here's the complete results:
Coffee drinkers were more likely male, white, drinkers of alcohol and former smokers. Those drinking four cups or more a day, continued to smoke and were more likely to drink instant coffee. (Starbucks take note!) Those drinking less were more likely to be “in excellent health,” older and with a university degree.
Concerning all-cause mortality, coffee drinking, in a dose-dependent way was protective, compared to non-coffee drinkers, reducing deaths by 14% in those drinking 8 cups a day.
When limited to cancer and cardiovascular deaths, coffee drinking was protective although to a lesser degree.
Ground coffee drinkers showed the most significant effect, followed by instant and decaffeinated.
Individuals with the genetic “profile” representing faster caffeine metabolism drank more coffee
Irrespective of the genetic “profile” coffee conferred a survival advantage. How quickly you metabolized, caffeine made no difference.
The exact effect of caffeine by itself seems problematic since the same trends in reducing mortality, albeit to a lesser degree, was true for those who drank decaffeinated coffee.
The study joins the growing unclear literature on the impact of coffee on our health. But it shows that our search for answers is shifting focus, from merely the amount of coffee ingested to the genetics underlying our true biologic exposure – after all, those with slower caffeine metabolisms have it hanging around for more extended periods of time. It also serves as an introduction to the term Mendelian randomization, that according to Google’s Ngram [2] appeared in about 1975, but whose use increased 63-fold by 2008.
added: Mendelian randomization: "...a method for obtaining unbiased estimates of the effects of a putative causal variable without conducting a traditional randomised trial..."
Conclusions and Relevance: Coffee drinking was inversely associated with mortality, including among those drinking 8 or more cups per day and those with genetic polymorphisms indicating slower or faster caffeine metabolism. These findings suggest the importance of noncaffeine constituents in the coffee-mortality association and provide further reassurance that coffee drinking can be a part of a healthy diet.
the headline and article concluded that - not the study...big difference. but the gist is correct, drink coffee live longer. exercise live longer. drink more water live longer.
they weren't looking to see if coffee led to extended life - how many ways do I have to say that? it was study on caffeine metabolism that happened to show coffee extended life. are you unable to process that?
I agree - the study was to see if caffeine was the cause of longer life - turns out any coffee led to longer life. life style change have long ago been proven to extend life. read the study before commenting whoever said "...no indication..."
you obviously did not read the study...the study did not look at other lifestyle indicators - it was meant to see across 500k individuals was caffeine life extending...they found out that coffee of any sort was life extending. other lifestyle changes also extend life and that has already been proven.
the study did not look at other lifestyle indicators - it was meant to see across 500k individuals was caffeine life extending...they found out that coffee of any sort was life extending. other lifestyle changes also extend life and that has already been proven.
that's the point - we can only opt out on certain transactions - businesses have rights over consumers in US...congress needs to act...EU has it flipped - consumers come first
Slashdot Mirror
Samsung = android = bloatware
at this point I think i'll get a cup of coffee...
here's the complete results: Coffee drinkers were more likely male, white, drinkers of alcohol and former smokers. Those drinking four cups or more a day, continued to smoke and were more likely to drink instant coffee. (Starbucks take note!) Those drinking less were more likely to be “in excellent health,” older and with a university degree. Concerning all-cause mortality, coffee drinking, in a dose-dependent way was protective, compared to non-coffee drinkers, reducing deaths by 14% in those drinking 8 cups a day. When limited to cancer and cardiovascular deaths, coffee drinking was protective although to a lesser degree. Ground coffee drinkers showed the most significant effect, followed by instant and decaffeinated. Individuals with the genetic “profile” representing faster caffeine metabolism drank more coffee Irrespective of the genetic “profile” coffee conferred a survival advantage. How quickly you metabolized, caffeine made no difference. The exact effect of caffeine by itself seems problematic since the same trends in reducing mortality, albeit to a lesser degree, was true for those who drank decaffeinated coffee. The study joins the growing unclear literature on the impact of coffee on our health. But it shows that our search for answers is shifting focus, from merely the amount of coffee ingested to the genetics underlying our true biologic exposure – after all, those with slower caffeine metabolisms have it hanging around for more extended periods of time. It also serves as an introduction to the term Mendelian randomization, that according to Google’s Ngram [2] appeared in about 1975, but whose use increased 63-fold by 2008. added: Mendelian randomization: "...a method for obtaining unbiased estimates of the effects of a putative causal variable without conducting a traditional randomised trial..." Conclusions and Relevance: Coffee drinking was inversely associated with mortality, including among those drinking 8 or more cups per day and those with genetic polymorphisms indicating slower or faster caffeine metabolism. These findings suggest the importance of noncaffeine constituents in the coffee-mortality association and provide further reassurance that coffee drinking can be a part of a healthy diet.
the headline and article concluded that - not the study...big difference. but the gist is correct, drink coffee live longer. exercise live longer. drink more water live longer.
they weren't looking to see if coffee led to extended life - how many ways do I have to say that? it was study on caffeine metabolism that happened to show coffee extended life. are you unable to process that?
I agree - the study was to see if caffeine was the cause of longer life - turns out any coffee led to longer life. life style change have long ago been proven to extend life. read the study before commenting whoever said "...no indication..."
you obviously did not read the study...the study did not look at other lifestyle indicators - it was meant to see across 500k individuals was caffeine life extending...they found out that coffee of any sort was life extending. other lifestyle changes also extend life and that has already been proven.
the authors did say that the relaxation was more important than anything else as stress relieving is known to extend life as well
the study did not look at other lifestyle indicators - it was meant to see across 500k individuals was caffeine life extending...they found out that coffee of any sort was life extending. other lifestyle changes also extend life and that has already been proven.
...smiley face...
let's see - white teeth or live longer...doh
...time for a cup of joe...
yes, but think how efficient we'd be...
and of course you have solar hot water and electricity and you recycle your bath water for washing cloths...etc...etc
yawn
you go right on believing that pabulum and you'll be just fine...just leave us alone
I could not agree more...
very useful - NOT!
the senate never ratified the treaty - we have absolutely no commitments...zer0 nada nil
the senate never ratified the treaty - we have no commitments...zero nada nil
we never ratified the treaty - has no binding on the US
regardless - who or how would this be paid for? taxes = no.
that's the point - we can only opt out on certain transactions - businesses have rights over consumers in US...congress needs to act...EU has it flipped - consumers come first
congress would have to act and the lobby by businesses would be dead set against...
you agreed to let them collect...in any case businesses tend to have more rights than consumers...at least in the US