While the research may be compromised by a conflict of interest, I still have a legit question. Trader Joe's discontinued my favorite dark roast coffee (Fair Trade Organic Guatemalan) and nothing I've found has come close to the taste and cost. http://www.traderjoesreviews.com/product/trader-joes-fair-tr... Does anyone have a suggestion for me that's ~$10-$12 per pound?
Have you tried Peet’s Big Bang? It’s medium roast but definitely has the flavor of darker roasts.
Haven't, no, but I'll swing by and see if I can try a cup. Thanks for the suggestion
I drink coffee nearly every day; I am reading this in a coffeeshop. But, p = 0.028? Come on. If you tested for a few dozen things, you would expect to find at least one that had a p-value like that. Was this pre-registered to look at only DNA damage, via this metric? Or did they look at 100 different things to find one with p=0.028? Of course, if they pre-registered and their theory was that it would reduce DNA damag…
I'm going to assume that the article doesn't mention a Bonferroni correction and ignore it all.
I grew skeptical the moment I read "single-blind" test. So, the researchers know which group is what and that could involuntarily lead them to pick for what they are leaning to find (given it is funded by a coffee company)
I'm generally sceptical of all studies about coffee for this very reason. There's a lot of bullshit studies around food and supplements funded with people with strongly vested interests in selling more product. It's a real problem. For any given supplement, you can often find multiple studies supporting its use and multiple studies saying it's harmful. When it comes to coffee specifically, if you listen to the studie…
> you can often find multiple studies supporting its use and multiple studies saying it's harmful. While true and I get your point, there isn't anything inherently wrong with that. We should expect and welcome research with the awareness of vested interests. Afterall it's not surprising for a substance to be beneficial in certain ways yet harmful in other ways. Research from opposing groups will help identify all int…
I work for a biotech company that publishes peer-reviewed science. We use scientific publishing for marketing purposes, to influence the regulatory environment in our favor, and to look better than our competitors. Some of it is done to a very high standard. But in general, doing science with such predefined strategic objectives results in a corpus of scientific output that is hard to interpret. Essentially this sort of stuff pollutes the scientific literature and we should be ashamed that as a society we can't even let the technical content of the scientific literature be free from corporate interests.
I have a simple rule in my life: Anything that is addictive is harmful to us. Coffee falls in that bucket.
Watch out for carrots[1]. Lots of non-addictive things are also harmful, of course, but I suppose that doesn't by itself invalidate your principle. In the case of coffee and tea it seems possible that the benefits outweigh the harm. 1: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3109/000486796090626...
I'm generally sceptical of all studies about coffee for this very reason. There's a lot of bullshit studies around food and supplements funded with people with strongly vested interests in selling more product. It's a real problem. For any given supplement, you can often find multiple studies supporting its use and multiple studies saying it's harmful. When it comes to coffee specifically, if you listen to the studie…
> you can often find multiple studies supporting its use and multiple studies saying it's harmful. While true and I get your point, there isn't anything inherently wrong with that. We should expect and welcome research with the awareness of vested interests. Afterall it's not surprising for a substance to be beneficial in certain ways yet harmful in other ways. Research from opposing groups will help identify all int…
If p hacking wasn’t so prevalent I would agree with you. Otherwise the researchers funded by MEGA COFFEE will just keep running trials until they get lucky and publish the positive coffee result without mentioning all of the other failed attempts.
Stopped drinking coffee months ago and I have never felt better. Anxiety is down. Sleeplessness is down. General mood is up. Best of all, I no longer get headaches due to Caffeine withdrawal.
I've found what was really bad, at least in my case, was drinking it every day. I was just insidiously sliding towards a state of perma-depletion. Drinking it occasionally seems fine. As long as I think of it as a treat, it's not too bad, and may indeed help actually.
"Funding This study has been supported by Tchibo GmbH, Hamburg, Germany." Tchibo is a German chain of coffee retailers and cafés known for its range of non-coffee products that change weekly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tchibo Number of locations 700 shops (Germany) 300 (rest of world) They might want to make some in-store claims about Dark Roast...
Thank you! What a ridiculous study.
Also the list of authors is a bit interesting. Nothing shocking - but interesting.
I really hate bad science, and this is an example. Springer Science+Business Media (the publisher) does not transfer copyright of the paper from the author to the publisher like many other journals. This begs the question, why isn't this article open access? The primary author, Dorothea Schipp, is a statistics consultant in small town Germany [0] not associated with a University and the blood work was done in Slovaki…
Also the study was ordered by Tchibo - a producer of dark roast coffee. What a coincidence. So naturally they didn't have an interest in finding that (assuming that the result is valid at all - which I doubt) tea with caffeine (or maybe just caffeine pills) has the same effect. Also why did they use a blend on earth? This study doesn't make sense on so many levels. But nobody diggs into it so it's successfully feeding the nutrition misinformation circle jerk.