Long-Term Coffee Consumption and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease (2013)
circ.ahajournals.org
circ.ahajournals.org
I am confused here (with the word "inversely"). Do I understand correctly that: a) moderate consumption of coffee leads to a reduction in the risk of CVD compared to when a person does not drink coffee at all, and b) strong consumption does not affect CVD risk comparing to the moderate coffee consumption?
The study mentions that results may not apply to unfiltered coffee (eg, French press, Scandinavian boiled, or Turkish/Greek coffee). Other studies have shown that cholesterol-raising factor in coffee does not pass a paper filter.
For a while I used a metal reusable mesh filter but my measured cholesterol was elevated during this period.
Also, just my anecdata.
Espresso is definitely not filtered, the oils are necessary for a good crema. There's a fascinating review paper on crema with lots of pictures and microscope images by E. Illy et al. (yes, that Illy) on the subject.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11483-011-9220-5 [open access]
And yet other studies are increasingly pointing towards dietary cholesterol intake not being such an important causal factor for CVD after all [1], and that important evidence going against the cholesterol-is-bad theory was never published properly [2] since the people doing the studies thought the data was flawed since it went against the prevailing theory.
[1] http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638&atab=7
[2] http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/04/15/fro...
I still love eggs fried in butter. But otherwise, I mostly use olive oil. Or almond butter.
Example: toasted slice of yeast bread (my recipe is 50% white, 20% rye, 30% wholemeal) with jam or with a slice of cheese or hummus or fool maddamas or an apple. Just no butter/marge/whatever.
I do now have butter and toast a couple of times a week.
Meta: Downvotes on original post, HN is very touchy on diet. Good heavens.
Getting into rye and spelt though.
Sorry. Ignore my previous comment(s).
It comes from cafestol and kahweol. They seem to affect cholesterol regulation in the body. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.nutr.17.1.3...
To which I'd like to add: It's sugar and carbs that are doing the damage. The bad reputation of cholesterol is at this point a myth, a myth that more need to be aware of.
But, as I said, I've seen cardiac specialists. At least twice, over the years. They basically said to drink less coffee. But they found no evidence of heart damage.
premature ventricular contractions are basically extra heart beats that disrupt the normal rythm. If you have the feeling that your heart skips a beat, that's most likely caused by a premature ventricular contraction. It can be caused by heart problems but is in itself apparently harmless.
(note: I am not a doctor)
If I need to work a long day, I take another 50mg, plus more coffee.
I found Modafinil to be somewhat worthless due to it only coming as an instant release tab and the resulting insta-tolerance.
I've been drinking coffee for some decades. And taking modafinil for at least one decade.
I do know from experience that I'll have headache if I cut off coffee. If I cut modafinil, I'll just not feel like doing anything, and sleep a lot.
Is this black coffees, or 800 kcal creamed and sugared lattes?
The study links improved health and coffee, with its statistics. People drinking a handful of 8 oz. cups of coffee (black? light and sweet?) seem to do better, having somewhat healthier hearts with less disease, than the control group of consumers of exclusively non-caffeinated substances (naming brewed coffee specifically). Coffee drinkers do best when consuming 24 to 40 fluid ounces of brewed coffee, distributed throughout waking hours, with the range of optimum quantities likely varying based on body weight.
According to this research, excessive drinking of coffee at 80 ounces (or more?) is as bad (or worse?) than drinking none at all. The research examines 1,279,804 participants and 36,352 heart disease cases.
The ironic side of the study is that since expresso coffee has more cafesol than filtered coffee (but less than french press), if people start to use more their nespresso the population study would probably change.
See this: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/02/23/ask-...
Quoting:
9. Is drinking coffee made with a paper filter healthier than drinking boiled coffee or other types of coffee?
Coffee contains a substance called cafestol that is a potent stimulator of LDL-cholesterol levels (12). Cafestol is found in the oily fraction of coffee, and when you brew coffee with a paper filter, the cafestol gets left behind in the filter. Other methods of coffee preparation, such as the boiled coffee common in Scandinavian countries, French press coffee, or Turkish coffee, are much higher in cafestol. So for people who have high cholesterol levels or who want to prevent having high cholesterol levels, it is better to choose paper filtered coffee or instant coffee, since they have much lower levels of cafestol than boiled or French press coffee. Espresso is somewhere in the middle; it has less cafestol than boiled or French press coffee, but more than paper filtered coffee.
Urgert R, Katan MB. The cholesterol-raising factor from coffee beans. Annu Rev Nutr. 1997;17:305-24.
Furthermore, the connection between cholesterol and heart disease is greatly overstated. The true culprit is sugar and too many carbs. In most cases sugar/carbs will kill you before cholesterol will.
This is also not very surprising. There's been plenty of research indicating that coffee consumption has moderate health benefits.
This should all be taken with a grain of salt. Researching nutrition and particularly its long term effects is extremely difficult and prone to all kinds of biases, as you usually can't practically do controlled studies. But as far as the research we have tells us drinking coffee is not so bad.
You do not understand correctly. :) Moderate coffee consumption is associated with a reduction in the risk of CVD. It is more likely than not that there is no causal relationship here, or that any causal relationship that does exist is significantly less powerful than the observed relationship.
Says who? Just because correlation is not the same as causation doesn't mean a correlation means there is "definitely not" a causation.
Intake of coffee was associated with an increased risk of nonfatal MI only among individuals with slow caffeine metabolism, suggesting that caffeine plays a role in this association. ... The purpose of this study was to determine whether CYP1A2 genotype modifies the association between intake of caffeinated coffee and risk of nonfatal MI.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/202502
A more recent (2015) report has this conclusion w/r/t CVD:
Consistent observational evidence indicates that moderate coffee consumption is associated with reduced risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease in healthy adults. In addition, consistent observational evidence indicates that regular consumption of coffee is associated with reduced risk of cancer of the liver and endometrium, and slightly inverse or null associations are observed for other cancer sites.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/...
This NYT article summarizes and links to a bunch of studies:
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/for-coffee-drinker...
BTW, if you've used 23andme, it should have your CYP1A2 genotype.
https://you.23andme.com/reports/report_archive/download/repo...
Go to Tools -> Browse RAW data -> search for rs762551.
It should show something like this:
Gene SNP genomic loc Variants Your result
CYP1A2 rs762551 75041917 A or C ? / ?
From SNPedia:
"In terms of genotypes, only rs762551(A;A) individuals are considered fast metabolizers. Individuals who are rs762551(A;C) heterozygotes or rs762551(C;C) homozygotes are both considered slow metabolizers."
Likewise in a correlational study, you'd expect people who drink more coffee to have more hectic lives and get less sleep, which surely shouldn't reduce your risk of cardiovascular disease.
I'm at a loss for a possible mechanism behind this result. Protective effect of antioxidants in coffee? Hard to believe.
Nonetheless it seems a great excuse to reach for that second cup when I start flagging in the early afternoon.
This is false: http://news.gallup.com/poll/184388/americans-coffee-consumpt...
”Fewer lower-income than higher-income Americans drink coffee, but lower-income coffee drinkers consume more cups per day than higher-income coffee drinkers (3.8 vs. 2.4 cups, on average)."
Low income Americans driink either a lot or not any coffee at all. High income Americans drink some coffee.
So you would expect no coffee consumption and high coffee consumption to correlate with a higher risk than moderate consumption. This is exactly what the study found.
Also, when it says 3-5 cups a day, that's the measurement unit "cup", not what most people would think of as "a cup of coffee". A typical size cup/mug of coffee is usually about 3-4 cups.
If you are an espresso drinker, it’s worth mentioning that a cup of brewed coffee contains almost 50% more caffeine than a single shot espresso. So we are talking about roughly 2-4 double shot espresso coffees per day.
You can buy a coffee maker for $12 on Amazon. Ground coffee is $7 for 12 oz or so, and you can make a pot of coffee (12 cups) a day for a couple weeks from that.
It's pretty durn cheap. It's probably the cheapest beverage other than tap water.
the first examples that come to mind:
Coffee decreases appetite, which could reduce overeating, which could be linked to the noted reduction in type 2 diabetes which can be caused by eating too much sugar.
Similarly could it be that coffee increases activity which if used for exercise both reduces weight as well as improves the body's ability to manage blood pressure?
Love to see a double blind with these alternatives measured against the extra coffees.
On top of this, we're looking at long term studies that would be really hard to control.
Finally, the correlations noticed by these authors need to be taken with a huge grain of salt because there are so many potential confounding factors, such as income.
In doubt, I’ll keep my moka close and well in use ;)
I used this approach in college since I was not a coffee drinker. If I needed to study all night, or even for a few hours after a long day, I would work out either with some interval cardio or some light weight lifting.
It would easily wake me up and keep me going for at least 2-3 hours and I was able to focus rather easily and there was no crash from caffeine or energy drinks that are so popular now.
https://www.ift.org/~/media/Knowledge%20Center/Publications/....
I see it is already on the Cure or Kill app http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/c
[0] http://runa.org/
Guys, Nestec own the world's biggest coffee machine company, Nespresso.
Sounds like a trashjournal which would explain pretty much everything.
Correction: not a trash journal, still the review process was super fast
"Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr. van Dam received a research grant from the Nestec Company. No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported." Guys, Nestec own the world's biggest coffee machine company, Nespresso.