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?
Only 30 cups of coffee per day to reduce chance of dying by 100%!
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.
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."
"...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
Uh... ??
You can't just say "more than 185,000 people"? Why would race be injected into this reporting?
I thought that was referring to the way they take their coffee.
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 ]
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 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.
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.
Actually... almost all the studies involving coffee have been positive for decades now.
Back in the 80's everyone was convinced coffee must be bad for you like smoking, so they launched all these long term studies to prove it. Over the subsequent decades almost every study has come back saying the opposite.
Coffee linked to less of certain cancers. ... the list goes on and on. Coffee hasn't been "out-of-favour" with health scientists since the 80's. And back then they didn't have any data, just convinced it had to be bad for you, without a reason.
Coffee linked to heart health.
Coffee linked to lower diabetes.
Coffee linked to less chance of strokes.
Coffee linked to less gout.
Coffee linked to better memory.
Even if tomorrow they announce some bad disease linked to coffee, it probably still won't be out of favour because of all the GOOD things about coffee that out-weigh it.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
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 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.
According to wikipedia, both Ann Wilson and Nancy Wilson ( Heart ) are still alive.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
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 ]
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
You can't just say "more than 185,000 people"? Why would race be injected into this reporting?
Because in the past a lot of medical research had unreported sampling biases that were assumed to be unimportant at the time, but were later found to have significant consequences. For example, a lot of heart research was conducted only on white men, but it was later found women and black men have different reactions to various drugs.
So the problem is not that race is being "injected" but rather that it has been injected in the recent past. Mentioning it is therefore relevant. They also broke it down by sex, which is a closely related issue.
You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
As is Jane Curtin.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'