Coffee is good for U

[CoAspen]

So because he included a basic science study on mice you are going to ignore the rest!

Starting with mice studies, before humans, is quite common in research.

Opps, you beat me to the 'enter' key!!

[olger]

Thanks OA. I just also wanted to mention, I didn't post this to reflect that I'm on one side or the other. As I've mentioned a few times, coffee has its good and its bad effects, I guess no problem for many, but all the good can be gotten with fruits and vegetables. There is no need to drink coffee to help with cancer. There are many fruits and vegetables that have the same effects for helping with cancer, with no side effects, period.

PK be soundin good.

[Overaged]

So because he included a basic science study on mice you are going to ignore the rest!

Starting with mice studies, before humans, is quite common in research.

Opps, you beat me to the 'enter' key!!

Just click to play again! And watch out for that coffee-guzzling mouse!

[Tom Wetmore]

It would seem that a fairly reliable indicator of whether something is bad for you would be if it increases the likelihood you will die.

Conclusion from a recent study - The Relationship of Coffee Consumption with Mortality:

"Regular coffee consumption was not associated with an increased mortality rate in either men or women. The possibility of a modest benefit of coffee consumption on all-cause and CVD mortality needs to be further investigated." - http://www.annals.org/content/148/12/904.abstract

[Overaged]

It would seem that a fairly reliable indicator of whether something is bad for you would be if it increases the likelihood you will die.

Conclusion from a recent study - The Relationship of Coffee Consumption with Mortality:

"Regular coffee consumption was not associated with an increased mortality rate in either men or women. The possibility of a modest benefit of coffee consumption on all-cause and CVD mortality needs to be further investigated." - http://www.annals.org/content/148/12/904.abstract

You will have to click your mouse to play again. This is based on the same Harvard study Bravus already posted here.

[Bravus]

Which you have so far failed to show is anything but an excellent and reliable study...

[Overaged]

BTW The Hardvard study had over 47 000 participants and was very carefully conducted. It's by no means the only study, but to impeach its conclusions you need to go a bit deeper than the claim that it was 'just asking questions'.

You are absolutely wrong in telling me this; and then trying to disqualify Dr Neil Nedley as a source of reliable references on coffee drinking, soley on the basis of him being a Seventh-day Adventist! And you have the nerve to call what you are saying here "scientific?"

Dr Nedley is a well-educated physician, and what he teaches has saved thousands of lives, and cured thousands of people with serious ailments. And you still sit there saying he is "prejudiced?" Thats sure a handy thing for you to try to pull off but where are your big citations for showing how Nedley is so wrong?

[Bravus]

You need to read more carefully.

I have not said Nedley is wrong, I have said his presentation is not balanced. I have taken pains to say exactly that.

I did not even know he was SDA, did not say he was SDA. I said his book was pushing veganism and meditation. One of those is arguably associated with Adventism, though more usually vegetarianism than veganism, and the other is quite often frowned on by Adventists.

What citations could I bring to show that Nedley is unbalanced, since that is the claim I am making? There is not a peer reviewed scientific paper about Nedley.

I *have* brought a number - still only a small sample - of citations for papers that show positive benefits for coffee. Does Nedley present any of the benefits of coffee in his book?

If not, he is unbalanced, and my claim is supported.

[Overaged]

You sure like to backtrack with your words. Saying he is "not balanced" means you are saying he is wrong...

You need to read slower yourself. The studies you cite do not once recommend coffee drinking to cure anything; they concede that the observations therein cannot be counted as evidence yet.

Nedleys work is not unbalanced just because it deals with the risks of coffee drinking. Name one thing he has said about it that is not true, and don't forget those citations.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Neil Nedley is apparently the "Dr. Oz" of Adventism...

Coffee is a known source of dietary carcinogens such as methylglyoxal, catechol...

Catechol is found in plants including onions and apples, and in crude beet sugar coal. It is also found in the leaves and branches of oak and willow trees (HSDB, 1993).

www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/html/catechol.html

yep...throw out those bad apples!

[Bravus]

Here's the abstract for that original Kasai et al paper from 1982 that Neil Nedley cited:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6762317

You'll be interested to see that the experiment was done on Salmonella bacteria, not people: so much for scoffing at mouse research.

Here's a rat study on methylglyoxal:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1474413/

Note both that it was injected into them, not drunk in coffee, and that other things in coffee modified its action.

Here's a much broader and more recent review paper on coffee and cancer:

http://apps.who.int/bookorders/anglais/d...2&codcch=51

Conclusion is protective effects for some cancers, no effect for some cancers and possible increased risk of bladder cancer.

*That's* what evidence and a balanced presentation looks like.

[John317]

Let me say it again. I'm *not* saying 'drink coffee'.

I'm saying 'don't claim the evidence says when thing about coffee when it says the opposite'.

The truth is important.

But if we take that route, SDAs would have kept on smoking tobacco after Ellen White wrote Testimonies against it, simply because the "evidence" didn't yet appear to support her views of it. We could say the same about a vegetarian diet: she counseled in its favor long before the scientific evidence showed its benefits. But many people would not have lived as long as they did if they hadn't followed Ellen White's counsel. My point is that we would be foolish to wait for the science to support Ellen White before we follow her counsel. (The same applies to the Bible.)

Certain scientific evidence may support some benefits of coffee-drinking, yet if people are obeying all the laws of health, and following "health reform," they wouldn't need the so-called benefits of coffee. Similarly, people practicing health reform wouldn't be benefited by the drinking of wine or other alcohol.

Unlike myself, my parents never once ate or drank meat, coffee, tobacco, alcohol, and they always ate simply and never between meals. They died in their 90s and hadn't ever been in the hospital. Both were almost never sick. So for them, there would have been no benefit in drinking coffee.

Does this make any sense?

[Bravus]

Your final comments make sense. Vegans who eat a lot of fresh fruit, veggies and legumes, drink water, exercise, sleep enough and so on are better off, no doubt about it. No argument.

But on keeping on despite EGW, nope. I already responded to a post of yours a couple of pages back where you said "I will trust EGW over science" by saying I can completely accept and support that view.

Again again, decide whatever you want, on whatever grounds you choose.

Just don't fib, by commission or omission, about what the science *says*.

[John317]

Just don't fib, by commission or omission, about what the science *says*.

The greater problem is that so-called "science" does not always say the same thing all the time. Not all scientists are agreed, and the conclusions often change, depending on who does the "study" and what the focus is.

[Bravus]

Of course. But that's the nature of science and health. It's complex. What a pregnant woman should eat, take and do is different from what is right for a steelworker. Science is never going to say 'coffee is good (or bad) for everyone everywhere all the time at any dose'. But then, it can't even do that for water.

Claiming there is no credible science showing benefits of coffee, in the face of a mountain of evidence, is fibbing. So is claiming all such evidence is flawed, corrupt or compromised.

The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[Overaged]

But you are not telling the truth yourself. You ignore your own "citations" which ALL say "may benefit" because even they realize that it cannot be counted as fact. These studies can all be stretched to appear in ways that they are not; just like you tried to do with those "bad apples."

I would add that you said that about the apples without even knowing what Nedley actually said about that chemical in his book...Evidently, evidence is only important sometimes for your great coffee caper.

Science is not God; it is not the final authority on truth. I will go with the saved lives and improved health of thousands because of what Nedley teaches, which includes no coffee or caffeine. Your big papers and citations do not/cannot make the same claim.

[Tom Wetmore]

Any doubt in your mind about any of that?

[CoAspen]

We are still having an issue about what science is all about. When terms are used such as 'so called science' or something else derogatrory, it would make the reader think the poster will not consider it science unless it agrees with a certain belief. Is this correct?

[Overaged]

We are still having an issue about what science is all about. When terms are used such as 'so called science' or something else derogatrory, it would make the reader think the poster will not consider it science unless it agrees with a certain belief. Is this correct?

Not quite; because not all science, so called, is valid. There is science, which is based on truth; and spurious science, based on part truth, part lies.

Know anyone whose life was saved by coffee?

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes, I do know of someone's life that was saved by coffee. Mine.

[Overaged]

Any doubt in your mind about any of that?

No Siree!

[Overaged]

Yes, I do know of someone's life that was saved by coffee. Mine.

Ha ha! LOL; I am sure that a lot of people would say that! Good one Tom!

[Bravus]

Rather than scoffing, I'd be interested to hear Tom expand on his point.

Given that there has been a large scale study cited here that suggested lower mortality from some causes related to coffee drinking, I do know *of* quite a few people who are alive now and wouldn't have been if they hadn't been coffee drinkers...

[CoAspen]

I'm curious.....

Quote:

...because not all science, so called, is valid. There is science, which is based on truth; and spurious science, based on part truth, part lies.

How do you decide....what is your criteria?

[JawgeFromJawja]

Shane posted on 5 - 18 - 2011

"My answer is to drink decaf. I know some Adventists find that objectionable."

Decaf coffee and tea have up to 50% of the natural caffeine remaining.

There are basically two methods to "decaffeinize" coffee and tea. One involves the use of a rather "unnatural" chemical process. I last reviewed the process several years ago, but the chemicals used didn't seem particularly wholesome.

The other method used a water leaching process.

Either way usually leaves a substantial amount of caffeine in the tea or coffee leaves.

Jawge