Coffee drinking linked to lower mortality risk again
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
That is the reason why I want to give up coffee completely. I don't want to be addicted to a substance. I don't like to get headache or feel tired only because I choose to not drink coffee for a day. Maybe there will be a day when I can not get a coffee.
I don't drink that much coffee. A pot of coffee in the morning and usually 2 - 3 espressos during the day. I guess I am sensitive to it.
That is a lot of coffee. I have an Americano in the morning. If I have two it's not great for my stomach and if I have two in the morning I really better not have one again until five. If you're drinking it as your drink rather than as a stimulant try switching to tea.
However, I've learned that I have a window where I can sense symptoms might onset in the next couple of hours, and if I take an Advil then I'll avoid the symptoms.
I really need to try the nootropics everyone recommends. Coffee really only helps me power through semi-mindless work, if I need true clarity and original thinking I have to get comfortable in a quiet place and let my mind wander, and coffee doesn't help with that. (And while we're here I'll just say that's why I'm an advocate of remote setups for programmers, unless you only have semi-mindless work to do at your office).
Happy to read this :-) > ...researchers found that drinking coffee—regular or decaf is associated with an overall lower risk of mortality.
What has surprised me is that I am no longer oversleeping on my days off. Before, I was sleeping until 12-1pm to catch up on sleep debt incurred during the week, and I would wake up bleary-eyed and tired. Now, I wake up around 9-10am (which coincides with my wake-up time on work days), way before my alarm clock, and I actually feel quite rested.
Note that this is without adjusting my bedtime schedule at all. As someone who's been on caffeine most of his life and whose late sleep schedule is a veritable personality trait by now, this came as a surprise.
I know a few sips of coffee and the caffeine make my heart pound. I only started drinking coffee ten years ago mostly cappuccino but I still am greatly affected by caffeine.
I can't recall where it is but a US University has a coffee room where many inventions were thought of mainly due to the social nature and brains revved up by coffee.
And there is also a theory of the age of Coffee Enlightenment in England in the 17th/18th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_coffeehouses_in_the_17...
Addicted to caffeine for 30 years and counting...
I would call 1 pot and 2 espressos a quite large amount of coffee.
Your body can be trained to new levels, the difficulty is actually completing the training. Most people either forget or try to jump to the end. The only thing to ever quit cold turkey is tobacco
Wow, I thought taking a 200mg tablet with a glass of milk every morning was excessive.
(An approximate quote from my doctor)
By taking people that use a lot of one common addictive substance (caffeine) and none of another (nicotine) they might just be selecting people with low potential for addiction/high will power. I believe those kinds of people might have lower mortality rates for reasons other than coffee consumption.
Basically, the risk of confounding your results with smoking-related mortality is a bigger problem than biasing your population with fewer people who consume addictive substances.
Source: I'm an ex-molecular biologist, my significant other is a PA.
Excluding smokers can cause a confounding variable, not the other way around.
A better choice of word would be "obscure", as including them will make it harder to reach significance (though the end result should be the same, if the variable was not confounding).
[0] http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2015/11/10/CIRCULA...
[1] The regression models included calendar time in 2-y intervals as the time scale, and were stratified by age in years. In the multivariable analysis, we further adjusted for body mass index (BMI), physical activity, overall dietary pattern (aHEI), total energy intake, smoking status, sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and alcohol consumption, all of which were updated from follow-up questionnaires.
When you are diagnosed with hypertension, diabetes, heart disease etc, you tend to get the advice to drink less coffee. Older people start drinking less coffee as their health declines because it makes them jittery.
For some reason tea doesn't affect me as much.
If you want to try it out, make sure you get Suntheanine. A dose that works for many is twice the theanine than caffeine, but YMMV.
But I may quit since it's decaffeinated using methylene chloride which doesn't look very gut friendly or maybe I just discovered a cure for GERD.
Tasty and prevents too much of sugar fat intake.
Brown sugar is definitely better as a sweetener compare to the white refined sugar as all the healthy parts are stripped.
In a more...official or scientific context, "Sugar is the generalized name for sweet, short-chain, soluble carbohydrates, many of which are used in food." as Wikipedia puts it. That means that sucrose, glucose and fructose (and many others) are all considered to be sugar.
It says, drink lot of coffee but what about caffeine addiction?
Also, should I filter the coffee as it increases LDL cholestrol? Some even say cholestrol is not that bad.
Also, is 5-9% better mortality rate worth considering?
What about other stuff people with better mortality consumed? Did you know the effects of those substances on mortality?
In fact, addiction isn't necessarily bad for health at all, if you reliably feed it every day, and the beneficial effects outweigh the negatives one. For example, consuming moderate amounts of caffeine every day, but always at least 6-8 hours before bed.
Regular coffee in small portions has only a few calories and in the worst case scenario help you with digestion and bowel movement. But what those "kids" drink to start a day with has very little with coffee. When you get some moca-frappucino double-latte expresso with caramel syrup and whip cream on the top, you are scoring plenty of taste and about 500 calories. It's more than breakfast meal should have! And all this excessive sugar and fat definitely can't be helping health-wise.
I don't see Starbucks as a coffee company. I see them as perfectionists at blending (similarly, Coca-cola is not in a business of soda, but rather transportation (and they are genius at it), because frankly anyone can blend sugar with cola penuts and water - but the detail is in cheap distribution).
There was an article somewhere on the web that all those ingredients you can have while ordering your coffee can be mixed at 40,000 different combinations. Think about it. Why the heck any company would go through a trouble of giving you so many option when they "just sell the coffee". Because majority of their customers do not drink coffee "'cause they need it". They drink it purely for taste! Of course, it comes with a brilliant reasoning: "oh, I need this coffee to start a productive day", even if in reality you only need a pure coffee and maybe little bit of cream and sugar, for taste. 10 calories max. Not a coffee-tasting sugar bomb full of addons, fats and preservatives.
The main change recently has been an update to the ACC/AHA LDL guidelines about LDL targets. Previously, there were hard targets that the doctor was trying to reach, in particular the 70mg/dl target was considered "optimal" and doctors strived to get their patients down to that.
In reality, it's become clear that there is no clinical evidence that an LDL that low is required. Certainly decreasing it from a high level (150+) has been shown to be a good idea (in most cases...it's complicated). But once you've decreased a patients LDL to a lower level, the clinical benefit of hitting 70 is nebulous.
So the new recommendations have dropped many of the hard targets, and recommend a more case-by-case evaluation. E.g. if your patient has a high LDL and you put them on a statin, they start exercising, eating better, and levels come down to 80mg/dl ... well, that's probably fine. They are in good shape, monitor and back off the statins.
A major reason for the change is because you'd see people on statins and other cholesterol meds for years. These drugs are very safe and low side-effect, and when combined with hard targets, doctors just "leave" patients on statins forever. But despite being safe, you shouldn't be on a chronic medication and there are other risks. So the new guidelines are trying to encourage doctors to use statins more sparingly.
Some more reading on the new guidelines:
- http://emorymedicinemagazine.emory.edu/issues/2014/spring/fe... - http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/814152
I mean, I can quit it any time, but I feel like shit. I can choose not to drink it, I don't get any cravings, but I just feel tired and get headaches more frequently. So I choose to drink coffee. But it's a choice...
Those are the symptoms of physical addiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafestol
However, cafestol potentially also has beneficial health effects, so it is not necessarily bad. I'm not aware of any study comparing health outcomes (as opposed to blood test results) of filtered vs. non-filtered coffee. This latest study does not distinguish between them.
The simple act of moving lowers the risk factors for cardiovascular disease.
5 cups of coffee per day is going to get most people moving.
You could even hypothesise that people who live more hectic lives (and thus move more) are likely to drink more coffee.