RE: Coffee Drinking Reduces All Causes of Death According to Recent Meta-Analysis Study
It is important to note that this study is not saying coffee is healthy, or that it "reduces" or "increases" anything specific which would directly influence mortality. More than likely this was funded by individuals who want to promote drinking coffee but it should be noted that this sort of study is non-specific and not very useful for determining the health benefit of coffee.
Milk has also been studied in a similar way. The difference is with diary we know that it is insulinogenic and high insulin levels are associated with or may eb a cause for CVD and metabolic syndrome. All Cause Death studies do not indicate that something is healthy. To find any health benefit in coffee the specific component would have to be isolated into a pill form and that pill would have to be associated with longer lifespan at least in rats.
According to my own studies I suspect chlorogenic acid is the only healthy part of coffee. The caffeine isn't healthy because it decreases insulin sensitivity and raises blood pressure. The coffee you drink also stains your teeth. So the only thing in it which I found which has any positive benefit is chlorogenic acid which may be possible to take in a pill form without the negative health risks of coffee itself.
Reference
https://examine.com/supplements/chlorogenic-acid/
Yes we all know you are anti-coffee. This study is consistent with previous findings.
I'm not anti or pro-coffee. I am only saying this study you present does not prove coffee is healthy. It could be true that there is something healthy in coffee but we also know for a fact caffeine is unhealthy and also in coffee. This is similar to the studies saying "drink beer because beer drinkers live longer" or "drink wine because wine drinkers live longer" and there is something healthy (hops) and (grape skins, grape seed) in wine which shows it does have health benefits but it doesn't mean it's wine. It's the grape skin, the hops, the grape seed, which is beneficial, and then alcoholics may use it as an excuse to drink lots of wine.
The truth is, you only need reversatrol (which I use myself sometimes) or pterostilbene. You don't need to accept the risk of alcohol (alcoholism, liver disease, weight gain) just to get the benefits. Same with whatever is in coffee, you don't actually need to drink coffee to take a pill giving you more of the benefit than if you drank 100 cups of coffee a day.
I am pro health. I think if you can get the same benefit with less risk why not? In the case of a pill you can get 100 times the benefit with way less risk because you don't need the caffeine at all. There are also pro cannabis studies and while I agree there are healthy parts of cannabis I would not say smoking weed is healthy because smoking is never healthy.
How do you know that? I'm not saying that is wrong but that is not based on evidence. When I see the evidence I will make the decision.
There is no truth in science. Only the body of the research. I have been interested in resveratrol for some time due to it's life extension potential. Sadly the evidence is at best contradictory right now so we don't know for sure.
People can take cannabis without smoking though.
Everything I said is based on the evidence I've studied. Just like what you say is based on the evidence you have studied. On coffee there is no study where an animal model such as rats have been given coffee with or without caffeine compared to a control to see if it extends lifespan. Show me that study to convince me of a measurable health benefit.
People can take cannabis without smoking. People can take whatever is in coffee without caffeine. The beneficial part of cannabis has been isolated. Find and isolate the beneficial part of coffee and do trials with that to convince me that something in coffee is beneficial.
Exactly my point. We don't know. Further the only way to know for sure would be to actually do it as a human study not on animals. We do have the data for coffee, hence we cans say that coffee has benefits.
Really?
You speak in absolute certainties. That is not scientific and it is not how research works.
Better still why don't you do the same and prove that it is harmful? You seem to be absolutely certain of that with a religious zeal.