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%!
It is most likely NOT a study that can't distinguish between causation and correlation but rather a study that checks for correlation to find out if it is worth to fund the next study checking for causation. It's usually the news outlets mixing that up. A study could even be titled "Correlation between polar lights and strawberry candy production" would make it to the news as "Scientists found out Polar lights produce strawberry candy!"
Scientists usually don't mix these two up, but finding one is the first step to find the other. Usually from correlation to causation, but not limited to that. e.g. a lab discovery may find some prior unknown chemical reaction between some food and enzyme/hormone/drug/whatever they may have found something that DOES disable/amplify something, but may still need to look for a visible correlation to find out if that effect is strong enough (or offset by something else) to be relevant.
bickerdyke
"...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 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.