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…
To some extent isn't that expected? Let's face it - who would spend the money to fund a study on a substance that's been around for hundreds (thousands?) of years? Probably if you're going to spend the money to investigate it, you expect some kind of return. So sadly, all these studies end up being funded by people with an interest in a positive outcome. The bigger question to me is, does that immediately invalidate…
It warrants skepticism of the strongest variety unless the study can be reliably replicated under better circumstances. Don’t be shocked when it doesn’t happen though.
Like alcohol studies paid for by brewers, this is hard to accept at face value given the knowns. Even when money isn’t pulling the strings, nutrition studies are notoriously unreliable by dint of human variability and the nature of the studies themselves.