Coffee is good for U

[John317]

As far as coffee goes, I'll accept the counsel of Ellen White over the scientific studies.

Science has always lagged behind the Bible and God's revelations. How many years did it take science to catch up to the EGW counsel that smoking causes cancer? Or that eating animal flesh can cut short people's lives?

I used to drink coffee almost every night at my work for close to 21 years. I also drank about a liter of diet pepsi every day from about 1979 to about four months ago. I now believe both those things came close to killing me. It certainly did not help me. Yesterday my doctor as well as a nurse at the VA hospital I go to asked me if I drink anything with caffeine, and for the first time I was able to tell them that I don't.(They also asked if I smoke or drink alcohol, but I stopped smoking about 15 years ago and stopped drinking 6 years ago.)

It was not easy for me to stop drinking those things. But I came to the point where I knew that if I didn't, I would continue to have problems with severe pain in my feet and discomfort in my thighs. Since I stopped drinking those things, I've noticed a great improvement in my health.

None of these things would have happened if I had been practicing "health reform" instead of ignoring Ellen White's counsels on health. I believe I can get back to complete health eventually, but I have learned how important it is to eat right and to practice the other laws of health. Our bodies can only take abuse for so long.

While at my work, a fellow worker told me that her dad died because of drinking too much diet pepsi and other sodas and coffee, but I didn't believe her. I should have stopped then, but I frankly was addicted to it, although at the time I didn't think I was. What do I drink now? Mostly just a lot of good, pure water.

I'm feeling better now than I have felt in over three years, when I found out I have diabetes.

[Bravus]

Quote:

As far as coffee goes, I'll accept the counsel of Ellen White over the scientific studies.

And *there* is an honest and true statement that I respect. The rest of your testimony, too.

[phkrause]

The problem with research on caffeine is, as far back as I can recall, every few years it changes. One year its OK, three years down the road its not OK, three years later its OK again, and back and forth it goes. And that goes for other things too. I do agree that its probably not as addictive as nicotine, but it definitely has its strangle hold on many. For the few benefits that coffee/caffeine have there are more non-benefits. Besides all the good things can be gotten from other sources, like fruits and vegetables that have no bad benefits. I'm not gonna tell anyone that they shouldn't drink coffee or any other caffeine related drink, that's each individuals choice. We all know whats good and what's not.

I also thought that I was not affected by caffeine, but a number of years ago I stop drinking my favorite drink, Coke. What happen was, we used to go out to eat with a group of people one night of the week, and I'd order at least 2 cokes. Well after I stop drinking the soda I was getting a headache every time on that day for about three weeks, after that it stopped. Those were the only times I drank coke with caffeine, I had already started drinking non-caffeine coke years before on a challenge from my wife that I couldn't do it.

[Overaged]

Meh, one more stick to beat me with around here, but yeah, in my mis-spent youth I did try marijuana. Haven't touched it for decades, though. The reason I never touched heroin was that I knew it was addictive. Same for cigarettes, except for the more or less compulsory one I tried as a young teen.

But anecdotal evidence is not the only kind of evidence. I don't need to try heroin to know heroin is addictive. Lots of other people have done the tragic 'experiment', in addition to well understood chemical pathways and changes that explain why it is addictive.

[Guest]

The problem with research on caffeine is, as far back as I can recall, every few years it changes. One year its OK, three years down the road its not OK, three years later its OK again, and back and forth it goes.

It all just depends on who's paying to have the study done. That's it. If the coffee industry is paying for it, then you better believe coffee is going to be good for you. If the postum people are paying for it, then you've probably only got 5 years to live if you keep drinking coffee. And so it goes.

[Gail]

Meh, one more stick to beat me with around here, but yeah, in my mis-spent youth I did try marijuana. Haven't touched it for decades, though. The reason I never touched heroin was that I knew it was addictive. Same for cigarettes, except for the more or less compulsory one I tried as a young teen.

But anecdotal evidence is not the only kind of evidence. I don't need to try heroin to know heroin is addictive. Lots of other people have done the tragic 'experiment', in addition to well understood chemical pathways and changes that explain why it is addictive.

Similarly, there is a heap of good quality scientific research and evidence that caffiene is nowhere near as addictive as nicotine.

I won't beat you up for that. I used a lot of pot in my youth. It was commonplace and I preferred it over drinking, which I did too often, too. Reason? Boredom, mainly. I think that if someone would have introduced me to a cause or research I would have had a different focus.

Like you I avoided heavier drugs that were known to be highly addictive. In the 70s heroin didn't have the popularity that it did in before or later years.

When I got pregnant I gave it all up and gave myself to Jesus. But I remember the headspace that led to the drug use. Never forgot that and I hope to be able to reach someone else who is there now.

[Overaged]

Bravus; no intentions to argue and carry on here - hopefully I do not come across like that. I have known people severely addicted to over-the counter meds, as well as pot and "hard drugs." I was one of those people; and then during some of my nursing years I looked after adults with drug problems.

At my worst; I shot whatever I could find into my veins; and yet, various pills were also used. Just didn't seem to be much difference in the addiction intensity between most drugs, and I include cigarettes in that. If you are addicted to something; you are addicted. perhaps, the reason heroin and such are called "hard drugs" is because the withdrawal symptoms can be life-threatening, but so can many drugs that the Doctor prescribes for us. So this whole thing can be made something it's not by saying one drug is *more* addictive than another. What is meant by "more?"

If you have ever worked in the alleys and slums of a large city, it would be hard to believe, for example, that alcohol addiction is not as bad as say crack or heroin addiction.

Perhaps, my ideas on this do not fit in with the "norm" on this subject - yet when I see the dismal progress the world, in general has made with preventing and treating drug addictions; I can't help but think I am on to something.

[Bravus]

The issue of 'who funds the study' was addressed earlier in this thread. Turned out the 'coffee industry' had zip to do with the positive study that started the thread.

[Overaged]

The issue of 'who funds the study' was addressed earlier in this thread. Turned out the 'coffee industry' had zip to do with the positive study that started the thread.

Well; I have come to view it as this: "Whatever one wants to find a study for, they will find it." So I guess the watchword for any study referenced would be context, context, and context.

[Gail]

Myself, I don't like anything with an addictive nature to it. I have been using coffee to treat the numerous migraines that I now suffer, as it is just as much or more effective than pain killers. Cannot take codeine, and there is a chance that migraine medications will interact with other, more needful meds that I am on.

So- I may have to look at the more carefully down the road. I'm so hoping that this hormonal migraine thingy will end once I get through menopause.

[CoAspen]

After my first post and went and layed down on the floor with my two gdaughters in front of the the TV and watched a Sunday morning cartoon movie of 'Gofie' with them!!! Doesn't get any better than that....then had my coffee!!

[John317]

Quote:

As far as coffee goes, I'll accept the counsel of Ellen White over the scientific studies.

And *there* is an honest and true statement that I respect. The rest of your testimony, too.

It's not that I don't believe in science or understand its great value, but I believe it has limitations. It may tell us that wine or coffee are good for us in certain respects, but we know that science doesn't always give us all the facts that we may need to know.

[John317]

The problem with research on caffeine is, as far back as I can recall, every few years it changes. One year its OK, three years down the road its not OK, three years later its OK again, and back and forth it goes. And that goes for other things too.

An important point here. I was going to say something like this, but you said it best.

[Bravus]

Here's a recent review article: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a742127085

The story, as always, is more complicated than simply 'coffee good' or 'coffee bad'. Coffee helps with some things and harms others. A decision about its use would involve all of a person's other risk factors like diet, exercise, heredity and so on.

I completely respect John317's choice not to use it, and his reasons for that choice. I agree that SOP evidence can complement 9or supplant) scientific evidence in making decisions.

I really have only one point to make in this thread: and that point is *not* defending coffee.

It is that if we are going to talk about science we need to tell the truth about it.

By all means say 'I am not going with the science on this' or 'I am going to select which science I give more emphasis to' or a variety of other things.

Just don't claim that the science says X when it really says Y.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

The issue of 'who funds the study' was addressed earlier in this thread. Turned out the 'coffee industry' had zip to do with the positive study that started the thread.

Well; I have come to view it as this: "Whatever one wants to find a study for, they will find it." So I guess the watchword for any study referenced would be context, context, and context.

Also, could it be possible that the people having the study done could funnel the money through some other channel just for this reason, so that nobody could say "look who payed for it? You know, like polititians do all the time. I mean if a politician can figure out what needs to be done, then maybe an industry as big as the Coffee industry could too.

Just thinking here...

[Bravus]

Reposted:

Quote:

Funding

National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (P01 CA055075, CA133891); National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health Training Grant (T32 CA09001 to KMW, JLK, JRS); American Institute for Cancer Research (to JLK); Prostate Cancer Foundation (to LAM).

Notes

The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the article.

[Overaged]

I am just curious Bravus. When you say "coffee" are you referring to "caffeine" or to the whole drink? LOL; I know that seems like a dumb question, but the reason I ask is because in my pharmacology courses from the past; I learned that caffeine is actually used in a number of different medications, to enhance their effects. So, it may be wrong to say "coffee" is good for us, as opposed to "caffeine" can be, or is good for us. What think ye?

[Bravus]

Yeah, it's a good point. It's also relevant because of the existence of decaf: if the 'good stuff' is something other than caffiene and the 'bad stuff' is caffiene, there's a solution.

I think it's complex, and was just reading this morning that apparently there's another, as yet unidentified, stimulant in coffee other than caffiene.

As I think I mentioned earlier, there are some oils in coffee that can increase cholesterol, but using a paper filter in a percolator rather than espresso methods gets rid of those.

Perhaps moderation and abstinence are good policies both - certainly excess in anything (don't get me started on Red Bull and its ilk) is unhealthy.

[Overaged]

Yeah, it's a good point. It's also relevant because of the existence of decaf: if the 'good stuff' is something other than caffiene and the 'bad stuff' is caffiene, there's a solution.

I think it's complex, and was just reading this morning that apparently there's another, as yet unidentified, stimulant in coffee other than caffiene.

As I think I mentioned earlier, there are some oils in coffee that can increase cholesterol, but using a paper filter in a percolator rather than espresso methods gets rid of those.

Perhaps moderation and abstinence are good policies both - certainly excess in anything (don't get me started on Red Bull and its ilk) is unhealthy.

Well; to be sure, moderation would be key here. That would not in and of itself make *coffee* good for us, but it would minimize harm done to us.

The reason I asked my question re "coffee" and "caffeine" is because I have been reading some studies about all the other chemicals and drugs added to or found in *coffee."

[Stan]

:)

[Overaged]

LOL; A picture is indeed worth a thousand words!!!

[olger]

The issue of 'who funds the study' was addressed earlier in this thread. Turned out the 'coffee industry' had zip to do with the positive study that started the thread.

Ok. Let me isolate another possible subjective element in this discussion. Do you currently drink and like coffee, David? Not attacking or exposing you but the question begs. If not, then you are certainly a fuller candidate for objectivity.

[olger]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

The problem with research on caffeine is, as far back as I can recall, every few years it changes. One year its OK, three years down the road its not OK, three years later its OK again, and back and forth it goes. And that goes for other things too.

An important point here. I was going to say something like this, but you said it best.

Very germaine point, PK.

g

[Bravus]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

The issue of 'who funds the study' was addressed earlier in this thread. Turned out the 'coffee industry' had zip to do with the positive study that started the thread.

Ok. Let me isolate another possible subjective element in this discussion. Do you currently drink and like coffee, David? Not attacking or exposing you but the question begs. If not, then you are certainly a fuller candidate for objectivity.

Yeah, I do, and have been open about that.

I like to think, though, that if someone was spreading false 'facts' about something I had no interest in, or even actively disliked, I would be just as zealous for the truth.

I'm not gay, never have been gay, have zero interest in being gay... but I do challenge false claims about homosexuals and homosexuality. (There are matters of opinion, of course, as well: I'm talking about matters of fact.)

Hopefully that at least partly establishes my bona fides as one who is mainly interested in the truth, rather than in justifying his own interests.

[olger]

Gay used to be a good thing. Now, not so much..

g