Is this a valid study? (most dietary studies are pretty poor)
Is it the lack of sugar or is that people who don't put sugar in their coffee have a bunch of other things they do? Maybe people who don't put sugar in their coffee are less likely to eat donuts. Maybe people who don't put sugar in their coffee are more likely to workout. Maybe people who don't put sugar in their coffee are more like to have better genes for T2D and that same collection of genes makes the predisposed to not put sugar in their coffee.
I'm not saying sugar isn't bad. It is! (I don't put sugar in my coffee) But, 1 teaspoon a cup doesn't sound like enough to have a measurable impact without knowing that everything else about the people is the same.
I agree with you that dietary studies, particularly radically new findings, should be considered with appropriate skepticism.
But it sounds like you're dismissing all science out of hand! What are we left with then - truthiness?
Is there any indication that this study is a poor one? It seems to have a lot of positive indicators. It also generally agrees with what we already "know" about both coffee and about sugar.
Regardless of how valid the study is, it is most likely useless.
These kinds of studies have been done for decades and type 2 diabetes rates have only gone up.
There has been clear evidence for decades that obesity and high carb diets increase risk of diabetes. Comparing tea to coffee or Skittles to m&Ms is a useless research project as far as diabetes goes. Because it is extremely unlikely that someone will discover that the cure for diabetes was a small change in lifestyle like that.
> Is this a valid study? (most dietary studies are pretty poor)
Is this a valid question? most critiques without any supporting evidence are pretty poor
really? "most" dietary studies? so 'most' of what we know about nutrition and diets is pretty poor? In the past 75 years there was no real nutrition science done?
The authors affiliations are below[1], are you saying they have no idea how to conduct a valid study? Why are you dismissing a study out of hand, with anecdotes and cliches, instead of reading it and commenting on what's actually published?
Why are you anti-science?
[1]
Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States
Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Navarra—IdiSNA (Instituto de Investigacion Sanitaria de Navarra), Pamplona, Spain
Department of Nutritional Sciences, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials Unit, Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Centre, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States
CIBER Fisiopatología de La Obesidad y Nutrición (CIBERObn), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain
Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
Does "antioxidant" there just refer to tannin, really? If you like tea strong, it's necessary to add some milk to bind to some of the tannins so it remains drinkable and doesn't try to turn your esophagus to leather.
This is silly, many societies drink tons of strong black tea without polluting it with milk or sugar, and do just fine. (I come from one, and have never had any problems with my esophagus — maybe it has already turned into leather without me noticing?) It does often cause nausea on an empty stomach, though, so filling it with something first might actually be useful.
Hi Kazakhstan! Yeah, I guess one can adapt, but I think there's such a thing as excessive antioxidants, is all I'm saying. Neutralizing some percentage to taste isn't going to stop you getting the healthsome goodness of tea, along with its fluoride for cavity protection (and possible lead or cadmium content, just to even things out).
you don’t need milk per se. you just need something that your body can digest alongside the tannin. i love strong tea and have had to be saved more than once from cramping and dry heaving from tannin overload.
When Americans put "cream" in their coffee, it's often actually milk. Especially if they are making it at home (most people I know don't keep half-and-half in the fridge just for coffee). So kind of a cousin of a cappuccino.
Where? I've been most places and never encountered this. It should be noted that in the US "half and half" is popular which isn't a thing in Europe but would be referred to as "cream" by Americans.
We make the distinction between half and half and cream. If I goto a diner there's usually both light cream and half&half available for coffee in plastic mini-creamers.
Austrians do it ("einspänner" and "melange") - Germans and French will have that (called "wiener" style or "vienois"). Italians have their "Espresso con panna" (literally: "Espresso with cream") - would also use. The Swiss will often take their coffee with cream too. In Czech republic it's "kafe se šlehačkou", in Greece it's common in capuccinos or added at will to black coffee.
Whipped creme is perhaps the most common form (cream + sugar whipped).
Not sure about "half and half" though, think that's just an American thing / product.
This doesn’t make any sense - chemically espresso and filtered coffee are very similar. There are some subtle differences which contribute to the differences in taste between them, but it seems unlikely those make any contribution to cholesterol
Drinking a lot of cappuccinos could potentially raise cholesterol levels due to heavy milk consumption. But if you have them with skim milk, that reduces that problem.
Plus I personally have abnormally low blood cholesterol (in spite of a heavy cappuccino habit). My doctor thinks it is a harmless genetic mutation in cholesterol metabolism. At least one of my siblings has the same thing which supports my doctor’s theory.
I believe this is the reason that the AeroPress uses paper filters to reduce the cafestol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafestol) significantly. Personally, I prefer using permanent metal filters in my AeroPress (for the flavour more than anything), but then I don't have high cholesterol so am not concerned about it and cafestol has been shown to be anti-carcinogenic and neuroprotective in animal studies.
Coffee does contain oils that will "increase cholesterol" (meaning increase LDL/bad cholesterol specifically). Filters reduce the oil significantly but unfiltered methods like cafetière and espresso (which is the basis of cappuccino etc) let it all through. It's something to think about if your drinking many unfiltered coffees a day. It is possible to add a filter to espresso if you brew it yourself.
> Cafestol, a diterpene present in unfiltered coffee brews such as Scandinavian boiled, Turkish, and cafetière coffee, is the most potent cholesterol-elevating compound known in the human diet.
Diabetes is a problem with blood sugar regulation which is primarily accomplished via insulin regulation. if you have a problem regulating something it is almost always best to minimize both the amount and variability of use of that thing.
The long answer is, in our time of great abundance, the most common version of type 2 diabetes by a mile is the one where blood sugar is always elevated because fat cells have stopped responding as well to insulin and insulin is also always elevated. Elevated insulin stops energy release from fat cells and keeps fat cells absorbing glucose and storing it as fat for as long as they can until they get large, unresponsive and usually start releasing inflammatory chemicals (aka they start causing you a bad time) thats when insulin jacks up further and once jacking insulin up stops working you now get classified as having type 2 diabetes. so in so far as our fat cells are not highly responsive to insulin, sugar is bad and inso far as sugar contributes to your fat cells getting unresponsive to insulin over time it's bad too (barring a famine that being at maximum fatness will help you survive).
Disagree, I use a tsp of cane sugar in mine, you can't agitate it efficiently by hand and it needs to be piping hot to help it dissolute. You need something like a cheap $10 handheld milk frother/mixer or something that can get into it better than your hand going anti-clockwise. I typically add a small amount of hot water and get a thick sweet enough paste then add more hot water if I'm doing instant and for ground the same but add a strain step at the end.
Given that this is an association study, I like to interpret it as if you drink coffee and you often add sweetener, you may be more likely to develop type w diabetes than others who drink coffee and don't add sweetener.
Not adding sweetener because it's associated with type 2 diabetes is probably less protective than being the type of person who naturally didn't add sweeteners.
yes, thus their point. It's probably not the sweetener or sugar in the coffee, it's that folks who add sweetener are also more likely to have a lifestyle that gives them type 2.
Or a separate effect where people whose doctors tell them they’re a diabetes risk tend to make a token switch to artificial sweeteners, but don’t take other, more effective steps.
We haven't come to generally accept food as an addiction yet. We still talk about obesity (a symptom) and not food addiction (the problem). It would be like saying lung cancer is a problem but only very vaguely hinting that you might want to cut down on the smoking.
My best guess, and I've thought about this a lot, is that chronic illness drives billions of dollars of direct economic activity.
Of course, illness has an even larger cost to society and to overall happiness, but that's much less measurable, and therefore has less effect on public policy.
At least with cigarettes there was a public nuisance argument because of the smell and also the secondhand effect. I dont find general public health a compelling argument for restricting sugar.
That's semi-reasonable in America, but less so in any country with single-payer health care. Like smoking, there are serious effects later in life that cost money to treat; this makes for a compelling case for a sin tax IMO, like we have for tobacco and liquor here in Canada.
It’s the root of the toxic nature of American culture. We worship the “freedom” to have bad outcomes shoved in our faces, but castigate and actively harm anyone who falls afoul as a result.
From my limited travels in Europe, I see countries with problems, but with people who appear to be happier and healthier.
Is it? You'll either have higher health insurance costs to cover the people destroying their bodies, or you'll have to prove to your insurance provider that you live a healthy lifestyle somehow. Both seem like a bad thing.
I agree with you, and I think the sin tax up here in the Great White North is great. There are more externalities than just the healthcare system having more, expensive, patients. To lead with a strong argument that's less likely to be nit-picked apart though, I avoided getting into that discussion for the USA
So if we vote for a single payer healthcare system, we get a back door for government tyranny over every little aspect of our lives that they decide is bad for us, including as the science shifts? Don’t eat eggs or you lose your coverage, no wait, eat 3 eggs a week or you lose your coverage, no wait.. Sounds like a bad deal, and most Americans will take freedom over free health care if that’s the cost.
Yes, having billions poured into creating foods that are as addictive as possible and manipulation campaigns to get people hooked is a much better system.
This system also affects your freedoms in many ways. If a large portion of the population gets fat, you have a smaller pool of people that are able to do physical work, making it more expensive for you. You have a lot more demand for healthcare, making it more expensive for you. You have people demanding car-centric infrastructure because they can't walk, and that will affect you. Etc.
In a single payer system, the government is mandated to provide you with health care, since you are paying for it with your taxes (or would be if your income was high enough), no exceptions.
Typical tools of such governments include:
- taxes on products which are deemed of danger to public health, for example taxes on cigarettes in the EU. The government is then mandated to invest these taxes into the health care system
- public health campaigns (ads etc.)
- age restrictions, as they exist on alcohol in the US.
Legislation shifts to represent newest advances in science, yes. That's not per se a bad thing.
Not every country with a single-payer system is an authoritarian communist hellscape, you know.
That sound very reasonable and I'm inclined to agree, but empirically US health care system is the worst I know of. You're only free if you're rich and if you're rich you're not free, cause you've got so much to lose.
And from a more theoretical viewpoint the societal cost of unhealthy people is still there at the least in loss of productivity, so the argument for prohibition is still there and the US is only really liberal in things that are backed by wealthy corporations/people that have subverted the government.
This not only doesn’t happen, but those "tyrannical" systems also usually have lower minimum age requirements for alcohol consumption than the US, and healthcare is cheaper while people are healthier on average.
It is sad how so many people in the US were persuaded to be so afraid of supposed "communism" that they are actively voting against their interests.
It is a crazy amount of carbs. As a type 1 diabetic pizza is typically one of the trickiest foods to compensate with insulin. And that is only about 100 grams of carbs.
That thing is almost double. And in pure sugar form...
Interesting, I'm more partial to the white castle large strawberry shake at 178g of sugar per serving. I find it really covers the recommended american intake of 24g of sugar per day.
I made a decision about 13 or 14 years ago to not drink my calories and it took another 11 years to actually cease all liquid calories - booze has a lot.
I do put a splash of heavy cream in my coffee, otherwise I wouldn't drink coffee at all, as unsweet iced tea is a more palatable flavor to me. But I don't like hot tea or cold coffee.
I understand cream has calories, but I have to take a small bit of fat to allow certain medicines to work, am I only have coffee a few times a week. Like 3 "cups" a week.
This. I would also consider a V60. Note the grinder is the most important bit and should set you back at least 10x as much as the brewer. Note also that pour over coffee is a skill and it will take a while to learn to brew nice coffee that can be (should be) enjoyed black. Also, if you buy "speciality" beans then their highest level of roast is still lighter than what Starbucks would call "light".
I have tried so many coffees. I have a 25 bar espresso machine (15 bar? i forget), a bunn commercial vacuum-flask machine, a generic k-cup and a french press. I've done cold brew myself, many many times. I've had every brew at CB&TL, starbucks, The Human Bean, Dutch Bros coffee co. I've tried most brands and most roasts.
I do like light roasts, except i "feel" they're a bit too caffiene-y.
I just really like tea, more. PG Tips, Uncle Lee's green, tisanes of all descriptions. It's more "refreshing" to me. Personal preference.
also i noted the reason i don't mind the cream, other than it's delicious - i need literal fat for certain medications. If i don't have coffee a couple hours after getting up, i'll eat a tablespoon of peanut butter for the same result.
You're not wrong; light roast is reportedly higher in caffeine.
What I find interesting is that pour-over produces such better results than a drip coffee maker, which seems to be doing essentially the same thing. I guess having the grounds totally submerged makes that much difference.
I'm sure someone has rigged up a microcontroller-based automated pour-overer.
Same and within the same timeframe. It occurred to me that eating calories is a lot harder than drinking them so I made up a diet of the only liquid being water and no desserts. I’ve since refined it but the base idea was reasonably effective.
Same, I no longer drink any calories outside of exceptional cases such as supplements when running long distances. Black coffee and water are the only things I drink. Haven't drank alcohol in a while either.
To add some nuance, unused/unnecessary sugar will cause diabetes.
If you are in high cardiovascular load consuming more than you can take in as eg with long distance triathlon, to my knowledge you will not increase your diabetes risk. It's more a matching supply and demand thing.
The specific thing I'm pointing out is sugar in drinks. As someone pointed out in the thread I linked, it seems like there's a big difference in how your body handles liquid sugar versus sugar that's in food. There are plenty of people that have lots of sugar in food (i.e., a lot American food has copious amounts of sugar in breads and other non-sweet type food) but don't have diabetes.
There are many types of sugar and digestive pathways. Solid vs liquid intake tells you hardly anything. Until someone tests liquid vs solid dextrose difference and then for all other types I'm not going to be impressed. Time chewing is also a factor for food.
I think the question above was about side effects, is there a reason to believe they are any different with and without ADHD?
Even regarding the main effect, my understanding is that it's "concentration boost" in both cases, just seen more socially acceptable for people who lack concentration in the first place. Is there any study that would demonstrate the difference?
that seems unlikely. I was looking into it the other day out of curiosity because of ADHD being . The effects of the same dosage on someone without ADHD is pretty much the same as with, it makes people feel more focussed.
At this point people should know that T2D predisposition is mostly inherited (in fact more heritable than T1), the trigger is just better understood. Most of the time at least - people still get it without the stereotypical risk factors.
I mean if you go in between the two you find folks happily enjoying the appetite suppressing side effects of low dose stimulants and some antidepressants.
It's really deceptive how the title of this post implies causality despite the study not stating a causal link exists.
"Coffee reduces risk of T2DM" is much different than the author's conclusion: "Adding sugar or artificial sweetener significantly attenuates the magnitude of the inverse association between higher coffee consumption and T2D risk, whereas the use of cream do not alter the inverse association." The key word there is "association."
It would be interesting to analyze a dataset of commercially sold prepared "coffee" drinks from vendors like Starbucks to see how many are actually coffee, versus coffee-flavored soft drinks, and how this changed over the last few decades.
I think at this point this has basically become an old man yells at cloud take. Folks ordering at Starbucks know exactly what they're getting down to the number of pumps. You've always been able to get any form of unadulterated coffee hot or cold. All the drinks are coffee, you can find the worker manual for Starbucks floating around online and it has all the drink recipes. And it's because coffee is crazy cheap, it would be more effort to fake it. Most of their desert drinks use espresso pulls as the base coffee flavor.
It's hard to work around the fact that coffee, dairy, and sugar taste really good together. Coffee really wants to be a dessert, it's why it's in so many of them. Starbucks just rolled with that and people love it.
I stopped coffee. My sugar levels went up and my weight went up too. Coffee kept me working hard. It also affected my bowel movement negatively. So no coffee meant lazier, more nutritious lifestyle.
I’ve always wondered if these coffee benefits apply to consumption of instant coffee also which is dried and processed, or just brewed coffee which is not processed post-brewing.
I suspect that any measurable effects would be some spurious correlation derived from the difference between the type of person who would have instant vs espresso machine coffee (eg socioeconomic)
Coffee reduces risk of Type 2 Diabetes; okay to add cream, but not sweetener.
What?, no, it is not ok to add cream or sweetener.
It is permissible to add more coffee, a "shot in the dark", coffee with a couple of shots of espresso, or just a mug of espresso.
Fresh made,carefully selected beens roasted by obsessives,stove top espresso machine that isn't
parsimonious, and produces a full measure, once a day, early in the day.
The idea of anything else, produces in me what must be like a gallick umbrage, but of course not so all encompassing and consuming as bieng french.
Something that my medical professor used to tell us was that sugar and salt are man made things (processed sugar). And not something we found in nature and something that our bodies are not evolutionary developed to handle. So too much of salt and sugar was a good thing.
Is it the lack of sugar or is that people who don't put sugar in their coffee have a bunch of other things they do? Maybe people who don't put sugar in their coffee are less likely to eat donuts. Maybe people who don't put sugar in their coffee are more likely to workout. Maybe people who don't put sugar in their coffee are more like to have better genes for T2D and that same collection of genes makes the predisposed to not put sugar in their coffee.
I'm not saying sugar isn't bad. It is! (I don't put sugar in my coffee) But, 1 teaspoon a cup doesn't sound like enough to have a measurable impact without knowing that everything else about the people is the same.
Reminds me this podcast
https://podcast.clearerthinking.org/episode/252/gordon-guyat...