We've been told that caffeine/coffee is bad for us....well....most everything is bad for us.
Then comes along "information" that coffee is good for Diabetes and assorted other ills.
Now they say caffeine is great for aging muscles.
Can you imagine everyone playing Rummy on 110 octane.
Perhaps a Latte iv drip or reprogrammed insulin pump with hight test coffee is just what we need?
If anyone hasn't been following the health news for the past 5 or 6 years, a Google search on the health benefits of coffee may prove enlightening. Bottom line, taken in moderation, coffee appears to be much more beneficial to our health than previously thought, with the benefits significantly outweighing the risks.
Good one.. Caffeine slows the digestion, this can have a beneficial effect for Diabetics as it "Lowers" the glycemic index of what you eat (Slows it down in short).
Frankly.. I ignore the coffee alarmists and drink it,, I mean back when I wore much smaller cloths both my younger (Nearly 2 years younger) and I both started drinking coffee at much the same time, Back then the story was "It will stunt your growth"
I'm 6'3" he's 6'6.5"
Sure it stunted our growth.
Nothin adds excitment like something that is none of your business
Kenwood TS-2000 housed in a 2005 Damon Intruder 377
wa8yxm wrote: Good one.. Caffeine slows the digestion, this can have a beneficial effect for Diabetics as it "Lowers" the glycemic index of what you eat (Slows it down in short).
Frankly.. I ignore the coffee alarmists and drink it,, I mean back when I wore much smaller cloths both my younger (Nearly 2 years younger) and I both started drinking coffee at much the same time, Back then the story was "It will stunt your growth"
I'm 6'3" he's 6'6.5"
Sure it stunted our growth.
But you might have topped out at 7 feet without the coffee, John. You'll never know...
mlts22 wrote: It all depends on who is funding the study...
Boy, you got that right ... and
Went to doctor the other day - she says: Can't eat carbs, sugar too high in blood. Don't eat bread, chocolate, cookies, pasta, no soda and no fruit or fruit juice -- and BTW, you got a little gout in a toe, so don't eat spinach, chicken, turkey, fish or steak. AND, NO blueberries or potatoes. NO muffins either.
SO, we're buying the lot next door - it's got a nice crop of sweet green grass this summer, so we'll be grazing it each AM and PM. We're picking up carrots for dessert.
I don't believe that there ever has been any data showing harmful effects of coffee. That is really surprising considering that caffeine is a pretty powerful stimulant.
I'm a little hesitant to get on my soapbox here because this forum isn't too fond of controversy but here goes anyway.
To start with, my credentials are that I am a biochemist who has worked in academia and later in a private research lab that tested pesticides for the EPA and pharmaceuticals for the FDA.
Some of the comments in this thread demonstrate a cynical attitude to studies like this stuff on coffee. For the most part your cynicism is justified. There are a lot of poorly done studies that give preliminary results suggesting that compound X might increase the incidence of cancer/heart disease/autism/ or you name it. This gets published in some third rate journal. Now the real value of this kind of study is that it points our a possible problem with compound X that deserves to be further investigated in properly done study. However, the news media pick up the story and make a headlines that "compound X has been shown to cause cancer/heart disease/autism/ or you name it.
The scientific illiteracy of the news media is astounding. All they can do is parrot what the researcher tells them and, of course, they can trumpet this misinformation as a headline to get an audience for their newspaper or news program.
The sad part of all this is that it becomes impossible for the general public to differentiate between hazards that are real, such as the dangers of cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc, from the hazards that are not.
The other bad thing is that it gives science a bad name that the vast majority of scientists don't deserve.
End of rant
* This post was
edited 06/30/12 05:15pm by Shearwater *
Quote: "The scientific illiteracy of the news media is astounding. All they can do is parrot what the researcher tells them and, of course, they can trumpet this misinformation as a headline to get an audience for their newspaper or news program."
As a researcher and journalist myself, I agree whole-heartedly with this comment. Am truly amazed at what some journalists (hesitate to actually allow some that label, it demeans the title) will write errors under a byline - and then take a bow ... the misinformation does more damage than good.
To do good work, you need at least two, usually more, independent sources that are not connected. Even then, you get distortions if you don't truly do your background homework - then, on top of that, editors come in and change what you write (often without fact-checks) and then publish a mistake under your byline -
Don't get me wrong, there are lots of very good journalists out there - problem is distinguishing between them. Now, it's 'sell the news' attitude as long as it close to accurate, no one remembers after a day anyway.
Offline
....Who cares.I have my TH AND my toys 
.
