Coffee is good for U

[Overaged]

Also; if you check out the second quote in my post above; you will see it is in agreement with Ellen White who called it a "stimulant" way before the first "citation" was born:

Quote:

The habit of drinking tea and coffee is a greater evil than is often suspected. Many who have accustomed themselves to the use of stimulating drinks, suffer from headache and nervous prostration, and lose much time on account of sickness. They imagine they cannot live without the stimulus, and are ignorant of its effect upon health. What makes it the more dangerous is, that its evil effects are so often attributed to other causes. {CTBH 35.2}

Thanks to innaporpriate "interpretations" of certain modern scientific studies; people are being kept ignorant of the true facts.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Quote:

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

Follow Dr. Mercola on Twitter Follow Dr. Mercola on Facebook

The average American adult consumes over 10 pounds of coffee per year, which amounts to a total of 2.4 billion pounds a year in the United States alone.

Just as Dr. Hu with the Finnish National Public Health Institute pointed out, the issue of coffee’s health impact is important because it is one of the most consumed drinks (at least in Western countries), and coffee drinkers may therefore accelerate or worsen their health problems.

Caffeine is a drug; it just happens to be a very common legal drug, but it's a drug nevertheless -- with very powerful actions.

It’s true that there have been studies attesting to coffee's contribution in cutting your risk of developing certain kinds of cancers and diabetes. But coffee drinkers are also likely increasing their risk of other deadly diseases, such as stomach cancer, leukemia, stroke and rheumatoid arthritis.

Drinking coffee also has other well-documented problems, such as:

Coffee may interfere with your body's ability to keep homocysteine and cholesterol levels in check, most likely by inhibiting the action of the vitamins folate, B12 or B6.

Studies have shown that caffeine can raise your levels of stress hormones. If consumed in large quantities it can lead to heart palpitations, jitters and nervousness.

Since coffee is a stimulant, it will only worsen the symptoms of anxiety. People with panic or anxiety disorders may find that they are especially sensitive to caffeine and may find that even a small amount of the stimulant exacerbates their symptoms.

Caffeine will linger in your body for hours after you drink it, so it may keep you up at night even if you drink it long before bedtime, adding to insomnia.

When is Coffee Abstinence Truly Required?

I believe most people would serve themselves well to limit or avoid coffee as much as possible. If you are pregnant, however, you’re surely in a category that should avoid coffee completely, as there is a substantial amount of research showing it clearly increases your risk of spontaneous abortion.

Caffeine is a stimulant drug that easily passes through the placenta to the developing fetus, and transfers through breast milk, which is why you should never drink coffee while pregnant or nursing.

There is actually quite a bit more very credible information that can be gleaned from non-Adventist sources to prove what Adventists have been trying to teach since the 1800s.

Oh dear. I was wondering if someone was going to tap into the Mercola sap. If you want to know about him and the claims he makes, try looking him up at Quackwatch.com Quackwatch - Mercola

[Overaged]

Oh dear. I was wondering if someone was going to tap into the Mercola sap. If you want to know about him and the claims he makes, try looking him up at Quackwatch.com Quackwatch - Mercola

[Bravus]

So, it's pages and days since I (a) asked for 10 peer reviewed papers showing harms of coffee and ( posted my own 10 peer reviewed papers showing benefits of coffee.

So far you've posted a couple of unsupported claims, some by people who you yourself acknowledge are dodgy.

You claim I'm distorting the science, but haven't shown how... and you're not even bringing any science.

[Overaged]

I guess thats the whole point; we would first have to come to agreement that this is "science" that you are presenting; and that it infact actually says what you say it does.

[Bravus]

Yes. Which would require you to read the papers, or at the very least the abstracts, of the 10 papers I posted, and make some serious points about perceived weaknesses with the evidence.

Rather than simply scoffing at the one mouse study. (Without having acknowledged that your own much-vaunted study was conducted on bacteria.)

[Overaged]

Yes. Which would require you to read the papers, or at the very least the abstracts, of the 10 papers I posted, and make some serious points about perceived weaknesses with the evidence.

Rather than simply scoffing at the one mouse study. (Without having acknowledged that your own much-vaunted study was conducted on bacteria.)

Ahhhh, "my study is better than your study...no it isn't...yes it is!!! Wow. We must be in grade three here. I can't wait to see what you will try to teach us in grade seven.

You have ignored any points I made, or just said they were biased, without even proving the bias. You cooked your own goose here.

[Bravus]

Nope. On the contrary, I looked very hard at the particular study that Nedley cited: the *one* piece of actual scientific evidence that you have provided.

I linked to the original article, later complementary articles and a number of other things related to it.

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/455414/Re_Coffee_is_good_for_U.html#Post455414

That is, I *seriously engaged with the scientific evidence*. It is *not* just a matter of opinion, or of 'dueling citations'. It is all about what the papers cited actually *say*.

It's also not about dueling citations because you have only ever provided one citation, which I have addressed - including acknowledging that yes, the chemical concerned is a carcinogenic and a possible reason to avoid coffee.

Nothing to do with Grade 3. I'm not insulting you, I'm not insulting your sources.

I'm asking you to get serious and engage with the evidence, instead of continually making attacks on my character and honesty that you cannot back up. Including claiming I have said things that I haven't said, then claiming I was 'backflipping' when I clarified that I had never said them.

I'm not angry, upset, triumphant. I'm calmly wanting to have a discussion about what the evidence actually says. I'm not advocating coffee drinking. I just want to look at the whole truth of what the evidence actually says.

So, I urge you, get serious. Do some reading. Support your case with some actual evidence, not statements of opinion from pill-peddlers.

[Bravus]

Here's where you start: http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=...05&as_vis=0

[Overaged]

Nope. On the contrary, I looked very hard at the particular study that Nedley cited: the *one* piece of actual scientific evidence that you have provided.

I linked to the original article, later complementary articles and a number of other things related to it.

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/455414/Re_Coffee_is_good_for_U.html#Post455414

That is, I *seriously engaged with the scientific evidence*. It is *not* just a matter of opinion, or of 'dueling citations'. It is all about what the papers cited actually *say*.

It's also not about dueling citations because you have only ever provided one citation, which I have addressed - including acknowledging that yes, the chemical concerned is a carcinogenic and a possible reason to avoid coffee.

Nothing to do with Grade 3. I'm not insulting you, I'm not insulting your sources.

I'm asking you to get serious and engage with the evidence, instead of continually making attacks on my character and honesty that you cannot back up. Including claiming I have said things that I haven't said, then claiming I was 'backflipping' when I clarified that I had never said them.

I'm not angry, upset, triumphant. I'm calmly wanting to have a discussion about what the evidence actually says. I'm not advocating coffee drinking. I just want to look at the whole truth of what the evidence actually says.

So, I urge you, get serious. Do some reading. Support your case with some actual evidence, not statements of opinion from pill-peddlers.

[Overaged]

Here's where you start: http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=...05&as_vis=0

Yes; I have been looking here, and elsewhere.

I will apologize if you feel I have insulted you personally; I am trying to just insult some ideas, not you personally. I suppose there is some gray area there.

But I have a hard time believing that you sincerely do want truth here because you admitted you don't even have Nedley's book, and without any evidence at all; you said he was biased. By doing this you have excluded a large body of scholarly evidence, which "scientifically" it makes absolutely no sense for you to do.

[Bravus]

I shouldn't have to have one particular book to participate in this discussion. The scientific evidence is freely available. If Nedley cites papers other than Kasai you're welcome to introduce them here and I'll check them out.

[Overaged]

I shouldn't have to have one particular book to participate in this discussion.

Then why do I have to have "citations" to participate in this discussion?

You still have not addressed the "maybe" concern I put forth about these "citations. There is a reason they use the word maybe, and you don't need a citation to figure that out. Citations don't have to be the only "evidence" allowed here.

[Bravus]

I addressed that point pages ago. Scientists say 'maybe' because there's always more to learn. No scientist (who understands anything about philosophy of science) ever uses the word 'proved'. About as strong as it gets is 'is supported by the evidence'. Saying that coffee 'may' protect is an appropriate level of certainty for the kind of study that was done, which looks at correlations rather than causal mechanisms.

I mean no disrespect, but the fact that you're making such a big deal about this shows more about the level of your understanding of the nature of science than about the actual level of confidence that the scientist have in the evidence.

[Twilight II]

but the fact that you're making such a big deal about this shows more about the level of your understanding of the nature of science than about the actual level of confidence that the scientist have in the evidence.

I think when one understands this, which teaches one to recognise vain babblings, they can truly understand "science":

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

True science is not mankinds ideas, which places "science falsely so called" above its Creator.

False science has at its heart vanity...

[JawgeFromJawja]

Why question what the Lord has shown Mrs. White about coffee and tea or alcoholic beverages? The people of the world may fall for these so-called scientific studies, but why would a seventh-day adventist, who knows better, pay attention to them is beyond comprehension.

"Tea, coffee, and tobacco are all stimulating, and contain poison. They are not only unnecessary, but harmful, and should be discarded if we would add to knowledge temperance." Counsels on Diet and Foods, p.420.

"Coffee is a hurtful indulgence. It temporarily excites the mind to unwonted action, but the aftereffect is exhaustion, prostration, paralysis of the mental, moral, and physical powers. The mind becomes enervated, and unless through determined effort the habit is overcome, the activity of the brain is permanently lessened." Ibid, 421.

sky

Mrs. White was not a physician. She was not a scientist, and indeed seems to have been anti-science. She was wrong about many things in medicine. general health, and science. The poser ought to be why Adventists should listen to her.

Are Adventists numbered among "people of the world"? There are many, VERY many devout Adventists who drink coffee and who disregard much of her "health message" as inaccurate and no longer relevant.

It is appropriate,even desirable, for scientists constantly to test knowledge in their field. That is the nature of science,and always will be.

Jawge

[JawgeFromJawja]

It's possible that these regular coffee drinkers might have other habits in common that could explain the observed effects. People who are very active in mid-life are more likely to be drinking coffee than couch potatoes. Maybe the coffee drinkers aren't benefiting from the coffee as much as they are from keeping their minds and bodies active. The studies make it difficult to pinpoint what is actually going on.

You said the magic words "possible" and "maybe". In considering the advisability of coffee and tea drinking, such speculation is worthless. Worse than worthless.

Jawge

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: karl

It's possible that these regular coffee drinkers might have other habits in common that could explain the observed effects. People who are very active in mid-life are more likely to be drinking coffee than couch potatoes. Maybe the coffee drinkers aren't benefiting from the coffee as much as they are from keeping their minds and bodies active. The studies make it difficult to pinpoint what is actually going on.

Good points Karl. These studies are never what they seem to be. They are always to many variables.

Never is a strong word. And in what type journals do you think medical scientists publish their studies? The National Inquirer? Pick up any peer reviewed medical or science journal. At the end of published reports, the author must certify whether he or she has anything to disclose. Potential conflicts of interest must be revealed.

I was just reading an article on community acquired (as opposed to hospital acquired pneumonia) in American Family Physician of June 1, 2011. This statement appears at the end of the report:

"Author disclosure: Nothing to disclose."

Should the study have been funded by a pharmaceutical manufacturer, or through other sources, the author would have been obligated to say so.

Jawge

[Overaged]

I addressed that point pages ago. Scientists say 'maybe' because there's always more to learn. No scientist (who understands anything about philosophy of science) ever uses the word 'proved'. About as strong as it gets is 'is supported by the evidence'. Saying that coffee 'may' protect is an appropriate level of certainty for the kind of study that was done, which looks at correlations rather than causal mechanisms.

I mean no disrespect, but the fact that you're making such a big deal about this shows more about the level of your understanding of the nature of science than about the actual level of confidence that the scientist have in the evidence.

Well; you are allowed to question my understanding if you feel a need to.

It just so happens that English and the sciences were my best subjects throughout school; including university level nursing.courses. In nursing; we would say to the patient: "This water will quench your thirst; no maybe involved or needed. Thats pretty simple. I am pretty surprised to learn that even you do not understand the difference between a maybe; and a definite given.

None of the studies you have so far presented give us such definites; and they even say that it is too early to use them as "evidence," too many unknowns and what ifs to be answered. Every bit as quack infested as Mercolaism. Not even based on solid medical evidence.

[Overaged]

karl]It's possible that these regular coffee drinkers might have other habits in common that could explain the observed effects. People who are very active in mid-life are more likely to be drinking coffee than couch potatoes. Maybe the coffee drinkers aren't benefiting from the coffee as much as they are from keeping their minds and bodies active. The studies make it difficult to pinpoint what is actually going on.

/quote]

Good points Karl. These studies are never what they seem to be. They are always to many variables./quote]

Never is a strong word. And in what type journals do you think medical scientists publish their studies? The National Inquirer?

Might as well be The National Enquirer because almost all of the studies are based upon subjective answers from "subjects" participating in same.

[hbryan]

Why we as a Church spend endless hours discussing such trivial issues is beyond comprehension. We should distance ourselves from health and livestyle and begin a Christ based revival. We as Adventist act as if Ellen White preached on little else that cooffee tea and meat. Please read or re-read steps to Christ and stop watching what people eat it is a waste of time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Overaged]

Why we as a Church spend endless hours discussing such trivial issues is beyond comprehension. We should distance ourselves from health and livestyle and begin a Christ based revival. We as Adventist act as if Ellen White preached on little else that coffee tea and meat. Please read or re-read steps to Christ and stop watching what people eat it is a waste of time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, Ellen White has not been mentioned much at all in this topic. We are just exchanging notes, (with a few barbs in between) which should be OK to do. This is a discussion forum where all sorts of subjects are allowed.

[Bravus]

...almost all of the studies are based upon subjective answers from "subjects" participating in same.

Righto, heading back to have a look at those 10 studies again in response to the issues raised of 'may' and 'subjects'.

Will number the 10 studies and quote them here to save readers going back pages.

Quote:

1. Jennifer Stella Bonitaa, Michael Mandaranoa, Donna Shutaa and Joe Vinson (2007). Coffee and cardiovascular disease: In vitro, cellular, animal, and human studies. Pharmacological Research

Volume 55, Issue 3: 187-198.

2. Besa Smith, MPH, Deborah L. Wingard, PHD, Tyler C. Smith, MS, Donna Kritz-Silverstein, PHD and Elizabeth Barrett-Connor, MD. (2006. Does Coffee Consumption Reduce the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in Individuals With Impaired Glucose? Diabetes Care. 29(11): 2385-2390.

3. Esther Lopez-Garcia, PhD; Rob M. van Dam, PhD; Tricia Y. Li, MD; Fernando Rodriguez-Artalejo, MD, PhD; and Frank B. Hu, MD, PhD. (2008). The Relationship of Coffee Consumption with Mortality. Annals of Internal Medicine, 148(12): 904-914.

4. Modi AA, Feld JJ, Park Y, Kleiner DE, Everhart JE, Liang TJ, Hoofnagle JH. (2010). Increased caffeine consumption is associated with reduced hepatic fibrosis. Hepatology, 53(1): 207-208.

5. Esther Lopez-Garcia, PhD; Fernando Rodriguez-Artalejo, MD, PhD; Kathryn M. Rexrode, MD, MPH; Giancarlo Logroscino, MD, PhD; Frank B. Hu, MD, PhD; Rob M. van Dam, PhD. (2009). Coffee Consumption and Risk of Stroke in Women. Circulation, 119: 1116-1123.

6. Chuanhai Cao, Li Wang, Xiaoyang Lin, Malgorzata Mamcarz, Chi Zhang, Ge Bai, Jasson Nong, Sam Sussman, Gary Arendash. (2011). Caffeine Synergizes with Another Coffee Component to Increase Plasma GCSF: Linkage to Cognitive Benefits in Alzheimer's Mice. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, DOI: 10.3233/JAD-2011-110110.

7. Michael D. Kennedy, Ashley V. Galloway, Leanne J. Dickau and Megan K. Hudson. (2008). The cumulative effect of coffee and a mental stress task on heart rate, blood pressure, and mental alertness is similar in caffeine-naïve and caffeine-habituated females. Nurtition Research, 28(9): 609-614.

8. Jiang-nan Wu, Suzanne C Ho, Chun Zhou, Wen-hua Ling, Wei-qing Chen, Cui-ling Wang and Yu-ming Chen (2008). Coffee consumption and risk of coronary heart diseases: A meta-analysis of 21 prospective cohort studies. International Journal of Cardiology, Volume 137, Issue 3, Pages 216-225.

9. Gary W. Arendash, Chuanhai Cao. (2010). Caffeine and Coffee as Therapeutics Against Alzheimer's Disease. DOI: 10.3233/JAD-2010-091249.

10. Daniela S Sartorelli, Guy Fagherazzi, Beverley Balkau, Marina S Touillaud, Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault, Blandine de Lauzon-Guillain, and Françoise Clavel-Chapelon. (2010). Differential effects of coffee on the risk of type 2 diabetes according to meal consumption in a French cohort of women: the E3N/EPIC cohort study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 91(4): 1002-1012.

Of these, it's possible that Number 10 included some self-report of when the coffee was consumed, but the diabetes diagnoses were objective.

None of the others are based on self-report. They all measure objective things like mortality, or cell cultures, people, liver fibrosis.

Want to correct your statements, Overaged? I mean, what you said is simply not true.

It will take a little longer to look at the actual abstracts and the 'might' and 'may' language, so I'll do it in a separate post.

Certainly there's one issue to be dealt with already.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Here is another study, from a South Africa Newspaper.

http://www.iol.co.za:80/lifestyle/coffee-drink-with-caution-1.1082864

The newspaper article provided this conclusion:

“The combination of caffeine and stress affect the likelihood of an individual experiencing a psychosis-like symptom.”

The team from the university’s School of Psychological Sciences found that five cups of coffee a day were enough to trigger this.

Crowe added: “Caution needs to be exercised with the use of this overtly ‘safe’ drug.” – Daily Mail

A bit of caution should also be exercised when reviewing a report of a report. Why not go to the original source?

Seriously, I strongly advocate that the public should use The National Library of Medicine much more than they do. PubMed is a good gateway to that library. Do a Google on PubMed. Even so, that source of information itself must be taken with critical thinking.

Jawge

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: RLH

If you're a coffee drinker, try stopping all of a sudden and see what happens. LOL!

I have. Didn't affect me in the least. Go figure... everyone is different...

Ditto. I usually have 2 or 3 cups each morning. On those days I miss that treat, I have no after effects.

But everyone is different. My Seventh Day Adventist wife has one cup. If she misses it,

best avoid her.

Some people have such reactions to various foods.

Gotta go now. Exercise is calling. Really.

Jawge