This coffee thing is baffling.
>"Coffee REDUCES risk of cardiovascular disease":
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/129/6/643.long
>"Coffee INCREASES risk of cardiovascular disease":
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-08/esoc-clw082815.php
Both studies seem as legit as they come.
SO WHICH IS IT?
Bump pls
like most things you'll probably die if you have too much and having none of can't be sure to help or hurt.
>>35482381
nigga 1-2 coffees a day wont make your life any different
if you enjoy it its good for you .. if you dont its not.
Calm the fuck down. People are drinking this shit for ages and there are most likely 1 million studies on Coffee and Caffeine out there for you to check out and base your opinion on.
If Coffee is your only health concern you have nothing to worry about anyway
>>35482512
>>35482520
Sure it doesn't matter that much if you moderate, but still there's a pretty big difference between being harmful and being beneficial.
>>35482381
The amino acids in coffee is what has been shown to promote cardiovascular disease. If you drink filtered coffee you get the opposite effect since the technique removes most amino acids from the coffee.
>>35483244
So the people suffering adverse effects are drinking unfiltered coffee?
>>35482381
Can't you read the studies you're citing?
>"Coffee REDUCES risk of cardiovascular disease"
No, it says
> Moderate coffee consumption was inversely significantly associated with CVD risk, with the lowest CVD risk at 3 to 5 cups per day
While the second doesn't say
>>"Coffee INCREASES risk of cardiovascular disease":
but
>Our study shows that coffee use is linearly associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events in young adults with mild hypertension
>heavy coffee drinkers
The first is a meta-analysis across multiple papers, the second is a specific paper.
>>35483244
>http://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/what-is-it-about-coffee
>Coffee drinking increases some factors (homocysteine) associated with higher risk. But moderate consumption (1–3 cups a day) has been linked to a small decrease in risk.
Just drink your coffee in sane amount ffs
>>35483295
>Moderate coffee consumption was inversely significantly associated with CVD risk
What else does this mean other than coffee reduces CVD risk?
>>35483319
Why do you want to strip down words in order to narrow it down to "GOOD/BAD"? Are you twelve?
"Moderate" is a crucial keyword; as "hypertension" was a keyword in the second study.
Yes, some stuff is good only in a fixed amount, you don't say! It's the same with almost any nutrient. Yes, some stuff is not good for some subjects, you don't say again!
>>35483286
Or too much. That is also a problem.
>>35483345
>Why do you want to strip down words in order to narrow it down to "GOOD/BAD"?
For the sake of clarity, obviously.
>"Moderate" is a crucial keyword
In the first paper, even "heavy" coffee use showed no association with increased CVD risk.
>>35483353
>sake of clarity
No, the study are clear. Stripping down words creates confusion.
>even "heavy" coffee use showed no association with increased CVD risk.
Heavy drinkers did not have the advantages of moderate drinkers in the first study, and disadvantages arose only in the second study, specifically targeted at YOUNG ADULTS WITH MILD HYPERTENSION who drank coffee without moderation (while the first study was a meta-analysis).
>>35483393
>No, the study are clear. Stripping down words creates confusion.
Don't be autistic.
>Heavy drinkers did not have the advantages of moderate drinkers in the first study, and disadvantages arose only in the second study, specifically targeted at YOUNG ADULTS WITH MILD HYPERTENSION who drank coffee without moderation (while the first study was a meta-analysis).
If mild hypertension turns coffee from "good for heart" to "bad for heart", that's pretty odd.
Coffee, alcohol (particularly wine, less particularly sugary and starchy drinks) and nicotine (tobacco much less so, with tobacco probably have a net detrimental effect, chewing tobacco, snuff, snus, etc. is up to debate, but the consensus for isolated nicotine is that it's good for you.)
Things like amphetamines are probably good for you when used properly. Increases productivity, stimulants like methylphenidate and amphetamine stimulate BDNF (or some other protein.. I forgot) that stimulates hippocampal neurogenesis, which improves mood, memory and cognition even in the long term after use has ceased.
Overuse and abuse of amphetamine is likely neurotoxic to some degree, however.
>>35483415
>calls you out for stripping out words from papers so that your teeny brain can grasp their conclusion
>must be autistic
eat shit.
>If mild hypertension turns coffee from "good for heart" to "bad for heart", that's pretty odd.
MILD HYPERTENSION + LONG TERM HEAVY CONSUMPTION Jesus Fuck get a brain
moderate use, normal person → CVD advantages
unmoderated use, normal person → no CVD advantages
unmoderated use, person who already suffers from hypertension → increased risk of aggravating hypertension and therefore CVD disadvantages
Even notorious anti oxidant like Vitamin E have been found to promote cancer and/or to turn pro-oxidative when taken in inane amounts; moderation is always the key.
>>35483488
That first paper implies coffee consumption benefits cardiovascular health.
Stop being an autist.
>MILD HYPERTENSION + LONG TERM HEAVY CONSUMPTION Jesus Fuck get a brain
The first paper states that there is no increase in CVD risk even with "heavy" coffee consumption.
>>35483244
Load of barista science
>>35482381
It's net neutral but if you are one of those faggots who refuses to drink water and drinks soda instead it's a slight net positive.
Much like the saturated/unsaturated fat argument you can cherry pick studies to show whatever you want.
>>35482381
coffee causes colon cancer
t. medfag
>>35483586
>repeatedly writes "stop being an autist"
>it's an autist
>The first paper states that there is no increase in CVD risk even with "heavy" coffee consumption.
in the general population, yes? Given that it's a cross-study paper, yes? And in the general population there's no correlation between higher consumption and CVD? Whilst the second paper is focused on a specific category of people.
Just fuck off and try to finish high school if you can.
>>35484144
You're being severely autistic.
That first paper clearly implies that coffee usage reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease.
>in the general population, yes?
That's what I said.
>>35484261
Do you know that "general population" != "specific population", right? It's perfectly normal to observe no linear correlation IN THE GENERAL POPULATION with an increased risk - guess what, in the GENERAL POPULATION the correlation with BENEFICIAL effects ceased with a HIGHER INTAKE of coffee. The fact that it an HIGHER INTAKE has ADVERSE EFFECTS on a SUBSET of the general population could pretty much explain it. The papers do not contradict each other if you quit trimming words here and there.
>again with the autism
whatever, kid
>>35484261
>That first paper clearly implies
The first paper is a meta-analysis on 36 studies. The second paper is a single study.
>>35484345
If coffee is supposed to be good for the cardiovascular, it's more than a little odd that coffee is apparently WORSE for the cardiovascular system in the case of mild hypertension.
>>35484374
And?
>>35484387
>If coffee is supposed to be good for the cardiovascular
This are your words. You don't find these words in the papers. You can't wrap your mind around these papers, we get it.
The first paper only claims that through the meta-analysis of 36 studies, a **non-linear** correlation was found between coffee consumption and CVD; beneficial effects where associated with moderate consumption, heavy consumption was not associated increased risk. It never says "coffee is good against CVD".
The second paper claims that a linear correlation with increased risk exist in a specific subset of the population exactly in the same hypotheses where the first paper observed no cardiovascular advantages: an excessive consumption of coffee.
It''s alarming that you can't find - yet - that these two papers do no contradict each other at all. A substance can be beneficial at a specified dosage and no more beneficial (if not harmful, at least for someone) at a different dosage.
>>35484387
>And?
And, the first paper is a meta-analysis across 36 studies, whilst the second paper rules out on young adults with mild hypertension who drink too much coffee.
>>35484512
Right.
The study says "coffee consumption is associated with reduced CVD risk".
But according to you that doesn't mean they're saying that coffee consumption is associated with reduced CVD risk.
>>35484519
How does that change the fact that the first paper implies that coffee usage reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease?
>>35484532
>The study says "coffee consumption is associated with reduced CVD risk".
No, it doesn't say that. It says that, across 36 different studies, and therefore in the general population, a moderate consumption of coffee could be beneficial. They never say "coffee is GOOD no matter what". Also, it's a meta-analysis of multiple studies. If a substance, at higher dosage (random stats)
- ceases to be beneficial to i.e. 8 persons out of 10
- is still beneficial for 1 persons
- is detrimental to 1 person
the result of the meta-analysis will be "at higher dosage, it _just_ ceases to be beneficial" whilst a focused study of the guy who got adverse effects at higher dosage may rule out that he/she got adverse effects _because of a specificity_ that deviates its condition from the general population (that is: mild hypertension).
>>35484590
>It says that a moderate consumption of coffee could be beneficial
>They never say "coffee is GOOD no matter what"
Autism.
>>35484532
>How does that change the fact that the first paper implies that coffee usage reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease?
The first paper does not say that with these words and the first paper is still a meta-analysis, sorry to read replies like >>35484599 - maybe you're projecting.
>>35484599
Find where, in the first paper, is said that "coffee is good no matter what for everyone".
Protip: you can't.
>>35484639
>The first paper does not say that with these words
What does the fact that it's a meta-analysis have to do with that?
>>35484655
Show me where I said the paper said that.
Protip: you can't.
>>35484661
>Show me where I said the paper said that.
Here >>35484532
>The study says "coffee consumption is associated with reduced CVD risk".
and here >>35484387
>If coffee is supposed to be good for the cardiovascular
and here >>35484261
>That first paper clearly implies that coffee usage reduces the risk
you constantly refuse to insert the keyword MODERATION that's used in both papers as a discriminant, you constantly refuse to acknowledge that the observed population in the two studies is not the same; therefore you can't wrap your mind around a contradiction that you have created for yourself.
>>35484661
>What does the fact that it's a meta-analysis have to do with that?
Do you know what a meta-analysis is?
>>35484695
This is stupid.
According to your logic, you can't say "water is healthy" because you can choke to death on water.
I was obviously paraphrasing and simplifying to improve readability and clarity.
Fuck off with your autism.
>>35484707
Yes I do.
>>35484741
>I was obviously paraphrasing and simplifying to improve readability and clarity.
No, you were pretty bad at "paraphrasing" and therefore you've been introducing a contradiction that does not exist. Keepin on and introducing new completely unrelated and fallacious examples won't help. I get that you're retarded, there are many nutrients (including "innocent" vitamins) that are beneficial only in sane amounts and at the same time have different effects on different populations at aberrant amounts.
>still autism calling
I'm done here, have fun and please don't even try to enter academia.
>>35484812
Me:
>water is healthy
You:
>hurrr you can drown in water so water is not always healthy for everyone ever
>>35484741
>Yes I do.
Care to explain what's your perception of a "meta-analysis" and how it differs from the approach taken in the second study?
>>35482381
Protip: Most studies about nutrition contradict each other.
If you weed out all that do, what remains is:
>don't overeat
>don't eat the same stuff every day
>eat veggies regularly
>sugar is probably bad for you
>>35484838
No.
Explain to me how the fact that it's a meta-analysis changes anything about the implication that coffee is beneficial to the circulatory system.
>>35482381
>>35483319
>>35483353
>>35483415
>>35483586
>>35484261
>>35484387
>>35484532
>>35484599
>>35484661
>>35484741
>>35484834
>>35484922
not sure if troll, retarded, or legitimately autistic
>>35484975
Just don't be a sperg next time.
>>35484985
ahh so your just trolling then..
>>35485024
>your
>>35484922
It would be extremely painful to explain that to you if you don't know the difference between a meta-analysis and the approach taken in the second study.
>>35485035
Stop shitposting then.
>>35485040
Here it seems you're the only genuine shitposter.
Drink cold coffee. No negatives unless you drink in excess. There are studies. I come from Reddit.
