Coffee is good for U

[Bravus]

1. (from the full paper): "From the data presented here, it is concluded that only heavy consumption (>6 cups/day) of boiled unfiltered coffee is harmful to the heart as a result of the dose-related plasma cholesterol and LDL increase due to the diterpene oils. Although epidemiological studies show that moderate consumption of this coffee appears to confer some cardiovascular benefit. ...moderate filtered coffee consumption, which is the usual pattern of the many of the subjects in the populations studied, is recommended."

2. "This study confirms a striking protective effect of caffeinated coffee against incident diabetes and extends these findings to incident diabetes based on OGTT independent of multiple plausible confounders."

3. "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."

4. "A reliable tool for measurement of caffeine consumption demonstrated that caffeine consumption, particularly from regular coffee, above a threshold of approximately 2 coffee-cup equivalents per day, was associated with less severe hepatic fibrosis."

5. "Long-term coffee consumption was not associated with an increased risk of stroke in women. In contrast, our data suggest that coffee consumption may modestly reduce risk of stroke."

6. "The increase in GCSF is particularly important because long-term treatment with coffee (but not decaffeinated coffee) enhanced working memory in a fashion that was associated only with increased plasma GCSF levels among all cytokines. Since we have previously reported that long-term GCSF treatment enhances cognitive performance in AD mice..."

7. "The combined effect of coffee and mental stress significantly decreased diastolic blood pressure (Delta8 mm Hg) and increased heart rate (Delta6 beats per minute) and mental alertness (Delta67.3%) in caffeine-naive and caffeine-habituated females, whereas systolic blood pressure (Delta10.3 mm Hg) only increased in the caffeine-naive participants."

8. "Our findings do not support the hypothesis that coffee consumption increases the long-term risk of coronary heart disease. Habitual moderate coffee drinking was associated with a lower risk of CHD in women."

9. "In acute studies involving AD mice, one oral caffeine treatment quickly reduced both brain and plasma Abeta levels - similarly rapid alterations in plasma Abeta levels were seen in humans following acute caffeine administration. "Caffeinated" coffee provided to AD mice also quickly decreased plasma Abeta levels, but not "decaffeinated" coffee, suggesting that caffeine is critical to decreasing blood Abeta levels. Caffeine appears to provide its disease-modifying effects through multiple mechanisms, including a direct reduction of Abeta production through suppression of both beta- and gamma-secretase levels. These results indicate a surprising ability of moderate caffeine intake (the human equivalent of 500 mg caffeine or 5 cups of coffee per day) to protect against or treat AD in a mouse model for the disease and a therapeutic potential for caffeine against AD in humans."

10. "Our data support an inverse association between coffee consumption and diabetes and suggest that the time of drinking coffee plays a distinct role in glucose metabolism."

Oh dear. You never actually looked at the evidence I provided, did you?

If you had, you wouldn't have made *two* demonstrably wrong claims about them.

[Tom Wetmore]

I'm not saying it won't make you alert even if you are not a coffee drinker. Of course it will. Even more so! What I AM saying, is that the only people I've ever known who NEEDED coffee to stay alert, are the ones who have to have it in order to function properly. Otherwise it's just not necessary. Period.

I am not suggesting that the only way to stay alert is to drink coffee. I am also not saying that I always drink coffee to stay alert whenever I get on my bike or get behind the wheel. Nor am I suggesting that everyone out on the road should be drinking coffee to stay alert. (Quite frankly, there are too many people out there on the roads that can't be helped that are terminally oblivious to most of what happens around them no matter what...) And I do know people that seldom drink any caffeinated beverage, that do so when driving long distance or late into the night.

The question Overaged asked was whether using coffee had ever saved anyone's life. And the simple fact is that it does serve that purpose, especially for long hauls on the highway driving solo. When you have to, on occasion, drive seemingly endless hours straight by yourself it does indeed help. Personally, I find driving to be a relaxing activity. That means that without much additional activity or stimuli under monotonous highway driving I can get sleepy. A cup of coffee does help. And I don't doubt that other people's driving experience is different, like finding sitting behind the wheel to be more than enough stimulation to keep them in alert and awake.

While not a life saving benefit, staying awake is necessary to get large volumes of heavy reading or other endlessly monotonous work done, as required for, let's say, law students and many lawyers. Try to read a 50 page contract in one sitting with comprehension and a critical eye at the end of a 10 hour day. Or do days of research for writing an appellate brief or a legal opinion that requires you to read hundreds of cases, statutes and regulations on, let's say, tax law.

Now let's talk about doctors being forced to work 24-36 hours straight with no rest...

Yeah, a slow paced life that allowed many breaks and much R&R and lots of physical activity with nothing boring or monotonous to do over long stretches would be just wonderful. But that is not the reality of many people's lives.

[Tom Wetmore]

About half of these studies suggest that for my own personal health profile, coffee drinking is more beneficial than harmful. It is not without it's risks and and side-effects. But that risk/benefit analysis is a necessity for many other aspects of life beyond even health and fitness.

[CoAspen]

The Backfire Effect is literaly exploding off the screen!!

[JawgeFromJawja]

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.

When I started medical practice 41 years ago, caffeine, coffee, and tea largely had a negative press. Beginning at that time, the press attitude started changing, along with the research reports on caffeinated beverages.

The problem with such reports is that individual response is so highly variable and difficult to account for in the behavioral type studies done. However, while there are still occasional negative reports, the majority of them are positive nowadays.

Why don't you do your own NIH Medline study on tea, coffee, and caffeine? For most participants on this forum, this would actually be a fun activity. They try to make it easy for you, with training and tutorials, all free. Here's the site:

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

Abstracts are available for most articles. Full article reproduction may or may not be free, with some being quite pricey.

[Overaged]

The Backfire Effect is literaly exploding off the screen!!

Yes; observational "studies" that do not prove scientifically, cause and effect will cause this backfire effect to appear real to some.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

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.)

Mrs. White was by no means the first to warn against smoking and tobacco. I just love, and totally agree with, the diatribe King James I hurled against smoking:

“Smoking is a custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black, stinking fume thereof nearest resembling the horrible Stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless.”

Not that King James I was a paragon of virtue. He was sexually promiscuous and a glutton.

Jawge

[JawgeFromJawja]

Sorry George, we agree on most things, but 50% of the original caffiene remaining is simply not true. 1-2% is the usual figure.

By George! You are absolutely right! Facts grow fuzzy over the years.

Jawge

[JawgeFromJawja]

I'm not saying it won't make you alert even if you are not a coffee drinker. Of course it will. Even more so! What I AM saying, is that the only people I've ever known who NEEDED coffee to stay alert, are the ones who have to have it in order to function properly. Otherwise it's just not necessary. Period.

Mercy. Fruit juice is just not necessary. Period.

Seriously, and this is QUITE serious, in my practice I saw two generations of kids made overweight or fat because of MISUSE of fruit juice and "fruit drink", which is a whole other subject.

Misuse of coffee can cause problems. Misuse of fruit juice, all too widely considered a health drink, does cause problems.

My usual advice is to eat whole fruit, the way God made it, and to drink water, tomato juice, V8 juice, and unsweetened tea for a meal beverage. But not artificially sweetened tea. Don't even go there. Insects won't touch the stuff.

Jawge.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Here is a scientific test I have personally carried out.

1. Give up caffeine for several years.

2. Drink a cup of tea or coffee.

3. Observe in a very short period the following effects:

i) The room starts to spin.

ii) The heart is stimulated to a very rapid rate.

iii) A headache ensues afterwards.

My scientific conclusion.

Drinking caffeine causes physical pain.

Drinking caffeine is bad because it causes physical pain.

Caffeine = pain.

Therefore Caffeine is not good for you.

Its a bit like arguing that hitting your head against a brick wall is good for you...

Your conclusions are very valid - FOR YOU. Not everybody. Caffeine is commonly added to over the counter pain nostrums, and it very effectively enhances the pain relief of these preparations.

Caffeine is extremely useful in treating migraine headaches.

It is a key ingredient in the preparation "Excedrin Migraine", which if taken early in migraines works 80% of the time.

Not that I necessarily endorse that brand. There are numerous generic copycat formulations.

Some information below is from an alternative medicine site, but conventional medicine also agrees with this:

The Influence of Caffeine on Pain : http://www.townsendletter.com/Jan2005/nutinflu0105.htm

"The primary application of caffeine supplementation in pain control has been as an analgesic adjuvant when combined with certain analgesic drugs. This practice is supported by a number of double-blind studies. One of these studies found the potentiating action of caffeine on acetaminophen-induced pain relief to be similar to that experienced when an analgesic with a peripheral action (such as acetaminophen) is combined with another with a central action, in this case dextroproxyphen. By combining the peripherally-acting analgesic with caffeine instead of a centrally-acting analgesic, the side effects of central analgesics (such as drowsiness, constipation and nausea) can be avoided.1

References

1. Kuntz D, Brossel R. [Analgesic effect and clinical tolerability of the combination of paracetamol 500 mg and caffeine 50 mg versus paracetamol 400 mg and dextropropoxyphene 30 mg in back pain.] Presse Med 25(25):1171–4, 1996 (in French)

(Paracetamol is British English for generic Tylenol, acetaminophen.)"

"Migraines, Headaches, and Caffeine (from WebMD)

Caffeine can be both beneficial and harmful for a headache sufferer. It can serve as a treatment or, in some cases, can cause withdrawal or rebound headaches.

How Does Caffeine Treat Headaches?

Caffeine is a common ingredient in many prescription and over-the-counter headache medications (see list below). Caffeine additives make pain relievers 40% more effective in treating headaches. Caffeine also helps the body absorb headache drugs more quickly, bringing faster relief. By adding caffeine and, in turn, taking less medication, you can reduce the risk for potential side effects and possible drug addiction."

Jawge

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

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.

With true science, you hardly ever see definite statements. When you see definite statements, they are suspect of not being real science. Furthermore, all, with no exceptions, scientifically arrived at conclusions ("theories, laws") are tentative conclusions.

For many, this reality of science is very uncomfortable. Actually, it is totally honest.

Jawge

[CoAspen]

And there in lies the issue, for those that choose not to believe in science, they think that is their way out of accepting results that are disagreeable to them...oh well, life goes on!

[Doug]

Everything in moderation...except pure poison.

[Bravus]

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

The Backfire Effect is literaly exploding off the screen!!

Yes; observational "studies" that do not prove scientifically, cause and effect will cause this backfire effect to appear real to some.

{whisper}When a claim you make has been clearly and exhaustively shown, using evidence, to be wrong, ideally you would own up to that and say "I was mistaken". But the absolute *minImum* response you can make, if you want to keep any credibility at all, is to *stop making that claim as though it were true*.{/whisper}

[Overaged]

Bravus; I didn't know I had any "credibility" to "maintain" even before I began participation in this discussion. But, if any of us who are serious about this are in it for "credibility" then I have to risk a bit of repetition here and say "That's hardly scientific."

You would make poison a health food. I don't see how you can call that "science." The things you say and/or insinuate about these $30.00 and up BIG BUSINESS CITATIONS, actually makes you lose credibility as a scientist. I atleast don't claim to be one; but I do recognize quackery when I see it. Maybe someday soon we will see your name on quack.com along with Mercola.

[Bravus]

I think we're done here.

We can shake hands and walk away friends (who disagree).

[Overaged]

I think we're done here.

We can shake hands and walk away friends (who disagree).

I'll shake hands and be friends gladly! LOL; but we are not done.LOL. I am just too short on time for a bit

[Guest]

Misuse of coffee can cause problems. Misuse of fruit juice, all too widely considered a health drink, does cause problems.

I know everybody doesn't have an addictive personality like me, but I cannot use coffee without becoming addicted to it. If I drink coffee today to start my day, then tomorrow about the same time, my body will be calling for more coffee. And so it goes. Before long I will be buying Starbucks French Roast whole beans, and grinding my own, and taking it to work in a giant thermos so that I can drink the strong stuff for at least half a day. It's progressive. I know because I've been there.

On the other hand, I can drink fruit juice anytime day or night, and it will never call for more fruit juice. Simply because fruit juice is not a narcotic.

[greentree]

what,is coffee against SDA beliefs?

[Gordon1]

On the other hand, I can drink fruit juice anytime day or night, and it will never call for more fruit juice. Simply because fruit juice is not a narcotic.

Thanks Richard for your java testimony. Fruit juices can be quite addictive, most likely because of their concentrated sugars. Even a complete, healthful food can be eaten to excess. This could apply to apples, oranges, grapes, watermelon, etc.

If we desire a clear mind, we'll need to be temperate in all things. Moderation with real food, abstention from the rest.

Coffee and alcohol both seem to have a debalancing effect upon people I know.

[olger]

Everything in moderation...except pure poison.

I offered an "All things in moderation" liberal champion a small glass of polymeric diisocyanate in my shop once. His belief system failed him that day.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: RLH

On the other hand, I can drink fruit juice anytime day or night, and it will never call for more fruit juice. Simply because fruit juice is not a narcotic.

Thanks Richard for your java testimony. Fruit juices can be quite addictive, most likely because of their concentrated sugars. Even a complete, healthful food can be eaten to excess. This could apply to apples, oranges, grapes, watermelon, etc.

If we desire a clear mind, we'll need to be temperate in all things. Moderation with real food, abstention from the rest.

Coffee and alcohol both seem to have a debalancing effect upon people I know.

Yes, quite true. And for those anti-science folk out there, scientific studies have demonstrated that consumption of sugar produces a craving for more. I know that to be true in my own experience. Eating protein slows that craving down.

[fccool]

I offered an "All things in moderation" liberal champion a small glass of polymeric diisocyanate in my shop once. His belief system failed him that day.

I wonder if a starving to death kosher foods conservative champion would stand the same straw-man challenge when offered certain unclean foods to survive?

[Bravus]

'Moderation in all things - except for poison' *sounds* like a useful guideline, and yet in the current discussion it's really not, since what counts as 'poison' is what is under dispute.

[Overaged]

quote=Doug]Everything in moderation...except pure poison./quote]

I offered an "All things in moderation" liberal champion a small glass of polymeric diisocyanate in my shop once. His belief system failed him that day.

Did you have a drink too?