WASHINGTON — A new study suggests that your morning brew might be doing more than just perking you up — it could be protecting you from a range of serious heart conditions. Researchers working with the Endocrine Society have found that drinking a moderate amount of coffee is associated with a lower risk of developing multiple cardiometabolic diseases. In simpler terms, your daily cup of coffee (or three) might help ward off conditions like Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and stroke.

“Consuming three cups of coffee, or 200-300 mg caffeine, per day might help to reduce the risk of developing cardiometabolic multimorbidity in individuals without any cardiometabolic disease,” says Dr. Chaofu Ke, the lead author of the study from Suzhou Medical College in China, in a media release.

Source: https://studyfinds.org/3-cups-of-coffee-diseases/

60 points

I choose to believe all the studies that say coffee is healthy and none that say it is not. I won’t change my coffee drinking habits regardless, so best think positively?

permalink
report
reply
6 points

You do you, but doesn’t this remind you of the fake tobacco industry “research”?

permalink
report
parent
reply

This reminds me the other month I was reading studies in a dodgy medical journal and one said it “disproved” wheat allergy. When I looked in the funding section, well you had a lot of bread companies.

permalink
report
parent
reply
47 points

Coffee, wine, chocolate… it feels like every day there’s a new study showing how they’re either great for you or how they’re giving you cancer.

permalink
report
reply
25 points

Why not both? They might be all true. It is totally possible something reduces your chance to get diabetes but increases your chance for liver cancer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Most of these do not account for socioeconomic status of the test subjects or people willfully ignore them for a better narrative in derivative articles. They therefore boil down to: “people who can afford nice things live longer” Which would not be a great headline.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Much like the way we were told for ages that a glass of wine every day was good for our health. I think the latest research is showing no evidence of that, but rather that any amount of alcohol raises the risk of cancer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points
*

People who drink moderate amounts of wine regularly tend to have higher income, and thus better health in general. At least that’s the last generally accepting hypothesis I last saw.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

A problem with the older studies that seemed to indicate that alcohol had health benefits was also that their control group, the people who didn’t drink, turned out largely not to do so because they already had severe medical problems. They weren’t allowed to drink because of them.

Compared to them it looked like the people who did drink were more healthy on average. So they concluded there must be health benefits to drinking alcohol.

This “Science VS” episode is about that (and has a bunch of citations in its transcript): https://gimletmedia.com/shows/science-vs/llhdgj

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I can tell you right now chocolate has a positive effect. My brain just zonks out sometimes. Like I can’t do 2+2. But chocolate jump starts it right back into normal. I’m not going to sit here and say it’s a miracle food you can eat all day with no downsides but it definitely does something positive.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Have you tried seeing if any sugary snack give you the same effect? Sounds like the effects of a dip in blood sugar.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

They do not. I have a TBI that does weird and fun stuff with my brain.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

A new study? You probably mean a new, desperate, desperate article.

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points

Correlation != Causation

permalink
report
reply
13 points

I don’t care this is good enough for me

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

Almost all science and logic in the history of the world is based on correlation. Discovering the causal link comes later, or more often than not never.

Your glib comment seems smart to people on the internet, but what it actually demonstrates is a complete lack of understand of both words.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Yes, but in case of this kind of nutrition/health studies the correlation=/=causation is often a big problem. There are usually so many things at play and the studies just look at a tiny subsetof them, making the results irrelevant or just plain wrong. I think this field would benefit greatly from a more ecological approach - in ecology, scientists often use methods for multidimensional analysis of a big number of factors that can or do influence the studied problem. This is rarely seen in medicine and nutrition, unfortunately.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points
*

than just perking you up

It doesn’t, if you’re a regular drinker. Rather, you get withdrawal symptoms at morning.

permalink
report
reply
7 points

Then you get mornings like today. Do I feel like shit because of withdrawal symptoms, or do I feel like shit from lack of sleep

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Lucky for you both your problems have the same solution

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

But the real question is; is it the caffeine that helps or the bitter drink? Barley coffee helps me there, more than the mild zichorie.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

I drink coffee but I put no faith in this reports that always seem to go one way or another. Just drink it in moderation. It wasn’t that long ago a glass of wine a day was considered healthy too.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

It isn’t anymore?

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

The latest few reports have linked even mild drinking to increased cancer risks.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

More specifically, the more recent studies analyze non-drinkers in two categories: those who just choose not to drink (generally healthier than even light drinkers), and those who don’t drink because they have serious health conditions incompatible with drinking or people recovering from substance/alcohol abuse issues who (generally much less healthy than light drinkers). By separating those who don’t drink versus those who can’t drink, the studies reverse earlier findings that non-drinkers are less healthy than light drinkers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Woah, guess i’m out of date.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

No, alcohol has always been toxic. just like tobacco. Might see the same restrictions on their ads in the future.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Alcohol is a toxin.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Many toxins have medicinal uses.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

So is caffeine.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
*

The issue is a lot of teetotalers don’t drink anything because of their existing health conditions, really bad obesity, hypertension, liver problems, etc. So those that don’t drink at all are actually less healthy than the average population, and those that drink in moderation are obviously healthier than those who drink a lot. So the results look like moderate drinking is the most healthy but there’s an (or a lot of) omitted variable bias.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
*

There’s unsubstantiated and nonsensical assumptions in your comment starting with assuming that anyone who doesn’t ingest alcohol does it to avoid exacerbating current health conditions, leading to those that drink moderately being healthier than those who don’t drink. That’s absurd.

I’ll make an assumption of my own. A significant portion of your identify and social life is in “moderate” drinking and you’re very keen to justify that as “healthy.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

No it wasn’t that long ago https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6099584/#:~:text=The tannin extracts improved cardiovascular,myocardial infarction and its prevention.

And it’s been cited in more recent blue zone study as well.

This isn’t a ticket for an alcoholic to go off drinking, they’d probably be best off still abstaining as the benefits would be obliterated by the negatives.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It’s not. Just eat the grapes or grape leaves. Stop trying to make the J curve happen, there is no safe minimum dose of alcohol.

permalink
report
parent
reply

@veganpizza69 @Smoogs Every time I see health news, it always seems so polarized.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Because I personally don’t want to eat 80 grapes. Besides the sugar content of 80 grapes is not healthy. If the alcohol content bothers you just get the non alcoholic wine or even seek out blueberry wine in which you require less for some of the same benefits or don’t. No one is forcing you to drink it. maybe go to alanon and get some management over your emotions around alcohol.

permalink
report
parent
reply

science

!science@lemmy.world

Create post

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren’t liked generally. I’ve posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don’t screen everything, lrn2scroll

Community stats

  • 4K

    Monthly active users

  • 517

    Posts

  • 3.8K

    Comments