Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

More Consensus on Coffee’s Benefits Than You Might Think

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 84 posts

Re: More Consensus on Coffee’s Benefits Than You Might Think

#51

Post by kenbellows »

josefresco wrote: post #42
mironathetin wrote: post #22

Without the information who financed these numerous research results, they are not worth the time to read them or to write about them, imho.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Careful, OP isn't claiming that a lack of funding data makes the article false or inaccurate. The point is simply that (in OP's opinion) some of the most critical information needed to determine whether or not this article's conclusions should be taken seriously is missing. This is not an instance of an ad hominem fallacy.

Re: More Consensus on Coffee’s Benefits Than You Might Think

#52

Post by capnrefsmmat »

WalterSear wrote: post #46
floppydisk wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article also relies heavily on a metaanalysis, not just individual studies. Meta analyses are designed to take a large multitude of studies in the same area and ascertain an effect size. By examining everything in aggregate, this should counteract any funding bias -- or reveal it if the results get skewed (i.e. lots of positive results and lots of negative results but no middling results). Additionally, meta anal…

I don't know where you got the idea that metanalysis is mostly unpublished work. I've never seen a published meta analysis like that. Most journals wouldn't print it.

It's happened in some notable cases; for example, a major review of reboxetine, a Pfizer antidepressant, obtained unpublished data from German health regulators and demonstrated that there was no benefit over placebo. The published data gave the opposite impression.

Eyding, D., Lelgemann, M., Grouven, U., Härter, M., Kromp, M., Kaiser, T., et al. (2010). Reboxetine for acute treatment of major depression: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished placebo and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor controlled trials. BMJ, 341. doi:10.1136/bmj.c4737

But yes, it's not standard practice. Meta-analyses try to check for publication bias but they do not systematically hunt down unpublished results.

Re: More Consensus on Coffee’s Benefits Than You Might Think

#53

Post by kenbellows »

recuter wrote: post #48
josefresco wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

No, that would be calling out the author by name as a shill. Remarking that the source the author is relying upon could possibly be biased/tainted is not an ad hominem in any way.

It could be considered an ad hominem attack on a study if OP had said "the source was funded by coffee sellers and therefore it's all false and incorrect". But that's not what's happening here anyway.

Re: More Consensus on Coffee’s Benefits Than You Might Think

#54

Post by mariusz79 »

drcube wrote: post #9
mariusz79 wrote: post #2

It's a drug. It's full of harmful chemicals because of the way it's processed. It affects mind and body, often negatively. But it's great money maker so we will be hearing more about its "benefits" in a near future.

What harmful chemicals are those, exactly?

Trichloroethylene, acrylamide, and many more including pesticides like Aldrin, Dieldrin, Chlordane and Heptachlor.

Re: More Consensus on Coffee’s Benefits Than You Might Think

#55

Post by floppydisk »

WalterSear wrote: post #46
floppydisk wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article also relies heavily on a metaanalysis, not just individual studies. Meta analyses are designed to take a large multitude of studies in the same area and ascertain an effect size. By examining everything in aggregate, this should counteract any funding bias -- or reveal it if the results get skewed (i.e. lots of positive results and lots of negative results but no middling results). Additionally, meta anal…

I don't know where you got the idea that metanalysis is mostly unpublished work. I've never seen a published meta analysis like that. Most journals wouldn't print it.

I work first hand in a research community and I've never seen a meta analysis published that was based solely on unpublished works. However, most of the good ones consist of a mix of published and unpublished works to ascertain whether there's a real effect or whether there's been a publishing bias that doesn't reflect the total body of research. A good meta analysis will take the time to discuss their methods for selecting published works and any efforts they made to solicit unpublished works such as contacting prominent authors in the field, getting on mailing lists, etc. The good ones also tend to discuss how they analyzed the papers for selection, discuss the paper stats (i.e. we started with 200 published papers and 20 unpublished ones, after winnowing this got reduced to 130 published and 10 unpublished), and how they collapsed results to calculate effect sizes etc.

Meta analyses should include as much of the published literature as possible for the research question they're attempting to answer AND they should seek out unpublished works. The meta analysis will consist primarily of published works, the unpublished works are collected to counter the presence of positive result publishing bias. This provides a fuller picture of the research field than simply relying on published works. After they've collected the articles, the researchers analyze the collected works to ascertain which ones actually address the research question(s) they're attempting to answer, they toss everything else.

Re: More Consensus on Coffee’s Benefits Than You Might Think

#59

Post by ci5er »

dghughes wrote: post #31
Kurtz79 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also tobacco and alcohol are big moneymakers, but there is a large consensus about their negative effects, and that's why their use (or abuse) is discouraged, by doctors and governments alike. So either: - The coffee "lobby" is more effective than the tobacco and alcohol lobbies. - Maybe all drugs cannot be dumped in the same bin, and we should treat them case by case, critically.

Fun fact smokers process/eliminate caffeine from their bodies quicker than non-smokers.

This is true. Blood serum caffeine is processed twice as quickly by smokers.

LPT: If you quit smoking, cut your caffeine consumption in at least half for at least the first week. Otherwise you will explode with non-nicotine-related episodes of anxiety or nervousness.

Re: More Consensus on Coffee’s Benefits Than You Might Think

#60

Post by stephengillie »

Speakeasys wrote: post #58

This article brought to you by Starbucks. The great tasting and dependable coffee you love.

It's fun to watch the health pendulum swing to and fro, and occasionally given a gentle shove from a marketing article.

Replace coffee with cigarettes, and it reads as a tobacco ad from the 1920s.

Post reply on HN