/sci/ - Science & Math

Caffeine is literally poison
It is used to kill frogs

>>12734682
Long term consuption of coffee means you loose some mental agility without it. It's experience, not scientific study.

You are running like 12% with cofee and suddenly just 10%.

>>12734688
>Long term consuption of coffee means you loose some mental agility without it. It's experience, not scientific study.
That....is entirely wrong. long term consumption is neuro-protective, and does the opposite of what you claim.

>>12734685
I'm not a frog.

>>12734682
very high in antioxidants and fibers but caffeine can be a problem. basically caffeine blocks adenosine receptors which have the function of making you feel tired so you can rest but also has many other functions, like bone homeostasis. btw caffeine use can cause bone density loss.
i am not an expert on pharmacokinetics or endocrinology but i know that i shouldn't mess with the bodies balances unless there is something wrong with them. if being tired after sleeping for only six hours is wrong then all humanity is wrong.

>>12734685
Hormesis, anon.
Oxygen is also a poison.

>>12734682
roasted coffee is full of acrylamide which is carcinogenic. it tastes like bitter shit and destroys the chlorogenic acid that is good for you. green >> roasted.

>>12735107
Oxygen kills you slowly
Return to prokariote

>>12735115
Ok, what cancer does coffee make you more likely to get? Go ahead and back your claim up.

>>12735129
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/acrylamide-fact-sheet#:~:text=Studies%20in%20rodent%20models%20have,in%20and%20damage%20to%20DNA.

>>12735115
Also
>it tastes like bitter shit
Speak for your toddler-palated self.

>>12735137
>t.

>>12735133
I asked for a source on coffee making you more likely to give you cancer.

>>12735142
>anything that isn't overloaded with sugar tastes like shit
Fatso cope, imagine not having the taste buds of an adult

>>12735147
that is a compound found in roasted coffee. you should be able to put two and two together or will your argument amount to macro-evolution was never observed so it don't happen even though micro was and is the accumulation of it?

>>12735164
Go ahead and post a study linking coffee to a higher risk for cancer then. Should be easy for you as it's just "putting two snd two together".

>>12734682

People who drink coffee get more exercise
That's all it is

>>12735210
>An inverse association between coffee consumption and all-cause mortality was maintained irrespective of age, overweight status, alcohol drinking, smoking status, and caffeine content of coffee

>>12735193
>>12735221
the problem with all those studies is the plethora of confounders that cannot be controlled for. they are worthless compared to controlled models. acrylamide is a carcinogen. roasting makes acrylamide, ergo roasted coffee is carcinogenic.

>>12735249
>ergo roasted coffee is carcinogenic.
Go ahead and post a study backing your claim then, preferably a meta-study.

>>12735266
i did, several. showing acrylamide as a carcinogen. and that is a compound in roast coffee. just because the group of coffee drinkers may not show cancers to the controls could be for a whole host of reasons that are not controlled for. perhaps people that drink coffee have a protective allele of brca2, perhaps their lifestyle routine is more healthy overall, etc. none of which can be sufficiently controlled for. and guess what? maybe you drink coffee and don't have that confounder in your benefit so when you drink coffee it fucks you up while you loo like an outlier.

>>12735288
>perhaps people that drink coffee have a protective allele of brca2
Go ahead and back your claim. You are yet to post a study linking coffee to a higher risk for cancer. At least back this claim up.
>perhaps their lifestyle routine is more healthy overall
"An inverse association between coffee consumption and all-cause mortality was maintained irrespective of age, overweight status, alcohol drinking, smoking status, and caffeine content of coffee"

It's not that bad, my high school starts really early so I need this shit

>>12735306
>t.
completely not worth arguing with.

>>12734682
Mate > Coffee

Same stimulant effects, but with less caffeine and packed with antioxidants which is crazy good for your health.

>>12734685
don't eat chocolate then cus it kills dogs. Also never touch anything made of copper or silver, they kill bacteria.

>>12735312
>trust me dude, coffee is carcinogenic even though I've yet to post a study backing my claim
>it's all about these confounders for which I didn't post a source either

>>12735314
I don't like mate. And I don't drink coffee for the caffeine. Coffee is rich in antioxidants too btw

>>12735329
i never said to trust me, just pointed out that you consume an established carcinogen when you chug your cup of roasted bitter shit and why it's impossible to control for confounders in case control studies like that but go ahead be a faggot.

>>12735312
I hate you fags on both sides of the debate.
Don’t take scientific studies on faith as that directly goes against the scientific model and no data is impervious to external manipulation.
Also don’t go against overwhelming proof saying >look at these plebbitors worshipping science
Do you’re own fucking studies and gather your own evidence if you can be bothered

>>12734682
>still believing in science

>>12735339
>still not a single source backing his claim that coffee is carcinogenic
>just allusions to confounders he can't even individualize
>to top it off, has the taste buds of a toddler
More cope.

>>12735334
Fair enough.

I like coffee in the mornings and mate in the afternoon. Coffee is like big stimulant kick and mate is more like a continuous milder effect. In terms of taste I like both though I take my coffee black and my mate with sugar and sometimes a slice lemon.

based coffeechad making manchildren angry

>muh meta-study
onions.jpg

>>12735369
you can't really be this stupid can you? a compound in roast coffee is an established carcinogen, see: >>12735133
ergo roasted coffee is carcinogenic as it contains a carcinogen.

>>12735686
Let me know when you can post a study that links coffee with an increased risk for cancer, brainlet.

>>12734682
does this mean that coffee is good for you.

>>12735133
Good think that coffee is more than just acrylamide.

>>12735249
>acrylamide is a carcinogen
Yes.

>roasting makes acrylamide
Yes.

>ergo roasted coffee is carcinogenic
No. More than likely, other chemicals in coffee are protective again acrylamide, which is why you can't find studies showing coffee is carcinogenic.

>>12734682
I assume many coffee drinkers in the past were generally unhealthy for other reasons (like smoking), which caused it to get some of the blame for the health issues.

>>12735133
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140161/

>While acrylamide is considered a “probable carcinogen,” probable is certainly not definitive. In fact, one recent review on coffee and cancer risk noted, “… epidemiological studies and retrospective re-analyses of data published so far failed to provide sufficient evidence that dietary acrylamide increases the risk of any type of cancer in humans, including kidney, large bowel, bladder, oral cavity, breast, and ovarian cancer.”2 Moreover, the evidence upon which acrylamide is considered a probable carcinogen is based on studies in rodents that “were dosed at rates 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than what humans consume in food.”3 In other words, there is no sound evidence that acrylamide, especially in the trace doses found in a cup of coffee, would cause cancer in humans. Coffee is a complex brew containing hundreds of biologically active compounds and one of its parts is not the sum of its parts. So, coffee needs to be looked at as a whole not just one of its constituents.

>Adding insult to injury, the data in humans on coffee consumption indicates that coffee may even have a protective effect on numerous types of cancer, including colorectal, liver, and breast cancers.2

Yeah, I'm not buying that the tiny amounts of acrylamide in coffee are a risk, much less when coffee as a whole is showing the opposite of being a carcinogen.

>>12735966
Smoking status is accounted for in that meta-study.

>>12735988
Not only did he not post a study showing coffee to be carcinogenic but all he could come up with as an excuse was some protective gene that coffee drinkers may have (even though he didn't explain what gene this is and why it would be more common in coffee drinkers ) and that coffee drinkers may do more exercise (even though overweight status is accounted for in this study and even though physical exercise levels is accounted for in other studies).

>>12735958
>More than likely, other chemicals in coffee are protective again acrylamide
possible. could also be shit case study research that cannot accurately log their numbers because its just self reporting, etc.

>>12735988
>Adding insult to injury, the data in humans on coffee consumption indicates that coffee may even have a protective effect on numerous types of cancer, including colorectal, liver, and breast cancers.2
lol reads like something paid for by sbux. it's truly the most brainlet take ever. case control studies have way to many confounders to be reliable while actual animal models you control dosages, etc. probable means likely and anyone who isn't a retard understands the precautionary principle. so when something is probable because animals who are very closely related to use exhibit genotoxicity and mutagenesis from exposure you better treat it as a carcinogen.

>>12736039
my point was to give you a handful of examples of confounders that they definitely didn't look into. there was no gwas between coffee drinkers and non.

>>12735947
good thing the poison laced apple juice is more than poison.

>>12736152
>while actual animal models you control dosages, etc.
And? Well controlled animal studies haven't shown coffee to cause cancer.

>>12736157
>good thing the poison laced apple juice is more than poison.
Well most apple juice contains arsenic. Not to mention the fructose. You're not drinking apple juice, right anon? You're not eating meat, right anon? You're not eating vegetables, right anon? I hope you're not eating at all, because if you are, then you're consuming tiny amounts of carcinogens at every single meal.

take the kratom pill

Sure are a lot of caffeine addicts ITT who are seething at the prospect that their drug abuse is harming them.
>I-its not bad for me!
>Those headaches I get without caffeine are just me being tired in the morning!
>I can stop whenever I want

>>12734754
That's not what everyone's experience with coffee addict is

>>12736533
Claiming caffeine is dangerous, assuming it's at appropriate dosages, is idiotic, and I'm someone who prefers to avoid caffeine.

>>12735193
>MUH STUDIES
lmao total brainlet

>>12736555
>assuming it's at appropriate dosages
>Assuming reality doesn't exist, my claims are substantiated!
Look up the average or median caffeine consumption in Western countries. If you're going to call someone an idiot, the least you can do is be a dick with facts rather than talking out of your ass. The median caffeine consumption is far beyond the "appropriate" amount you have in mind, idiot.

>>12736561
In tests animals, there's basically no danger from caffeine below the human equivalent of a gram per day. That's over 10 cups of coffee per day. The average American averages less than two cups per day.

>>12736561
What about it?

According to wikipedia, Finland has the greatest consumption of coffee per capita. Do they have higher rates of cancer? Nope. Is there anything you can conclude from this little factoid? Nope.

What may be considered appropiate varies depending on who you cite, but there is no evidence that widespread coffee consumption as practiced anywhere in the world is bad for your health. There may be individual cases of people taking it to unhealthy levels (as in above the norm of what even Finnish people drink) but not on the levels the average person consumes.

>>12736579
>https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/top-10-coffee-consuming-nations.html
>1. Finland - 26.45 lbs per person per year
>25. USA - 9.26 lbs per person per year

Wow.

>>12736571
>The average American averages less than two cups per day.
Wrong. The FDA suggests no more than 400 mg of caffeine a day is appropriate. The average American consumes 11,000 mg of caffeine a day. That's the equivalent of 0.15 kg per year. See pic rel. US clocks in at rank 25 with 4.2 kg per person per year.

>>12736594
>The average American consumes 11,000 mg of caffeine a day.
Anon, you're confusing grams of coffee with grams of caffeine, I'm assuming. 8 oz of coffee contains about 100 mg of caffeine. 11 grams of caffeine would be 110 cups of coffee, or almost 7 gallons.

>>12734682
i have literally never drank coffee in my entire life and i am more energetic than my caffeine-addicted friends

>>12736604
I noticed that error when I was typing the comment (11,000 mg is too high) and I thought I deleted that sentence but I guess I didn't. My point stands. The average American consumes far more caffeine than the FDAs recommended 400 mg daily

>>12736616
The American median average is 2-3 cups per day, depending on sources, which is less than 300 mg of caffeine per day. That other anon made a good point, if Finland is consuming 3x the amount of coffee and not having issues, then why do you think Americans are consuming too much?

>>12736622
>why do you think Americans are consuming too much?
Gee, who knows.
>Muh headaches
>Sorry for stupid comment I didn't have my coffee yet
>I can't get good night's sleep
>I'm not tired at night
If you seriously can't notice the mass problems of this addiction, then you're honestly an idiot.

>>12736627
Got it, so you're suggesting that Americans have some kind of genetic defect that affects only them, but not the many countries that consume much more coffee? That makes sense. I'm sure being overweight, having shitty diets, staring at blue light devices all day, etc., couldn't have anything to do with the issues you described. I have a colleague with all of those issues. He doesn't even drink coffee. That idiot, he must be drinking it in his sleep or something.

>>12736152
>my point was to give you a handful of examples of confounders that they definitely didn't look into. there was no gwas between coffee drinkers and non.
You only gave two confounders, one you made up and one that's accounted for.

>>12736545
Studies > your feefees

>>12736561
>The median caffeine consumption is far beyond the "appropriate" amount you have in mind, idiot.
According to whom?

Why are anti-coffee shills so dishonest?

>>12737280
They want to cope with having the palate of a toddler so they tell themselves that coffee is unhealthy.

>>12736561
>The median caffeine consumption is far beyond the "appropriate" amount you have in mind, idiot.
Back this claim up.

>>12734685
turning freaking frogs gay

>>12737272
T idiot
Back to redit

>>12737333
t. midwit

>>12738534
According to your jpg I'm a genius

Coffee is the wage slave drug, you don't need any stimulant, just fresh air and sun from outside the cagey.
Everything you stand for is a lie.

>>12734682
Feminists. The first feministic text decried coffee as harmful and horribly, primarily because the men had too much fun at coffee houses.

>>12738567
Some people simply enjoy coffee. I get no stimulation from it, no headaches when I don't drink it for a few weeks. It's just a nice addition to some meals.

>>12738534
I don't what are you arguing about or who are your replying to but if you unironically believe the right sentence is true then you should unironically kill yourself.
Evolution just works, it isn't perfect it just works good enough to let you survive and reproduce so it is biased.
Trusting your instincts without experimental verification is biased.

>>12734682
People dont fucking get that it plays a role where the coffee comes from and how it is roasted. If you buy coffee which was grown on contaminated grounds then yeah, it’s bad.

Then you get heavily roasted coffee which produces toxic compounds like oxidized lipids.

>>12735342
Based

>>12736615
Caffeine is supposed to have a very pronounced drug tolerance property to it, is it not? I'm assuming that people who drink 2-3+ cups of coffee per day (assuming they are not caffeine insensitive to begin with) are getting diminishing returns from it.

Is it possible that at a certain point you would be getting no effect from caffeine consumption other than going back up to your pre-caffeine baseline?

>>12734685
Fuck, really?

>>12738737
People who drink it for the taste and not the stimulant effect are not gonna be the ones having rabid arguments in bad faith about it, though.

>>12734685

Good thing I'm not French then, more coffee for me.

anyone have a good coffee cake recipe to go with my morning coffee?

>>12744017
I never understood the point of coffee cakes. You're already drinking coffee ...why do you want to eat something coffee-flavoured at the same time? I much prefer desserts with flavours like chocolate, nut or milk that complement the coffee flavour. Leches cake or milk rice pudding are godlike with black coffee.

I used to drink a LOT of coffee
pretty sure it gave me ADHD and or thyroid problems

does coffee retain its other useful compounds when it's been processed to become decaf?

>>12741556
well i'm not a /med/fag but i suppose that's what happens when you can consume too much of anything

>>12745832
you had those before you drank the coffee.

>>12745744
It's not usually coffee flavored. It's called coffee cake because it's paired with coffee

>>12734682
It's not bad but it's cringe. Take your amphetamines instead, you adhd ridden zoomer

>>12737280
>Why are anti-coffee shills so dishonest?
Because they're all into some form of alternative medicine unless they're mormons or whatever.

>>12735249
Isn't acrylamide also present in potato chips, french fries and burnt toast?

Caffeine is a meme. I drink about 7 cups a day including full mug in the morning and I basically don't feel it at all. I just keep doing it out of habit and because headaches assault me if I stop.

>Coffee consumption has been associated with decreased mortality in previous studies.
Wow, I didn't realise that correlation = causation.

>>12734688
>cant spell lose
>still thinks qualified to express opinions