Coffee is good for U

[Bravus]

It's a good idea, Gerry: I'm all for following where the evidence leads. Due to sweating and exhaled water, and the fact that we gain some water from metabolizing food, in order to really answer this question you'd need to fully track your fluid in and out over a couple of weeks on water only and then again on coffee only. I'd be fascinated to hear the results if someone does.

In this instance I'm petsonally content to go with a peer reviewed and widely cited study in a high quality journal: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12187618

[Dr. Shane]

Caffeine is a diuretic, but coffee does not lead to *net* water loss, since there is more water in the coffee than is lost through the diuresis.

Thank you. I wasn't sure how to say that so I didn't. You stated it much better than I would have.

[Dr. Shane]

BTW, the coffee research may turn out to be like that of alcohol - a few beneficial effects that will be touted and the bad overlooked or played down.

I don't think so because alcohol has direct links to both cancer and heart disease. Caffeine is a catalyst. Thus is a person smokes and drinks caffeinated coffee, the coffee will increase the chances that the smoking will cause cancer but it is the smoking, not the caffeine that causes the cancer. The positive effects from alcohol do appear to be the social benefits by lowering the inhibitions a person has and allowing them to become more social outgoing. Of course, a good counselor could have the same impact on someone without the the known health risks alcohol has.

[MariaS]

I agree based on study that stuff like Coffee has some good benifits on our health..however the study seems to be a little bias because they only discussed the pros without exposing the cons.

In my estimation based on reading, stuff like coffee has lots of cons than pros and its proven..there are some people who already have heart problem died due to excessive coffe consumption, this is one of it.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

..however the study seems to be a little bias because they only discussed the pros without exposing the cons.

The research study was not a study of pro's and con's. It was about prostate cancer.

People often criticize research because of changes, but changes are good, either way.

As methodology becomes better, so do results.

There are many studies in the literature about other side effects of coffee and some of those studies were incorrect as the methodology changed .

It is not any different than any other type of studying/researching, do we only look for substantiating the past understanding or gaining new understanding?

Excessive consumption of drink or food will/can lead to unhappy results!!

[Gerr]

I just saw this this morning:

Coffee: There’s hot debate brewing about the health effects of coffee, since it lifts risk for some cancers and cuts risk for others. A 1991 IARC report linked drinking coffee to increased risk for bladder cancer, while a study released in May found that men who consumed six or more cups daily were 60 percent less likely to develop fatal prostate cancer. Quaffing two or more cups a day raises lung cancer risk by 14 percent, according to a 2010 review.

Classification: Probable carcinogen

[Bravus]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19362749

Quote:

...an increase in coffee consumption of 2 cups/day was associated with a 14% increased risk of developing lung cancer (RR=1.14, 95% CI=1.04-1.26). In stratified analyses, the highest coffee consumption was significantly associated with increased risk of lung cancer in prospective studies, studies conducted in America and Japan, but borderline significantly associated with decreased risk of lung cancer in non-smokers. In addition, decaffeinated coffee drinking was associated with decreased lung cancer risk, although the number of studies on this topic was relative small.

I suspect that what the study is capturing is actually a correlation between smoking and coffee drinking, and it's the smoking that's the risk factor, not the coffee. That would be consistent with the finding that increased coffee means decreased cancer risk for non-smokers. Shane is safe with his decaf, too.

[karl]

Suck it up, boys. Get some red wine, too. And avoid sun exposure. Eat lots of protein and dairy products. And don't worry about eating refined sugar. No research has shown it is bad for you.

Let's see. With what other current "wisdom" can we diss the counsel we've been given?

My father-in-law has lived by the counsels since he was about thirty. He is 92 and still cuts his own firewood. The other day I caught him sledge-hammering solid rock that was impeding his progress in digging a drainage ditch. He moves slower than he used to, but he still moves. My father, on the other hand, died a couple of years ago and had all kinds of problems in the twenty years leading up to his death. Knee replacements, ulcers from arthritis medication. He really enjoyed his sweets.

We'll talk again in about thirty years and see whether you're still big on coffee.

Why not drink herbal tea or Teeccino or some other substitute?

[Igakusei]

Suck it up, boys. Get some red wine, too. And avoid sun exposure. Eat lots of protein and dairy products. And don't worry about eating refined sugar. No research has shown it is bad for you.

Let's see. With what other current "wisdom" can we diss the counsel we've been given?

My father-in-law has lived by the counsels since he was about thirty. He is 92 and still cuts his own firewood. The other day I caught him sledge-hammering solid rock that was impeding his progress in digging a drainage ditch. He moves slower than he used to, but he still moves. My father, on the other hand, died a couple of years ago and had all kinds of problems in the twenty years leading up to his death. Knee replacements, ulcers from arthritis medication. He really enjoyed his sweets.

We'll talk again in about thirty years and see whether you're still big on coffee.

Why not drink herbal tea or Teeccino or some other substitute?

Not that I'm going to defend an unhealthy lifestyle over a healthy one, but the plural of anecdote is anecdotes.

[fccool]

I'd like to note that there are plenty of 92 year olds that don't live by this coucil, and do drink coffee, and did smoke pipes. There's more to health than simply avoiding a couple "unhealthy" thinks.

A person who smokes, drink coffee and exercises is much better off than person who does neither.

[karl]

??? Why even bother writing what you just wrote, Igakusei?

[karl]

What are you pushing, fccool?

[Tom Wetmore]

Your buttons apparently...

[Igakusei]

And they're so easy to push!

I wrote what I wrote, karl, because you can't simply throw a few anecdotes together, observe a trend, and draw conclusions. I had a great uncle that smoked and drank himself to a healthy 94, and a vegetarian grandmother who died without warning at 45. Anecdotes are completely meaningless; they're the absolute worst form of data.

Here's a good start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology

[karl]

Go for it. Really, if you want to, go ahead guys, suck up all the chemicals and stimulants and whatever you want. Research says it's good for you, and, as you know, science is the ultimate, so get the expresso machine and get to crankin'.

[fccool]

What are you pushing, fccool?

I'm pushing reason here, instead of isolating single "evils" as the cause of all disease and health problems and then calling it sin.

There's a whole complex of things that goes into what we call healthy lifestyle. If most of that complex is ok, then things such as coffee and wine will least likely be of significant detrimental effect.

There are really several more important things for longevity:

1) Amount of stress

2) Non-stagnant lifestyle (excercise)

3) Enough Sleep

4) Proper diet (does not have to be vegetarian)

Singling out coffee and alcohol as the ultimate problems for health in such context is somewhat shallow.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Genetics play a big part, as well, for longevity. Hereditary factors also affect a person's reactions to various "chemical"/medications. Some people aren't affected by caffeine at all. My grandmother wasn't, my mom and her 7 siblings weren't, and neither am I. Some chemicals give some people paradoxical reactions. Go figure..

[Bravus]

Also, sarcasm doesn't trump evidence.

[Dr. Shane]

Some people aren't affected by caffeine at all.

I use to be able to go to a recovery group meeting from 8pm-9pm and drink six cups of coffee. After the meeting I would go out with friends and drink a couple of pots before going home and falling asleep like a dead log. Now if I drink a cup of caffeinated coffee after 2pm I'll be tossing and turning at night. Something changed there.

I think it is well accepted that genetics plays a huge factor in longevity. The uncle that lived until 92 smoking and drinking may well have made it to 100 if he had lived a more temperate lifestyle.

I think it is also well accepted that exercise is the silver bullet of a healthy lifestyle. An active 62 year-old smoker has a longer life expectancy than a 62 year-old non-smoker, couch potato. Of course, an active non-smoking 62 year old has a longer life expectancy still.

[ClubV12]

I'm still working on my first jar of Roma, ewwww, nasty stuff. Somebody said try Pero, I sure hope it's better. At this point, I've cut way back on coffee and am going to pull the plug on the coffee machine in,,, uh,,, well any day now. :)

[Gerr]

I suspect that what the study is capturing is actually a correlation between smoking and coffee drinking, and it's the smoking that's the risk factor, not the coffee. That would be consistent with the finding that increased coffee means decreased cancer risk for non-smokers.

My understanding in this kind of studies is that allowances are made and compensated for, for compounders when studying one substance like coffee, but is also affected by another, and in this case by tobacco. The figure that comes out in the end then is suppose to be what the substance being studied, and in this case coffee, is supposed to contribute.

[Igakusei]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

I suspect that what the study is capturing is actually a correlation between smoking and coffee drinking, and it's the smoking that's the risk factor, not the coffee. That would be consistent with the finding that increased coffee means decreased cancer risk for non-smokers.

My understanding in this kind of studies is that allowances are made and compensated for, for compounders when studying one substance like coffee, but is also affected by another, and in this case by tobacco. The figure that comes out in the end then is suppose to be what the substance being studied, and in this case coffee, is supposed to contribute.

They certainly try, but many studies are far from perfect.

[Stan]

Here is another study, from a South Africa Newspaper.

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

[CoAspen]

Hey, I can here music w/o coffee!!!!!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

-deleted-