RE: Coffee Drinking Reduces All Causes of Death According to Recent Meta-Analysis Study
Caffeine is clearly not healthy. You can find alcohol might lower blood sugar or kill viruses but this doesn't mean it's good for the liver or that it will be healthy. Caffeine raises blood pressure which increases heart attack or stroke risk, and it decreases insulin sensitivity. It is true not everyone has the genes or diet to be at risk of heart attack, stroke, or diabetes, but it is something some people or most people do have to be concerned about.
The increased fasting insulin concentration after high coffee consumption in our study probably reflects decreased insulin sensitivity. In short-term metabolic studies, caffeine intake acutely lowered insulin sensitivity over 100–180 min (7–9). In a study of 5 days of caffeine intake, complete tolerance to the effects of caffeine on fasting glucose concentrations developed (19), but effects on norepinephrine and free fatty acid concentrations partly remained for the high-dose caffeine treatment. Thus, effects of high amounts of caffeine on catecholamines and free fatty acids may have contributed to a decrease in insulin sensitivity in our studies. However, we cannot completely exclude the possibility that the elevated insulin concentrations after coffee consumption were due to higher insulin secretion (20) or to reduced hepatic insulin clearance as a result of increased free fatty acid concentrations (21).
Acute caffeine ingestion reduces insulin sensitivity in healthy subjects. Thus, in the short term, caffeine might shift glycemic homeostasis toward hyperglycemia. Long-term trials investigating the role of caffeine in the anti-diabetic effect of coffee are needed.
References
Based on what? Your personal conviction? Whilst we agree on many things we will not on this. I don't necessarily think that caffeine is wonderful (particularly taken on it's own) - the evidence supports that it is perfectly safe as part of coffee drinking
I posted that the healthy component in coffee can be isolated but the unhealthy caffeine is the junk part of coffee. A pill can contain only the healthy part and then a proper study can be conducted but you cannot take this study as proving coffee is healthy.
Not being associated with negative outcomes is not the same as being the cause of good health. A proper study would look at each component or constituent in coffee one by one to determine if any of them increase the lifespan of rats or have some positive health benefit in an animal model and eventually a human trial. If a human trials shows something then I believe it if it's a proper randomized controlled study.
Reference
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=39532
It is not quite that simple though. Caffeine may have benefits too. Most agents have can have both benefits and disadvantages. You believe that caffeine is bad and so are picking and choosing evidence that supports that assertion. It may well turn out that coffee is healthier without the caffeine being in it. Right now we don't know though so I am not going to make that assertion.
On caffeine you are correct I believe the negatives far outweigh the positives for most people. Just as with alcohol or sugar. Yes you can consume these things but most people will have long term side effects from over consumption.
In the USA obesity is a problem. In the USA diabetes is common and metabolic syndrome is a problem. It is known that sugar and caffeine can make those problems worse. So if a person can avoid caffeine, and sugar, and alcohol, then it would probably be beneficial.
Does this mean 100% of everyone has to eliminate that? No. It means people who have the genetics to be concerned about diabetes, or alcoholism, or who are overweight, probably should avoid it.
And we do know that coffee without caffeine is healthier because as I said the component in coffee which is associated with the health benefit has been found. I cited a source to that as well so just isolate that compound and why do you even need caffeine or coffee?
That is still far from certain. Like I said without further research we can't say that.
Okay so we need a study which compares the effect of coffee vs the effect of the isolated chlorogenic acid? Cool. If the study were to show coffee is producing a better measurable effect my opinion would have to change but right now we have no such study so your jump to the conclusion that coffee is healthy is a leap of faith.
We already have the studies that show that coffee is beneficial so your "leap of faith" assertion makes no sense. Indeed it is you who are using faith to judge that anything with caffeine in it must be harmful.
Yes the extra information would be useful and we might find out that cholorogenic acid is even better but that bears no relation to this meta-analysis.
Further if we had research comparing decaffeinated coffee with regular coffee we might also find that was healthier but that does not change the findings here.
Just because one component of coffee is more or less healthy does not reverse the original conclusion.
Let's just leave it there because we are not going to agree on this.
Can you link to a study which is proper, randomized controlled with either an animal model or human trials? I don't think the studies you present are clear at all in showing coffee to be healthy.
I would be satisfied if you can show a rat study where there are controls and rats given coffee. Then we see which rats develop diseases and which rats live longer.
I think they are. That is the end of the matter for me until we get more research.
I am not here to satisfy you or not satisfy you. The evidence has been presented whether you accept it or not is up to you.
I also find it rather strange that you are arguing about the validity of studies which do involve humans but then state that you would be happy to use animal based models.
That makes no sense. Animal studies don't always directly translate to humans so your reasoning is once again inconsistent there.
Further I suspect that no matter what evidence were presented it would not change your opinion which seems from the discussion here to be entirely fixed.
If you think the current research is of poor quality and inadequate you are free to do or fund your own research of a higher quality and get it it published in a peer review journal.
That is the end of the matter from my stand point and I am frankly tired of talking around in circles with you because you have made it patently clear you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to medical research.
It gets us nowhere and frankly I have better things to do.