Talk:Health effects of coffee

coffee or caffeine
It is unlcear in this article whether many of these health affects are related to coffee or caffeine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.255.58 (talk • contribs)

"Recent research has uncovered additional stimulating effects of coffee which are not related to its caffeine content. Coffee contains an as yet unknown chemical agent which stimulates the production of cortisone and adrenaline, two stimulating hormones.[1]"


 * The full text of this citation is not available online, and the abstract indicates nothing about unknown stimulants in coffee, which would seem to be a noteworthy thing one would mention in an abstract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beefman (talk • contribs)


 * "So aside from caffeine, just what are you getting in a cup, or two, or six? Thousands of mostly understudied chemicals that contribute to flavor and aroma, including plant phenols, chlorogenic acids, and quinides, all of which function as antioxidants. Diterpenoids in unfiltered coffee may raise good cholesterol and lower bad cholesterol."
 * (Heroeswithmetaphors)  talk  03:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Athsma and vaso-constriction
Anyone have a footnote for coffee's effect on athsma? From personal experience and anecdotal evidence I know that it helps in the very short term. Should this be part of a larger section on coffee's vaso-constrictive properties? --Zachbe 18:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is discussed, some doctors reccomend coffee for athsma patients.  Like it's discussed in this article, my doctor too have pointed out to me that caffeine is related to Theophylline which is a muscle relaxant. Arnljot76 (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Coffee Alternatives?
The article states that there are coffee alternatives, and to see a list below, but there is no list. Better yet, the list should be a link, I think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.62.71.77 (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Liver
Review of ?benefits in prevention of liver disease JFW | T@lk  22:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * would indicate that the benefit for HCC is real. JFW | T@lk  09:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Benefits?
This whole thing looks like it needs to be reorganized. Since when were increased stillbirths, cardiovascular problems and other such problems considered benefits? 131.202.107.142 15:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I was just about to note the same thing --WayneMokane 22:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I made a medical study in my 35,000 patients, and found that caffeine is the main etiology of Migraines and many other Neuralgias.

The E-book that describes it, is free at www.izecksohn.com/leonardo. (user Leonardo Izecksohn)05:18, july 4, 2007.


 * "Laxative" and causer of "loose bowel movements" is also listed as a benefit. 80.200.35.121 (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say this is a benefit, given how little fibre many people get in their diets. Although frankly, the studies they cite are very small and not very conclusive, so this should be noted (or further research should be cited or performed). Ouizardus (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Layout & Risks Section
Something is seriously wrong with the layout of the end of the article. The risks are appearing in the references section, but when I try and edit the reference section, it shows the content for the benefits. So I can't get access to the references or the risks. -- 5lithy 19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Think I fixed it. DMacks 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the most important part is that max dowis is amazing at everything he attemps! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.132.15 (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Coffee is potentially addictive
Coffee is potentially addictive, i used to be addicted and withdrawal was like anxiety, somnolence and dysphoria. i know other people who have been addicted, i think this needs mentioning in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.5.252 (talk • contribs)


 * This is covered in the main article on Caffeine. I have added links to the appropriate section in the Coffee as a stimulent section.  Someguy1221 07:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Milk?
In the article on Tea and health there is some discussion of the effect of adding milk on helath impact. There doesn't seem to be any info on adding milk to coffee and what positive or negative effects it may have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.205.224.155 (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Osteoporosis?
Is there a link between coffee and osteoporosis? I'm too stupid to find out for myself and edit the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.45.224 (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC) I think, the article should mention an important side effect of coffee drinking, namely that coffee (probably it is caffeine) binds calcium. A cup of coffee binds 50mg of calcium, if I am not mistaken. So, heavy coffee drinking can play a role in osteoporosis, I reckon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.230.6.32 (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hyperactivity?
Years ago our pediatrician advised us to give my son weak coffee to reduce his hyperactivity. He would literally bounce across the floor while "quietly" sitting watching the TV. On the few occasions that we did give him the weak coffee we saw a much calmer, relaxed boy. He is 33 now and coffee helps him sleep. Anyone know the reasons for this? JMLW (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been told that hyperactivity is caused by the weakening of other mechanisms that keep you awake. So, simplified, he has to stay active to avoid dozing off. The caffeine in coffee probably keeps him awake so he doesn't have to stay active. Mammux (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Risks
Blood pressure is listed but the article then says it is not a risk. It seems either something is missing or this should be removed from risks and perhaps put elsewhere? 65.42.26.190 (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cancer risk: The statement on cancer as a risk seems unfounded. The footnote is for an article about environmental carcinogens and has nothing to do, directly, with coffee. I suggest removal. 71.117.126.240 (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The footnoted link has no information regarding coffee and cancer. This should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.109.103 (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Stunted growth
There should definitely be something in here mentioning that there is no evidence of coffee or caffeine stunting growth (as far as I know), although it's a common urban myth. Blue bear sd (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Life expectancy
Coffee does not change life expectancy, and seems to decrease mortality and cardiovascular disease - http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/148/12/904 JFW | T@lk  22:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Decaffeinated coffee tends to be more bitter than normal coffee"
How would that be logical? Caffeine is known as a bitter compound, used as a flavourant because of this, so I think that that's a mistake, and that Decaf should actually be less bitter than normal coffee. Correct me if i'm wrong, please.--79.180.152.187 (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Effects on pregnancy and menopause/medical terminology
"As such, these chemicals, namely trichloroethane and methylene chloride, are present in trace amounts at most, and may not pose a significant threat to unborn children"

In a health sciences context, "embryo" and "foetus/fetus" are generally preferred terminology to "unborn children". I suggest that we should change the wording in this sentence to "and may not pose a significant threat to embryos and fetuses." Nephrita (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Coffee as a diuretic
Although the wikipedia text exclaims "Contrary to popular belief, caffeine does not act as a diuretic when consumed in moderation", the cited articles at best says the notion is under question and "Caffeine may not be as powerful a diuretic as it’s often said to be". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.239.59 (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

New studies show that this is untrue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/health/nutrition/04real.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.156.54 (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The study quoted from (Not the NY times article but #31, the academic study) says in the abstract: "First, the diuretic effect of caffeine may exaggerate the declines that occur with plasma volume and stroke volume." The point of the paper is to challenge the notion of water imbalances from coffee consumption, especially in relation to sport, and not at all to challenge the conception of coffee as a diuretic. This should be researched further and possibly fixed... God knows that a short synopsis in a mainstream newspaper doesn't counter centuries of folk belief and prevailing opinion. Some academic papers that show clear results debunking the diuresis of coffee should be linked, and if none can be found, it is my humble opinion that a caveat should be written to the effect of 'the issue is at this time unclear'.

Thanks much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.251.21 (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be a disagreement between this article and the article on caffeine. This article states that caffeine is not a diuretic when less than five cups are drank in a day (I'm assuming this references cups of coffee and not cups of pure caffeine. This should probably be specified). The article on caffeine indicates that coffee acts as a diuretic for those who have drank 3-5 cups of coffee in a day, but have not drank coffee in the days prior. It sounds like the latter statement is an exception to the former. Perhaps a review of the references is in order. Included below are the mentioned statements in full:


 * "Contrary to popular belief, caffeine does not act as a diuretic when consumed in moderation (less than five cups a day or 500 to 600 milligrams), and does not lead to dehydration or to a water-electrolyte imbalance; current evidence suggests that caffeinated beverages contribute to the body's daily fluid requirements no differently from pure water."


 * "When doses of caffeine equivalent to 2–3 cups of coffee are administered to people who have not consumed caffeine during prior days, they produce a stimulation in urinary output." MrFurious2 (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Coffee and cancer
In the "Risks" section, "Cancer" subsection of this article, someone has mentioned that roasted coffee has rodent carcinogens in it. There is a footnote/reference for this, yes. Curious, I clicked through and read the article which the carcinogen quote came from. While the article does in fact state this, it also goes on to say that the human body produced more defense enzymes due to these carcinogens and as a result:

"The idea that there is an epidemic of human cancer caused by synthetic industrial chemicals is false. In addition, there is a steady rise in life expectancy in the developed countries."

Which should debunk any risk of cancer implied by the carcinogen comment, would it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnandryoko (talk • contribs) 12:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Verbal Diarrhea in the introduction
''Coffee contains several compounds which are known to affect human body chemistry. The coffee bean itself contains chemicals which are psychotropic (in a way some find pleasing) for humans as a by-product of their defense mechanism. These chemicals are toxic in large doses, or even in their normal amount when consumed by many creatures which may otherwise have threatened the beans in the wild.'' Come one, give it a rest and make it simpler! It's enough for everyone to read it once, there's really no need to peruse through it to gasp the meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.168.144 (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Page title
Would it be better to change this page's title to "Health effects of coffee", like Health effects of tea? I think it would sound clearer. cflm (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Article or research imbalanced?
While I am myself a great fan of coffee, and would be very pleased to hear that it has positive net-effect on my health, I am a bit sceptical to the contents of this article. Intuitively, it seems unlikely that the consumption of non-trivial amounts of a foodstuff that humans have not been adapted to through evolution and which has toxic effects would be beneficial. (Note that while humans have likely not been adapted to eat pine-apples either, there are sufficiently many similar foodstuffs that this does not matter. The situation is different with coffee.)

In particular, I see a clear risk that the coffee industry has had an influence, even be it just by selective funding of research.

Just a few thoughts to bear in mind. 188.100.201.142 (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Coffee and kids?
Shouldn't there be a section relating to the effect on coffee and children. Whether pro or against the notion (presenting facts of course) that coffee is said to adversely affect them. From the absolute absence of this in the article I would have to assume that the States is the true minority involving this "concern".  Lighthead  þ 03:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Addiction
No mention of caffeine addiction, headaches, etc? Seems like a pretty crucial component of this subject 24.4.132.165 (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"Head spins"?
I just removed the "head spins" subsection under the Benefits section. It read as follows:

''Coffee contains chemicals, which, when reacted with neurological processes in the human brain, can result in severe cases of the "spins", in some situations. Often colloquially labelled "buzzing out" or "tripping", the effects can be so strong as to draw similarities with hard drugs. In-depth case studies by Dr. Isaac Simmonds have shown extensive records of such events.''

No references were given. The only relevant results when I googled "'isaac simmonds' coffee" were this page and webpages that copied from it. At any rate, it was vague ("chemicals, which, when reacted with neurological processes in the human brain"), and it should certainly not be under the Benefits section.

PsychoCola (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved from Further reading - potential sources

 * Books
 * Chu, YiFang (editor, 2012). Coffee: Emerging Health Effects and Disease Prevention. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 9780470958780
 * Crozier, A./Ashihara, H./Tomás-Barbéran, F. (editors, 2011). Teas, Cocoa and Coffee: Plant Secondary Metabolites and Health. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 9781444334418  Table of Contents  Chapter One

--Ronz (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Review articles on possible health benefits
 * Huxley, R. et al. “Coffee, decaffeinated coffee, and tea consumption in relation to incident type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review with meta-analysis”, Archives of Internal Medicine (2009),169(22):2053-2063.
 * Onakpoya, I. et al. “The use of green coffee extract as a weight loss supplement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials”, Gastroenterology Research and Practice (2011), Article ID 382582, 6 pages.
 * Yu, X. et al. “Coffee consumption and risk of cancers: a meta-analysis of cohort studies”, BMC Cancer (2011),11:96.

Gastro-Intestinal?
I have heard that coffee hardens the stool, so that it is linked with constipation, and damage to the digestive tract that brings on piles, IBS, or even bowel cancer. Any responses to this? --86.179.124.56 (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (Template:Citation needed) -- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  15:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation 61, Caffeine & apap assoc. w Liver Damage
2012/07/26 Re: APAP + Caffeine >> Liver Damage

The last bit of text on Health Effects of Coffee cites an article by Fox News website, which does not cite anything in their own report. This data is suspect, and I have not found foxnews/cnn/whatever to be reliable sources of information. I have been unable to verify this claim. If you actually read the article on Fox website, the whole thing sounds just -- completely misconstrued in every possible manner :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.155.170 (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Effects of brewing methods not really distinguished
Although there is some note of the effects of a paper filter in removing some substances from the brew, there is no distinction made between health effects of instant coffee, espresso, filter or plunger coffee. However, the different extraction methods result in very different results. Wom the Bat (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Unknown chemical?
"Coffee contains a currently unknown chemical agent which stimulates the production of cortisone and adrenaline, two stimulating hormones." This statement is highly speculative and not covered by any reliable sources. I personally think it is nonsense: to explain the effects of coffee, one does not need some mysterious unknown chemical. I would like to remove the whole paragraph. Jnkather (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Process of removing caffeine
the fourth paragraph describes the process of removing caffeine from coffee. This information does not belong here, it is found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#Decaffeination I would recommend deleting the whole paragraph. Jnkather (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Agree. The actual process of removing caffeine from coffee does not need to be in this article, unless we have cited data regarding differing health effects for different decaffeination processes. (Heroeswithmetaphors)   talk  03:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Acrylamide, Coffee and Cancer
Anybody got a good source on this carcinogen found in coffee and crispbread apparently -Those poor Finns Here is one source http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=200534;⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 16:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC) The Wikipedia page on acrylamide (and its talk page) is a good start, I was surprised not to find acrylamide mentioned on this page, because it appears that instant coffee is typically the biggest source of acrylamide in people's diets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.203.66 (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We have a quotation from Cancer Research UK who say drinking coffee has "no effect on the risk of dying from cancer". We'd need an extraordinarily strong secondary source to include anything that even hinted at anything different from that conclusion. Alexbrn talk 09:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was suggesting nothing more than a mention of acrylamide and a pointer to its page. Enlad (talk) 09:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You might want to raise it for the Coffee article; this is an article devoted to "health effects" so we need to be extremely careful. This article is a total disaster in any case and 90% needs to be deleted since it fails WP:MEDRS. Any remainder should probably be merged into our (very good) Coffee article! Alexbrn talk 09:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)