Hacker News Reader

Comment by fractionalhare | Hacker News Reader

> Each additional daily cup associated with reduction in risk of nearly 1%

lol. okay. This presents the relationship as if it's a linear function without an upper bound or diminishing return, which seems suspect. I doubt that. [1]

More holistically speaking, let's approach this with some skepticism. Did they control for wealth? Is coffee predominantly consumed by people with better access to healthcare and who can afford better medical treatment? A priori, I would believe that is generally the case.

Maybe they should specifically study the relationship between coffee consumption and prostate cancer in relatively lower income populations that still drink a lot of it, like truckers.

__________

1. Though I would believe their analysis technically indicates it, especially if they only did the bare minimum of statistical work and simply tested for a linear relationship...

View on HN

Countless studies have shown coffee consumption to be beneficial to human health, often topping out at some ridiculous amount of consumption (i.e. benefits go right up to 6-8 cups/day), including the many studies that look at what I myself really care about, all cause mortality.

At some point "skepticism" becomes denial.

Here is an example study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31055709/. I could link them all day.

Key except: "An inverse association between coffee consumption and all-cause mortality was maintained irrespective of age, overweight status, alcohol drinking, smoking status, and caffeine content of coffee."

Most studies do in fact attempt to control for the types of factors you mention.

Did this particular study control for that, is what I asked, because this particular study is what's on the front page of HN.

Also, "countless" studies have shown negative correlations between coffee and human health. [1] So which is it? Oh no, it looks like coffee is also positively linked with coronary heart disease and Parkinson's!

This is an area which benefits from more skepticism. Don't write off skepticism in an area filled with reproducibility issues and bad statistics as "denial".

1. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=cof...

> Did this particular study control for that, is what I asked, because this particular study is what's on the front page of HN.

Where it or not it did, your comment certainly didn't add any useful information. Perhaps read the study and declare whether they control for the aspects you are concerned about? Bearing-less skepticism adds no value.

> Also, "countless" studies have shown negative correlations between coffee and human health.

I have never seen a study with negative correlation all-cause-mortality for coffee consumption. I'm sure one could exist, but it's a topic I've looked into a good bit, and I think it's pretty fair to stay the evidence for coffee overwhelms that against.

Funny enough, in your less-than-clever search on google scholar for "coffee disease", *literally* the first hit results reads:

"During follow-up, 102 men were identified as having PD. Age-adjusted incidence of PD declined consistently with increased amounts of coffee intake, from 10.4 per 10,000 person-years in men who drank no coffee to 1.9 per 10,000 person-years in men who drank at least 28 oz/d (P<.001 for trend)..."

Gee, in this study, which you apparently linked to support the idea that there are studies that imply negative health consequences associated with coffee consumption, coffee seems to be associated with a fivefold reduction in risk for Parkinson's Disease!

Did you really assume that any hit with both "coffee" and "disease" in it necessarily must be a study that concluded that coffee caused a disease?

And the one for coronary disease? What do you find for that one? How about all the other studies positively linking coffee to diseases? I admit your assessment of the Parkinson's study is correct, but that doesn't really detract from my overall point. You moved the goalposts by changing the bar to all-cause mortality. I think my broader point stands.

> And the one for coronary disease?

"Total coffee consumption was not associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease or stroke." Are you even trying here?

> but that doesn't really detract from my overall point

Would anything? It is looking to me that, in your mind, nothing would detract from your overall point. That, to your self, your ideas are inviolate. Which is my overall point, and which our continued discussion has only strengthened.

> all-cause mortality

My very first comment referenced all-cause mortality, and I have be consistent this entire time. It's quite O.K. to have goal posts, and I haven't moved them at all.

> I think my broader point stands.

I'll take "I'm right because I say I'm right even though I'm wrong for $1000 Alex". I mean you didn't even blink when your link that you provided supported my point rather than yours? I don't get how you didn't pause for even a second to think "What if I'm the one wrong here?".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com