Coffee is good for U

[Bravus]

Not talkin' 'bout whether it's a good thing... Wish I had a less contentious example.

It's not going to help matters if I say that people who share my views tend to be less prone to fudging the facts, is it?

I thought not.

[olger]

"Bravus thinks not." Had a spell of that myself once't.

;

g

[Overaged]

I thought your example did get the point across and that the example used was in good taste...

We could add to this equation those who currently drink coffee, and say they *know* it's no good for us; but for various reasons they still drink it.

If you were to sum it up at this point, what would you say is the major "false information" that people bring forth about Satan Juice? (coffee)

[Bravus]

Two things:

1. The claim that caffiene is 'just as addictive' as nicotine.

No-one's claiming it's not addictive in some sense, largely emotional but with a small physical component, but the notion of equality is simply false.

2. The claim that coffee is unremittingly bad for everyone everywhere and that there's scientific support for that.

The scientific evidence says coffee is good for some people in some circumstances, bad for otehr people in others, has benefits, has harmful effects. The evidence is mixed... the claim I'm objecting to is that it isn't.

[Overaged]

If someone is interested enough, the article is available online for 30 bucks or so. That would be much better than circumstantial evidence and guilt by association.

I am trying to review your evidence and references within this thread for what you are saying here in this thread. This post was on page two. I will look at the other pages as I have time. But so far; I am wondering what your evidence is that would say; "coffee is NOT more addictive than nicotine, and also, what are your major references for saying that coffee actually is *good* for us?

Correct me if I am wrong; but most of what coffee supporters quote as evidential studies in favor of, usually say along the lines "may prevent...." The word "may" seems to be emphasized in most such studies, meaning that it is not established fact yet. It is still being investigated.

Can you enlighten me more on this question?

[Bravus]

On the addictiveness thing, check out this page, which has a couple of different scales and some information: http://www.tfy.drugsense.org/tfy/addictvn.htm

On the tables at the bottom of the page, nicotine comes out as more addictive than caffiene on almost every scale, often by a significant margin (smaller numbers mean more addictive). There are other studies showing the same thing.

On the cautiousness of scientists' language about coffee: scientists use careful language about everything. It's part of the way science is done, and particularly medical science. Have a look at reports on something like Vitamin C or some other very positive thing and you'll see the same language.

Did you have a look at the review paper I linked in the last page or two? It gathered evidence from a large number of studies, and definitely described a number of positive effects of coffee. The one that opened the thread showed a dramatic decrease in prostate cancer on the part of coffee drinkers.

[Overaged]

On the addictiveness thing, check out this page, which has a couple of different scales and some information: http://www.tfy.drugsense.org/tfy/addictvn.htm

On the tables at the bottom of the page, nicotine comes out as more addictive than caffiene on almost every scale, often by a significant margin (smaller numbers mean more addictive). There are other studies showing the same thing.

On the cautiousness of scientists' language about coffee: scientists use careful language about everything. It's part of the way science is done, and particularly medical science. Have a look at reports on something like Vitamin C or some other very positive thing and you'll see the same language.

Did you have a look at the review paper I linked in the last page or two? It gathered evidence from a large number of studies, and definitely described a number of positive effects of coffee. The one that opened the thread showed a dramatic decrease in prostate cancer on the part of coffee drinkers.

OK thanks. I will check this out. One of the reasons I am asking is that in my nursing training (University level) we were taught that coffee actually does the opposite . That coffee causes benign prostatic hypertrophy, which is in many cases a precursor to prostrate cancer.

Many doctors today will tel guys who come in with the symptoms to stop drinking coffee, and in many of those cases, the symptoms will go away.

I agree with you that scientists usually use "careful language;" but I would take it a step further and say that sometimes it is for the purpose of covering up certain other facts. I have, over the years, seen a similar thing happen with other stuff, wine being one example where in one year they say it's no good, and the next year all of a sudden it "prevents heart attacks. The "careful language" of science being used to favor the appearance on the side of those who support wine drinking. The "careful language" in my view and experience is often used to leave out other important facts.

One of the things I will be interested to know from the studies you are referring me to is why do they say coffee "prevents cancer;" meaning prostrate cancer, as you are saying? If it is because of the "anti-oxidant" effects of coffee, then i would definitely say there is plenty of solid evidence to refute this whole thing.

I will wait for the pertinent facts to come out before I say much more. I do know one thing. Six cups of coffee a day would do a lot of harm to a lot of people. Especially those with cardiac issues.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

The "careful language" in my view and experience is often used to leave out other important facts.

The above statement is incorrect as to the fact being stated. It may be an opinion. I spent 7 years in research, involved in, reviewing papers and and doing searches on a daily basis. If it is published in a peer reviewed magazine, the chances of the above are very slim to none. Yes, occasionally people fabricate, get caught, and periodical has to print an apology. That percentage is very,very small in the vast amount of published research.

[Overaged]

Quote:

The "careful language" in my view and experience is often used to leave out other important facts.

The above statement is incorrect as to the fact being stated. It may be an opinion. I spent 7 years in research, involved in, reviewing papers and and doing searches on a daily basis. If it is published in a peer reviewed magazine, the chances of the above are very slim to none. Yes, occasionally people fabricate, get caught, and periodical has to print an apology. That percentage is very,very small in the vast amount of published research.

You obviously missed the point. If you want to defend Satan Juice go ahead.

[CoAspen]

Just defending reality, my comments were about 'research' and assumptions about such, as stated. Each person makes their choices about what they eat or drink. But we ought to stick to facts....not sure what 'satan juice' is, where do you find it!!

[Overaged]

Just defending reality, my comments were about 'research' and assumptions about such, as stated. Each person makes their choices about what they eat or drink. But we ought to stick to facts....not sure what 'satan juice' is, where do you find it!!

Your "research" wasn't about coffee, so the "reality" is not here yet...

[Bravus]

[Overaged]

[Bravus]

[CoAspen]

Santa Juice!!!!

Who is the lovely elf??

[Bravus]

No one I know, just googled for the term...

[Bravus]

(best to have safe search on, though... just sayin')

[CoAspen]

Perhaps this discussion fits into the 'Backfire Effect' category.....

The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.

The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.

Hmmmmm.....

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

prostrate cancer

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Perhaps this discussion fits into the 'Backfire Effect' category.....

The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.

The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.

Hey, I just read that somewhere else...deja vu

[Overaged]

(best to have safe search on, though... just sayin')

Thats true...

LOL, you are funny indeed at times Bravus!

Now...shall we talk about "Satan Clause"

[Overaged]

Just defending reality, my comments were about 'research' and assumptions about such,

[Bravus]

Check yer email, sir.

[Overaged]

Check yer email, sir.

This study is exactly as I predicted above that it would be - the focal point being the anti-oxidant bandwagon that researchers have used for wine and a number of other things.

As the study itself concedes it is way premature to use this study as fact to justify coffee drinking, or increased coffee drinking, as there are too many "confounders" and other unanswered questions.

The study is based on asking questions, as I said it likely was; I don't know how people can seize on one study out of hundreds which state otherwise.

[Tom Wetmore]

Perhaps this discussion fits into the 'Backfire Effect' category.....

The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.

The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.

Hmmmmm.....

Yes, that's what I am

A more potent addiction than to caffeine it is...

I am also thinking that if there was a thoroughly objective scientific study funded by the White Estate that completely accounted for all the variables and effects of coffee drinking proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not harmful it would only serve to confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt that science is not to be trusted.