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!

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?

[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?

[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?

[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: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: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

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.