7 ms·
From wikipedia's caffeine article: "Caffeine can increase blood pressure and cause vasoconstriction.[37][38][39] Long term consumption at sufficiently high dose
by ricw 11y ago
From wikipedia's caffeine article:
"Caffeine can increase blood pressure and cause vasoconstriction.[37][38][39] Long term consumption at sufficiently high doses has been associated with chronic arterial stiffness.[39] Coffee and caffeine can affect gastrointestinal motility and gastric acid secretion.[40][41][42]
Caffeine increases basal metabolic rate in adults.[43][44][45] In postmenopausal women, high caffeine consumption can accelerate bone loss.[46][47]"
I wonder how partial this article and/or harvards caffeine research is..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#Side_effects https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#Side_effects
- davidcollantes 11y agoYet, my grandfather and his friends drank it--coffee--their entire lives, and they all died in their late 90s. A few of them also smoked. We all know it is a combination of things: the food you eat, how active you are, the air you breathe, the work you do, etc.
- axx 11y agoI agree. If you eat Mc Donald's all day, but drink X cups of coffee, it wouldn't make a difference.
- dghughes 11y agoA hamburger made at home is no better than McDonald's if you eat them every day too McDonald's is just a restaurant no the Devil.
- scorpioxy 11y agoI disagree. A hamburger you make at home is unlikely to contain the crap that is in a McDonald's burger. If you get actual meat, add a few veggies and a whole wheat bun then a burger can become an excellent meal. It's even better if you skip the fries.
- svensken 11y agoI'd trust McDonald's buns and meat to contain LESS preservatives and other bizarre compounds than a pack of burger bread and patties that I'd pick up at my local grocery store. The main reason is that McDonald's is a well-oiled supply-chain machine with (probably) low storage durations for the various ingredients, whereas consumer grocery products can suffer weeks on a store shelf before purchase. The second reason (also just speculation) is that the intensity of regulatory agencies' scrutiny of McDonald's ingredients (especially with regard to meat) would dwarf that of the small packages I would be able to buy for a barbeque. I believe in staying away from foods high in lipids in general, but fast food burgers don't scare me. It's fries and pizzas that I abhor.
- scorpioxy 11y agoI wasn't talking about store bought burgers. They may or may not be as bad as a McDonald's burger. Get the meat, add some spices(and maybe Worcester sauce) and you'll have your own delicious patty. The whole thing takes around 15 mins and you can customize any part of the process. However, I agree with your point that there are healthier food options out there if you have the choice.
- code_sterling 11y agoWhat research are you basing that off of? I've not seen any research on this. It's a valid hypothesis, but said as a statement is blatantly fallacious without research being done.
- DanBC 11y agocouldn't you make that point under almost any comment in this thread?
- code_sterling 11y agoPerhaps, but this was the first blatant statement without any supporting evidence.
- louhike 11y agoExactly, we know it is a combination of things which brings problems. But still, he is highlighting there are known problems so I do not understand what point you are trying to push with your comment. He is not saying coffee will cause alone those problems in all cases.
- skrause 11y agoYou forgot an important factor: Genetics.
- tcgv 11y agoYour grandfather and his friends don't have statistical significance to base a conclusion, unless he has thousands of friends who drink coffee and smoke ;)
- bholdr 11y agoWiki is not a very reliable source for citations :) Nevertheless, it points that there are inherit contradictions in any research study. We should avoid make "marketing" claims.
- nkozyra 11y agoAttacking Wikipedia when the citations for the claims are very clearly stated within is tiresome. If you'd clicked on the citations within you'd find: American Journal of Physiology, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Annals of nutrition & metabolism, etc. If you have issues with those sources, fine, but saying "don't cite Wikipedia" when the article is well-cited is not useful in the least.
- bholdr 11y agoThank you for that clarification. My point was that basing your argument on a paragraph from the Wiki doesn't really hold water. Have you gone through those cited articles? Have you checked the data? You trust that those statements next to the citation are representative of what is actually been said in the article itself. Wikipedia is great, I am all for it. I just personally wouldn't building my argument solely based on what is said there.
- abandonliberty 11y agoThe scope and depth of human knowledge is so large that validating accuracy of information is humanly impossible for most interesting subjects beyond experts and the very interested. You're absolutely correct that information needs to be validated, but wrong in singling out Wikipedia. This rabbit hole goes pretty far. I've found false citations from published articles. Conservatively assuming 25 citations per article, the amount you have to validate is 25^(citation depth). There are 11 citations in the above quote, so here's the homework you're requesting: Level 0 validation: 11 Articles Level 1 validation: 275 Articles Level 2 validation: 6875 Articles The knee-jerk distrust of Wikipedia is so old that a paper was published in Nature in 2005 showing accuracy close to that of the Encyclopedia Britannica. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia Just like any other source, you have to assess it. How many editors, to which degree is it a target for vandalism or astroturfing, how well is the article written, the type of the subject material, etc. Therefore I would expect britannica-level accuracy on the caffeine page, and that's pretty good for most discussions.