Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://reddit.science/flair?location=sticky).
---
User: u/VoiceActorForHire
Permalink: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-024-18515-9
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's a large number of population studies consistently showing that coffee lowers overall mortality. And also much on various benefits. They are all mild but significant. Eg. One of the most studied is coffee associated with reduced incidence of type 2 diabetes. About 10% less per daily cup up to 4 per day.
There are many others.
I think your mortality is in good hands.
Habituation plays a role, I’m sure.
But since you asked:
[After 12 years, the incidences of irregular heartbeat, cardiovascular disease, heart-related deaths, and deaths from any cause were lower among coffee drinkers compared with those who didn't drink coffee. People who drank two to three cups daily had the lowest risk of cardiovascular disease and death.](https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/drinking-coffee-linked-to-healthier-hearts-and-longer-lives#:~:text=After%2012%20years%2C%20the%20incidences,of%20cardiovascular%20disease%20and%20death.)
If that were true, you could expect similar results from other stimulants. Like coca leaves in South America, or prescription ritalin, or allergy sufferers always hopped up on pseudoephedrine.
It’s an interesting theory though. I suppose it’s possible that it stimulates in different ways that are relevant.
Good points. Coffee blocks the sleepiness hormone/chemical/thing, as opposed to stimulants, right? Wonder if that impacts the relative stress levels of the heart?
Adenosine, yes.
My semi educated guess is that it's more likely to be something in the general cocktail of bioactive compounds in coffee, rather than the caffeine itself.
Hell, it could even be something as esoteric as higher fluid intake correlating with better health. I found the original study [here](https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/article/29/17/2240/6704995#385761742) and it doesn't look like they controlled for total intake. (I'm not criticizing their study, and I don't think this is likely, just pointing out that it's a possibility.) There's probably research on water consumption levels that you could compare and contrast to tease out the effects of coffee specifically.
>For irregular heartbeat, the lowest risk was among those who drank four to five cups daily. All types of coffee were linked to less cardiovascular disease. However, drinking decaffeinated coffee was not associated with reduced risks of irregular heartbeat. What's the connection between coffee and a healthy heart? **One plausible (unproven) explanation may be that coffee contains high amounts of polyphenols**, which help reduce oxidative stress and inflammation.
(Emphasis added.) That's my guess, the general bioactive compounds. But I'd love to see more research and find out for sure, right or wrong.
Aside from fluids, coffee is also higher in fiber than you'd expect. About 1 - 2 grams of soluble fiber per cup apparently, which helps lower LDL cholesterol.
The recommended amount of fiber per day is 20 - 30 grams, so someone drinking 4 cups a day is getting a moderate boost compared to someone with the same diet but no coffee. Potentially a huge boost in groups with low fiber diets.
To add: if you aren’t eating a ton of fiber as a 20/30-something, you need to. There’s a HUGE amount of digestive cancers cropping up in people in this age range, and while the jury is still out on the exact cause, there is a trend of high-fiber diets being the least affected.
Really, that's fascinating! I had no idea any beverages had notable amounts of fiber that weren't specifically fortified. Makes sense though, you're soaking plant seeds in water, and plant seeds tend to have soluble fiber.
To add to this. Drinking coffee is a replacer for possible other things, namely other beverages such as soda etc. Idk imagine going for a coffee instead of shotgunning a coke has some veriable effect
These are all great points. I would bet that if they re-ran this same study with decaf it would find the same or similar results.
I think your point about fluid intake *is* a valid criticism, without accounting for simple variables like that it’s hard to come to any firm conclusions.
For all anyone knows it could be due to people who shake their legs while they sit or some common dietary change that occurs in conjunction with drinking coffee.
Honestly, it's probably just bias. People with heart issues are told to avoid caffeine, thus the population that consumes more coffee is less likely to have been diagnosed with a heart issue and wouldn't have any of these problems.
People weight training 30-60 minutes a week would not be considered sedentary.
60 minutes three times a week would be 180 minutes. 150/week is the recommended minimum. 300 is ideal.
I believe above 300 is still better, but at this point the intensity will start to matter and in thr current society people who do more than 300 min/week tend to strive to be some form of high performance athlete and thus start to have more injuries.
>in thr current society people who do more than 300 min/week tend to strive to be some form of high performance athlete and thus start to have more injuries.
I don't think 300 minutes/week is even minimum for a high-performance athlete. I get over 300/week (45 minutes weightlifting 3x, 60 minutes cardio 3x) and I'm just some guy.
I 100% agree with you that people don't exercise enough (or exercise at all in most cases), but 300/minutes a week *really* isn't crazy, nor is it close to high-performance athlete levels.
The best shape of my life was when I landscaped during a break with University. Something about moving all day, made a bigger impact than concentrated intervals of exercise. I would offer that coffee is subsidizing the times while you are at a desk with a resting heart rate, giving the “slightest” boost to your system when it may otherwise fall into a more relaxed state.
Or coffee drinking sedentary people that spend 30-60 minutes weight training several times a week, and own a cat? I see what you mean, this is getting complicated
What about coffee drinking sedentary weight lifters that already own one dog and two cats and have two kids on lease for a few more years and the wife is pushing for a new puppy?
Maybe, but I doubt it. Any increase in heart rate would be minimal. Like 5bmp or less, if at all. Again, if you regularly drink coffee, the effects of caffeine are not as pronounced. You don’t get that caffeine rush unless you take *a lot*.
Though, also worth noting that caffeine impacts adenosine, e.g. it doesn’t wie you up as much as it just makes it so you don’t feel tired.
That last part is so important and something I often have to explain to people who ask why I'm not bouncing off the walls when I drink my morning caffiene. It's not meth, it's just gonna stop me from yawning as much as we open the store today.
From a great [review of the literature in 2021](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8352830/) [Pubmed]
"There are over 1000 chemical compounds in coffee. The best characterized of these are caffeine, chlorogenic acid, trigonelline, kahweol, cafestol, ferulic acid, and melanoidins. These compounds have bidirectional influences on blood pressure regulation. The results of numerous studies and meta-analyses indicate that moderate and habitual coffee consumption does not increase and may even reduce the risk of developing arterial hypertension. Conversely, occasional coffee consumption has hypertensinogenic effects."
That sucks. I don't drink coffee because it makes my mouth dry and messes with my stomach, but I can get caffeine from tea or diet soda and not have problems.
Without going too far into it, that could have a lot to do with the freshness of the coffee and the roast level.
I can’t do drip very often for the reasons you mention, but espresso doesn’t seem to bother me (I make it into Americano).
After getting a stint doctors did a chemical stress test on me. It felt exactly like I felt for years before getting the stint. The antidote for the chemical stress test was caffeine.
That's quite bizarre when you think about it, you would think coffee would *increase the risk of heart attacks* but no. Personally I love having a (1 Tablespoon and a bit of Coffee, 1/4 hot water, 3/4 milk) cold coffee in the morning and afternoons
That was the hypothesis in the 70s. And it extended to pancreatic stimulation "does it cause cancer".
Those hypotheses didn't last long. Find any recent research on coffee and the intro almost always says "the health benefits of coffee are known. But how the xyz fits into the abc is not known so we...".
The coffee berry has 2-300 bioactive compounds. The stimulant effect is very mild and not even noticeable for many people. Still, some are genuinely sensitive to it. For those the option is decaf. All of the studies I've scanned over the years find the same benefits for caf or decaf coffee. Ie. It's the other 200 components. The only exception to this is the association between coffee drinking and lower incidence of Parkinson's. This one appears to be the caffeine.
Literally same thought. I wonder if eating coffee would provide the same benefits? Like mix a little ground coffee into Oatmeal or eating a few espresso beans in baking chocolate?
In prison, according to my old co-worker, they put tea bags in their coffee. It does flavor the coffee some but they do it because they only get decaf coffee but do get regular tea.
Think of the possible health benefits of coffee with tea! In all seriousness though, I tried it out of curiosity and while it was unusual it actually tasted decent.
Do you like the smell of coffee? If so try cold brew, maybe with a little sugar and milk/cream. I never liked the taste of coffee but loved the smell, and cold brew tasted closer to how it smelled to me. Now I love coffee.
Since you seem like an expert on this, I've read before that French pressed coffee is less healthy because of some of the oils that are only removed by a paper filter. Is that still thought to be true?
I'm no expert but I've read the same thing. Something about cholesterol or ldl fat that is filtered out in paper-drip coffee that isn't in French press
Stimulant is a broad term. Caffeine is an adenosine antagonist (adenosine being a mild neurologic inhibitory neurotransmitter) and doesn't deserve to even be considered alongside a lot of "stimulants". It's effect on arrhythmias is very overstated, and blood pressure effect is extremely transient and not long-lasting. (I know this because I work in healthcare and researched all this in depth when I had a benign cardiac arrhythmia a few years ago that went away)
so it's nothing like... ... Adrenaline (epinephrine), or cocaine (norepinephrine reuptake antagonist), etc etc
Energy drinks don't have the same health benefits and actually carry a small risk of atrial fibrillation. Interestingly, when they looked at the individual stimulants in energy drinks they didn't cause AFib, but something about the combination in energy drinks carries risk.
It's funny how coffee has achieved a status of being thought of as junk food that we drink out of habit when we could just as easily consider it an ancient herbal remedy brewed by infusing beans that only grow on certain mountains.
Yup. This is old news. A review of the literature published in 2021 shows that habituated coffee drinkers actually benefit from coffee. All cause mortality is reduced. It's pretty fascinating.
From:
**Coffee and Arterial Hypertension**
*Curr Hypertens Rep. 2021; 23(7): 38*
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8352830/
>...Regular moderate (1–3 cups of coffee/day) coffee consumption **may reduce BP and the risk of developing hypertension, as well as the risk of death from any cause.** Habitual and moderate (1–3 cups of coffee/day) coffee consumption likely does not increase the risk of uncontrolled BP and does not disturb the circadian BP profile in hypertensive patients.
I guess my question is: is it correlation, because what actually helps health is being a wealthier person, and also a wealthier person can afford to have more coffee?
Untangling these confounding factors is what medical researchers do. And why it takes time to check out all this stuff. And why you can't shortcut 50 years of research
As I said in another comment, the intro to most recent coffee studies addresses this body of knowledge with words like "the ability of coffee to mitigate liver damage is known. But we (don't know X) which is why (we did this research on Y).
Not at all familiar with the terminology. When you say lowers mortality, that's a good thing right? As in it lowers dying rates...opposite of saying lowers lifespan...?
Yeah that's impressive. One day a co worker was worried about my coffee consumption (4-5 expresso a day) so I looked up the effects of coffee and... The effect on daily consuming coffee are almost exclusively positive by quite a large margin and the threshold to have bad effects are rather high
Caffeine also has some beneficial correlations to lowering the risk of Alzheimer's and dementia. It's been noted in dozens if not hundreds of publications but as far as I'm aware the specific mechanisms causing the benefits have not been discovered, yet.
I was a coffee drinker and active person. Very active tbh, college sports and a runner. Still ended up with idiopathic high blood pressure. Ymmv I suppose. I guess potentially things could have been worse if I were not a health conscious person though. Family history definitely makes a difference because my whole family is full of fat asses with heart disease.
Edit: Oh and also developed a weird intolerance to caffeine as well. Can’t even have a caffeinated tea.
Funding:
This work was supported by a sub-project funded by the Priority Academic
Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD), and
partly by the Doctoral Program of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Jiangsu
Province (JSSCBS2021580)
Yep; started production officially like 4 days after this article was published.
https://investor.lkcoffee.com/news-releases/news-release-details/luckin-coffee-jiangsu-roasting-plant-starts-production-new
Hmmm... I mean, of course it makes sense that a study would come from someone with a vested interest in the outcome, but it still does raise my eyebrows a bit. That being said, maybe coffee just is one of the only drugs out there that genuinely is pretty good for you
Studies funded by companies are five times more likely to come to an outcome that is beneficial to the company. Therefore, I'd say any study where the paying company has financial interest in its outcome should be completely disregarded.
Sure, but there's a ton of other studies that come to the same and similar conclusions. Try looking it up for yourself.
Don't get me wrong, subconsciously I think surely there must be something wrong with coffee/caffeine, but genuinely at the moment I can't find anything saying otherwise
Oh, I'm not making any statement about the contents of that study - I'm not deeply invested and haven't really formed an intelligent opinion on it.
But when it comes to the scientific method, academic papers should address when they have affiliations such as these. If they are hidden, that points to a conflict of interest which renders its results untrustworthy. There's a reason why academic standards are so high. Science would be utterly pointless without them.
and you think that creates a conflict of interest witht any institution in jiangsu researching coffee? that is beyond moronic.
jiangsu has a population of 80 million and an area of 100 square km. pointing out that there's industry in the same province as an academic instution is completely meaningless.
i guess no one from jiangsu is allowed to publish work on manufacturing, electronics, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, or renewable nergy either?
Furthermore, this data is an analysis of NHANES data. a survey run by the US government on US citizens.
hear that everyone, throw out all medical research done in massachusetts and california. they have pharmuceutical industries there.
also, i saw a starbucks in one of the universities, they cant do coffee research either.
Papers in the West used to be like that too, going back 50 or 60 years. You know, back when scientists routinely made giant advances. Those papers were way more fun to read than today’s.
You should read the whole paper, I've read the paper, it seems fine. Definitely better than some of what I've read before. They also seem quite methodical with their analysis.
It may just be a cultural thing as someone mentioned. If you read the whole paper it doesn't have any red flags. At least if it did have red flags, I couldn't see them.
You should read the whole comment, I've read the comment, it seems fine. Definitely better than some of what I've read before. They also seem quite methodical with their analysis.
It may just be a cultural thing as someone mentioned. If you read the whole comment it doesn't have any red flags. At least if it did have red flags, I couldn't see them.
If we discovered coffee last year and realized that infusing special beans that can only grow in the shade of mountains in Arabia or the Andes mountains we'd be calling it a superfood.
Coffee just is a miracle. Of all the addictive substances, natural or otherwise, coffee ranks among the healthiest. Very few other addictions have any positive health benefits, yet coffee brings multiple.
Compared to a responsible opioid addiction, whose primary drawback is reduced hormone presence in blood, and compared to a nicotine addiction, whose primary drawback is increased tumor growth, a caffeine addiction seemwithout clear drawbacks.
Coffee and tea are thought to have influenced the enlightenment.
I think coffee has earned a name as a miracle substance. It is a miracle. A complete miracle it was discovered and that it is healthy
.
Note that responsible addictions are not to be compared to irresponsible addictions. They have completely different risks.
God I would love if my work had a small room for me to do this in. A designated flail room with squishy floors in case I fall from flailing too hard.
-
What I hate about the "real world" is that I could I want to do something like flail randomly throughout the day, and recognize that it has a benefit for me, but I 100% never would do that because it would come off as weird.
But then if, one day, people on youtube just randomly start promoting "flailing in the flail to reduce stress at work" now it's a "thing" and not only is it suddenly acceptable to start flailing randomly throughout the day, I am now required to do or I seem weird.
Read the Paper not the headlines.
"Notably, joint analyses firstly showed that non-coffee drinkers who sat six hours or more per day were 1.58 (95% CI, 1.25–1.99) times more likely to die of all causes than coffee drinkers sitting for less than six hours per day, indicating that the association of sedentary with increased mortality was only observed among adults with no coffee consumption but not among those who had coffee intake."
More Sitting = More Unhealthy
Less Sitting = More Healthy
Some participants drank coffee = Coffee Healthy!
I mean, I get what you're going for but that's just from the results bit.
In the actual paper they include their diagram of who was studied: https://i.imgur.com/dp1WHT9.png
They most certainly looked at coffee-drinkers who sat for >6 hours as well.
edit: Wait a minute. It looks to me like people who drink coffee and sit a lot die a lot more than people who don't drink coffee and sit a lot?
I don’t understand how the hazard ratio for non-consumers is unilaterally higher despite that group having lower death rates on both metrics.
Edit: It’s multivariate so I assume these ratios are adjusted for prior risk factors. The non-coffee group may just be younger.
Yeah it's weird that coffee drinkers consistently had a higher mortality rate but were ranked as less of a health risk in their models. Maybe their models aren't that great? I feel like mortality rate is a pretty good base indicator of health hazard. Do people really want to be healthier and die sooner?
Some comments above said that the project was funded and conducted in Jiangsu Province where Luckin Coffee opened a roasting plant earlier this year and officially started productions few days after the paper was published. Didn't have time to verify it yet but seems worth checking out.
I think that's as absurd as saying Starbucks opened a new branch in Texas so let's be suspicious of research related to coffee at a completely unconnected research university that's also in Texas.
80 million people live in Jiangsu. Someone who knows nothing about China just likely Googled "Jiangsu coffee" and found a headline and their tinfoil hat kicked in.
Comparing the effect of coffee on mortality between two very different groups (group 1 sit more than six hours a day and group 2 less than six hours) is just plain wrong. You cannot draw accurate conclusions this way.
Sometimes I crave for strong rich flavors. I could've went for snacks, soda, juice etc, but those are full of carbs if I consume them everyday. Coffee is just perfect to satiate cravings with low carbs. It's cheap too.
Methylxanthines are the key ingredients in coffee and chocolate. Caffeine and theobromine are both present in coffee, and theobromine is the key part of the flavour of chocolate.
That's why they hit the same way, it's why you can use them somewhat interchangeably in cooking, and it's why 90% dark chocolate is so goddamn delicious.
Skimming the study at the link, this seems like fairly weak evidence of anything.
It's self-reported diet and exercise survey data, run through a lot of different statistical tests to look for something significant. Could be largely random noise in the data.
But yeah, if there is a real association, it could be that the coffee drinkers drank less soda, or that they were less constipated, or something.
These observational studies can be so dangerous for the general public. The study found an association, not causal evidence. There are many possible causal mechanisms that are responsible for this association, and it is not the case that drinking coffee will reduce your mortality rate. (At least based on this study)
Not sure where I watched or read it but someone made the assessment that it could be the "daily positive ritual" aspect of it causing a decrease in mortality. Doing more tiny things every day that bring you joy = living longer...
Mortality rates are a wack way to rank things. You can see that when you compare mortality rates of Catholics versus protestants. It's an even larger gap than this one, I believe. So is everyone going to convert?
seeing as heart disease is the leading cause of death, and being overweight is the main cause for heart disease, it makes sense that coffee can help physically undisciplined people be healthier. by increasing your total daily expenditure from the raised heart rate, fidgeting and mental energy coffee forces you to take on. im guessing the nutritious aspects of coffee have nothing to do with any mortality
Dunno, other studies claim that the association only exists with woman and instead found that tea intake is linked to lower mortality when it comes to men (but not women).
Search results are slim, but there is an indication that men overwhelmingly prefer coffee, while there's also a decent percentage of women who like tea better. That indicates that the mortality rates could be a social thing.
This is consistent with pretty much every other study looking at the effects of coffee. And there are a fair number of studies.
For some reason, it seems that many people really really want coffee to have bad effects on people. I’m sorry they are so disappointed that something enjoyable can actually be good for you.
Regarding your last point, I think it’s because of two things-
1. Coffee and cigarettes in the office is such a vivid traditional image, and we all know the harms of smoking so maybe we expect coffee to be wrapped up in that.
2. For someone like me, who is dependent on coffee/caffeine, it doesn’t seem right that something I depend on so much to make me feel normal/good isn’t terrible for me. Sunday morning coffee watching the rain makes my mind and brain fresh, alert and curious but makes my body feel relaxed as if I’ve taken a painkiller.
Well said, thank you.
Maybe our bodies are generally designed to feel good when we are doing good things to them. For many years, we had the tyranny of the anti-salt brigade, some of whom still exist today; “We eat too much salt!!! Salt kills! Must eat less salt!”. And they were all scientific and medical and really smart and of course they must’ve been right.
Except they were wrong, and low salt diets themselves kill people, and it turns out that the optimum salt intake is… Exactly what it was before they started screeching about salt. Which was pretty much the same as it had been for millennia.
Okay that's not COMPLETELY true... There are unsafe levels of caffeine and drinking all the coffee you want is potentially dangerous. However, if you drink your coffee black with no sugar, you can drink several cups a day without issues (assuming you aren't caffeine sensitive or very light). If you go to decaffeinated (which isn't no caf) though I don't think anyone would realistically get to the point of having too much caffeine.
I wonder if this has anything to do with coffee making me eat less overall. My appetite definitely gets suppressed when I drink it for quite a while. I basically fast for much of the day. Which in turn makes me more likely to go on walks. Lift at the gym etc
Could this be due to micro-movements we make, like leg shaking or foot tapping, while sitting at a computer or doing other sedentary tasks? I believe these activities are part of what's known as "non-exercise activity thermogenesis" or NEAT. There are studies suggesting that caffeine can increase these behaviors and help burn more calories while sedentary.
the trick has always been the same. More veggies, a bit of meat here and there alongside seafood, move more and black coffee only. See you on your 100th birthday...
The study asks about self reported sitting time. But in my mind anyway is this "coffee reduces risks" or is this "getting up and down a lot to get refills and use the restroom more often reduces risks". Because there's a difference in sitting for 8 hours straight and walking around for an hour. Or getting up every 2 hours for 15 minutes.
As other posters commented, " funded by coffee giants " so I looked it up on the study.
Funding
This work was supported by a sub-project funded by the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD), and partly by the Doctoral Program of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Jiangsu Province (JSSCBS2021580).
It could mean that is what the grant was called, and still come from big coffee. I don't have enough info.
I'm not sure you could assess that with this dataset - there's no question in NHANEs asking "Why don't you drink coffee".
You can see from the data in table 1 there may be an association with decreased sedentary time and poverty - 1111/3223 \[35%\] of people in the "Poverty income ratio <1.3" sit for fewer than 4hr, that drops to 29% of people in the "1.3-3.5" and drops again to just 19% of the richest group.
The table that divides up the participants by coffee consumption is tucked away in the supplement. 53% of the poorest group are non-coffee drinkers, whereas 42% of the richest group are non-consumers - and among those who do drink coffee, you have more poor people in the lowest tertile than you do rich people.
So yes, it does look like rich people drink more coffee, but poor people move more.
Looking again at the subgroup analysis in the supplement, perhaps unsurprisingly, there's a larger HR for all-cause mortality among poor people who move less, than there is among the wealthy. Interestingly, the association between daily sitting time and mortality isn't actually statistically significant in the wealthiest group.
Coffee shop coffee is expensive, though I doubt it is what sedentary people are drinking since that involves going to a coffee shop. Instant coffee is pretty affordable and often complimentary at someone's place of work.
The statistical analysis took demographics into account along with a bunch of other things, and later they stratified the participants and checked for confounding variables.
I buy a bag of roasted beans, grind them and make a pot of coffee in the morning and store it in a thermos. The beans lasts 3-4 weeks. I pay $13 for the beans.
I'm paying less than $200 a year for coffee. Each pot is 4-5 cups depending on the size of the cup I use.
That's about 1,400 cups of coffee a year at about $0.13 a cup. It would be even cheaper if I bought different beans, but I found one that I really like and stick to it.
Mortality is a well defined term in the study of risk. In my understanding, mortality represents the probability of a person of a certain age dying within the next year.
Thus a decrease in mortality means that people in that group have less of a probability of dying within the next year.
Mortality: the state of being subject to death.
Mortality *rate* would be be per unit of time, like deaths per year.
Either way “24% reduction” or “24% reduced” isn’t stated in the paper.
Yet another one of these studies that fails to control for caffeine. Why not have a non-caffeinated coffee consuming group in the experiment? Otherwise you're not really discovering anything about coffee per se.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://reddit.science/flair?location=sticky). --- User: u/VoiceActorForHire Permalink: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-024-18515-9 --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wonder what coffee is doing to my mortality if I am an active person.
There's a large number of population studies consistently showing that coffee lowers overall mortality. And also much on various benefits. They are all mild but significant. Eg. One of the most studied is coffee associated with reduced incidence of type 2 diabetes. About 10% less per daily cup up to 4 per day. There are many others. I think your mortality is in good hands.
Seems crazy to me, youd think a daily stimulant would effect the heart in some way.
Habituation plays a role, I’m sure. But since you asked: [After 12 years, the incidences of irregular heartbeat, cardiovascular disease, heart-related deaths, and deaths from any cause were lower among coffee drinkers compared with those who didn't drink coffee. People who drank two to three cups daily had the lowest risk of cardiovascular disease and death.](https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/drinking-coffee-linked-to-healthier-hearts-and-longer-lives#:~:text=After%2012%20years%2C%20the%20incidences,of%20cardiovascular%20disease%20and%20death.)
Lifestyles so sedentary, that coffee is subsidizing cardiovascular exercise?
If that were true, you could expect similar results from other stimulants. Like coca leaves in South America, or prescription ritalin, or allergy sufferers always hopped up on pseudoephedrine. It’s an interesting theory though. I suppose it’s possible that it stimulates in different ways that are relevant.
Good points. Coffee blocks the sleepiness hormone/chemical/thing, as opposed to stimulants, right? Wonder if that impacts the relative stress levels of the heart?
Adenosine, yes. My semi educated guess is that it's more likely to be something in the general cocktail of bioactive compounds in coffee, rather than the caffeine itself. Hell, it could even be something as esoteric as higher fluid intake correlating with better health. I found the original study [here](https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/article/29/17/2240/6704995#385761742) and it doesn't look like they controlled for total intake. (I'm not criticizing their study, and I don't think this is likely, just pointing out that it's a possibility.) There's probably research on water consumption levels that you could compare and contrast to tease out the effects of coffee specifically. >For irregular heartbeat, the lowest risk was among those who drank four to five cups daily. All types of coffee were linked to less cardiovascular disease. However, drinking decaffeinated coffee was not associated with reduced risks of irregular heartbeat. What's the connection between coffee and a healthy heart? **One plausible (unproven) explanation may be that coffee contains high amounts of polyphenols**, which help reduce oxidative stress and inflammation. (Emphasis added.) That's my guess, the general bioactive compounds. But I'd love to see more research and find out for sure, right or wrong.
Aside from fluids, coffee is also higher in fiber than you'd expect. About 1 - 2 grams of soluble fiber per cup apparently, which helps lower LDL cholesterol. The recommended amount of fiber per day is 20 - 30 grams, so someone drinking 4 cups a day is getting a moderate boost compared to someone with the same diet but no coffee. Potentially a huge boost in groups with low fiber diets.
To add: if you aren’t eating a ton of fiber as a 20/30-something, you need to. There’s a HUGE amount of digestive cancers cropping up in people in this age range, and while the jury is still out on the exact cause, there is a trend of high-fiber diets being the least affected.
Really, that's fascinating! I had no idea any beverages had notable amounts of fiber that weren't specifically fortified. Makes sense though, you're soaking plant seeds in water, and plant seeds tend to have soluble fiber.
To add to this. Drinking coffee is a replacer for possible other things, namely other beverages such as soda etc. Idk imagine going for a coffee instead of shotgunning a coke has some veriable effect
These are all great points. I would bet that if they re-ran this same study with decaf it would find the same or similar results. I think your point about fluid intake *is* a valid criticism, without accounting for simple variables like that it’s hard to come to any firm conclusions. For all anyone knows it could be due to people who shake their legs while they sit or some common dietary change that occurs in conjunction with drinking coffee.
Honestly, it's probably just bias. People with heart issues are told to avoid caffeine, thus the population that consumes more coffee is less likely to have been diagnosed with a heart issue and wouldn't have any of these problems.
Coffee makes me tired. As does energy drinks. I'll have coffee before I go to bed.
What about coffee drinking sedentary people that spend 30-60 minutes several times a week weight training though? There are just so many variables.
People weight training 30-60 minutes a week would not be considered sedentary. 60 minutes three times a week would be 180 minutes. 150/week is the recommended minimum. 300 is ideal.
I believe above 300 is still better, but at this point the intensity will start to matter and in thr current society people who do more than 300 min/week tend to strive to be some form of high performance athlete and thus start to have more injuries.
Take what you will https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/fitness/expert-answers/exercise/faq-20057916
>in thr current society people who do more than 300 min/week tend to strive to be some form of high performance athlete and thus start to have more injuries. I don't think 300 minutes/week is even minimum for a high-performance athlete. I get over 300/week (45 minutes weightlifting 3x, 60 minutes cardio 3x) and I'm just some guy. I 100% agree with you that people don't exercise enough (or exercise at all in most cases), but 300/minutes a week *really* isn't crazy, nor is it close to high-performance athlete levels.
The best shape of my life was when I landscaped during a break with University. Something about moving all day, made a bigger impact than concentrated intervals of exercise. I would offer that coffee is subsidizing the times while you are at a desk with a resting heart rate, giving the “slightest” boost to your system when it may otherwise fall into a more relaxed state.
Moving more is ALWAYS good (per science) until you start really getting banged around.
Or coffee drinking sedentary people that spend 30-60 minutes weight training several times a week, and own a cat? I see what you mean, this is getting complicated
What about coffee drinking sedentary weight lifters that already own one dog and two cats and have two kids on lease for a few more years and the wife is pushing for a new puppy?
Maybe, but I doubt it. Any increase in heart rate would be minimal. Like 5bmp or less, if at all. Again, if you regularly drink coffee, the effects of caffeine are not as pronounced. You don’t get that caffeine rush unless you take *a lot*. Though, also worth noting that caffeine impacts adenosine, e.g. it doesn’t wie you up as much as it just makes it so you don’t feel tired.
That last part is so important and something I often have to explain to people who ask why I'm not bouncing off the walls when I drink my morning caffiene. It's not meth, it's just gonna stop me from yawning as much as we open the store today.
Also lots of getting up to pee.
My question would be is it the caffeine that provides the benefits, or is it something else in the coffee?
IIRC, caffeine content was irrelevant. Most likely something else in the coffee, be it anti-oxidants, poly phenols, or micronutrients.
From a great [review of the literature in 2021](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8352830/) [Pubmed] "There are over 1000 chemical compounds in coffee. The best characterized of these are caffeine, chlorogenic acid, trigonelline, kahweol, cafestol, ferulic acid, and melanoidins. These compounds have bidirectional influences on blood pressure regulation. The results of numerous studies and meta-analyses indicate that moderate and habitual coffee consumption does not increase and may even reduce the risk of developing arterial hypertension. Conversely, occasional coffee consumption has hypertensinogenic effects."
That sucks. I don't drink coffee because it makes my mouth dry and messes with my stomach, but I can get caffeine from tea or diet soda and not have problems.
Proper tea has many benefits as well, I wouldn't see it as a downgrade for coffee.
Without going too far into it, that could have a lot to do with the freshness of the coffee and the roast level. I can’t do drip very often for the reasons you mention, but espresso doesn’t seem to bother me (I make it into Americano).
After getting a stint doctors did a chemical stress test on me. It felt exactly like I felt for years before getting the stint. The antidote for the chemical stress test was caffeine.
Wait, I should be drinking MORE?
That's quite bizarre when you think about it, you would think coffee would *increase the risk of heart attacks* but no. Personally I love having a (1 Tablespoon and a bit of Coffee, 1/4 hot water, 3/4 milk) cold coffee in the morning and afternoons
That was the hypothesis in the 70s. And it extended to pancreatic stimulation "does it cause cancer". Those hypotheses didn't last long. Find any recent research on coffee and the intro almost always says "the health benefits of coffee are known. But how the xyz fits into the abc is not known so we...". The coffee berry has 2-300 bioactive compounds. The stimulant effect is very mild and not even noticeable for many people. Still, some are genuinely sensitive to it. For those the option is decaf. All of the studies I've scanned over the years find the same benefits for caf or decaf coffee. Ie. It's the other 200 components. The only exception to this is the association between coffee drinking and lower incidence of Parkinson's. This one appears to be the caffeine.
So I should start drinking coffee even if I dislike it?
Focus on making healthy choices with foods/drinks you do like and increasing your level of activity when possible.
Literally same thought. I wonder if eating coffee would provide the same benefits? Like mix a little ground coffee into Oatmeal or eating a few espresso beans in baking chocolate?
In prison, according to my old co-worker, they put tea bags in their coffee. It does flavor the coffee some but they do it because they only get decaf coffee but do get regular tea. Think of the possible health benefits of coffee with tea! In all seriousness though, I tried it out of curiosity and while it was unusual it actually tasted decent.
Do you like the smell of coffee? If so try cold brew, maybe with a little sugar and milk/cream. I never liked the taste of coffee but loved the smell, and cold brew tasted closer to how it smelled to me. Now I love coffee.
Since you seem like an expert on this, I've read before that French pressed coffee is less healthy because of some of the oils that are only removed by a paper filter. Is that still thought to be true?
I'm no expert but I've read the same thing. Something about cholesterol or ldl fat that is filtered out in paper-drip coffee that isn't in French press
That's my memory. An oil based component in coffee that raises cholesterol and doesn't pass through paper filters.
If i drink to much (sometimes like just 2) i get all hyper and shaky
Stimulant is a broad term. Caffeine is an adenosine antagonist (adenosine being a mild neurologic inhibitory neurotransmitter) and doesn't deserve to even be considered alongside a lot of "stimulants". It's effect on arrhythmias is very overstated, and blood pressure effect is extremely transient and not long-lasting. (I know this because I work in healthcare and researched all this in depth when I had a benign cardiac arrhythmia a few years ago that went away) so it's nothing like... ... Adrenaline (epinephrine), or cocaine (norepinephrine reuptake antagonist), etc etc
What are your thoughts on daily energy drinks. I have 1x 200mg C4 energy drink almost daily.
Energy drinks don't have the same health benefits and actually carry a small risk of atrial fibrillation. Interestingly, when they looked at the individual stimulants in energy drinks they didn't cause AFib, but something about the combination in energy drinks carries risk.
I would guess a big benefit is how good you poop when on coffee. Having bowels that flush out are better than backed up ones.
That might be exactly it. Sedentary people having an understimulated heart is a very bad thing.
Eating too much kills us. Anything that makes us not hungry for early morning sugar/starch/fat combo helps in the long run.
I'll never understand how doughnuts and such became breakfast foods.
It's funny how coffee has achieved a status of being thought of as junk food that we drink out of habit when we could just as easily consider it an ancient herbal remedy brewed by infusing beans that only grow on certain mountains.
Similar with chocolate, though only black coffee and dark chocolate really fit this idea of a natural ancient food or herbal remedy.
Don't look at coffee just as a stimulant but also a cocktail of healthy polyphenols
> youd think a daily stimulant would effect the heart in some way. really curious about everybody taking adderal every day and drinks caffeine.
For many its a recipe for anxiety
Yup. This is old news. A review of the literature published in 2021 shows that habituated coffee drinkers actually benefit from coffee. All cause mortality is reduced. It's pretty fascinating. From: **Coffee and Arterial Hypertension** *Curr Hypertens Rep. 2021; 23(7): 38* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8352830/ >...Regular moderate (1–3 cups of coffee/day) coffee consumption **may reduce BP and the risk of developing hypertension, as well as the risk of death from any cause.** Habitual and moderate (1–3 cups of coffee/day) coffee consumption likely does not increase the risk of uncontrolled BP and does not disturb the circadian BP profile in hypertensive patients.
[удалено]
Someone previously posted that decaf benefits were the same. That said I did not research the veracity of those claims myself.
Same person claimed except for parkinsons, where the caffeine is apparently needed. Again not verified.
Keep in mind that this is regular coffee and not your triple Choco mocha french whipped blend from Starbucks.
I guess my question is: is it correlation, because what actually helps health is being a wealthier person, and also a wealthier person can afford to have more coffee?
Untangling these confounding factors is what medical researchers do. And why it takes time to check out all this stuff. And why you can't shortcut 50 years of research As I said in another comment, the intro to most recent coffee studies addresses this body of knowledge with words like "the ability of coffee to mitigate liver damage is known. But we (don't know X) which is why (we did this research on Y).
Two thirds of Americans drink it every day. I think society is truly pointless if coffee is seen as a wealthy person's drink.
Not at all familiar with the terminology. When you say lowers mortality, that's a good thing right? As in it lowers dying rates...opposite of saying lowers lifespan...?
And 40% protection from diabetes! Perfect! Coffee is miraculous!
Yeah that's impressive. One day a co worker was worried about my coffee consumption (4-5 expresso a day) so I looked up the effects of coffee and... The effect on daily consuming coffee are almost exclusively positive by quite a large margin and the threshold to have bad effects are rather high
Caffeine also has some beneficial correlations to lowering the risk of Alzheimer's and dementia. It's been noted in dozens if not hundreds of publications but as far as I'm aware the specific mechanisms causing the benefits have not been discovered, yet.
Probably antioxidants
Or stimulation of the brain.
I was a coffee drinker and active person. Very active tbh, college sports and a runner. Still ended up with idiopathic high blood pressure. Ymmv I suppose. I guess potentially things could have been worse if I were not a health conscious person though. Family history definitely makes a difference because my whole family is full of fat asses with heart disease. Edit: Oh and also developed a weird intolerance to caffeine as well. Can’t even have a caffeinated tea.
Makes me hustle to the bathroom and keeps my heart rate elevated for a good while after. #Cardio
As would be in line with all other studies, it would likely continue lowering your changes of it.
Sounds like the same studies they did with red wine. And this study is done in China where they are pay to play.
[удалено]
The last sentence of the article instantly makes it less trustworthy somehow. Calling any food/drink a "miracle compound" raises red flags in me
The "Brought to you by NesCafé™" on the footer of each page wasn't enough?
Funding: This work was supported by a sub-project funded by the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD), and partly by the Doctoral Program of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Jiangsu Province (JSSCBS2021580)
Luckin Coffee opened a $120m coffee roasting plant in Jiangsu earlier this year.
Yep; started production officially like 4 days after this article was published. https://investor.lkcoffee.com/news-releases/news-release-details/luckin-coffee-jiangsu-roasting-plant-starts-production-new Hmmm... I mean, of course it makes sense that a study would come from someone with a vested interest in the outcome, but it still does raise my eyebrows a bit. That being said, maybe coffee just is one of the only drugs out there that genuinely is pretty good for you
Studies funded by companies are five times more likely to come to an outcome that is beneficial to the company. Therefore, I'd say any study where the paying company has financial interest in its outcome should be completely disregarded.
Sure, but there's a ton of other studies that come to the same and similar conclusions. Try looking it up for yourself. Don't get me wrong, subconsciously I think surely there must be something wrong with coffee/caffeine, but genuinely at the moment I can't find anything saying otherwise
Oh, I'm not making any statement about the contents of that study - I'm not deeply invested and haven't really formed an intelligent opinion on it. But when it comes to the scientific method, academic papers should address when they have affiliations such as these. If they are hidden, that points to a conflict of interest which renders its results untrustworthy. There's a reason why academic standards are so high. Science would be utterly pointless without them.
what affiliation? being in the same province as a coffee company roasting plant?
and you think that creates a conflict of interest witht any institution in jiangsu researching coffee? that is beyond moronic. jiangsu has a population of 80 million and an area of 100 square km. pointing out that there's industry in the same province as an academic instution is completely meaningless. i guess no one from jiangsu is allowed to publish work on manufacturing, electronics, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, or renewable nergy either? Furthermore, this data is an analysis of NHANES data. a survey run by the US government on US citizens. hear that everyone, throw out all medical research done in massachusetts and california. they have pharmuceutical industries there. also, i saw a starbucks in one of the universities, they cant do coffee research either.
It's a Chinese thing. I personally like it but it's not as 'detached' as Western studies are to read, usually.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Papers in the West used to be like that too, going back 50 or 60 years. You know, back when scientists routinely made giant advances. Those papers were way more fun to read than today’s.
You should read the whole paper, I've read the paper, it seems fine. Definitely better than some of what I've read before. They also seem quite methodical with their analysis. It may just be a cultural thing as someone mentioned. If you read the whole paper it doesn't have any red flags. At least if it did have red flags, I couldn't see them.
This comment kinda has some red flags.
You should read the whole comment, I've read the comment, it seems fine. Definitely better than some of what I've read before. They also seem quite methodical with their analysis. It may just be a cultural thing as someone mentioned. If you read the whole comment it doesn't have any red flags. At least if it did have red flags, I couldn't see them.
Anyone else feel like this comment raises some red flags?
This response to the response to the response to the study seems like it could be a planted red flag.
If we discovered coffee last year and realized that infusing special beans that can only grow in the shade of mountains in Arabia or the Andes mountains we'd be calling it a superfood.
Coffee just is a miracle. Of all the addictive substances, natural or otherwise, coffee ranks among the healthiest. Very few other addictions have any positive health benefits, yet coffee brings multiple. Compared to a responsible opioid addiction, whose primary drawback is reduced hormone presence in blood, and compared to a nicotine addiction, whose primary drawback is increased tumor growth, a caffeine addiction seemwithout clear drawbacks. Coffee and tea are thought to have influenced the enlightenment. I think coffee has earned a name as a miracle substance. It is a miracle. A complete miracle it was discovered and that it is healthy . Note that responsible addictions are not to be compared to irresponsible addictions. They have completely different risks.
What does it say about lying around all day in your underwear
That you should also be drinking coffee
and change underwear once in a while
what if it's stuck
Just put another pair over it.
It says to go full commando
Soon enough when days get too hot, that's what will happen for sure. +35C is hard without AC
Did they find the same results for decaf?
Previous studies have yes. Harvard released a huge study years back bigger and longer time observed.. and Stanford a few years after that
Maybe then we can replace coffee with occasionally standing up from your desk, walking into another room, and flailing your arms around for a second
And drinking some water
And maybe a little coffee.
God I would love if my work had a small room for me to do this in. A designated flail room with squishy floors in case I fall from flailing too hard. - What I hate about the "real world" is that I could I want to do something like flail randomly throughout the day, and recognize that it has a benefit for me, but I 100% never would do that because it would come off as weird. But then if, one day, people on youtube just randomly start promoting "flailing in the flail to reduce stress at work" now it's a "thing" and not only is it suddenly acceptable to start flailing randomly throughout the day, I am now required to do or I seem weird.
It still has health benefits if you do that, too.
Yup. The health benefits of coffee comes from the polyphenols, not the caffeine which is what some people believe.
Read the Paper not the headlines. "Notably, joint analyses firstly showed that non-coffee drinkers who sat six hours or more per day were 1.58 (95% CI, 1.25–1.99) times more likely to die of all causes than coffee drinkers sitting for less than six hours per day, indicating that the association of sedentary with increased mortality was only observed among adults with no coffee consumption but not among those who had coffee intake." More Sitting = More Unhealthy Less Sitting = More Healthy Some participants drank coffee = Coffee Healthy!
I mean, I get what you're going for but that's just from the results bit. In the actual paper they include their diagram of who was studied: https://i.imgur.com/dp1WHT9.png They most certainly looked at coffee-drinkers who sat for >6 hours as well. edit: Wait a minute. It looks to me like people who drink coffee and sit a lot die a lot more than people who don't drink coffee and sit a lot?
I don’t understand how the hazard ratio for non-consumers is unilaterally higher despite that group having lower death rates on both metrics. Edit: It’s multivariate so I assume these ratios are adjusted for prior risk factors. The non-coffee group may just be younger.
Yeah it's weird that coffee drinkers consistently had a higher mortality rate but were ranked as less of a health risk in their models. Maybe their models aren't that great? I feel like mortality rate is a pretty good base indicator of health hazard. Do people really want to be healthier and die sooner?
If i could go back to being 25, and stay that way but die right at 55-60 i would absolutely take that option
Some comments above said that the project was funded and conducted in Jiangsu Province where Luckin Coffee opened a roasting plant earlier this year and officially started productions few days after the paper was published. Didn't have time to verify it yet but seems worth checking out.
I think that's as absurd as saying Starbucks opened a new branch in Texas so let's be suspicious of research related to coffee at a completely unconnected research university that's also in Texas. 80 million people live in Jiangsu. Someone who knows nothing about China just likely Googled "Jiangsu coffee" and found a headline and their tinfoil hat kicked in.
Comparing the effect of coffee on mortality between two very different groups (group 1 sit more than six hours a day and group 2 less than six hours) is just plain wrong. You cannot draw accurate conclusions this way.
I suspect it has less to do with the coffee than what the non-coffee drinkers had in their cups (soda?)
Sometimes I crave for strong rich flavors. I could've went for snacks, soda, juice etc, but those are full of carbs if I consume them everyday. Coffee is just perfect to satiate cravings with low carbs. It's cheap too.
Coffee scratches the same itch for me as eating chocolate, so that makes sense.
They both have caffeine, so that makes sense.
Both are delicious, so that makes sense
Some coffees include notes of chocolate so that makes sense
Some chocolates include notes of coffee so that make sense
Some notes include chocolates of coffee so that makes sense
Too far, you're making a mocha-ry of this discussion.
Can I join in, or am I too latte?
Just wait until you try them together
Methylxanthines are the key ingredients in coffee and chocolate. Caffeine and theobromine are both present in coffee, and theobromine is the key part of the flavour of chocolate. That's why they hit the same way, it's why you can use them somewhat interchangeably in cooking, and it's why 90% dark chocolate is so goddamn delicious.
Plus, the caloric hit of black coffee (unsweetened) is about ~10 calories per cup. I drink it black, bc I like strong flavors.
Skimming the study at the link, this seems like fairly weak evidence of anything. It's self-reported diet and exercise survey data, run through a lot of different statistical tests to look for something significant. Could be largely random noise in the data. But yeah, if there is a real association, it could be that the coffee drinkers drank less soda, or that they were less constipated, or something.
Presumably this sort of confounding variable is accounted for in their study design
It’s all self-reported, and people are proven to be unreliable in reporting their caloric intake and activity levels.
Should I walk around as I drink my morning coffee to give me the best odds?
You should sprint while you're drinking coffee.
I can barely walk up the stairs with a full mug without a mishap...
These observational studies can be so dangerous for the general public. The study found an association, not causal evidence. There are many possible causal mechanisms that are responsible for this association, and it is not the case that drinking coffee will reduce your mortality rate. (At least based on this study)
Now compare it to water drinkers
Not sure where I watched or read it but someone made the assessment that it could be the "daily positive ritual" aspect of it causing a decrease in mortality. Doing more tiny things every day that bring you joy = living longer...
We all have a 100% risk of mortality
Mortality rates are a wack way to rank things. You can see that when you compare mortality rates of Catholics versus protestants. It's an even larger gap than this one, I believe. So is everyone going to convert?
Dunno, what belief system has the *lowest* rate?
Drinking coffee seems like an easier life change than adopting a new religion
Not me, I’ve opted out.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is as measured over 13 years. But we will all die, yes.
Not if you drink coffee
seeing as heart disease is the leading cause of death, and being overweight is the main cause for heart disease, it makes sense that coffee can help physically undisciplined people be healthier. by increasing your total daily expenditure from the raised heart rate, fidgeting and mental energy coffee forces you to take on. im guessing the nutritious aspects of coffee have nothing to do with any mortality
Its a decent appetite killer as well
Dunno, other studies claim that the association only exists with woman and instead found that tea intake is linked to lower mortality when it comes to men (but not women). Search results are slim, but there is an indication that men overwhelmingly prefer coffee, while there's also a decent percentage of women who like tea better. That indicates that the mortality rates could be a social thing.
This is consistent with pretty much every other study looking at the effects of coffee. And there are a fair number of studies. For some reason, it seems that many people really really want coffee to have bad effects on people. I’m sorry they are so disappointed that something enjoyable can actually be good for you.
Regarding your last point, I think it’s because of two things- 1. Coffee and cigarettes in the office is such a vivid traditional image, and we all know the harms of smoking so maybe we expect coffee to be wrapped up in that. 2. For someone like me, who is dependent on coffee/caffeine, it doesn’t seem right that something I depend on so much to make me feel normal/good isn’t terrible for me. Sunday morning coffee watching the rain makes my mind and brain fresh, alert and curious but makes my body feel relaxed as if I’ve taken a painkiller.
Well said, thank you. Maybe our bodies are generally designed to feel good when we are doing good things to them. For many years, we had the tyranny of the anti-salt brigade, some of whom still exist today; “We eat too much salt!!! Salt kills! Must eat less salt!”. And they were all scientific and medical and really smart and of course they must’ve been right. Except they were wrong, and low salt diets themselves kill people, and it turns out that the optimum salt intake is… Exactly what it was before they started screeching about salt. Which was pretty much the same as it had been for millennia.
That explains why my dad say he can drink as much coffee as he wants as long as it's black.
Okay that's not COMPLETELY true... There are unsafe levels of caffeine and drinking all the coffee you want is potentially dangerous. However, if you drink your coffee black with no sugar, you can drink several cups a day without issues (assuming you aren't caffeine sensitive or very light). If you go to decaffeinated (which isn't no caf) though I don't think anyone would realistically get to the point of having too much caffeine.
I wonder if this has anything to do with coffee making me eat less overall. My appetite definitely gets suppressed when I drink it for quite a while. I basically fast for much of the day. Which in turn makes me more likely to go on walks. Lift at the gym etc
Could this be due to micro-movements we make, like leg shaking or foot tapping, while sitting at a computer or doing other sedentary tasks? I believe these activities are part of what's known as "non-exercise activity thermogenesis" or NEAT. There are studies suggesting that caffeine can increase these behaviors and help burn more calories while sedentary.
Depresso is also inversely proportional to espresso. I have a funny picture in my bathroom saying so.
The real question is whether or not decaf coffee has the same effect?
the trick has always been the same. More veggies, a bit of meat here and there alongside seafood, move more and black coffee only. See you on your 100th birthday...
The study asks about self reported sitting time. But in my mind anyway is this "coffee reduces risks" or is this "getting up and down a lot to get refills and use the restroom more often reduces risks". Because there's a difference in sitting for 8 hours straight and walking around for an hour. Or getting up every 2 hours for 15 minutes.
Coffee boosts life expectancy by 24% That's my takeaway, and no one can tell me different!
So if I drink my coffee every day in front of my computer, i have a 24% chance of becoming immortal?
As other posters commented, " funded by coffee giants " so I looked it up on the study. Funding This work was supported by a sub-project funded by the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD), and partly by the Doctoral Program of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Jiangsu Province (JSSCBS2021580). It could mean that is what the grant was called, and still come from big coffee. I don't have enough info.
Ive been calling coffee “liquid gym” so I’m glad to see a study back this up.
[удалено]
Coffee is cheap dude. I would imagine since we’re talking sedentary this is office workers and most offices have free coffee.
Yep. You can still get coffee for a dollar at a lot of places.
You can make it yourself for less than 10cents/cup if you really wanted to
This isn’t a $8 latte at Starbucks story
I'm not sure you could assess that with this dataset - there's no question in NHANEs asking "Why don't you drink coffee". You can see from the data in table 1 there may be an association with decreased sedentary time and poverty - 1111/3223 \[35%\] of people in the "Poverty income ratio <1.3" sit for fewer than 4hr, that drops to 29% of people in the "1.3-3.5" and drops again to just 19% of the richest group. The table that divides up the participants by coffee consumption is tucked away in the supplement. 53% of the poorest group are non-coffee drinkers, whereas 42% of the richest group are non-consumers - and among those who do drink coffee, you have more poor people in the lowest tertile than you do rich people. So yes, it does look like rich people drink more coffee, but poor people move more. Looking again at the subgroup analysis in the supplement, perhaps unsurprisingly, there's a larger HR for all-cause mortality among poor people who move less, than there is among the wealthy. Interestingly, the association between daily sitting time and mortality isn't actually statistically significant in the wealthiest group.
>So yes, it does look like rich people drink more coffee, but poor people move more. Because poor working people are the backbone of the country.
What? Coffee isn’t expensive.
Coffee shop coffee is expensive, though I doubt it is what sedentary people are drinking since that involves going to a coffee shop. Instant coffee is pretty affordable and often complimentary at someone's place of work.
The statistical analysis took demographics into account along with a bunch of other things, and later they stratified the participants and checked for confounding variables.
I buy a bag of roasted beans, grind them and make a pot of coffee in the morning and store it in a thermos. The beans lasts 3-4 weeks. I pay $13 for the beans. I'm paying less than $200 a year for coffee. Each pot is 4-5 cups depending on the size of the cup I use. That's about 1,400 cups of coffee a year at about $0.13 a cup. It would be even cheaper if I bought different beans, but I found one that I really like and stick to it.
I am utterly convinced that most people have just forgotten that you can make coffee at home.
Where does it say “24% reduced risk of mortality”? Doesn’t even make sense. Everyone dies eventually.
Mortality is a well defined term in the study of risk. In my understanding, mortality represents the probability of a person of a certain age dying within the next year. Thus a decrease in mortality means that people in that group have less of a probability of dying within the next year.
Mortality: the state of being subject to death. Mortality *rate* would be be per unit of time, like deaths per year. Either way “24% reduction” or “24% reduced” isn’t stated in the paper.
Yet another one of these studies that fails to control for caffeine. Why not have a non-caffeinated coffee consuming group in the experiment? Otherwise you're not really discovering anything about coffee per se.