Coffee, tea, red wine, chocolate: there are many studies that show these things are good for you. And just as many that show they are bad for you. So the best thing you can do with these kinds of studies is to ignore them. The same goes for this study that shows that coffee reduces the risk of death from certain diseases.
“People who drink three to five cups of coffee per day are less likely to die prematurely from heart disease, suicide, diabetes or Parkinson’s disease,” But maybe these same cups of coffee give you a higher chance of dying from other kinds of diseases. Studies like these are usually very narrow and are set up in such a way that the result is actually unclear. But unclear results have never stopped a scientists from publishing a study as “great new information”.
“The study compared people who did not drink coffee, or drank less than two cups daily, to those who reported drinking “moderate” amounts of coffee, or up to five cups daily.” No coffee or two cups a day. That’s quite a difference. Three cups is quite different from five cups. And how large were the cups? And how strong the coffee? And what kind of coffee was used? With or without sugar? Real milk or soy milk? It’s unlikely all these things were carefully measured, so that makes the study completely useless. The data were gathered from test persons who reported about their habits, which is a notoriously unreliable source of information.
“The study did not prove a cause-and-effect for coffee and the reduced likelihood of certain diseases,” Huh? And you just said that a few cups of coffee reduces your risk for these diseases. So did you or did you not prove anything? “uncovered an apparent link that aligns with previous research, and that scientists would like to probe further.” There we go again. They do useless research to prove that other useless research was meaningful and then they say that they need to do more research. It’s the typical way researchers keep themselves and others in jobs.
“In the whole study population, moderate coffee consumption was associated” And who did the associating? It’s amazing how much time researchers spend believing, associating, thinking, suspecting and expecting things. What about some proof? Is that too much to ask? It seems so.
“Researchers also accounted for potential confounding factors such as smoking, body mass index, exercise, alcohol consumption, and diet.” Potential confounding factors. What could that possibly be? How do you calculate the influence of this? It’s really bizarre.
The health effects of just one food are usually hard to prove, though some things are known to be very unhealthy. But there is not just one healthy food that will prevent you from getting disease X or Y. It just doesn’t work that way. Your whole diet and a large number of lifestyle factors influence whether you get sick or not. Focusing on just one food (or drink) is absurd. And that’s why there are so many conflicting studies about these topics. These researchers should better spend their time doing something useful. Till then we better ignore these kinds of studies.