WASHINGTON — A new study suggests that your morning brew might be doing more than just perking you up — it could be protecting you from a range of serious heart conditions. Researchers working with the Endocrine Society have found that drinking a moderate amount of coffee is associated with a lower risk of developing multiple cardiometabolic diseases. In simpler terms, your daily cup of coffee (or three) might help ward off conditions like Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and stroke.
“Consuming three cups of coffee, or 200-300 mg caffeine, per day might help to reduce the risk of developing cardiometabolic multimorbidity in individuals without any cardiometabolic disease,” says Dr. Chaofu Ke, the lead author of the study from Suzhou Medical College in China, in a media release.
I look forward to a solution to whatever disease causes people to try and talk to me before I’ve had my coffee.
I was curious about why all of the authors of a study from Oxford University seem to have Chinese names. I didn’t find any of their names in a search of Oxford’s staff, either.
I have no idea what this means, but maybe the study was actually conducted elsewhere using data from the UK? Maybe there are just a ton of graduate students from China at Oxford in their life sciences program? I’m not insinuating any sinister, it just seems odd and I was trying to understand why.
than just perking you up
It doesn’t, if you’re a regular drinker. Rather, you get withdrawal symptoms at morning.
Then you get mornings like today. Do I feel like shit because of withdrawal symptoms, or do I feel like shit from lack of sleep
I drink coffee but I put no faith in this reports that always seem to go one way or another. Just drink it in moderation. It wasn’t that long ago a glass of wine a day was considered healthy too.
It isn’t anymore?
The issue is a lot of teetotalers don’t drink anything because of their existing health conditions, really bad obesity, hypertension, liver problems, etc. So those that don’t drink at all are actually less healthy than the average population, and those that drink in moderation are obviously healthier than those who drink a lot. So the results look like moderate drinking is the most healthy but there’s an (or a lot of) omitted variable bias.
The latest few reports have linked even mild drinking to increased cancer risks.
No, alcohol has always been toxic. just like tobacco. Might see the same restrictions on their ads in the future.
Alcohol is a toxin.
Many toxins have medicinal uses.
So is caffeine.
Considering that coffee is probably the highest source of antioxidants in a person’s diet, there will be some health benefits. Just dont add dairy milk to it, or it will blunt absorption. Soy milk is fine.
But if you’re an overweight, overworked, stress filled couch potato who doesn’t exercise and eats poorly, then you’re health is screwed regardless of how much coffee you drink 😂
I didn’t really understand the abstract, I’m affraid. Is CGA the same thing as chlorigenic acid and is that the antioxidant you’re talking about? Also, did they test coffee with a little milk? The abstract makes it sound like they tested coffee without milk and coffee made entirely of milk, which doesn’t happen in real life. I am confused.
It’s one study of many showing this effect. I believe they suggest that the protein in milk is the culprit. The same effect applies to tea… Adding dairy to tea reduces its health benefits.
Well…I drink decaf. The internet seems to think coffee=caffeine. I can never find info about drinking decaf coffee.
You have to read the articles about these studies. I’ve seen several where a control group with decaf also sees benefits, so maybe
That’s because decaf drinkers die within 30 days.
Per day***
The headline makes it seem like it’s per lifetime or something.
Do not enable me!
Correlation != Causation
Almost all science and logic in the history of the world is based on correlation. Discovering the causal link comes later, or more often than not never.
Your glib comment seems smart to people on the internet, but what it actually demonstrates is a complete lack of understand of both words.
Yes, but in case of this kind of nutrition/health studies the correlation=/=causation is often a big problem. There are usually so many things at play and the studies just look at a tiny subsetof them, making the results irrelevant or just plain wrong. I think this field would benefit greatly from a more ecological approach - in ecology, scientists often use methods for multidimensional analysis of a big number of factors that can or do influence the studied problem. This is rarely seen in medicine and nutrition, unfortunately.
I don’t care this is good enough for me
It’s also linked to me having an anxiety attack before the day is done. Talking from experience.
Speed of any sort can exacerbate panic attacks. Been there done that.
Coffee, wine, chocolate… it feels like every day there’s a new study showing how they’re either great for you or how they’re giving you cancer.
Most of these do not account for socioeconomic status of the test subjects or people willfully ignore them for a better narrative in derivative articles. They therefore boil down to: “people who can afford nice things live longer” Which would not be a great headline.
Why not both? They might be all true. It is totally possible something reduces your chance to get diabetes but increases your chance for liver cancer.
Much like the way we were told for ages that a glass of wine every day was good for our health. I think the latest research is showing no evidence of that, but rather that any amount of alcohol raises the risk of cancer.
People who drink moderate amounts of wine regularly tend to have higher income, and thus better health in general. At least that’s the last generally accepting hypothesis I last saw.
A problem with the older studies that seemed to indicate that alcohol had health benefits was also that their control group, the people who didn’t drink, turned out largely not to do so because they already had severe medical problems. They weren’t allowed to drink because of them.
Compared to them it looked like the people who did drink were more healthy on average. So they concluded there must be health benefits to drinking alcohol.
This “Science VS” episode is about that (and has a bunch of citations in its transcript): https://gimletmedia.com/shows/science-vs/llhdgj
The era of that was also the first time these studies were being done predominantly with non-smokers. It was hard to disentangle the health effects of smoking with everything else. Smoking rates drop through the 80s and 90s, and wine and coffee suddenly look pretty good compared to how bad we thought they were.
A new study? You probably mean a new, desperate, desperate article.
Yes yes, studies show this, studies show that. And they all contradict each other, especially if you just wait a few years for things to come full circle.
It’s gotten to a point where I just don’t believe them any more.
Maybe coffee does in some circumstances with some people have a link to preventing diseases. Or maybe not.
We’ve seen, and will continue to see, well researched scientific studies that argue both sides of this, until the end of history.
Believe whatever makes you feel better, that’s all you can do, really.
DO whatever makes you feel better is not bad advice. Some of these studies have overarching trends that I do believe - caffeine and Adderall are protective to your brain, a little bit of speed keeps the brain healthy.
Alcohol and Benadryl are risky over time, so a habit of downers is detrimental to the brain over time.
Logically this makes sense. I think to some extent it’s just metabolism/weight, staying lean is healthier all round but there does seem to be a pattern of results showing a habit of doing a little bit of stimulants is good for you.
That’s the journalists’ fault. They have no business going through studies like this, that are not meant for them to make conclusions.
Believe whatever makes you feel better, that’s all you can do, really.
Just stop spreading this bs, and stop reading news like these. Believe what accredited sources tell you, like your doctor or other professionals
That’s the journalists that inflate the meaning of these studies. The study itself will just say “we did measurements like this, here’s the data” and probably even “we should do more studies to confirm or deny or narrow it down”.
And none of these studies seem to talk about genetics. Ozzy Osbourne and I can drop hella drugs and alcohol, be just fine. OK. That has no bearing for the rest of humanity.
And i can drink coffee and or sugary caffinated drinks right before i go to bed and be asleep in 10 minutes ad sleep like a rock, undisturbable by anything short of 4 alarms up to 12 hours later.
Sugar and caffeine actually make me sleepy.
But thats not how it is for everyone else.
You know the fact that you need 4 alarms is probably because the caffeine kills your sleep quality right?
Maybe. But i dont need to have caffeine in order to need multiple alarms to wake up.
I think it’s more out of habit.
Like i said, caffeine makes me sleepy. Thats common amongst people with ADHD.
Scandinavia has one of the highest per capita consumption of coffee, maybe it’s just a correlation with healthcare /s
I choose to believe all the studies that say coffee is healthy and none that say it is not. I won’t change my coffee drinking habits regardless, so best think positively?
You do you, but doesn’t this remind you of the fake tobacco industry “research”?
I remember when “studies said” a glass of wine each day (week?) is good for your health.
