andrew@hammer.UUCP (10/17/86)
So now the newspapers report on a study linking heavy coffee drinking
(five or more cups per day) to a doubled risk of heart attack.
The amusing part was the reaction from the coffee industry. They
denied everything, attacked the report, claimed "insufficient
evidence." Just like the tobacco industry's reaction to
cigarette-as-carcinogen reports. I get an entirely different
perspective when the special interests are defending something so much
closer to home.
Of course, the newspaper account was non-technical. Does anyone have a
more detailed account?
-=- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!tekecs!andrew) [UUCP]
(tekecs!andrew.tektronix@csnet-relay) [ARPA]mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) (10/19/86)
In article <2630@hammer.TEK.COM>, andrew@hammer.UUCP writes: > So now the newspapers report on a study linking heavy coffee drinking > (five or more cups per day) to a doubled risk of heart attack. > I could be wrong here (Great Ghu knows, it's been known to happen), but I would suspect that one possible reason for this would be the concomitantly high intake of caffeine involved in drinking this much coffee. Caffeine is a strong stimulant, and I can state anecdotally that whenever I take a strong dose of caffeine, my heart POUNDS. This could, over years of continuous use, result in various heart conditions conducive to heart attack, I would think. > The amusing part was the reaction from the coffee industry. They > denied everything, attacked the report, claimed "insufficient > evidence." Just like the tobacco industry's reaction to > cigarette-as-carcinogen reports. I get an entirely different > perspective when the special interests are defending something so much > closer to home. > What's so amusing about this? It is typical of American industrial practice. American business seems to have perverted the concept of freedom to mean that THEY can produce any product they want, without adequate testing for safety, and unless someone can both prove scientifically *AND* afford highly expensive lawyers to fight Business lawyers to the death, there isn't *ANYTHING* anyone can do about it. I don't find this amusing at all. I find it even less amusing that at *LEAST* in the case of the tobacco industry, the AMA has supported the industry over the health concerns of the American public. (not so surprising, when you realize that at least at the time, the AMA owned MILLIONS of dollars in tobacco stocks) -- Disclaimer: Disclaimer? DISCLAIMER!? I don't need no stinking DISCLAIMER!!! tom keller "She's alive, ALIVE!" {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
abc@brl-smoke.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) (10/19/86)
In article <2630@hammer.TEK.COM> andrew@hammer.UUCP writes: >So now the newspapers report on a study linking heavy coffee drinking >(five or more cups per day) to a doubled risk of heart attack. > >Of course, the newspaper account was non-technical. Does anyone have a >more detailed account? I was disturbed and a little chagrined by this study, which was done at The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. According to the press, all sorts of variables were factored into (out of?) the study except the most suspect of all: caffeine. Any long term coffee drinker knows what I mean! Does anyone know if the study addressed whether caffeine is the likely culprit? If not, does this not cast serious doubt on its credibility? -- Brint Cooper ARPA: abc@brl.arpa UUCP: ...{seismo,unc,decvax,cbosgd}!brl-smoke!abc
werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (10/20/86)
> So now the newspapers report on a study linking heavy coffee drinking > (five or more cups per day) to a doubled risk of heart attack. > > The amusing part was the reaction from the coffee industry. They > denied everything, attacked the report, claimed "insufficient > evidence." I remember several years ago when is a preliminary study, they heacy coffee drinking to Pancreatic Cancer. Last month, the final report from the same group came out and they basically said "Nevermind," the correlation dissapeared with time. There was an interesting article in one of this summer's Discover magazines about the coffee/caffeine controversy, which included a quote from one of the more prominent researchers in the field before he moved on to other projects, "It's gotten to the point where things as so confusing I refuse to review any more Caffeine papers." Other factors which make these studies less rigorous than Cigarette studies is that the increased risks are small (2-fold is statistically significant, but not real-world significant) and that they don't appear at intermediate doses (i.e. there is no 1.5X risk at 2.5 cups) There might be other factors. For instance - in this study the real difference was over 10-fold, but decreased to 2-fold after taking into account that heavy coffee drinking correlates well with heavy smoking. Incidentally, I';m completely unbiased in this one. I haven't had a cup of coffee in years. Can't stand the taste. Only drink Twining's Tea and Coke Classic to get my caffeine intake. -- Craig Werner (MD/PhD '91) !philabs!aecom!werner (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) "Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died."
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (10/24/86)
I have for years felt that it was strange that there was this repetitive hypothesis that if it feels good, it must be bad. We seem to be constantly deluged with 'stories' that sex, drugs and rock + roll are bad for us, proven by one study or another. There is no doubt some of it is true but the correlation seems amazing: if it feels good someone will do a study and report to a major periodical (and thus picked up by every 6PM/11PM news program on TV) that -it- is harmful. I guess just it never occurs to anyone to study the correlation between eating spinach or paying all your bills on time and cancer. It wouldn't sound very good in the NIH proposal anyhow. On the other hand Disco and finger injuries (too much finger snapping), THAT'S interesting (true study, reported a few years back in JAMA.) I dunno, but think about it, would -you- write up a proposal to study the correlation of fresh air and pancreatic cancer and expect it to get funded? But fishing expeditions in our nether activities seems perfectly acceptable. Just cynical I guess. It may not be the medical folks so much as the press tho having worked in medical research I think its a little bit of both, maybe a lot of both. We love to punish ourselves for our pleasures (see! I really AM suffering!) -Barry Shein, Boston University