine (and also maybe how it is produced if it is decaffinated and also based on what it may be mixed with, like milk products that can themselves contribute to cancer). The reason people are seeing these benefits is that most people in the Western world are suffering from vegetable deficiency disease, because humans are adapted to get the bulk of our calories from leafy greens, and we use the phytochemicals from living plants in all sorts of ways to defend against cancer and inflammation and repair broken cells and so on. So, the reason we see these positive results from coffee drinking tend to be because people otherwise don't eat enough beans of other sorts, as well as leafy greens and so on.

See also:
    http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx

And:
    "Should I drink coffee?"
    http://drfuhrman.com/faq/question.aspx?sid=16&qindex=0
"Although one cup of coffee per day is not likely to cause any significant health problems, it is clear that excessive consumption of caffeinated beverages is dangerous. Coffee is known to contribute to heart disease by raising blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and homocysteine.(1,2) Caffeine addicts with excessive consumption are also at higher risk of cardiac arrhythmias that could cause sudden death.(3)"

Re:Coffee is the only vegetable some people eat...

[wiggles]

And we should all run out to buy his book to figure out his 'ideal diet', right? He's pushing it right there on his website. Smells like a quack appealing to popular pseudoscientific nonsense in order to make a quick buck to me.

Re:Coffee is the only vegetable some people eat...

[lahvak]

Caffeine addicts with excessive consumption are also at higher risk of cardiac arrhythmias that could cause sudden death

Interesting point, that. I personally would much rather die a sudden death than suffer through years of cancer.

Re:Coffee is the only vegetable some people eat...

[Paul Fernhout]

I applaud your caution, but I lost about 50 pounds following that sort of advice, and feel a lot better, and have kept it off easily. His book is probably the most scientifically based one out there... YMMV.
"Eat to Live: The Revolutionary Formula for Fast and Sustained Weight Loss"
http://books.google.com/books?id=CX8huSU0n8AC

Getting a good blender and making green smoothies helped a lot too.
http://greensmoothierevolution.com/

Dr. Fuhrman's approach can cure most type 2 diabetes too, but I doubt you will believe that either: :-)
"Dr. Fuhrman Cures Diabetes - But Drug Companies Object "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46_GInjBeQU

But that is more and more common knowledge, except among most doctors and CEOs of drug companies:
http://www.rawfor30days.com/index4.html

His approach can also reverse most heart disease... Although others can do that too, as well. Just Google on reverse heart disease.

Is Dr. Fuhrman's approach perfect? No, I think it could be improved in a couple of ways. For example, I think he is a bit low on Vitamin D and quite a bit low on iodine. Others on that:
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation
http://www.iodine4health.com/

Iodine especially is a potentially big issue because if you eliminate salt and dairy as he suggests, those are two major sources of iodine in the US diet, and you need to replace that with a multivitamin or eating seaweed or other things. If you were under his care, he would no doubt check for that, but for someone following his advice from a book (myself included) it is easy to mess up on iodine. I brought that to his attention through his forum but he was somewhat dismissive of it, sadly.

I also think Dr. Fuhrman could prioritize his approach a bit better, and also that there may be issues about metabolic types and individual biochemistry that may come into play. It's also not clear if salt is quite as bad as he says it is.

In general, I think he has done a great job, but no one knows everything about such a complex topic. And his active practice probably also limits his time for additional study. I also agree with you that financial conflicts (he sells branded food products, even though he gives some of the proceeds to nutritional research) muddy the water. But that is also a big issue in our society in general, and we need something like some mix of a gift economy or basic income or 3D printing and/or great central planning to move beyond it.

But overall, he's probably one of the best out there, after having read tons of stuff by different people in my own quest for health for myself and my family.

Dr. Andrew Weil has better holistic advice, but not quite so good nutrition advice. He is also more knowledgeable on herbal remedies:
http://www.drweil.com/

Dr. Mark Hyman probably has better overall advice about autism:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/autism-research-discovery_b_794967.html

We are in the midst of a revolution in nutritional knowledge and the connection to health, but sadly most people are in denial about it. And there are, as you say, so many vested interests and conflicts of interest that it is hard to know who to trust.

But as I quote here from Marcia Angell, the problem may be even worse in mainstream science:

Re:Coffee is the only vegetable some people eat...

[Paul Fernhout]

Or perhaps you could eat a lot of vegetables, fruits, and beans and get the right amount of vitamin D, and get enough of some other key nutrients like Omega-3s and iodine, and quite possibly put off both cancer and heart disease until you are in your second century? :-) Although other things matter in life too, friends, family, a good night's sleep, meaningful work, living in a health-promoting community, a connection to the infinite, and so on...

Re:Coffee is the only vegetable some people eat...

[lahvak]

Or perhaps you could eat a lot of vegetables, fruits, and beans and get the right amount of vitamin D, and get enough of some other key nutrients like Omega-3s and iodine...

And die early from worrying about all that crap? That does not sound like fun at all. ...a connection to the infinite...

I think I have that. I teach calculus and set theory fairly often.

Re:Coffee is the only vegetable some people eat...

[Paul Fernhout]

"And die early from worrying about all that crap?"

How about have tons more energy and lots less health issues that otherwise might slow you down? :-)

But you're right that too much anxiety about food can be its own sets of healthy problems...

"I teach calculus and set theory fairly often."

I like to phrase it that way because different connections work for different people. I'm glad you've found something that works for you -- hopefully you have some time for contemplating integrals in the sunshine to get your vitamin D. :-)

Re:Tea? More Fluids in General?

[loftwyr]

As caffeine is a diuretic, coffee does not help with hydration.

Linus Torvalds to Live Forever

[jonescb]

Quoting Linus Torvalds:

"So every time I see some piece of medical research saying that caffeine is good for you, I high-five myself. Because I'm going to live forever."

http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2010/08/13744-supplied.html

Decaf works too!

[LanMan04]

Heard about this on NPR this morning, and the researcher said there was no difference between caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee in the study. Both produced the same effect.

So if you don't like the stimulant-ness of coffee, drink decaf for the same protective effect.

ObXKCD

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody posted the obligatory XKCD link yet? http://xkcd.com/882/

Cancer-preventative agents prevalent in the oils?

[I, Meatbot.]

I recall the specifics of this study when it began. What they already knew, but hadn't proven yet: While drinking a cup of regular joe provided some colo-rectal/prostate (and testicular) cancer-preventing benefit to men, the anti-carcinogens were in greatest abundance when it was freshly-ground, freshly-brewed, and served piping hot. The scientist I saw on the news went on to say, he thought it was in the surface-oils as they turned to steam. So now I breathe my coffee while I drink it.

Re:Tea? More Fluids in General?

[RobinEggs]

Well, the abstract doesn't tell us what comparisons they made other than more coffee drunk vs less, but given that it's a Harvard study I'll extend the trust that they had decent control groups and biostatistics (and I'm not saying that just because I'm all doe-eyed about a big name school, I'm saying that because Harvard has probably the best public health program in the world).

Tea would be a pretty poor control, however; when testing a biochemical cocktail for health effects, when you want a control that measures hydration and fluid intake why on earth would you use a different biochemical cocktail rather than controlling statistically for overall hydration or having some sort of water-drinking control group? How do we know that tea doesn't have a whole host of different effects as opposed to coffee that could totally boink the study data? In fact, it probably does.

Ha! I'm never going to die!

[PPH]

I'm never going to sleep, either.

Post-Hoc Study

[Anonymous Coward]

This study is of people who made a choice to drink or not drink coffee. It did not take a bunch of people and say, OK, you guys drink coffee, you guys abstain. Come back in ten years.

People give up coffee for health reasons.

The study reads:
"Conclusions We observed a strong inverse association between coffee consumption and risk of lethal prostate cancer. The association appears to be related to non-caffeine components of coffee."

I will fix it for them:
"Conclusions: People who suspect they might get prostate cancer are slightly more likely not to drink coffee. The association appears to be related to non-caffeine components of coffee. That component may be it's 'perceived unhealthiness'."

This is not a bad study, but the conclusions need testing via something many people call SCIENCE. It will be necessary to get some subjects and feed them coffee. As is, this is a fun exercise in statistics.

Re:Post-Hoc Study

[jc42]

This is not a bad study, but the conclusions need testing via something many people call SCIENCE. It will be necessary to get some subjects and feed them coffee. As is, this is a fun exercise in statistics.

Well, yeah, except that scientific research very often starts with statistical studies like this, followed by more focused studies on the things that turn out to be correlated.

As someone (I've forgotten who) said, a correlation may not mean causation, but it is Nature's way of saying "Hey, look over here; there's something interesting going on that you should look into."

Masturbation is better than sex?

[RobinEggs]

Is it only masturbation or do sex and masturbation work equally well?

The way this is phrased looks like an incomplete story. Why wouldn't sex work just as well as masturbation? What plausible reason would there be that wanking your doodle by hand works better than wanking it in a soft, pleasant vagina?

Re:Masturbation is better than sex?

[RivenAleem]

Is it only masturbation or do sex and masturbation work equally well?

You make it sound like the average /. reader has a choice.

Re:Masturbation is better than sex?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it only masturbation or do sex and masturbation work equally well?

The way this is phrased looks like an incomplete story. Why wouldn't sex work just as well as masturbation? What plausible reason would there be that wanking your doodle by hand works better than wanking it in a soft, pleasant vagina?

The "every day" requirement. You can easily spank it every day, but finding enough willing partners to make your SPV a daily reality is exceedingly rare.

Re:Tea? More Fluids in General?

[wren337]

I'd assume this was a survey and data mining exercise, that they didn't assign people randomly into groups and tell them to drink specific amounts of coffee. Since the abstract doesn't mention it they may not have asked people if they drink tea or not, so the tea drinkers would be distributed among every group (some drinking coffee in different amounts as well, some drinking no coffee). It would have been interesting to see that information mined separately. I don't see how it would have muddied the water in terms of what they had set out to do originally.

OLD NEWS

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Old news as it has been argued for many years by those practicing Hollistic medicine to drink lots of tea andingest other things high in flavonoid. Coffee contains catechins, a type of flavonoid that has been associated with a reduced risk of cancer. It has been stated before that Flavonoids are the most powerful anti oxidant available.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

6 cups a day

[utpanthro]

keeps the finger away!

paper filters, excessive sitting?

[goombah99]

The problem with decaf is that since it lacks the positive reinforcements of the perk and taste it is less likely one will drink 6 cups.

past studies have hinted that paper filters may remove some benefits from coffee. But others have claimed brown paper filters remove toxins (but bleached ones add dioxins). I wonder if this study used brewed or unfiltered coffee?

Does the roast matter? I like dark roasts. One could speculate roasting could affect the outcome
1) perhaps roasting solublizes or activates the "good" chemicals
2) perhaps roasting destroys the good stuff
3) perhaps, like frying, roasting also creates carcinogens. Just perhaps not ones that impact the prostate.

Maybe the reason for the 20% decline is that they died of something else caused by coffee (e.g. extreme sports, excessive sitting, being shot by jealous due to the libido enhancment of coffee) or pehaps they received treatment for something else cause by the coffee (kidney dialysis) that had some preventative side effect on Prostate cancer.

Re:paper filters, excessive sitting?

[kiwimate]

I assume by your comment of "excessive sitting" you are referring to the recent study that says sitting behind a desk all day raises your chances of a fatal heart attack by 54%, independent of how much you exercise and whether you smoke.

The reason is clear...

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone drinking 6+ cups of coffee per day isn't going to be sitting on their ass all day.

Cause

[jimmerz28]

I'm interested in what's causing such a high amount of prostate cancer among us men.

Is it the processed sugar they're dumping in their coffee/food? Pesticides, herbicides from our produce?

I wish we could find the multi-determinent causes faster =/

Cancer Act 1939

[Anonymous Coward]

This article is illegal in the UK under the Cancer Act 1939 which prohibits any publications that "offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe any remedy therefor, or to give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof".

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/2-3/13/section/4

Scary?

[jayjanssen]

Is any one else terrified that over 10% of the men in the study developed prostate cancer?

5k out of 50k? What the hell?

[jpapon]

Some 47,911 US men were surveyed over the period 1986 to 2008 for the research. During this time some 5,035 of them developed prostate cancer with 642 dying of it.

Woh, the incidence rate of prostate cancer in US men is 1 in 10? Why does the CDC show the rate at more like 150 in 100k? Or did they take some extremely high risk group?

Re:5k out of 50k? What the hell?

[i]

They probably selected an elder group of men for the study, e g 40 - 70 years old, maybe to increase the risk for prostate cancer to get a more distinct result. There is rare among 20 - 40 years to get prostate cancer.

Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything I hate or can't take is good for you.

Aspirin: lowers your risk of heart attack. Allergic.
Orange juice: various health benefits. Can't drink it, it makes me sick to my stomach.
Coffee: keeps cancer away. I can't stand the taste of coffee and I feel bad after drinking it.

Thanks, world, for taking a gigantic dump on me. I really appreciate being screwed over in every single goddamn aspect in life.

Re:Tea? More Fluids in General?

[RobinEggs]

Shoot...yeah, you're right. I had a weird feeling I was missing something.

Good news

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone with Crohn's disease who was fairly certain he's going to die of ass cancer, this is fairly good news; I drink a pot+ of coffee a day. At least my prostate is fairly safe; lets hope it keeps my colon in good shape too.

Study Design

[Flatwater]

Note that this was an observational study, not an experimental study, and so the risk of counfounders is high. For example, it is conceivable that people who develop prostate cancer then lose their taste for coffee even before being diagnosed. For years, the cigarette industry took advantage of the limitations of observational studies by arguing that an unidentified genetic factor made people want to smoke, and also put them at risk for developing lung cancer, but that the smoking and the cancer weren't related. A well-designed experimental study could randomly assign people to drink or not drink coffee, and then determine the incidence of prostate cancer in each group. Obviously, designing a similar study for cigarettes would be unethical given the weight of evidence that smoking is bad for you.

Re:Study Design

[cyberfin]

Please someone mod this guy up as informative! That and he stole my comment.

beer cures cancer!

[edxwelch]

The trick is to only read the studies that fit with your lifestyle.
All we need now is a study to show that beer cures cancer!

Re:beer cures cancer!

[oldmac31310]

I drink beer and do not have cancer. Therefore beer prevents cancer. Woohoo!

Tell that to Frank Zappa

[wagonlips]

Who died of prostate cancer and considered coffee and cigarettes to be "food."

Re:Tell that to Frank Zappa

[istartedi]

That's the thing about these studies. They're statistical. There might be a correction factor for smoking too. There isn't a correction factor for your entire genome. Do they even do basic genetic screening on the participants?

Some participants could have an unknown gene combination that allows coffee to suppress cancer. Others may not. Others might even have an unknown gene combination that does the opposite. Now add environmental history. Maybe coffee only reduces cancer if you've got European genes and have been exposed to moderate ammounts of environmental lead as a child.

Re:Tell that to Frank Zappa

[wagonlips]

And to be fair, Zappa was exposed to a lot of dubious chemicals as a child. Maybe the exposure to one or more of those can cause people to become iconic band-leaders.

Study: Studies waste your time

[Anonymous Coward]

Next year, they'll have another study with a different conclusion.

Just liquid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it is just because it makes you pee more.

Correlation != Causation

[Anonymous Coward]

What you meant to say in the title was that there's "...a strong inverse association between coffee consumption and risk of lethal prostate cancer." The study doesn't show that "coffee wards off cancer." For all they know, it could be the frequent bowel movements induced by coffee, and not the coffee itself.

Neat.

[LoudMusic]

Well that's cool. Now could someone find a beverage that reduces the risk of leukemia? :(

Wish they would have specified number of oz

[bojangler]

A measuring cup is 8 oz
A coffee cup is often, but not always, 6 oz.
The cup on my desk with which I use to drink coffee is something in the range of 12 oz.

So when I saw 6 cups of coffee intake, my eyes lit up. Partly from the cup of coffee I just drank, but also at the thought of how much time would be spent in the bathroom over the course of those 6 cups.

Coffee Lobby

[LS]

Is it just me or does there seem to be a serious coffee lobby / PR organization at work here? No exaggeration, every three months for the last couple decades I've seen some story about the benefits of coffee on health. It is clearly legal because it is a workers' drug. It keeps people focused during work, while leaving them slightly frazzled afterwards so that they have no energy for anything else.

Did anyone read the articles on this? The benefit was found for those who drank SIX cups or more a day. Jumping off a tall building also reduces prostate cancer - by 100%.

Re:Coffee Lobby

[cyberchondriac]

Is it just me or does there seem to be a serious coffee lobby / PR organization at work here? No exaggeration, every three months for the last couple decades I've seen some story about the benefits of coffee on health.

I wouldn't be surprised. Where are the studies about drinking tea, and not just green tea, but typical black tea?
Those insensitive clods, I stopped drinking coffee about 4 years ago and switched to tea, either Earl Grey or Chai. Some coffees can leave you with nasty breath too. My wife has "instant coffee" breath after breakfast, yuck.

Re:Coffee Lobby

[jc42]

Where are the studies about drinking tea, ...?

Try asking google. Thus, the terms "+tea +cancer +correlation" turn up around 1.25 million hits right now. (You need the '+'s because all three words are just too common and give many millions of hits.) You'll find that lots of correlations have turned up, there is a similar connection as in the current story, but the statistical results alone are merely suggestive and not conclusive.

One recent story reported that drinking very hot tea is associated with an increased risk of esophageal cancer. In this case, the suspicion is that it's the heat that's the problem, and very hot coffee would likely have a similar effect. But again, Further Research is Needed, and may be going on right now.

Re:Coffee Lobby

[Vitriol Angst]

No conspiracy, RESEARCHERS drink LOTS OF COFFEE -- so it's probably something they want to find good things about.

However, this might also explain this new "research" paper I've seen that says; "Popping Xanex like candy may help improve attention spans!" Probably because that researcher is a lot less depressed and full of healthy caffeine.

Re:Coffee Lobby

[Anonymous Coward]

The coffee business is enormous. Last I saw, the raw product is the fourth most valuable agricultural traded commodity in the world at around $15,000,000,000 and provides a livelihood for millions of people, surely, there is a lobby presence.

That being said, it does not mean that there is no correlation.

As for the benefit for those who drink six cups (6x8oz=40oz.) or more per day, it really isn't all that much. Two large Dunkin Donuts = 40oz.. Two Starbucks Ventis (whatever the hell those are) = 40oz.. etc..

When I wake up and make myself a single "cup" of coffee, I am actually making just over two cups (around 17oz). I have two of them before I leave for work. I always have one with my after-dinner smoke. So, I generally have at least 51oz. of coffee per day. 51oz / 8oz = 6.375 cups.

Re:Coffee Lobby

[datsa]

Unless you think this study was falsified or manipulated in some way, I don't see your point. Questioning the study based on who funded it is ad hominem and simply not useful.

inothernews

[Errtu76]

thesecoffeedrinkersweremorelikelytodevelopheartconditionsanddiefromaheartattack *sip* butthatwonthappentomeithink *sip* imeanihavenoreasonwhatsoevertofearaheartattack *sip*

It's all about visibility

[ThatsNotPudding]

I guess it's because we all love tatas but the prostate just isn't very sexy. Kind of sad, really...

Thus, I have begun wearing assless chaps to help bring recognition to the problem.

Observational studies don't prove causality.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an observational study, not a clinical trial. They observed a correlation between a behavior and an outcome. The correlation was a 20% lower risk, however that correlation is not necessarily causation. To demonstrate causation they would have to follow up with a clinical trial that eliminates confounding variables. At this point all they have is a hypothesis.

Re:Observational studies don't prove causality.

[jc42]

... that correlation is not necessarily causation. To demonstrate causation they would have to follow up with a clinical trial that eliminates confounding variables. At this point all they have is a hypothesis.

Yup. It's yet another case of the observation that the most important part of a scientific paper is the paragraph near the end that states "Further research is needed".

Getting up and walking to the bathroom...

[Biljrat]

several times a day reduces risk of cancer? :-)

the bad news: very few here allowed to drink it

[Anonymous Coward]

b/c "Coffee is for closers!"

- Alec Baldwin

headline is misleading

[casi0qv]

This headline is grossly misleading, this isn't what the study says at all. Correlation does not imply causation! This is an "epidemiological study" meaning it looks for statistically significant correlations between different factors (such as coffee and prostate cancer). In many (probably most) cases these correlations are either due to an external factor not considered, or are just a random statistical artifact (the phrase statistically significant is actually relatively meaningless, and about one out of 20 hypotheses will prove statistically significant in epidemiological studies due to random chance). What if coffee drinkers get less cancer because they're more likely to drink coffee instead of another beverage directly causing the cancer? What if these people are drinking more coffee because they have a hormonal problem that reduces energy levels, but also happens to lower cancer risk? I can go on forever here with plausible alternate explanations, but my point is that this observed correlation doesn't imply that drinking more coffee will prevent prostate cancer! When will science journalists and the general public learn that epidemiology only generates hypotheses, but doesn't test them? Every time I see an epidemiological correlation in the news it's presented as conclusive evidence that you should do x, and then a week later there's another study saying you should do the exact opposite for a different reason! My takeaway conclusion from nearly all news headlines saying x is good or bad for you is that we need to do a better job teaching people about statistics, experimental design, and critical scientific thinking in school.

Re:headline is misleading

[casi0qv]

Moreover, studies like this often involve diet questionnaires that test a large number of different hypotheses at the same time. If you test enough hypotheses with the same exact experiment you can practically guarantee that you'll find some statistically significant (and therefore publishable) correlations in your data due to random error, even if no causative relationships actually exist.

Re:headline is misleading

[jc42]

If you test enough hypotheses with the same exact experiment you can practically guarantee that you'll find some statistically significant (and therefore publishable) correlations in your data due to random error, even if no causative relationships actually exist.

There's an xkcd comic that directly deals with this.

Another side of coffee and the prostrate

[Anonymous Coward]

My doctor last year advised me to stop doing caffeinated coffee, both to lower my blood pressure and to slow down prostate swelling. So if I reject decaf looks like my choice is between increased odds of prostate cancer and increased odds of needing Flomax. Yippee.

Six cups or six CUPS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Coffee nerds measure cups different than normal people. So what is it, six ounce cups, or eight ounce CUPS?

Coffee just moves the cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

Up to the esophagus.

It like years ago when the high-fiber crowd was touting it as a prevention for color cancer. What is not generally known is that the high-fiber hypothesis came from a study of a group in Africa that had a very high intake of fiber and did not exhibit any cases of colon cancer. Voila! We get the high-fiber/low-cancer myth. What was ignored was that the high fiber consumers had, instead, a high incidence of stomach cancer.

In other news: Peak Coffee?

[rrohbeck]

Bad news for us biological machines that convert caffeine into code:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2011/03/14/peak-coffee-could-mean-a-drowsy-future-nyt/

decaf: not so horrible

[sean.peters]

Disclaimer: I'm one of those 6-cups-a-day men, and 99.9999% of it is regular... but I will say that it's nearly impossible to tell good decaf from the regular kind. Home roasted decaf beans: fine. Sanka: not so much.

Research isn't the problem. "Experts" are.

[sean.peters]

The problem, with caffeine and so many other things is not what researchers are finding. The problem is self-proclaimed "experts" who make pronouncements based on... nothing in particular beyond their own prejudices. Dietary advice is a classic example. For years, we were told that if we wanted to control our weight, avoid starchy foods. Then, although there was no evidence for it, we were told that no, the way to remain thin was radically cut dietary fat. Now we're again being told that the key is to limit carbohydrates.

You see the same thing with both alcohol and caffeine, but for a different reason: drugs, you see, are baaaaad. Even though, as the GP says, most studies have shown that coffee consumption is on balance, good for you, there's tremendous resistance to this idea. Similarly with alcohol - study after study has shown that light to moderate alcohol consumption, good for most people (strong positive effects on cardiovascular health, but slight increases in upper GI cancer - and if you have problems with addiction... definitely avoid alcohol). But there's still a very, very strong reluctance to actually recommend alcohol consumption to anyone. Because drugs are, by definition, bad. Even when they're good for you.

yup, same thing with alcohol

[sean.peters]

See here:

It is axiomatic that drugs are baaaaad. Even when they're good for you.

Doubtful.

[sean.peters]

If you RTFA, you'll see that the positive effect was about the same for decaf. It's thought that the good effects mostly come from antioxidants in coffee.

Proof read?

[Anonymous Coward]

men who drank the most coffee (a fairly normal six-plus cups per day) had a 20 per cent lower risk of developing any kind of prostate cancer

less thirsty coffee drinkers who only put away one to three cups daily saw their chance of deadly prostate cancer fall by a useful 30 per cent

6 cups = 20% reduced risk
3 cups = 30% reduced risk

WTF?

I didn't RTFA of course, but I bet this is wrong.

Yes, but you might die of something else ...

[timothy]

In fact, it's almost certain.

However, in the meantime, it's less fun to be Aleksandr Isaevi Solenicyn and more fun to be Too Much Coffee Man. Witness:

http://www.google.com/search?q=too+much+coffee+man&hl=en&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Z0TUTYXoMdLAgQeD3Nku&ved=0CDwQsAQ&biw=999&bih=462

timothy

Pomegranate juice

[jawahar]

Statistics show drinking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomegranate juice everyday prevents cancer

The good stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

See! Another Java related success story! ;-)

Banter, banter, compliment.ï Hahaha CANCER!

[erdraug]

This just in, tuna fish is horrible for your health, throw out every single can of tuna off your shelf! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjpOfHKss7o Oh, did i say tuna? I meant coffee of course. Yeah.

I don't drink coffee

[Nyder]

so i guess i getting prostate cancer.

lame.

Coffffeeee!

[Anonymous Coward]

WOOOHOOOO!!!!!!! Heck yea!!!! My morning mocha just became for my health! :D