161–170 of 170 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Roasting aka burning the beans seems like it would be a cause of cancer, similar to research about cancer causing agents in the burnt aspects of meat, etc.
I think the cancerous agents in burnt meat are caused by extremely high temps, higher than would be reached in coffee roasting. High temps in coffee roasting could cause the undesirable effect of caffeine break down.
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.
Curious when you got your last cup of coffee usually time-wise. E.g. I stopped drinking coffee after noon, my sleeplessness went down and consequently all other symptoms you described. And maybe I reduced some DNA damage by continuing drinking at the morning :-6
"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...
Could someone please explain to me how funding could lead to biased results? Is it disbursed conditionally? Is it the desire for future grants? If it's just bribery, are all of these scientists just selling out constantly?
I have trouble with the notion that we should be immediately skeptical, without reviewing methodology, of any study with industry funding. Some 70% of research funding comes from private entities.[1]
That said, given the current sorry state of "science" (p value abuse, publish or perish, replicability crisis) it wouldn't surprise me if funding related bias really is a common problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
How do you define perma-depletion?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a biologist or a doctor, but I'm pretty sure you don't pee out damaged cells.
I was referring to the products of cell degradation. Autophagy – destruction of cell components or full cells – is a constant, natural, necessary process. Its waste products have to go somewhere, and biomarkers related to autophagy, and all the other waste-eliminating functions of the kidneys and liver, can be detected by byproducts in urine. It's also the case that full red and white blood cells, and epithelial cell…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However, it's a stimulant, it increases cortisol (stress hormone). Stimulants generally makes the body prioritize immediate energy spending over regeneration/healing. There's been a study claiming that caffeine decreases neurogenesis, which should negatively impact both long-term memory and mood. All true. Now, by the same token, I am wondering about the effects of decaf. You know, all the alleged "good stuff", non…
Does it have "all the alleged good stuff"? Most of the alleged good effects are in caffeine itself... If you just want antioxidants (which are themselves oversold too) just eat some berries or something...
I vaguely doubt that.
I mean, this could be tested. Three groups: cold turkey controls, crappy tasting instant coffee group (or even just give them a caffeine pill or something), and full-aroma real coffee group. Groups 2 and 3 get the same amount of caffeine. Now compare the outcomes.
That would be very interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100 people can be enough. Single number like N is not going to tell much. People should learn the basics of statistics before they start to have opinions.
In what world would 100 people be enough to represent anything accurately enough to make a generalized claim like this? All I know from the article is that there were 50 women and 50 men involved. It says nothing of age, fitness, dietary regimen, etc. Based on the "statistics" provided, I could equally make the claim that "drinking a warm drink reduces DNA damage". Also, please don't generalize "people" in your backh…
Your comment "In what world would 100 people be enough" shows your disbelief in basic statistics.
In typical well conducted study N=100 participants is close to the minimum sample size when the population is large.
No statistician says that N = 100 is not enough to represent things accurately without knowing other parameters and the design of the study. With large enough effect size N=1 is more than enough and. N = 1800 is enough even if the population size is infinite in the optimal case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean push them into second order vested interest funding?
No, I mean harsh criminals penalties if they can be connected to higher-order vested interest funding too...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is nice meta study of coffee and cancer risk (dna damage and cancer are probably linked). https://www.nature.com/articles/srep33711 > coffee intake was associated with reduced risk of oral, pharynx, liver, colon, prostate, endometrial cancer and melanoma and increased lung cancer risk. (Heh. Smokers drink nearly twice as much coffee as non-smokers. Smoking increases caffeine metabolism. I think this explains the…
To your parenthetical comment: May be unrelated, but totally anecdotal, smokers tend to drink a very light roast that is easily drinkable like a folgers or maxwell house, maybe a coffee shop light roast, like a Dunkin. I don't think smokers are downing cups of Starbucks dark blend and if they are god help their stomachs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what world would 100 people be enough to represent anything accurately enough to make a generalized claim like this? All I know from the article is that there were 50 women and 50 men involved. It says nothing of age, fitness, dietary regimen, etc. Based on the "statistics" provided, I could equally make the claim that "drinking a warm drink reduces DNA damage". Also, please don't generalize "people" in your backh…
I criticized your backhanded N = 100 comment because it's silly. Your comment "In what world would 100 people be enough" shows your disbelief in basic statistics. In typical well conducted study N=100 participants is close to the minimum sample size when the population is large. No statistician says that N = 100 is not enough to represent things accurately without knowing other parameters and the design of the study.…
I asked 3 people if they agreed with me. 2/3 said yes. So I guess I'm right