this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2024
185 points (91.9% liked)

science

14858 readers
319 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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/

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Repelle@lemmy.world 61 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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?

[–] ChilledPeppers@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You do you, but doesn't this remind you of the fake tobacco industry "research"?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Chozo@fedia.io 48 points 1 month ago (7 children)

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.

[–] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] Akrenion@slrpnk.net 17 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Blueshift@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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

[–] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 1 month ago

The era of that was also the first time these studies were being done predominantly with non-smokers. It was hard to disentangle the health effects of smoking with everything else. Smoking rates drop through the 80s and 90s, and wine and coffee suddenly look pretty good compared to how bad we thought they were.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] BrafMeToo@lemm.ee 34 points 1 month ago (3 children)
[–] pyre@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

I don't care this is good enough for me

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

than just perking you up

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

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Lucky for you both your problems have the same solution

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Blackout@fedia.io 24 points 1 month ago (8 children)

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.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago (12 children)
[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Blackout@fedia.io 7 points 1 month ago

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

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Eggyhead@fedia.io 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It’s also linked to me having an anxiety attack before the day is done. Talking from experience.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

[title]

I've drank quite a few more than just 3, so I'm basically indestructible

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 17 points 1 month ago

Direct link: https://academic.oup.com/jcem/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1210/clinem/dgae552/7754545

tl;dr: Cardiometabolic multimorbidity is the co-occurrence of two or three cardiometabolic diseases, including diabetes, heart disease, and stroke. This study found that habitual coffee or caffeine intake, especially at a moderate level, was associated with a lower risk of new-onset CM.

Seems like a bit of a reach. Habitual caffeine intake means that you won't get both diabetes and a stroke? I'm not convinced this is useful information.

[–] JoMomma@lemm.ee 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I drink 6... Is that twice as good?

[–] herrcaptain@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

Mathematically it works out to half the ~~cancer~~ type 2 diabetes and stroke.

Edit: Fixed the disease

[–] Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

So, is this based on the model where infinite coffee make you immortal?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 14 points 1 month ago

I remember when "studies said" a glass of wine each day (week?) is good for your health.

[–] obinice@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Yes yes, studies show this, studies show that. And they all contradict each other, especially if you just wait a few years for things to come full circle.

It's gotten to a point where I just don't believe them any more.

Maybe coffee does in some circumstances with some people have a link to preventing diseases. Or maybe not.

We've seen, and will continue to see, well researched scientific studies that argue both sides of this, until the end of history.

Believe whatever makes you feel better, that's all you can do, really.

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 month ago

That's the journalists that inflate the meaning of these studies. The study itself will just say "we did measurements like this, here's the data" and probably even "we should do more studies to confirm or deny or narrow it down".

[–] witx@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 month ago

That's the journalists' fault. They have no business going through studies like this, that are not meant for them to make conclusions.

Believe whatever makes you feel better, that's all you can do, really.

Just stop spreading this bs, and stop reading news like these. Believe what accredited sources tell you, like your doctor or other professionals

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] bhamlin@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

I look forward to a solution to whatever disease causes people to try and talk to me before I've had my coffee.

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

That's about caffeine, not coffee exactly, also beware studies that say 'might'.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I'm 4 times healthier than this, apparently.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] LodeMike 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Per day***

The headline makes it seem like it's per lifetime or something.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Considering that coffee is probably the highest source of antioxidants in a person's diet, there will be some health benefits. Just dont add dairy milk to it, or it will blunt absorption. Soy milk is fine.

But if you're an overweight, overworked, stress filled couch potato who doesn't exercise and eats poorly, then you're health is screwed regardless of how much coffee you drink 😂

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I didn't really understand the abstract, I'm affraid. Is CGA the same thing as chlorigenic acid and is that the antioxidant you're talking about? Also, did they test coffee with a little milk? The abstract makes it sound like they tested coffee without milk and coffee made entirely of milk, which doesn't happen in real life. I am confused.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Well...I drink decaf. The internet seems to think coffee=caffeine. I can never find info about drinking decaf coffee.

[–] CluckN@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That’s because decaf drinkers die within 30 days.

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

LOL. Guess I'm on borrowed time.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You have to read the articles about these studies. I’ve seen several where a control group with decaf also sees benefits, so maybe

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cordlesslamp 5 points 1 month ago

Do not enable me!

[–] DelightfullyDivisive@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I was curious about why all of the authors of a study from Oxford University seem to have Chinese names. I didn't find any of their names in a search of Oxford's staff, either.

I have no idea what this means, but maybe the study was actually conducted elsewhere using data from the UK? Maybe there are just a ton of graduate students from China at Oxford in their life sciences program? I'm not insinuating any sinister, it just seems odd and I was trying to understand why.

[–] meant2live218@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

The study isn't from Oxford. It's from a team of Chinese scientists (likely in China) who used a large dataset collected in the UK.

The study is published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, which the Oxford Academic collects and reproduces for their academic press.

load more comments
view more: next ›