Consumption of a dark roast coffee blend reduces DNA damage in humans

Post by AstralStorm » Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 10:07 AM UTC

andy_ppp wrote: post #51

tachyonbeam wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Completely - you could also say that reducing DNA damage might actually also decrease immune system surveillance that might be happening causing worse than expected outcomes. Imagine if a lot of cells that might have killed themselves stay alive because of drinking coffee might actually turn out to be a bad thing. We just don't know enough to say for sure and these sort of studies are wildly difficult to get mortalit…

Post by ramblerman » Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 10:22 AM UTC

1_over_n wrote: post #15

"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...

Post by semi-extrinsic » Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 10:48 AM UTC

Myrmornis wrote: post #115

stevenhuang wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Post by godelmachine » Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 11:03 AM UTC

Myrmornis wrote: post #115

stevenhuang wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Post by sebbo » Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 11:29 AM UTC

max76 wrote: post #110

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…