Is coffee good for you?
Oh, I know you love it. But is it good for you, healthwise?
These researchers say the answer is “yes.” But don’t go hog-wild on coffee (although I wonder whether hogs even like coffee); they could change their minds tomorrow and declare it Badforyou.
Or maybe that’s a reason to go hog-wild while you can, before the news reverses itself and guilt is attendant on every cup.
But the methodology in the study is really really suspect, IMHO. Initially, the results indicated that coffee drinkers live shorter lives, not longer ones. However, coffee drinkers also tend to smoke, drink alcohol, exercise less, and eat more red meat, so once those factors were “taken into account,” the results indicated they actually lived longer than their non-coffee-drinking peers.
Sounds a bit fishy to me. But then again, I don’t ever drink coffee, so what do I know?
You know, I’m getting really tired of getting “whipsawed” by each new study saying exactly the opposite of the one before it; “its good for you,” its bad for you,” “it’ll kill you,” ” its the f’n fountain of youth.”
So, my policy is to disregard all such studies, and to view them as of no more merit and as no more “true” that TV advertising.
The methodology used here is reasonable but it subtly changes the question and therefore the conclusion which can be made. It may be that coffee is good for you only under certain conditions (perhaps you have to smoke or drink a lot). As is usually the case, it is how the data is interpreted which is the most important factor to consider when evaluating a study.
Then again, the effect of diet in humans varies greatly from person to person. What might be good for 80% of the population might NOT be good for you.
Maybe coffee-drinkers live longer because they don’t worry so much about drinking coffee.
Steve D.–One of my pet peeves is whenever I run across someone who argues against testing on live animals– like rats, or pigs, or rabbits–saying that we no longer need to do testing on animals, because we can now do such tests via computer driven simulations.
First my obligatory statement that, of course, if possible, I would rather avoid tests that hurt any animal.
The major obstacle to such testing by computer simulation, of course, being that as of today we have nowhere near the breadth or depth of knowledge to even identify, much less know all about each and every genetic, electrical, and chemical process and/or chemical and hormone involved in the human body and their intricate interactions; many thousands of chemical substances and hormones, and probably millions of interactions–gross and subtle–going on 24/7.
Then, of course, there is the problem that even if we did have sufficient knowledge, I doubt if today’s computers yet have the capability and reliability to do the job.
The final obstacle being that apparently each individual’s body chemistry is a little bit different from each other individuals. Thus, something that is ingested or you are exposed to may be harmless to you but may injure me, or I may react much more strongly or weakly to it that you do. So, for instance, once I eat anything with a lot of onion in it, that onion stays with me for days, or the fact that the couple of times I was prescribed certain common drugs I had unusual, nightmarish, technicolor dreams (apparently, in my particular case, that type of drug passes through the blood/brain barrier, whereas it doesn’t for most people).
So, nice idea, but not yet anywhere near possible, and on a par with some “scientists,” eager to “improve “ the human species, who have suggested that it probably wouldn’t hurt us if we just stripped out all that “junk DNA “ we all have (whose purpose, of course, no one is really yet sure about, thus the “junk” label). But, say they, lets just get rid of it anyway. What could possibly go wrong?
Instead of biomedical research (or even worse, epidemiological studies), I go with a more reliable way of ascertaining the validity of a health-related proposition.
First get a daisy, pluck a petal off it, and say, “yes, it’s good for you.” Then pluck a second petal, and say, “no, it’s bad for you.” Repeat. The last petal is dispositive, and gives a determination every bit as reliable as biomedical research.
This would be funny if it weren’t so sad. Wait! It IS funny. It’s only sad for the people who prefer believing with all their hearts the last thing they read to using their brains.
Like the people who believed that USDA Pyramid telling them to make the largest component of their diets the same stuff they use to fatten steers and hogs at feed lots.
I hear they’re back on red meat. They were off that for a while. Now it’s Game On again.
I wonder when we’ll get around to Alar.
Actually, when I was a kid, coffee grounds were a fair bit of the slop that got fed to the hogs. That was in part because a lot of coffee got drunk; but, I never once saw a hog turn up her nose at the grounds. Well, to be perfectly candid I never saw a hog turn up its nose at anything.
I think Steve D is on the right track. The upside of adopting his method as national policy would be that billions of $$ would be saved. The downside, of course, is that multiple thousands of researchers would be put out of work, and many gov’t supported research labs would be shut down.
Oh, but the government could fund programs to train daisy petal pickers; and subsidize farmers for not putting acreage into daisy production.
>>> You know, I’m getting really tired of getting “whipsawed” by each new study saying exactly the opposite of the one before it; “its good for you,” its bad for you,” “it’ll kill you,” ” its the f’n fountain of youth.”
Trust me, not only are you not the only one to notice, some people are starting to call out “Shenanigans” on some parts of the “scientific” establishment (quotes because what they are doing is most emphatically not science by any means)
The Scientific Method & Its Limits – The Decline Effect
Also:
A Great Idea: The Reproducibility Project
.
And then there’s this great, though peripherally related, XKCD
.
Don’t lose faith in science yet… I personally think the whole thing is a subtle effort by the more openly active PostModernists looking to destroy our inheritance of Western/Greek Culture to destroy public faith in science.
The real question is how much did this study cost our grandchildren, given that the study, along with everything DC does, was conducted with 45% borrowed money? Live free, drink _____, or die!
When I hear anything that starts with words along the lines of – A new study has shown that X is good/bad for you – I just tune it out. I’ve heard too many studies that later turned out to be discredited to worry about that stuff any more.
Unless, of course, it was a LONGITUDINAL study. You see, that word, that long, long word, is science and specific and you are an idiot? Don’t understand that word? Ha ha. Longitudinal means something you don’t understand. You’re stupid. We’re smart. A study was done, a longitudinal study. Relating to the Earth man, and ecology, and why we’re all here man. So groovey, let the professor speak cause he’s the new priest, man, the new I AM.
My view is that most things taken in moderation–coffee, alcohol, red meat, refined sugar, exercise, maybe even the occasional cigar–won’t hurt the majority of people (I don’t use tobacco in any form, so I don’t know for sure about the cigars, but the rest I’m pretty confident about). Moderation is the key. Drink 1-3 cups of coffee per day, and you’ll probably be fine; 10 cups, and you’re pushing it. A steak or burger a couple of times per week, no problem; Big Macs at every meal, not so much. But as Steve D says, everyone’s body chemistry is just a little different, and what’s ok for me may not be ok for you.
What seems to be the real killer these days is portion size (again, moderation, or lack thereof). I returned to the U.S. last summer for a short time after living overseas for a number of years, and I was stunned by the amount of food and drink I got in restaurants, especially fast food ones. “Small” fries and drinks were about twice the size that I remembered before I left. Super-size? Fuggeddaboudit. I lost my appetite just looking at a gut-bomb that big.
I do not drink coffee but I am 100% convinced that it is safe…and probably an overall plus to one’s health. Jillions (yes that is a scientific measurement) of people have been drinking coffee for a very long time and they keep trying to find some kind of problem with it and they never can. It’s fine. Probably not a good idea to drink lots of cups when you are pregnant, and I never let my kids have caffeine until they were well into their teens.
These stats are designed to drive you crazy. Just remember . . . Figures can lie and liars can figure. And boy do they!
Re:longitudinal studies. It seems to me that the longer the studies are, the less controlled they can be. I have ignored most of this stuff for a long time. As to coffee, when I drink too much, I have stomach acid problems. There is a natural control for a lot of things if you listen to your body and tune out the dieticians.