Pre-Lunch Coffee Drinkers Enjoy Lower Risk of Death, Analysis Finds (theguardian.com) 82
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: People who get their coffee hit in the morning reap benefits that are not seen in those who have shots later in the day, according to the first major study into the health benefits of the drink at different times. Analysis of the coffee consumption of more than 40,000 adults found that morning coffee drinkers were 16% less likely to die of any cause and 31% less likely to die from cardiovascular disease during a 10-year follow-up period than those who went without. But the benefits to heart health appeared to vanish in people who drank coffee throughout the day, the researchers found, with medical records showing no significant reduction in mortality for all-day drinkers compared with those who avoided coffee. [...]
The study suggests that a morning dose of coffee is better for the heart than an evening one, but it does not explain why. One possible explanation is that drinking coffee later in the day can disrupt circadian rhythms and levels of hormones such as melatonin. This in turn affects sleep, inflammation and blood pressure, all of which can harm heart health. In an accompanying editorial, Prof Thomas Luscher, a consultant cardiologist at the Royal Brompton and Harefield hospitals in London, notes that many all-day drinkers sleep poorly, adding that coffee seems to suppress melatonin, a hormone that is important for inducing sleep in the brain. The effects are driven largely by caffeine, but coffee contains hundreds of other bioactive compounds that affect our physiology. The researchers say some substances in the blood that drive inflammation often peak in the morning and could be countered by anti-inflammatory compounds in a morning coffee. "This explanation applies to both caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee," they write. "Overall, we must accept the now substantial evidence that coffee drinking, particularly in the morning hours, is likely to be healthy," Luscher writes. "Thus, drink your coffee, but do so in the morning!"
The study has been published in the European Heart Journal.
The study suggests that a morning dose of coffee is better for the heart than an evening one, but it does not explain why. One possible explanation is that drinking coffee later in the day can disrupt circadian rhythms and levels of hormones such as melatonin. This in turn affects sleep, inflammation and blood pressure, all of which can harm heart health. In an accompanying editorial, Prof Thomas Luscher, a consultant cardiologist at the Royal Brompton and Harefield hospitals in London, notes that many all-day drinkers sleep poorly, adding that coffee seems to suppress melatonin, a hormone that is important for inducing sleep in the brain. The effects are driven largely by caffeine, but coffee contains hundreds of other bioactive compounds that affect our physiology. The researchers say some substances in the blood that drive inflammation often peak in the morning and could be countered by anti-inflammatory compounds in a morning coffee. "This explanation applies to both caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee," they write. "Overall, we must accept the now substantial evidence that coffee drinking, particularly in the morning hours, is likely to be healthy," Luscher writes. "Thus, drink your coffee, but do so in the morning!"
The study has been published in the European Heart Journal.
Confirmation bias is confirmed (Score:1, Troll)
News at 11.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What evidence do you feel was excluded from or not considered by this study (i.e., points to confirmation bias)?
Confirmation bias is when you buy a new Honda Ridgeline, and suddenly you see Honda Ridgelines everywhere. But if you actually count them before and after your purchase, and find that the number afterwards is indeed statistically higher, that's no longer confirmation bias.
Re:Confirmation bias is confirmed (Score:5, Funny)
Can confirm. I bought a Subaru Outback, and now they're everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
I just wish people would stop driving around in McLarens.
Lengthier Study Needed for Claim (Score:4)
What evidence do you feel was excluded from or not considered by this study
Well given that they are claiming both in the text and the title that early morning coffee lowers your risk of death from all causes by 16% I suspect they have just not followed the study participants for long enough since I have a very hard time believing that an early morning coffe has a 16% chance of conferring immortality.
Yes I realize that this is probably not what they meant to say but accuracy when reporting science matters.
Re: (Score:2)
"Risk of death from all causes" is a defined term, and it's a rate.
Not defined without a Period (Score:2)
Ten year risk of death [Re:Not defined without...] (Score:2)
It's not a defined term unless you define the time period over which you measure it which is my point.
From the second paragraph of the article we're discussing:
"Analysis of the coffee consumption of more than 40,000 adults found that morning coffee drinkers were 16% less likely to die of any cause and 31% less likely to die from cardiovascular disease during a 10-year follow-up period than those who went without.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not necessary to define the time period because the actually stated number is a percentage. It's either a relative rate or a percent difference. Some basic (as in, the most basic) algebra will demonstrate that X% difference is X% regardless of whether your denominator is ten seconds, a year or 100 years.
You, however, have made the rather bizzare assumption that the denominator is "one lifetime" which is evident by your reference to "immortality," musing about followup period, and other posts that are v
Re: (Score:2)
You are alleging that the study may be flawed, and you have an alternative hypothesis. This is all good, but it's not "confirmation bias." Confirmation bias is cherry-picking data that fits your hypothesis, and ignoring data that does not. There is no evidence in this study that the data was cherry-picked in such a way.
Re: (Score:2)
Confirmation bias is cherry-picking data that fits your hypothesis
Given that by choosing the period over which you measure the chance of death you can effectively get the mortality rate to vary from 0% to 100% and that they do not state the period they used an argument could be made for cherry-picking a period that produces the desired mortality result although I suspect this has a lot more to do with bad reporting than anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
The period used for this measurement is clearly stated:
morning coffee drinkers were 16% less likely to die of any cause and 31% less likely to die from cardiovascular disease during a 10-year follow-up period than those who went without
If there is a statistically significant difference in mortality rate during that 10 year period (whatever 10 year period that may be), it is certainly logical to consider the correlation significant.
As with all science, corroborating studies should be done.
Re: (Score:2)
The periods for such studies are somewhat standardized. Follow-ups tend to happen at 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years etc., for as long as original subjects can be found and definitely stated as either alive or dead (too many "missing" and it gets messy). With enough such one gets a full curve to compare against the average (how many people in the population at large were alive when the study started versus 1 year later, 2 years later etc.).
Rule of thumb: if you're not a scientist in a certain f
Re: (Score:2)
What evidence do you feel was excluded from or not considered by this study (i.e., points to confirmation bias)?
Well for it to be confirmation bias, you are talking about intent. Were they seeking to prove a point or to evaluate the information.
There are more obvious problems with the conclusions. There is no evidence that the population of people drinking coffee in the morning is identical in all other respects with the population drinking coffee later. The claim about individuals is clearly fallacious since it applies the attributes of the population to the individual members of the population.
The better question
Re: (Score:2)
While intent is a factor, by itself intent doesn't equate to confirmation bias. An allegation of confirmation bias would imply that the researchers cherry-picked data points to support their preconceived notions. There's no way to tell whether this is true, without studying the data directly. This is why corroborating research is necessary. But we haven't established bias, based on the information we have about the study.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I agree. But there are other reasons to cherry pick data than confirming a preconceived result. In fact, the most common bias is the desire for an interesting result. Can you imagine how much interest there would be in a story that said "It doesn't matter when you drink coffee?"
OK. NOW that would be an interesting story because it contradicts this story. But if they had been mining the data and found no correlation they would have moved on to something interesting. Which is the problem with mining
Re: (Score:2)
I think mining data for "interesting" results (i.e., clear correlations) is the opposite of confirmation bias. otherwise, we agree.
Re: (Score:2)
What evidence do you feel was excluded from or not considered by this study?
(I'm not the parent poster and not sure I'd label what I have in mind confirmation bias but curious what you think of the following) I haven't done more than skimmed the slashdot headline, but my guess is that they didn't do a blind study, since doing that with a substance that has user-discernible effects is impossible, nor a controlled study, since they'd have had to randomly assign people to drink or not drink coffee, and control all other variables. If I'm right about that, then what they have is a co
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're largely right about the study, and that the best they can demonstrate is a correlation. But that's not the same as confirmation bias, which is cherry-picking data to make a preconceived point. Clearly, more study is warranted, to prove causation. It could very well be that people who drink coffee in the afternoons, also tend to not get enough sleep, for example.
Re: (Score:3)
Confirmatin bias by someone who is already awake and posting at 5:36AM. Seems logical.
Re: (Score:2)
Confirmation bias is confirmed through confirmation of the confirmed point by confirming it is confirmed. News at 11.
NetCraft confirms!
Not Bias, Bad Reporting (Score:5, Interesting)
Analysis of the coffee consumption of more than 40,000 adults found that morning coffee drinkers were 16% less likely to die of any cause
It's not confirmation bias it is bad reporting of the facts since I am pretty sure that the chance of dying from any cause holds steady at 100% whether or not you drink coffee unless they are claiming that your early morning coffee confers immortality. I suspect that they mean that coffee can extend life or reduce your chance of dying during a fixed period of time not that it actually reduces your chance of dying overall as the title and summary both claim. It would be nice to see science reported accurately for a change.
Re:Confirmation bias is [censored] (Score:2)
Why the censor mod points? Not such a funny joke, and not particularly topical, but still...
The first reply seems appropriate, though I think the answer is obvious. Still, you [jhoegl] could have replied, but didn't (so far).
Re: (Score:3)
Why the censor mod points?
Meta just laid off all their moderators. They had to go somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent funnier.
Re: (Score:2)
Also reports are that people who consume coffee in the morning are 16% less likely to kill other people.
Why not both. (Score:2)
Re:Why not both. (Score:4, Funny)
I have one coffee in the morning and another in the afternoon. Will I die sooner or live forever?
According to TFA, you will die sooner.
According to the study, people who drink coffee in the morning benefit, but those who drink coffee "throughout the day" do not.
Disclaimer: I am a tea drinker.
Re: (Score:2)
What about those who don't drink any coffee, like me? Maybe I'll live longer, but just not be very happy the whole time?
Re: (Score:2)
That is completely up of your girlfriend.
Or your wife.
Or both of them, if they find out about each other.
I would not worry. Just drink the coffee while it is still hot.
Re:Why not both. (Score:4, Insightful)
In my mind, the bigger question is - is life without coffee really life at all?
It's sort of like that question from the 1980s... if you knew you would live 5 years longer by always eating carob whenever you wanted chocolate - would you do it?
(note that my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek while I'm making this post... and I'm gonna go get some coffee in a minute)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why not both. (Score:3)
Looks like your experience is about shitty coffee.
Try some good coffee sometime, maybe then you will get it.
ongoing research (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to get doped up on it, just try a nice little espresso someplace reputable. Preferably, a local roaster. I looked up my favorite coffee from back home, Santa Cruz Coffee Roasting Company's "Steve's Smooth French." It was going to cost me something like twenty-five bucks to get twenty-four bucks worth of coffee (which, IIRC, used to cost me like $14, for two pounds) and I said nah, because I don't know that it's still as great as ever. But it made both a nice espresso and a great just plain ol
Re:Why not both. (Score:4, Funny)
Regardless you'll be awake to find out
Re: Why not both. (Score:2)
Live forever. As a zombie.
Re: Why not both. (Score:2)
If the afternoon coffee is too late and regularly disrupts your sleep, it may affect your longevity.
Really shouldn't be that difficult (Score:5, Insightful)
From the study: Fourth, although we had carefully adjusted for potential confounding, we could not exclude the possibility that the morning-type coffee drinking pattern is a marker for an overall healthy lifestyle, for example, morning-type coffee drinkers may be more willing to exercise and eat non-ultra-processed foods
It appears they did not. Supplementary data does not really say one way or the other. Would have been fairly simple to to add to the food / drink log they were already recording, but I suppose captain obvious slept in that day.
Re: (Score:2)
> I suppose captain obvious slept in that day
I see what you did there. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Morning is when I wake up and go to get a coffee.
Has nothing to do with the actually time of the day.
Walking the dog "in the morning" is actually an interesting point.
As "people like me" do sports in the afternoon, and not in the morning.
In the morning I want coffee, or tea - and most certainly not sports. Unless it is love making before we get out of bed, obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, depends what you call afternoon.
But my fault: I meant evening.
I live in Thailand atm, and around 18:00 it gets dark, we would call that afternoon in Germany or France, but here it is evening, lol.
Sport classes usually start early around 18:30 or 19:00. And if they start late, it is 20:00.
Re: (Score:3)
People who drink coffee only in the morning tend to be morning people who need or want a lot of energy for ... the morning
allow me being pedant: caffeine brings wakefulness, not energy. caffeine does increase mental and physical performance but that acts on pathways unrelated to "energy".
in general the "i need an energy fix for activity x" trope is just superstition, an adult body needs about 4gr of glucose in the bloodstream at any moment for whatever activity, and the body has several mechanisms to maintain that level of blood sugar at demand from several reserves, even after starving for days. the energy potential from food
Re: (Score:3)
Parent wasn't suggesting that it's coffee particularly, although it's worded as such. More that the set of people who drink coffee in the morning and the set of people who engage in some kind of morning physical activity (be it early gym visits, dog walking, early work hours, whatever) tend to overlap, and that this may be confounding the study.
I am NOT a morning person (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
People who drink coffee only in the morning tend to be morning people who need or want a lot of energy for ... the morning.
I drink coffee in the morning precisely because I am not a morning person. However, I'm still pretty certain that my chance of death remains at 100% and has not beed reduced.
Re: (Score:3)
People who drink coffee only in the morning tend to be morning people who need or want a lot of energy for ... the morning. Easiest explanation for that is something going to exercise (even simply walking the dog). Did they even try to control for that?
I run or lift weights every morning before having coffee. While I find the exercise good for helping clear my head and get the day started, it does not meaningfully increase my energy or the feeling of wakefulness. As a not-morning-person, I find coffee helps me feel more alert and invigorated and without it I feel more sluggish and cloudy until late morning or noon.
But let's be honest - these studies are pretty pointless and show up with alternating results every few months. People who drink coffee will
Re: (Score:3)
we could not exclude the possibility that the morning-type coffee drinking pattern is a marker for an overall healthy lifestyle, for example, morning-type coffee drinkers may be more willing to exercise and eat non-ultra-processed foods
Or that the population of all day coffee drinkers includes a higher percentage of people who have unhealthy lifestyles. Basically this is junk science. It doesn't really support any conclusion other than that the population of people who only drink coffee in the morning includes a lower percentage of people who will die (within whatever time frame) then the population of people who drink coffee all day. It tells us nothing about the reasons for that or whether drinking coffee has anything to do with it. And
Re: (Score:2)
This is about the mortality rate of coffee drinkers (especially those in the AM) and not the energy level of those who drink coffee.
Ultimately, there is a health benefit to coffee consumption in the AM provided its straight coffee (Starbucks double frappe people need not apply.. like with most things, straight coffee good, coffee loaded with sugar/fats not so good as any positive benefits are eliminated by the consumption of excess calories)
Drug pushers will say anything (Score:1)
Sure, because I am stuck in line (Score:2)
"analysis" (Score:1)
Why is coffee (eventually) bad for us then? (Score:1)
Analysis of the coffee consumption of more than 40,000 adults found that morning coffee drinkers were 16% less likely to die of any cause and 31% less likely to die from cardiovascular disease..
If the benefits of coffee are in fact THIS profound, then I wonder why coffee is ever put on the verboten list by doctors.
Is it the coffee bean that is proving that beneficial, but the caffeine in it that’s causing doctors to question the benefits and recommend people avoid it? If so, are we going to see a boom in processing coffee that is more low-caffeine or caffeine-free?
Doctors may have many other more obvious reasons to tell someone to stop drinking coffee. But it seems like that advice becomes
Re: (Score:2)
Doctors may have many other more obvious reasons to tell someone to stop drinking coffee. But it seems like that advice becomes more common as we age. For what seems like old age reasons.
Two friends had issues from overuse of coffee. First was a woman who ended up with headaches if she went an hour or more without a cup. The other was a woman who drank so much she started having panic attacks. Doctors had them stop - and yes, both had some pretty significant withdrawal symptoms, mainly splitting headaches and irritability.
I have 4 cups in the morning, then stop. Now. At one point I was drinking too much of it as well, and switched to decaf for a year.
Re: (Score:2)
>> issues from overuse of coffee
Coffee is addictive, and the addicts will quickly experience withdrawal symptoms. I think there is also habituation, such that the stimulative effects of the coffee decline after a while so you would have to drink more to really feel it. Otherwise you are just getting a maintenance dose.
I used to drink a cup in the morning as a wake-me-up and another one in the afternoon to counter drowsiness after lunch. Drink it too late in the day and I would be restless at night and
Circadian rhythyms (Score:3)
I can have a cup of coffee and fall asleep in 30 min later. I have to drink a lot to get a jolt from it at this point.
Re: (Score:1)
Or they have ADHD and have the common paradoxical effect of stimulants calming their thoughts.
I do same with espresso (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that is a well known effect. The sleep you get after a shot of coffee is really good quality sleep too. If you do not fall asleep within that early period though, you will get the boost from it.
My old man had a cup every night before hitting the hay. His assessment mirrored yours.
Re: (Score:2)
could be the warm drink, might be worth someone casually experimenting on such coffee-sleep types with tea, hot chocolate/cocoa/milk, etc (do something more formal if suggestive results)
True. Might be able to do some experiments, hot or iced coffee, and I'll bet hot chocolate would be good before bed. Warm milk, I never liked that, but maybe it as well.
People that shake their beer cans b4 opening them. (Score:2)
NOW DO MONSNTER ENERGY! (Score:3)
Now do the same study for Monster Energy drinks. Maybe weighted by amount. The 8oz, the 12oz, the 16oz and the 32oz. Which is the most beneficial in the morning, and does drinking one in the afternoon have a net negative or net positive. Come on, if we're gonna drug push, let's DRUG PUSH!
What about all day long coffee drinkers? (Score:2)
What if you're a teapot? 418 (Score:2)
It's Slashdot, the 418 reference had to be made.
Is it caffeine or coffee? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to know whether my decaf has any health benefits.
At one point, they removed the caffeine with benzene. It probably wasn't terribly healthy at that time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Now they use dichloromethane, ethyl acetate, CO2 or even water. If you are concerned about it, Ethyl acetate isn't too toxic, CO2 and water are obviously pretty safe.
Cue the diHydrogen monoxide jokes!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All I know about decaffeinating coffee is that I wish that they could take that caffeine and add it to my coffee to make it recaff!
A local convenience store had extra caffeine shots you could add to your coffee a few years back. Looked like creamers. They went away after a month - I think some young guys tried to see how buzzed they could get, and might have had a few OD's
Re: (Score:2)
I believe most of the benefits are ascribed to compounds other than caffeine, but it all depends on what else decaffeination removes.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems likely. Polyphenols, isochlorogenic acids and caffeic acid (not related to caffeine) seem to have some health benefits. And decaffeinated coffee contains more chlorogenic acid than regular caffeinated coffee. There are hundreds of other chemicals that are potentially helpful, so like most things, the answer is complicated.
100% (Score:2)
I hate to inform you of this, but you have a 100% risk of death.
The said COFFEE (Score:3)
And not a pint glass of mostly milk and sugar.
Risk of Death (Score:3)
Coffee drinkers do not drink coffee to reduce their risk of death. They drink coffee to reduce other people's risk of death.
It is far easier to tolerate others after having that first cup of coffee...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My wife drew a frowny face on one side of my coffee mug and a smiley face on the other... before and after.
Living after midnight (Score:2)
What if I'm an owl, stay late and my morning is effectively between 10am and 2pm?