Remember when moderate consumption of alcohol also reduced cardiovascular risk?
Yes. Doesn't it still?
No, it was debunked.
More Consensus on Coffee’s Benefits Than You Might Think
61–70 of 84 posts
Re: More Consensus on Coffee’s Benefits Than You Might Think
#62This article is completely worthless because it is all about looking at studies about drinking coffee. If you really want to get educated about health, you need to learn the details of taking care of your entire person, how all your body parts are interdependent and affect each other, and what different habits actually do. Instead of looking at whether or not long term it lowers or raises your risk of certain problems, it would be better task these questions: What is coffee? What are the immediate affects of drinking it on different body organs and functions? What is the purpose of those organs and is that purpose disrupted? How does it affect digestion? It is well known among those that actually know stuff about health, that taking care of your digestive process and things that affect your bowel movements is where the root of most disease and healing begins. So how does coffee affect this? According to the book "Tissue Cleansing Through Bowel Management", coffee will kill the good bacteria necessary for this faster than anything else. If that is true, it makes a strong case toward coffee being bad for you. Of course not all coffee is created equal. Some coffee is naturally less acidic than others. A lot of coffee is polluted with high levels of heavy metals. But if coffee is generally bad for digestion, and digestion is one of the main keys to healthy living, why do so many studies show long term benefits from drinking it? Here is where I don't like studies for this kind of thing. Most people come nowhere near living in harmony with what is now known about healthy living, myself included. So these studies are mostly about the affects of coffee on people who otherwise do not live a healthy lifestyle. Also, who funded, setup, monitored, and published the results? Who gamed the system by deciding who be included in the study and what type of coffee they would use? Who was paid off to change the numbers? There is no way to know. And yes, I drink coffee, at least for now. But I am on a constant journey of always improving my health in some way. Some day, I may stop drinking coffee altogether.
Re: More Consensus on Coffee’s Benefits Than You Might Think
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Doesn't it still?
No, it was debunked.
I remember that doubts were raised about some of the studies, but not that it was definitively debunked. Do you have a reference by any chance? I'm not doubting you and realize that I can Google, but if you have a good paper I'll start there.
Re: More Consensus on Coffee’s Benefits Than You Might Think
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I agree it wasn't a perfect fit - I'm not fluent enough in debate terminology to know, maybe this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
Re: More Consensus on Coffee’s Benefits Than You Might Think
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The OP is "implying" that based on who funded the research, this may be truthful. So while the claim was not made outright, it was insinuated.
Re: More Consensus on Coffee’s Benefits Than You Might Think
#66Coffee itself might not have anything to do with it; rather, coffee follows a certain lifestyle which is healthier than that of non-drinkers. I.e. it is perhaps quite good for you to get up every morning at 9am and go to work. Active lifestyle, continuous stimuli etc. Coffee just so happens to be very ingrained in that culture. It might not be the actual chemicals and nutrients of coffee that helps you, but the fact…
You are assuming the scientists who did these studies and the scientists attempting to merge them with meta-analysis are asleep at the wheel and have failed to correct for obvious confounding factors that a random member of the public could brainstorm in the seconds it took you to post.
This doesn't seem like a sensible assumption, absent evidence.
Re: More Consensus on Coffee’s Benefits Than You Might Think
#67This is all well and good. I drink my locally roasted, manual ground, aeropress brewed coffee for pleasure and taste. Everything else.. meh.. Actually most/all coffee lovers I know drink coffee because they like it, not because they expect a lot of health benefits from it. But... good to know..
I use it as a caffeine delivery system primarily.
Tablet form is probably more effective :`)
Re: More Consensus on Coffee’s Benefits Than You Might Think
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If the strength of an argument depends partly on trusting the integrity of a source, why is doubting that integrity a fallacy?
In an ideal world you judge experimental results by their reproducibility, but who on HN has the time to reproduce results?
Re: More Consensus on Coffee’s Benefits Than You Might Think
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd argue that coffee is connected to a rather unhealthy lifestyle of sitting in an office chair the whole day, eating unhealthy fast-/restaurant food instead of cooking for yourself, working long hours instead of a regular 7 to 5 schedule etc.
I'd argue that you're both middle-browing the f * out of an article that actually quotes several actual scientific studies .
I love the term middle-browing. Both comments weren't about the immediate effects of coffee, though, but about their indirect benefits. At least I didn't want to say anything about the immediate facts at all. The position of the article and its beautiful quotes is kept virginly untouched.
Re: More Consensus on Coffee’s Benefits Than You Might Think
#70Coffee itself might not have anything to do with it; rather, coffee follows a certain lifestyle which is healthier than that of non-drinkers. I.e. it is perhaps quite good for you to get up every morning at 9am and go to work. Active lifestyle, continuous stimuli etc. Coffee just so happens to be very ingrained in that culture. It might not be the actual chemicals and nutrients of coffee that helps you, but the fact…
Anecdotally, I would agree with you for some, but for others not so much. I get a short boost followed by a long crash when drinking coffee. It's also like an unfocused focus - like as long as what I want to focus on is nearby, I will do that. But if I have to figure out what I want to focus on, that feels like frustration and hypertension. I prefer tea. I get up at 4:50 am 5 days a week, and I rarely sleep past 7-8…
I am very curious. How would a typical day look like when you wake up at 4:50? Do you need to commute very early, or do you use that time for yourself? I personally wake up, get ready and leave, while I do all my things late evening / during the night.