Stanford boffins find 'correlation between caffeine consumption and longevity' A cup of tea, coffee or even a mocha could extend your life, new research shows. The Stanford University research published in the journal Nature reveals how a cuppa can directly combat underlying chronic inflammatory processes, particularly in older people. Inflammation is a critical process which helps the body fight …
This post has been deleted by its author
Does it have hot chili peppers on it?
Does it have hot chili peppers on it?
The Association of Hot Red Chili Pepper Consumption and Mortality: A Large Population-Based Cohort Study
I must say, that's an unexpected place to circle back to the Xbox red ring of death..
:)
What do you call the person who graduated bottom of their class from medical school? "Doctor".
Doctors say all kinds of things, based on whatever evidence they happen to have been exposed to. In some areas, that evidence will be tantamount to "none at all".
Now there's a new study, maybe some of those doctors will change their advice.
The problem with all these "X is good for you", "X is bad for you" announcements is that they occur in isolation.
I'm pretty sure there have been other studies which suggest that caffeine, tea and chocolate have deleterious effects on the human body. I'm also sure I have read other studies which suggest tea and chocolate in particular are beneficial (in sensible amounts).
What is needed is a study which takes into account all the previous work done concerning a substance, and then measures any harmful effects against any perceived benefits, and makes a judgement as to whether, on balance, the substance is good for you, or bad for you, and at what level of intake.
How many participants would be needed, and how long would the duration have to be, for such a study to have sufficient statistical power to isolate all the confounders? Black tea, green tea, tea with milk, tea with sugar, decaff tea, decaff coffee, coffee with muck, coffee without muck, etc, all the levels of consumption, all the possible health outcomes in age-related conditions, complicated by all the changes in consumption and preference that many people go through over time. And, most importantly, what is the likely effect size? How many people gain an extra year (or maybe a number of years) of life, or at least of healthy life, by drinking a certain amount of tea/coffee and by how much would habits have to change for the new knowledge to be worth it? Would the money spent on the study be better spent on encouraging people to do what is already known to make a big difference, like maintaining a healthy weight?
'How many participants would be needed, and how long would the duration have to be'
I'm guessing around 7 billion+ and a century or so for the first run...
Yes but with so many permutations of what else might cause a long life, I pity the control group who spend a long life in Dilbert's coffee can.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
It's just under five kilograms of dark chocolate (70-85% cacao), apparently. Or about six tins of Quality Street. :D
What you missed is the time frame. You need to actually eat more than this amount because the human metabolism breaks down the theobromine.
I think the calculations I did was that you needed to eat more than 100Grams of 70% Cacao chocolate/kilo of body weight in under 1 hour for it to be toxic.
I think the calculations I did was that you needed to eat more than 100Grams of 70% Cacao chocolate/kilo of body weight in under 1 hour for it to be toxic.
I suspect you'd get hit by the side effects of all the other ingredients in chocolate well before you got anywhere near a lethal dose. I can't see anyone eat a single kg of 70% pure in an hour, let alone more.
I'm no culinary expert, but I happened to have lived near a factory that is rather well regarded. A nice side effect of that was that I could buy top quality chocolate in their factory shop at a price that made supermarket bars look expensive, provided I bought it in 2kg bags at the time - not really the best decision to make if you want to watch your weight :).
I'm only half-way through this morning's second cup, so that might be a factor, but I have a few problems with this article.
- "substances found within caffeine" dosn't make any sense. Caffeine is a specific chemical compound.
- "reduction in inflammation and caffeine is not causal" is a direct quote, yet the rest of the article seems to contradict it.
- "gene clusters known to be associated with ageing and inflammation" - low activity correlated with coffee drinking. This could mean that naturally long-lived people tend to drink coffee.
Anyway, I'm off to read the Stanford press release referenced here. It was also written by a mere journalist, but seems to have more information. The actual Nature Medicine article isn't freely available.
"the link between a reduction in inflammation and caffeine is not causal"
Yes, I got a bit confused by that. I think it means the research doesn't prove that caffeine causes a reduction in inflammation, but it does show a correlation between caffeine consumption and longevity. Since inflammation impedes longevity it may be that caffeine is reducing the inflammation.
Sounds like more research is required. In the meantime - put the kettle on, mine's a doppio.
- "substances found within caffeine" doesn't make any sense. Caffeine is a specific chemical compound.
The clue is in the name... "compound" i.e. made up of more than one thing.
Caffeine is a complex hydrocarbon containing Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen and Nitrogen in various combinations, the posh name is trimethylxanthine.
A 32oz cup filled with a generous mix of Hot Lava Java,green machta tea, red wine, dark chocolate, naga chilli paste and manuka honey topped off with Jolt Cola.
Caffine - check, check and check
Fruit - check
Chocolate - check
Chilli - check
Honey - check
Did I forget anything? Oh yes a couple of spoonfuls of curcumin for max effect, and a direct path to the nearest loo.
Having observed my father who was an avid builders tea drinker (he couldn't function without a cup or 20 a day) I can safely claim the findings are clearly flawed as he left the party early.
Is how I refer to the AM elixir of choice. Coffee in, code out (and some minor waste products we don't talk about). It has been that way for many a moon, and will continue as well.
Live long and prosper? Sure, there is a correlation. But there is also a more than casual correlation between breathing air and living long as well.
So, if a cup adds a week to one's life, I may even see the Unix epoch pass by at the age of 88. Highly likely since my mum is 98 and going string! She still drinks coffee as well!
Caffeine is a heart stimulant and makes your heart beat faster and increases blood pressure.
Therefore coffee may wear out your heart faster and then you have a heart attack.
Really dont believe coffee (or any caffeine) is that good for you in large amounts.
Maybe report was funded by Coffee Bean Growers Association.
Hate coffee. Hate tea even more (sorry Brits) but I do drink soda, mostly Diet Dr Pepper. Not a ton - maybe 25-30 oz per day which equals the caffeine in one cup of coffee.
It is funny how people on health kicks will proudly declare that they have quit drinking soda but keep pounding the coffee. This study will only encourage them since it talks about the benefit from caffeine, but only mentions coffee!
I am reminded of a couple of unscientific coffee promos from my (relative) youth.
Edgar Cayce, AFAIR a studio photographer during the day, used to fall into trances and say things that he could have no knowledge of while awake. Speculation: he plugged into Jung's super-conscious. Anyway, at one session he was asked about coffee. He said that coffee, taken on its own, was a food, it was good for you. But if taken with milk or cream, it formed an indigestible mass in your stomach and was bad for you. Of course, even if you accept the scenario, the "entities" who gave the advice through Cayce, now over 70 years ago, could hardly have had access to science (such as it is) on coffee.
About 20 years ago, I also read about coffee enemas (yes, you read that correctly) touted as a cure for certain cancers. Unlike some other alternative treatments (such as tiny amounts of the pits of fruits in the peach family, which is larger amounts would kill you dead), this one would be a nightmare if they ever wanted to do a double-blind test. You'd have to come up with a liquid that looked like, smelled like, tasted like coffee even to a connoisseur, but wasn't coffee, for the control group. The enema treatment does weirdly go with the results of the caffeine study. IANAD.
If it's as an enema, one would not need to make the placebo taste, or possibly even smell like coffee. I know I'm not going to take a big whiff of something intended to go up a jacksie, much less sip on it.
One might be able to use roasted black beans, or perhaps lentils, to make the placebo, as green coffee beans smell a lot like lentils, or other dried legumes.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
