Caffeine Linked To Lower Skin Cancer Risk

THE_WELL_HUNG_OYSTER writes "The curative effects of coffee continue to be discovered as the Harvard School of Public Health and Boston's Brigham & Women's Hospital published a new study today that links caffeine consumption with reduced skin cancer rates. Quoting: 'The study of nearly 113,000 men and women found those who drank three or more cups of coffee a day had a 20 percent lower risk of basal cell carcinoma than those who said no to Joe. Caffeine in non-coffee substances was found equally effective. The cause is speculated to be related to caffeine's ability to "kill off damaged skin cells," said Dr. Josh Zeichner, assistant professor of dermatology at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York. "If you get rid of these cells that are damaged, then they don't have the opportunity to grow and form cancers."'"

Comments

coffee

[Phusion]

Oh, good, I was just about to turn down my caffeine IV drip. I suppose it's time to turn it up!

Re:coffee

[Anonymous Coward]

Some day science will catch up to my coffee consumption.

Re:coffee

[Anonymous Coward]

100% agree. slashdot has a sizeable fat nerd population. they collectively have no developed sense of humor.

Re:coffee

[Wain13001]

I've yet to meet a construction worker or a landscaper who didn't live off of coffee

Hot off the press

[Anonymous Coward]

A study published today linked the acceptance of funding from coffee cartels to the finding of health benefits of coffee consumption.

(More) News at ten.

Re:Hot off the press

[kanto]

A study published today linked the acceptance of funding from coffee cartels to the finding of health benefits of coffee consumption.

(More) News at ten.

This! You rarely get similar exciting news about tea either killing you or giving you eternal life, makes me think I've chosen some kind of third world beverage... even alcohol gets the occasional "it's okay if you don't overdo it" so it has to have some first world banking behind it.

Re:Hot off the press

[ColdWetDog]

I don't think you have to target the Illuminati. Some people have been trying to shoot down caffeine forever. It's a drug, so it has to be bad. It makes people feel good, so it has to be bad.

Unfortunately for the Puritans, it turns out the coffee is pretty innocuous. But, like with another popular drug that's made out to be more dangerous than it is, a portion of the society will never accept the phrase 'better living through chemistry'.

Re:Hot off the press

[russotto]

Unless you've been living under a rock, you get stories about the health benefit of tea all the time. Alcohol, too, though usually with caveats not backed up by the data. Nutritionists and public health people are generally ascetics, though, so stories about something that people like to consume being good for you are often downplayed or ignored.

Re:Hot off the press

[DaBigEnchilada]

I seem to recall that from about 2006 to 2008 all I heard about was the health benefits of tea, especially green tea. (Remember 'superfoods' and how 'antioxidants' were/are the solution to all health woes?) A quick google search for 'health benefits green tea' yields just shy of 6 million results. Is it just that none of these articles appeared on slashdot that's causing your conspira-spidey sense to tingle?

Re:Hot off the press

[kanto]

I guess tea just doesn't have that Good vs Evil side to when compared to caffeine to make those stories pop and when I hear 'superfoods' and 'antioxidants' it just registers as marketing lingo ("umbrella terms" under which you can drop just about anything).

Re:Hot off the press

[Creepy]

Have you tried Mormonism or Islam and perhaps moving? Pakistan may even enforce hardcore rehab by putting you to death for your cocaine nights.

Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[Barbarian]

Perhaps those drinking 3 cups a day are more likely to be in jobs where they are virtually chained to a desk, so they rarely see the sun and thus less skin cancer.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[lvxferre]

One more benefit of caffeine: it drives you away from hazards like fresh air and sun!

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[multiben]

There is no direct link to the study, but you are 100% right. Ensuring that correlations were made between study participants who were consistent in aspects such as age and lifestyle would be critical to this study having any meaning.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[ackthpt]

One more benefit of caffeine: it drives you away from hazards like fresh air and sun!

Sugar and caffeine will get you through anything.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[clarkkent09]

In other news, those drinking more than 3 Piña Coladas a day were 20% more likely to get skin cancer. But it's worth it!

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[dwarfsoft]

Except Diabetes. And Sleep. Unless by through you mean through it awake.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[TheInternetGuy]

Perhaps those drinking 3 cups a day are more likely to be in jobs where they are virtually chained to a desk, so they rarely see the sun and thus less skin cancer.

Normally I would agree with your line of thinking. But since coffee also has been show to cut the rates of liver cancer and Alzheimer. I would say that there are other functions at work here. All three seems to be, as the summary stated, related to the ability to kill off damaged cells before they do more damage.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[proslack]

The military runs on coffee. I used to wash raw coffee grounds down with a swig from my canteen on road marches (no hot water) when I was an infantryman. Plenty of people with non-desk jobs drink coffee, especially in colder climates. That's what Thermos bottles are for.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[k(wi)r(kipedia)]

Interesting theory. However:

Caffeine in non-coffee substances was found equally effective.

Some sports drinks and (most?) soft drinks contain caffeine, products which are consumed by younger presumably more outgoing people that may have less chance to get skin cancer in the first place. So I don't know, having not read the actual journal article, how meaningful the correlations are. Maybe somebody should come up with a study linking Facebook to decreased/increased incidence of name-your-favorite-health-problem.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[gaspar ilom]

Or, more simply: Those who get less sunlight -- regardless of job status -- feel compelled to drink more coffee?

(i.e.: "sunlight" correlates to sleep patterns, sleepiness, and alertness.)

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[plover]

I think you're on to something.

Colder climates are cold because they receive less energy from the sun. Not that you can't get harmful doses of UV in the colder climates, it just takes longer. Colder climates also require more covering of arms, legs, and the head - thus further reducing the overall exposure to the UV rays from the sun.

Some people drink less coffee when it's warm out, and more coffee in the winter. And some people drink coffee only when it's dark in the mornings - again, the sign of living at higher latitudes.

Perhaps this study is simply revealing a correlation between people who drink coffee and living closer to the poles?

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[AK Marc]

What are the results when looking at people who drink decaffeinated coffee?

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[k(wi)r(kipedia)]

From the linked article:

Drinking decaffeinated coffee did not have the same benefit, pointing to caffeine as the protective agent. Indeed, caffeine from sources other than coffee like cola and chocolate was also linked to a decreased risk of basal cell carcinoma, according to the study.

Missed the chocolate.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[ColdWetDog]

This is the generic problem with observational studies. They often turn out to be flat out wrong when you finally end up doing a more controlled, blinded study. Going on people's recollection of what they did or did not consume is fraught with inaccuracy.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[tomhath]

Maybe, but most people I know who work outdoors carry a thermos full of coffee...

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[retchdog]

the study included self-report sun exposure; the higher quintiles of caffeine consumption had very slightly higher sun exposure (but not significant).

something that struck me though, was that very high caffeine consumption (>600mg/day) was linked with heavy smoking (addicts are addicts across the board). i personally suspect that naively "compensating" for heavy smoking (by doing a non-causal regression) bled over into reduced cancer for the same group, as a statistical artifact. this is consistent with their finding that decaf doesn't have an effect; if you're worried about caffeine, you're probably not smoking much either.

you can't just throw inter-correlated variables into a regression formula and say you've "controlled" for them. well, you can, but you shouldn't. there are better ways.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[j. andrew rogers]

Perhaps those drinking 3 cups a day are more likely to be in jobs where they are virtually chained to a desk, so they rarely see the sun and thus less skin cancer.

Prior studies on animal models have produced similar reductions in skin cancer associated with caffeine; the result in the article is not surprising. For example, here is a skin cancer study done with caffeine and mice:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120403142328.htm

No mice were chained to a desk for this study. I recall other studies done based on topical application of caffeine (rather than ingestion) with good results but I am too lazy to google them.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[canajin56]

Due to things like ice coffee and iced frappachinos there's not really any dip in coffee sales during hot weather. At least, the lines aren't any shorter at Timmy's ;)

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[dr.g]

What are the results when looking at people who drink decaffeinated coffee?

Well, when I look at them; queasiness, contempt and the unshakable conviction that I'll be staying up longer than they will.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[harrkev]

Righto. One study proves approximately nothing, plus or minus almost nothing.

To me, this will be news when multiple studies consistently produce similar results.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[AK Marc]

So we need to increase chocolate intake. I promise to do my part.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[PopeRatzo]

Perhaps those drinking 3 cups a day are more likely to be in jobs where they are virtually chained to a desk, so they rarely see the sun and thus less skin cancer.

Why are people who drink 3 cups of coffee a day more likely to have jobs where they are stuck indoors?

If you've ever been around a construction crew or on a farm, you'd know that they drink a whole lot of coffee.

Also, policemen, firemen and bike messengers.

First, remember that a "cup of coffee" is not necessarily the 32 oz super soy vente skinny caramel w/extra foam. A cup of coffee is approximately 7-8 oz of strong, fragrant bliss. If your coffee is cold enough for you to swig the last half of the styrofoam container, you're drawing too much at a time.

I taught in Italy for a year and spent a lot of time there and across the way in what used to be called Yugoslavia. They drink wonderful coffee over there. I was working on something and spent a lot of time in a cafe (my office was cramped and unpleasant). They had these cups that most Americans who are used to giant mugs that have some clever saying on the side would think are unimaginably tiny. Not espresso cups, mind, or demi-tasse, but a nice small china coffee cup, like you'd get in a fancy restaurant. These were beautiful china with a red glaze on the outside and refrigerator white on the inside. The coffee just looks great in those cups. I offered to buy a set of those cups when I was getting ready to come back to the states, and the owner, this sweetheart Coleggio, wrapped up four of the cups with little saucers and gave them to me (I had spent enough money there to put one of his kids through college). That's 25 years ago now, and I still drink my coffee out of those cups. My daughter broke one of them when she was about 5, but the other three are holding up quite well. Three cups: one first thing in the morning while I'm getting ready to do my taijiquan on the deck, one more while I'm shaving and one more maybe after breakfast while I play an hour of whatever game has my attention (today it was Spec Ops: the Line which is not as bad as I thought it was going to be). Then I leave for my day's activities. For a while, I thought maybe I shouldn't drink the coffee before I do martial arts, but my teacher, Hsu Fun Yuen, who is now 87, drinks this strong-ass dragons' well green tea all day and has been doing so since he was a kid back in China, so I figure it's OK. If that stuff doesn't hurt him, I figure, my little cups of coffee aren't going to mess with me. If I drink that tea, you have to scrape me off the ceiling.

Now, if I drink any more than that I don't sleep well. Three cups- that's it. And guess what? I don't have any skin cancer. Anecdotally, that's conclusive enough for me.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[bill_mcgonigle]

But since coffee also has been show to cut the rates of liver cancer and Alzheimer.

But that was shown to be about equally protective for regular and decaf. Then again, I've seen several studies which effectively assert 'coffee==caffeine' and never give a second thought to the hundreds of other compounds in the beverage. 'Scientists'...

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[mug funky]

coffee and cigarettes go together like ebony and ivory.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[arth1]

Normally I would agree with your line of thinking. But since coffee also has been show to cut the rates of liver cancer and Alzheimer. I would say that there are other functions at work here

I haven't seen anything establishing a cause. There appears to be negative correlations between coffee and Alzheimer's, just as there is for nicotine use, but as far as I know, no causation. It could also be that early symptoms of plaque build-up lessens the craving for caffeine and/or nicotine, or there could be a myriad of other explanations.

In this case, I also wonder whether this was correlated with the propensity to (a) drink coffee, and (b) be exposed to sun. Scandinavians drink a heck of a lot more and stronger coffee than average, and also get less sun exposure. And in the US, states with a high amount of Scandinavian-Americans also appear to drink more and/or stronger coffee, and are less sunny.

Then there are simple things, that may all add up:

It being difficult to drink hot beverages while walking. And if you're sunbathing (the second biggest risk for skin cancer) you're more likely to want a cold beverage. So all in all, those who spend more time outdoors in the sun will likely drink less coffee than those who don't.

Drivers with one arm out the window - another skin cancer risk? Non-coffee-drinkers, all of them. Cause the coffee drinkers will have their left hand on the wheel, so they can sip their Joe.

Gender? Yes, that can be a factor too. Men drink more coffee and have more protective body hair. And don't usually spray or smear nearly as many chemicals on their skin.

Age? Another factor. Coffee consumption is higher in older generations, while melonoma strikes all age groups, and some even die from it, so there will be fewer older (thus heavier coffee drinkers) people with skin cancer. Plus older people spend less time outdoors.

As others have said, the study needs to be repeated, and corrected for numerous factors.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[pepty]

But since coffee also has been show to cut the rates of liver cancer and Alzheimer. I would say that there are other functions at work here. All three seems to be, as the summary stated, related to the ability to kill off damaged cells before they do more damage.

My guess is that a lot of studies are actually measuring people's ability to metabolize caffeine, which is a function of the liver. If your liver enzymes are no longer able to metabolize much caffeine (or you're taking drugs that contraindicate caffeine), you not only quit drinking coffee but you're more likely to have other problems as well. I'd like to see the studies performed where the control group is strictly people who choose not to drink coffee for other reasons - i.e., Mormons.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[jones_supa]

It's possible. Drinking coffee is fun, and by the way we found this upside of it, cool, let's publish it.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

They did in fact control for a number of risk factors: "BMI, physical activity, smoking status, childhood reaction to sun, severe sunburns, moles, hair color, family history of melanoma, sun exposures at different age intervals, UV index, and history of nonskin cancer." If you have access through a university library or other source, here's the link to the actual article.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[Carewolf]

Not that you can't get harmful doses of UV in the colder climates

Actually you can get more of it. The ozone layer is thinner in the north. So sun-screen is even more important, even when it is not that hot.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[Muad'Dave]

With slashdot's lame formatting, I read that as the formula "(3 * Pi * A) ± a Coladas".

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[enemorales]

I think that not having sun (and health) is actually worse for you skin than having some of it.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[roman_mir]

Well, the actual statement is: Donuts. Is there anything they canâ(TM)t do?

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[Creepy]

Coffee has also been shown to increase the risk of some types of cancer... but only if unfiltered (i.e. french press, espresso). I seem to recall filtering removes the oil responsible.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[Wain13001]

My anecdotal evidence disagrees with you. I come from a long line of contractors, construction workers, and landscapers...these people drink a LOT of coffee...and often spend weeks toiling in the sun.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[thetoadwarrior]

Yeah but some studies claim not getting any sun can make you more likely to get skin cancer. Perhaps if you never see the sun when you do go out skin can't handle it. So if you go down that route the only safe option is to never go out.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[Lunzo]

Coffee is popular in warm climates too. There's a big cafe culture in Australia. It's a popular drink all around the Mediterranean sea. The arabs invented the drink.

Re:Lots of coffee or caffeine = always indoors?

[Schmorgluck]

Interesting observations, but note that Italians drink a lot of coffee too.

I-i-i-i-

[ackthpt]

w-w-wwwonderedw-w-whyI-i-d-d-don't-t-tb-b-b-urna-a-a-sm-m-uch-a-a-a-sI-i-i-u-u-usedt-t-t-o

Thank you WELL_HUNG_OYSTER

[ndogg]

I am so glad that we have WELL_HUNG_OYSTER to inform us about this health benefit of caffeine.

What would we do wtihout WELL_HUNG_OYSTER?

Does caffeine even work on oysters?

Re:Thank you WELL_HUNG_OYSTER

[Surt]

THE_WELL_HUNG_OYSTER, please. It's not like he's just ANY_WELL_HUNG_OYSTER. He's the one.

"kill off damaged skin cells,"

[John Hasler]

So maybe you should bathe in it rather than drink it?

Re:"kill off damaged skin cells,"

[DoofusOfDeath]

So maybe you should bathe in it rather than drink it?

Oh, man! I'll try it and get back to you!

Re:"kill off damaged skin cells,"

[RedBear]

So maybe you should bathe in it rather than drink it?

You say that to be funny, but... http://www.thinkgeek.com/caffeine/accessories/5a65/

Re:"kill off damaged skin cells,"

[roman_mir]

that's how I drink it, the mouth is not enough, I drink it with every square millimetre of skin already ..s.d.zzzzzdr..RRRRR.wwdDDDD

Pastey white guy count?

[elrick_the_brave]

I want to know how many NOC and IT folks are in that study... Perhaps a disproportionate amount?

Re:Damnit

[binarylarry]

haha

Re:Contradiction?

[steelfood]

everybody is telling me that caffeine gives me cancer

Only the State of California knows that.

Effing A ! ! !

[sgt_doom]

And the best coffee on the West Coast is Santa Cruz Dark --- in Cali. and up northwards, it's Seattle's Best Coffee (with a number of other blends also great there!). On the East Coast, it's wherever you can get it, unless you're in Miami, also fantastic Cuban coffee there!

I wonder if it's an apples to apples comparision

[Karmashock]

For example, lets say the caffeine drinkers are more likely to be basement mushrooms that don't go outside.

Then caffeine would correlate with lower skin cancer risks.

I hate statistical studies. They're only done correctly about 23.8 percent of the time. And only 12.4 percent of the time provide proper methodology. And then about 18.83 percent of them are completely fabricated.

Re:if only I could...

[Farmer Tim]

No, you're supposed to take it orally.

Hold the phone

[93 Escort Wagon]

Caffeine in non-coffee substances was found equally effective.

Wait just a minute - let's not go injecting unproven pseudo-science into this discussion!

Coffee is a source of good caffeine. Some of those other substances contain bad caffeine.

-- Your friends on the Coffee Council

Re:Hold the phone

[antifoidulus]

Actually as a caffeine addict who is trying to avoid regaining all my hard-won weight loss, coffee is probably one of, if not the best source of caffeine because it can easily be consumed without sugar or sugar substitutes. The only other substance like that is tea(which I do drink as well, ostensibly green tea helps you lose weight), but tea tends to have a much lower concentration of caffeine than coffee does.

Re:Hold the phone

[dunkelfalke]

Try gyokuro, you'll change your mind about "tea tends to have a much lower concentration of caffeine".

Research paid for by the coffee industry?

[FridayBob]

At least, that sounds like it would be the case here. Three or more cups of coffee a day will definitely leave you hooked, while there's still a good chance that you'll end up developing basal cell carcinoma anyway. In the long run, this is definitely a strategy that is better for the coffee industry than it is for you.

IMO, a much healthier and much cheaper way to protect yourself against skin cancer is with lycopene, which is commonly found in tomatoes. Tomato paste is an excellent source of this particular form of carotene. I added a small tin of this stuff to my daily diet five years ago and eat it right out of the can. I go for the cheaper brands because they're less concentrated and therefore a lot less bitter in taste. Also, each tin costs less than a dime.

The results of eating all this tomato paste? Although I haven't yet tried pushing my luck with sunburn yet (I'm fair skinned and feel it's still wiser to avoid unnecessary exposure), I'm convinced that it made a big difference to my acne problem (very unscientific, but that's my impression).

Re:Research paid for by the coffee industry?

[Hatta]

In the long run, this is definitely a strategy that is better for the coffee industry than it is for you.

Unless perhaps, you actually like coffee.

Re:Research paid for by the coffee industry?

[FridayBob]

In the long run, this is definitely a strategy that is better for the coffee industry than it is for you.

Unless perhaps, you actually like coffee.

Simply liking coffee doesn't make it any more healthy for you, or any less profitable for the coffee industry, or that you should be any more trusting of this research.

Re:Research paid for by the coffee industry?

[Hatta]

You didn't say healthier. You said better. Doing things that I like is better for me than not doing those things. We're all going to die anyway, so the point is to fill the time you have with pleasure. Coffee is an excellent source of pleasure.

Besides, the research claiming that coffee is unhealthy is at least as dubious as the research claiming that coffee is healthy.

Re:Research paid for by the coffee industry?

[FridayBob]

You didn't say healthier. You said better.

Yes, I said better, but in the context of an alleged health benefit.

Doing things that I like is better for me than not doing those things. We're all going to die anyway, so the point is to fill the time you have with pleasure. Coffee is an excellent source of pleasure.

That is a common argument that drug addicts use to justify their destructive behavior. Yet when they eventually come face to face with the consequences of their old habits, they almost invariably have their regrets.

Coffee? Fine with me. I like it too, but am careful never to make it a habit. Like with so many things, moderation is they key. Pleasure? That's fine with me as well, but if you must overdo things and live the life of a sensualist, variation should be your goal.

Besides, the research claiming that coffee is unhealthy is at least as dubious as the research claiming that coffee is healthy.

How so? What powerful lobby would be sponsoring research into coffee being unhealthy? The tea industry? Coffee haters?

Re:Research paid for by the coffee industry?

[Hatta]

That is a common argument that drug addicts use to justify their destructive behavior. Yet when they eventually come face to face with the consequences of their old habits, they almost invariably have their regrets.

Lovely logic you have there. Obviously people who quit drinking coffee are going to have negative opinions about it, otherwise they wouldn't have quit. Why don't you ask divorcees their opinion about marriage?

How so? What powerful lobby would be sponsoring research into coffee being unhealthy? The tea industry? Coffee haters?

There's an entire industry built on micromanaging your health with dubious dietary guidelines based on the slimmest possible evidence. One decade eggs are bad, and then they're good. The next decade tea is good, and then it's bad. Any health claim you can make, can be used by a profiteer to sell books or ads on a daytime TV show.

But really, there's little evidence that coffee is generally harmful. Let's look at what people actually claim:

Dependency: Not a negative effect in and of itself.
Cancer: No epidemiological data in support, only lab tested carcinogens, and everything is carcinogenic in the lab.
GI problems: I have no ulcers and don't get heartburn, i'm not concerned.
Sleep: I sleep a full 8 hours every night on a regular schedule, not an issue.
Cholesterol: I use paper filters
Blood Pressure: I have low blood pressure, despite drinking coffee.
Coronary artery disease: Epidemiological data indicates no effect
Interactions with medications: I don't take analgesics anyway.

So far, I'm not seeing anything worth worrying about, even drinking between 32 and 48 oz of black coffee daily.

As far as I can tell, almost every single piece of dietary advice that exists (from vitamin C to gluten(unless you're diagnosed celiac)) is due to people over-extrapolating barely significant results from flawed studies. People love telling others what to do, and people like feeling like they can do something about their health, even if it's just placebo. There's a veritable army of woo-woo health gurus out there looking to take advantage of this.

Re:Research paid for by the coffee industry?

[FridayBob]

... Obviously people who quit drinking coffee are going to have negative opinions about it, otherwise they wouldn't have quit. ...

Personally, my feelings about coffee are mixed. When dining out, I still prefer a cup of coffee after dessert, but I don't drink it at home or at work because I don't want it to become a habit. It once was a habit -- 2-3 cups a day at work -- but then I always got this splitting headache on Saturday afternoon. As soon as I found out that the coffee was to blame, I switched to drinking tea, which contains a lot less caffeine, and the problem went away.

I have the same attitude towards alcohol. I love a good beer, but even though I've never been an alcoholic I certainly don't want to find out what that's like, so I limit my intake to just a few pints a week.

If unrestricted pursuit of pleasure is so important to you, why not just go for heroine? It's an extreme example, sure, but people who have done it say the high it gives you is better than sex. Yet, you will agree that heroine is also highly addictive, which is why many people (hopefully most) would still think twice about using it even if it was legal and affordable.

I'm sure there are plenty of heroine addicts out there who have nothing but good things to say about their favorite substance, but others tell stories about realizing what they've got themselves into and no longer being able to do anything about it.

So, whether it's coffee or heroine, you must realize that addiction is what it is: never a good thing. It clouds your thinking, leaving you with a blind spot regarding its use. Either it controls you, or you control it. It's your choice.

There's an entire industry built on micromanaging your health with dubious dietary guidelines based on the slimmest possible evidence. ...

The healthcare and pharmaceutical industry don't really care about your health: only your money. The same companies that develop amazing cancer killing drugs and back up their findings with top-notch scientific research papers, are also capable of selling you ridiculous vitamin supplements that allegedly do the same thing, which they then back up shamelessly with research papers full of terrible statistics.

How can we tell the difference? Use your brain. Trust science in general, but be wary of research making claims about the health benefits of wine, beer, green tea, coffee, chocolate... even tobacco! The scientific method is both used and abused by proprietary interests, and probably has been for as long as science has been around. But as long as people use their heads, science will also allow them to weed out the bad research from the good and so be left with the truth. For instance, was the research first published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, or just some newspaper? You can always choose to believe it anyway because it's what you want to hear, but that's your choice.

An associative hypothesis with a weak result

[dbet]

Be careful of studies that link things with minor changes from the control group, even ones with large populations. 20% lower than an already low risk is pretty much nothing. Just as an example, smokers have a 2000% higher risk of lung cancer than non-smokers. Whites have a 400% higher chance of melanoma than blacks.

The only time you can take small changes seriously is when there are multiple sources and a proposed mechanism that is consistent with our previous understanding. "May help kill damaged cells" might be 100% correct, but it's not a mechanism, it's just the hypothesized result.

These kinds of studies are interesting but don't make too much out of them.

Re:An associative hypothesis with a weak result

[R3d M3rcury]

Consider this when you hear that non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke are 20% more likely to get lung cancer.

Oh, wait! That's only for studies we don't like!

Re:An associative hypothesis with a weak result

[hankwang]

Consider this when you hear that non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke are 20% more likely to get lung cancer.

I think you missed this part:

The only time you can take small changes seriously is when there are multiple sources and a proposed mechanism that is consistent with our previous understanding.

In the case of passive smoking, there are ample studies confirming effects on lung and cardiovascular diseases, and the mechanism is pretty clear as well. The Wikipedia article mentions risk increases for heart disease and lung cancer between 20% and 60% (Unfortunately I don't have time now to read the references, to see under which conditions these numbers are valid).

Re:An associative hypothesis with a weak result

[Biotech_is_Godzilla]

The mechanism is supposedly: Caffeine inhibits DNA damage checkpoint kinases, allowing cells with DNA damage to slip through the checkpoint mechanism which normally stops them dividing when damage is present (the G2/M checkpoint). So they progress to mitosis where they might divide into two new cells. The DNA structures formed by this damage, often caused by DNA replication which has stalled because it can't get past the damage, either cause the cells to die at this point (mitotic catastrophe) or may be dragged along into the new daughter cells. Assuming the damage isn't so bad that the cells die of mitotic catastrophe they may then be stopped at the restriction point or G1/S checkpoint before they make the decision to divide again. At this point they can be made senescent, meaning they will never divide again. If they do get through this checkpoint they can run into a separate G1/S DNA damage checkpoint which can also cause them to die if the damage is really bad.

One model of the mechanism is that damage caused before the cells divide (before the G2/M checkpoint) is made worse by the process of mitosis (which causes mechanical stress on the DNA) or by failed attempts at repair, so the G2/M checkpoint is there to prevent this damage getting worse by allowing time for the cell to untangle its DNA either by bypassing or repairing damage. So when caffeine treatment allows cells to get around the G2/M checkpoint, the chromosomes are pulled apart and the knotty structures mean DNA is torn and ripped, the damage gets much worse and the cells then have to be "put to sleep" by later checkpoints. Without caffeine cells would stop at the G2/M checkpoint, unknot the damage and may then survive with mutations in their genomes. These mutations could later progress to full-blown cancer.

Another model is that the DNA damage isn't made that much worse by mitosis, it's just that the G1 checkpoints are more hardcore than the G2/M checkpoint and will either cause the cell to stop growing, permanently, or will kill the cell, where the G2/M checkpoint will only stop it temporarily to allow time for damage repair or bypass. So again, caffeine allows the cell to skip the G2/M checkpoint, and carrying damage through the G2/M checkpoint is bad for a cell's prospects of survival, but good for the organism as the cell is put out of its misery by the more stringent G1/S checkpoints.

A lot of work has been done on cells in vitro which shows that caffeine does "help kill damaged cells" here's an example. Some work has also been done which shows caffeine can help cells to survive at lower levels of damage, presumably through reducing checkpoint activation, allowing them to survive or grow faster. This is supposedly the mechanism for why caffeine treatment (done right, not the silly caffeine shampoo, which probably does bugger all) can prevent male pattern baldness. You make a very good point and I totally agree with you; I don't believe this study either, but the groundwork to support this proposed mechanism is there.

Did they consider...

[nighthawk243]

DId they consider the fact that most of us who consume tons of caffeine are usually stuffed in an office somewhere outside of sunlight all day? The only sunlight I ever get is during the commute to and from work.

Re:Did they consider...

[halfkoreanamerican]

I wonder if they also considered that we are more likely to die of stroke because we sit on our butts all day long. No cancer but we get heart disease! The irony!

Basal Cell Carcinoma? Big deal...

[tpjunkie]

Basal cell carcinomas are very slow growing, very, very rarely invasive, and almost hardly metastasize. They're gross, unsightly and unpleasant, but not really a killer. If this were melanoma on the other hand, that'd be a big deal.

Re:Caffeine drinkers

[foniksonik]

http://www.tgaw.com/images/SpeakEasy/ThreeStooges.JPG

"Here's what happens when all the [cancers] try to get in the door all at once"

Confidence Interval

[the eric conspiracy]

Let me guess - in 19 other studies on the same group no effect was observed at to a 95% confidence.

Re:Contradiction?

[jd2112]

The state of California causes cancer.

Funny how if you tiddle with the words a bit....

[axlr8or]

"If you get rid of these cells that are damaged, then they don't have the opportunity to grow and form cancers."'" "If you get rid of this guy that is damaged, then he doesn't have the opportunity to grow and form lineage."'" Damn I thought I'd heard this before....

Re:Contradiction?

[canajin56]

Surely not everybody. There have been a few studies that showed a possible link. But the thing about studies with 95% confidence intervals is that when you have 30 of them, a few might show a link. Obligatory XCKD. I don't think any studies have found a strong link to any kind of cancer. There is a link between drinking excessively hot drinks and throat cancer, though, but that applies to anything hot at all. It is speculated that this link may be responsible for the variation between studies, as it's hard to control for how hot people drink their coffee, since they'll only know "pretty hot" vs the actual temperature. For many other cancers (stomach, liver, lung, mouth, pancreas, colon) there are at least some studies that show an inverse correlation, though most of those are mixed. Some, like liver and colon, are pretty consistently showing an inverse correlation over dozens of studies in different settings and countries. And one study with liver cancer shows that it's consistently able to slow the progress of the disease once the patient has it.

The concern is that it contains Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are known (rodent) carcinogens. But the thing is, lots of things contain them. Like tea. Blueberries. You know, other things thought to prevent cancer. Turns out tiny amounts of carcinogenic compounds are OK, especially in foods that contain lots of antioxidants as well.

Re:Causation =/= Correlation

[Jarik C-Bol]

anecdotal evidence is anecdotal! Most of the people I know work outside, all day long, physical labor. They drink coffee all morning, and iced tea all afternoon. Your Caffeine user = indoor worker model is anecdotal at best, and assumptive at worst.

Re:Caffeine drinkers

[MLease]

Er, did you read the part where it says "Caffeine linked to lower skin cancer risk"...?

Re:Causation =/= Correlation

[mfwitten]

That's the point. The study doesn't appear to control for these things.

Re:I wonder if it's an apples to apples comparisio

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I hate statistical studies. They're only done correctly about 23.8 percent of the time. And only 12.4 percent of the time provide proper methodology. And then about 18.83 percent of them are completely fabricated.

And approximately 0.00274% (+- 0.00013% with 95% confidence) of Slashdot users ever bother to actually read the studies before they go on a tear about how bad they are.

Studies showing what I'm already doing is healthy

[UpnAtom]

On the other hand, the placebo effect of believing in the health benefits of moderate coffee consumption are likely to far exceed the actual ones.

Why on slashdot?

[sproketboy]

It's not like we ever go outside or anything...

Coffee linked to (indoor) office jobs

[captainpanic]

Coffee linked to indoor office jobs where exposure to the sun is minimal. Minimal exposure to the sun linked to reduced risk for skin cancer.

Tsk.

Re:Both sides of the coin

[jc42]

And technically caffeine is a toxic alkaloid, so.

Yep, and it is also occasionally pointed out that most vitamins are toxic compounds. They're typical textbook examples of the "J-shaped response curve", required for good health in tiny quantities, but with seriously negative consequenses in overdose quantities.

Google can find you lots of info about the fatal dosage for caffeine. It's generally estimated as an LD50 of around 150 mg/kg, which (depending on your weight) is on the order of 100 to 200 cups of regular coffee. So if you keep your consumption down to only 3 or 4 cups per day, you probably shouldn't worry about claims that caffeine is "toxic". Your vitamin pills might also kill you if you swallowed 50 of them at one sitting.

Fountain of Youth

[halfkoreanamerican]

Now if someone could only prove it would make us live forever...

The ideal thing to do then...

[Circlotron]

...would be to drink coffee out of a graphene cup.

Coffee also a source of dietary fiber

[DavidHumus]

The good news about the one of world's most popular delivery systems for the world's most popular psychoactive drug keeps coming: http://dietaryfiberguide.com/high-fiber-foods/dietary-fiber-coffee/ .

Do Your Nuts Hang Inside or Outside Your Shell?

[littlewink]

With a name like "THE_WELL_HUNG_OYSTER" I just gotta ask.

SCREENSHOT OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN!

[uslurper]

I'm tired of all these stupid studies on 'beneficial effect of.."
People have been talking about red wine for years but the original study that started it all hasnt been duplicated.
Just look at another topic of the day regarding retractions.

THESE STUDIES ARE NOW A MONEY_MAKING INDUSTRY AND SHOULD BE IGNORED UNLESS WIDELY REPEATED!

It is caffeine alone that sets my mind in motion.

[LandGator]

It is caffeine alone that sets my mind in motion. It is through the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed; that hands acquire shakes, that shakes become a warning. It is caffeine alone that lets me roll the dice.