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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

Quick! Someone tell the Daily Mail!

[RDW]

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

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: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: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:Damn!!!

[UnknowingFool]

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

Re:Diuretic

[Tx]

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

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).

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: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: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: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: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:Only in America

[hjf]

I drink clean, fresh water to survive.

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: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:...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!

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.

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

[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.

Getting up and walking to the bathroom...

[Biljrat]

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

The good stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

See! Another Java related success story! ;-)