Slashdot Mirror
Coffee Cuts Risk of Dying From Stroke and Heart Disease, Study Suggests (theguardian.com)
Research suggests that people who drink coffee have a lower risk of dying from a host of causes, including heart disease, stroke and liver disease. "The connection, revealed in two large studies, was found to hold regardless of whether the coffee was caffeinated or not, with the higher among those who drank more cups of coffee a day," reports The Guardian. From the report: The first study looked at coffee consumption among more than 185,000 white and non-white participants, recruited in the early 1990s and followed up for an average of over 16 years. The results revealed that drinking one cup of coffee a day was linked to a 12% lower risk of death at any age, from any cause while those drinking two or three cups a day had an 18% lower risk, with the association not linked to ethnicity.
The second study -- the largest of its kind -- involved more than 450,000 participants, recruited between 1992 and 2000 across ten European countries, who were again followed for just over 16 years on average. After a range of factors including age, smoking status, physical activity and education were taken into account, those who drank three or more cups a day were found to have a 18% lower risk of death for men, and a 8% lower risk of death for women at any age, compared with those who didn't drink the brew. The benefits were found to hold regardless of the country, although coffee drinking was not linked to a lower risk of death for all types of cancer. The study also looked at a subset of 14,800 participants, finding that coffee-drinkers had better results on many biological markers including liver enzymes and glucose control. But experts warn that the two studies, both published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, do not show that drinking coffee was behind the overall lower risk, pointing out that it could be that coffee drinkers are healthier in various ways or that those who are unwell drink less coffee.
The second study -- the largest of its kind -- involved more than 450,000 participants, recruited between 1992 and 2000 across ten European countries, who were again followed for just over 16 years on average. After a range of factors including age, smoking status, physical activity and education were taken into account, those who drank three or more cups a day were found to have a 18% lower risk of death for men, and a 8% lower risk of death for women at any age, compared with those who didn't drink the brew. The benefits were found to hold regardless of the country, although coffee drinking was not linked to a lower risk of death for all types of cancer. The study also looked at a subset of 14,800 participants, finding that coffee-drinkers had better results on many biological markers including liver enzymes and glucose control. But experts warn that the two studies, both published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, do not show that drinking coffee was behind the overall lower risk, pointing out that it could be that coffee drinkers are healthier in various ways or that those who are unwell drink less coffee.
Maybe for each cup of coffee you drink, that's one less chance that it could have been a cola or beer, which could be considered harmful. Perhaps orange squash instead of coffee would have had the same result.
Why UNIX?
Those who are unwell were strictly forbidden to drink covfefe by their doctors ?
Only 30 cups of coffee per day to reduce chance of dying by 100%!
foreveeeeeeeeerrrrr!!!!!!
Another study that cannot distinguish if it's causation of just correlation. A very simple explanation for the second possibility comes to mind: Perhaps people with low blood pressure like to have more coffee as it's an stimulant. And that same people will, by virtue of their low blood pressure, not of the coffee, have less risk of stroke. More complex explanations can apply.
I understand the difficulties of making a double-blind controlled experiment in this case, but the fact that doing it right is difficult shouldn't be an excuse for doing it wrong.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
Combine coffee with aspirin for that constipated feeling.
Perhaps, it's because heavy coffee users died earlier, from other causes -- before stroke and heart disease even had a chance!
I think an equally, if not more, valid question should be; Who paid for the "experts", who exactly are they, and why should we believe them over studies that have enough credibility to be published in the Annals of Internal Medicine (not exactly some sketchy 3rd-rate, no-name journal known for publishing junk-science)? Of course, I'm not saying the studies mean that coffee is necessarily all that good for you (but also possibly not so bad as well), but from the information in TFS there's no way to tell and equally no way to tell regarding who's funding either side and what their motivations might be.
Knowing that the two studies were both published in the AoIM and also *not* knowing who these "experts" are and what data and credentials they bring to the table, the scales tip towards "Studies in TFS may well have some validity, more/better studies needed."...As opposed to totally dismissing them under the advisement of unknown "experts".
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The SJWs are gong to be all over this. There'll probably be lawsuits.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
With all the positive buzz around tea, I would have liked to see another group in these studies for tea vs. coffee.
... all along! https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/59/c8/99/59c899329cacb037f180915b098ec731.jpg
Uh... ??
You can't just say "more than 185,000 people"? Why would race be injected into this reporting?
"...but from the information in TFS there's no way to tell and equally no way to tell regarding who's funding either side and what their motivations might be."
You are both fucking stupid and fucking lazy. From the Link, Primary sponsors:
European Commission Directorate-General for Health and Consumers and International Agency for Research on Cancer.
From the Disclaimer Link within, everybody involved, their affiliations, and their funding:
*********************
This article was published at Annals.org on 11 July 2017.
* Drs. Gunter and Murphy contributed equally to this work.
Deceased.
From International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France; Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom; Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany; German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Nuthetal, Germany; Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, Denmark; Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark; Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Frederiksberg, Denmark; Public Health Directorate, Asturias, Spain; Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain; Andalusian School of Public Health, Granada, Spain; Public Health Division of Gipuzkoa, Basque Regional Health Department, San Sebastián, Spain; Murcia Regional Health Council, Murcia, Spain; Navarre Public Health Institute, Pamplona, Spain; University of Cambridge and MRC Epidemiology Unit, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Hellenic Health Foundation, Athens, Greece; Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; Cancer Research and Prevention Institute–ISPO, Florence, Italy; Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy; Federico II University, Naples, Italy; “Civic - M.P. Arezzo” Hospital, ASP Ragusa, Ragusa, Italy; National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands; University Medical Centre, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Malmö University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden; Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden; Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden; University of Tromsø, The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway; and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Note: All authors had full access to all of the data (including statistical reports and tables) in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. The authors are not affiliated with the listed funding institutions. Drs. Gunter and Murphy act as the guarantors of this article.
Acknowledgment: The authors thank the EPIC participants and staff for their valuable contribution to this research and Nicola Kerrison (MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge) for managing the data for the InterAct Project.
Financial Support: The coordination of EPIC is financially supported by the European Commission Directorate-General for Health and Consumers and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The national cohorts are supported by the Danish Cancer Society (Denmark); Ligue Contre le Cancer, Institut Gustave Roussy, Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale, and Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (France); Deutsche Krebshilfe, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, and Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Germany); Hellenic Health Foundation, Stavros Niarchos Foundation, and the Hellenic Ministry of Health and Social Solidarity (Greece); Italian Association for Cancer Research, National Research Council, and Associazione Iblea per la Ricerca Epidemiologica Ragusa, Associazione Volontari Italiani Sangue Ragusa, Sicilian Government (Italy); Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sport, Netherlands Cancer Registry, LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZorgOnderzoek Nederland, World Cancer Research Fund International, and Statistics Netherlands (the Netherlands); European Research Council (grant ERC-2009-AdG 232997), N
Here we go again.... it's the commodity market driving news circus!
Evidenced by this latest round of "Commodity-X is good/bad for you and here-comes-the-science" news.
Just like comments from Mario Draghi on the Euro, or the US non-farm payroll make the currency markets fly off the handle... news like this can only serve as a driver to the plebs to hold a particular position in the commodity markets.
Seems like the coffee price has been steadily dropping recently.... market needs more sucke... *ahem* buyers!
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Coffee is back to being great for you this month. Next month ... A single cup a year will give you CancerAids, warts and make you sexually attracted to the wrong gender for you. But red wine and chocolate will "cure" all those things.
"But experts warn that the two studies...do not show that drinking coffee was behind the overall lower risk, pointing out that it could be that coffee drinkers are healthier in various ways or that those who are unwell drink less coffee."
Did they just...debunk their own damn study?!?
It could be that people addicted to a stimulant might be healthier in various ways, or that those who are unwell drink shitty soft drinks in order to ingest the same addictive drug.
But hey, let's attribute the benefits to coffee anyway. It's not we're gonna find this study was bought and paid for by those who would profit the most from the product being studied. I mean, that never happens, right?
That may well be, but I'm still not drinking that vile, contaminated substance. I know it is an acquired taste, but for the love of me, I cannot fathom how the first person ever got the idea to drink that disgusting pollutant.
Story from a couple months ago
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
... or 1/8 l of red wine a day vs total abstinence. I've grown fairly skeptical over the years about these kind of studies, because they seem to go back and forth without any type of final conclusion in sight. Maybe I'm wrong this time and this is the last word on coffee. Then again, maybe not... ;-)
Starbucks sells coffee now?
Yeah, it's one of their flavour that you can ask on your pumpkin syrup.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
"Congratulations on providing a list."
Aw, it was nothing. Anybody could have done it, even you.
"Now you lazy fucker, finish your work and show me where their funding comes from, and who their sponsors are."
Dammit. Another fucking Right Wing illiterate. It's all right there to be read if you are capable of it, and here is just one example:
"Disclosures: Dr. Butterworth reports grants from the European Union Framework 7, the European Research Council, the U.K. Medical Research Council, the British Heart Foundation, and the U.K. National Institute for Health Research during the conduct of the study and from Biogen, Merck, and Pfizer outside the submitted work."
I suppose you want me to track down everybody on the British Heart Foundation and have them count out their Piggy Banks for you. Tell me, are you capable of counting to 11 without unzipping your fly?
"If anything has been proven here, it's the fact that collusion and corruption can taint the results of any study..."
All that has been proven here is that you and "BlueStrat" are paranoid and functionally illiterate. I have given a huge number of facts, names, places and affiliations. You have given... nothing. That is all that you have to give, just accusations and ignorance with nothing to back it up with at all.
Hey, you sound like that jerk who can usually be found on his Throne at 1600 Pennsylvania this time of night, massaging his piles and tweeting the results.
Another study that cannot distinguish if it's causation of just correlation.
Actually, it's not the studies' fault.
Both studies only use the term "association" (as in : "we found the number to be somewhat correlated") with the first one even in the title.
Even in the abstract the second study mentions it's only correlation, and there might even be reverse causation.
But then you can count on the press to spin it up as "Coffee cures death !!!!11!!1!!"
Ob. PHDcomics ref
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
The study suggests that people who drink coffee are also people who live longer. Whether this is the effect of coffee, a socio-economic effect, or an indirect correlation, i.e., someone who drinks coffee also has a potential healthier lifestyle or even people who like coffee a in general healthier. This report on slashdot is a typical exaggeration of scientific results by media outlets, which are misleading and affect how the public see science. For example, next week another study suggests something opposite (for the same reason). Then scientists look like guessing around having no clue and that science is something, like an opinion. Everyone has one and they can be different. No one knows what is true.
The original publication does not suggest any causation. This is media reporting wrong on science.
The people processed long time research data. The result is that coffee does not have severe negative effects otherwise the correlation would have been different. However, THIS DOES NOT IMPLY THE OPPOSITE, which is any positive health effect from coffee. The scientists also pointed out that such effects cannot be determined by the used approach at all.
But unless that translates to a lower risk of having it in the first place, I'm not sure that l'd be happy with just a lower chance of death by it, because the way I see it is that I'm going to die eventually anyway, and simply surviving a stroke doesn't mean you will have any real quality of life afterward
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Study was funded by Juan Valdez.
"The first study looked at coffee consumption among more than 185,000 white and non-white participants"
You mean fuckin' people?
Maybe coffee drinkers relax more and take more breaks.
Study shows that further studies are needed to be studied and the results of the those studies need to be studied further.
https://www.usatoday.com/story...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Coffee is getting close to eggs when it comes to an endless stream of good for you, bad for you, no, wait, good for you again.
Butter is a close third.
Eat, drink whatever you like, just do it in moderation.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Coffee is really the Devil's brew, stay far away.
Coffee may reduce the risk of dying from heart attack and stroke, but increases the risk of dying from a host of other diseases, such as Hydroxyl Acid poisoning. Hydroxyl Acid is nasty stuff that is found in all coffee-based beverages. It is stored in the coffee beans and small amounts of it are extracted during the brewing process. If the amount of it in the human body gets too high, it can result in severe, life-threatening electrolyte imbalances such as hypokalemia.
It's not the first time a study like this has been performed though. {...} Either they're all making the same fundamental mistakes or coffee really does help.
These specific 2 studies linked from TFS on /. specifically looked for association and nothing more.
i.e.: you put some health marker on 1 axis (here: low incidence of cardio-vascular problems) and put coffee consumption on the 2nd axis, and then you notice that the data point line-up nicely, which (again for these 2 studies) only suggest that there is a link between the two (*a* link. Any link. Causality is just one possibility).
these studies don't go beyond that, and clearly state this, even in the title and/or in the abstract.
But the press is still spinning it as "Coffee proven to cure everything".
I'm not saying whether or not it's possible that coffee is some miracle cure.
The whole thread is just arguing that mere correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.
I'm pointing that these article never even attempted to prove anything beyond statistical link.
Of course, there are *other* scientific articles about coffee, not only cohorts studies like these, but also analysis of potential mechanisms that could explain coffee actually causing health to benefit from drinking.
(random example : presence of anti-oxidant in coffee)
Si it might be true that drinking coffee could under some specific circumstance be good for your health.
But today's article alone cannot *suggest* that - as implied in the title
(that's the whole debate in this thread)
and actually the study never attempted to suggest it.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Over many decades, I've seen many stories about coffee being good, bad, good, bad, good, bad, etc. etc. It's kind of like Moore's Law: until the streak/pattern is broken for several years, assume it applies. (Moore's Law does appear slumped of late, but no such coffee-study swerve yet.)
Let's just call it even: coffee is medium for you if you don't overdue it.
Table-ized A.I.
What if... Those who are unwell were strictly forbidden to drink covfefe by their doctors ?
I hear that WAS the actual explanation behind the research results that led to the "one drink a day (or very moderate drinking) is better than alcohol abstinence" advice.
The coffee numbers look more like actual benefits, though. Which is not too surprising, given that coffee has a lot of chemicals in it that are known to be, or suspected of being, good for you in appropriate ways (such as antioxidants).
The fun part will be finding out which ones and by what mechanism they're helping out. It's a heck of a lot easier to do a big long-term study on a popular drink than to do a similarly high-quality study on each of the several thousand (known) biologically-active chemical compounds in the mix.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Back in reality it causes high blood pressure and causes strokes and heart attacks.
..and so on. Coffee is on a long list of things that almost literally every week they flip-flop on whether it's good for you or bad for you.
You want my advice? Ignore all of it and just do what you like. The list of things that will eventually kill you is even longer. Be as healthy as you can without paying attention to all the hype, and enjoy life while you can.
It's in the Guardian, so consider the source....
INSTANT DEATH cuts the risk of death by any other cause by 100 percent or more!!
Film at 11
Dead people generally don't drink coffee, so there's a much higher chance to be alive if you do.
At least for this month.
Coffee has, by far, the most antioxidants of anything we eat or drink.
So does it cure cancer too?