4 ms·

Now my brain is confused. It says, drink lot of coffee but what about caffeine addiction? Also, should I filter the coffee as it increases LDL cholestrol? Som

Now my brain is confused. It says, drink lot of coffee but what about caffeine addiction? Also, should I filter the coffee as it increases LDL cholestrol? Some even say cholestrol is not that bad. Also, is 5-9% better mortality rate worth considering? What about other stuff people with better mortality consumed? Did you know the effects of those substances on mortality?

mrfusion 11y ago
Increases ldl?
- mkagenius 11y ago
  using filter decreases it, I mean :)
  - mrob 11y ago
    Specifically, by removing cafestol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafestol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafestol However, cafestol potentially also has beneficial health effects, so it is not necessarily bad. I'm not aware of any study comparing health outcomes (as opposed to blood test results) of filtered vs. non-filtered coffee. This latest study does not distinguish between them.
meowface 11y ago
Substance addiction would not necessarily affect mortality. In fact, addiction isn't necessarily bad for health at all, if you reliably feed it every day, and the beneficial effects outweigh the negatives one. For example, consuming moderate amounts of caffeine every day, but always at least 6-8 hours before bed.
- mkagenius 11y ago
  3-5 cups seems too much to finish 6-8 hours before bed time. Seems like you will need to have coffee every two hours.
  - timClicks 11y ago
    Really? I can have three cups before I leave for work some mornings..
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
Laaw 11y ago
Someone should figure out the exact mix of coffee that's the least-bad for you and sell it. "Least worst coffee".
- joering2 11y ago
  I would say "don't drink Starbucks" and you be half there. Regular coffee in small portions has only a few calories and in the worst case scenario help you with digestion and bowel movement. But what those "kids" drink to start a day with has very little with coffee. When you get some moca-frappucino double-latte expresso with caramel syrup and whip cream on the top, you are scoring plenty of taste and about 500 calories. It's more than breakfast meal should have! And all this excessive sugar and fat definitely can't be helping health-wise. I don't see Starbucks as a coffee company. I see them as perfectionists at blending (similarly, Coca-cola is not in a business of soda, but rather transportation (and they are genius at it), because frankly anyone can blend sugar with cola penuts and water - but the detail is in cheap distribution). There was an article somewhere on the web that all those ingredients you can have while ordering your coffee can be mixed at 40,000 different combinations. Think about it. Why the heck any company would go through a trouble of giving you so many option when they "just sell the coffee". Because majority of their customers do not drink coffee "'cause they need it". They drink it purely for taste! Of course, it comes with a brilliant reasoning: "oh, I need this coffee to start a productive day", even if in reality you only need a pure coffee and maybe little bit of cream and sugar, for taste. 10 calories max. Not a coffee-tasting sugar bomb full of addons, fats and preservatives.
  - dasboth 11y ago
    I agree so much. Starbucks and co are definitely not what I would consider coffee shops. I drink coffee because it has an effect on me (as well as a delicious taste, no caramel syrup required), and I can feel its effect very quickly. Starbucks coffees have the same effect on me as eating sweets; no wake-up effect, just a guaranteed sugar crash in a few hours. I was never a fan but I avoid it completely these days.
prodmerc 11y ago
Is caffeine really addicting? I mean, I can quit it any time, but I feel like shit. I can choose not to drink it, I don't get any cravings, but I just feel tired and get headaches more frequently. So I choose to drink coffee. But it's a choice...
- forgetsusername 11y ago
  >Is caffeine really addicting? I mean, I can quit it any time, but I feel like shit. Those are the symptoms of physical addiction.
  - prodmerc 11y ago
    But there's no craving to use it, like with alcohol for example. I can choose not to drink it, not to buy it, I don't feel compelled to do that.
polyfractal 11y ago
> Some even say cholestrol is not bad The main change recently has been an update to the ACC/AHA LDL guidelines about LDL targets. Previously, there were hard targets that the doctor was trying to reach, in particular the 70mg/dl target was considered "optimal" and doctors strived to get their patients down to that. In reality, it's become clear that there is no clinical evidence that an LDL that low is required. Certainly decreasing it from a high level (150+) has been shown to be a good idea (in most cases...it's complicated). But once you've decreased a patients LDL to a lower level, the clinical benefit of hitting 70 is nebulous. So the new recommendations have dropped many of the hard targets, and recommend a more case-by-case evaluation. E.g. if your patient has a high LDL and you put them on a statin, they start exercising, eating better, and levels come down to 80mg/dl ... well, that's probably fine. They are in good shape, monitor and back off the statins. A major reason for the change is because you'd see people on statins and other cholesterol meds for years. These drugs are very safe and low side-effect, and when combined with hard targets, doctors just "leave" patients on statins forever. But despite being safe, you shouldn't be on a chronic medication and there are other risks. So the new guidelines are trying to encourage doctors to use statins more sparingly. Some more reading on the new guidelines: - http://emorymedicinemagazine.emory.edu/issues/2014/spring/features/guidelines-for-treating-cholesterol/index.html http://emorymedicinemagazine.emory.edu/issues/2014/spring/fe... - http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/814152 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/814152

mrfusion 11y ago

Increases ldl?

mkagenius 11y ago
using filter decreases it, I mean :)
- mrob 11y ago
  Specifically, by removing cafestol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafestol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafestol However, cafestol potentially also has beneficial health effects, so it is not necessarily bad. I'm not aware of any study comparing health outcomes (as opposed to blood test results) of filtered vs. non-filtered coffee. This latest study does not distinguish between them.

meowface 11y ago

Substance addiction would not necessarily affect mortality. In fact, addiction isn't necessarily bad for health at all, if you reliably feed it every day, and the beneficial effects outweigh the negatives one. For example, consuming moderate amounts of caffeine every day, but always at least 6-8 hours before bed.

mkagenius 11y ago
3-5 cups seems too much to finish 6-8 hours before bed time. Seems like you will need to have coffee every two hours.
- timClicks 11y ago
  Really? I can have three cups before I leave for work some mornings..
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

Laaw 11y ago

Someone should figure out the exact mix of coffee that's the least-bad for you and sell it. "Least worst coffee".

joering2 11y ago
I would say "don't drink Starbucks" and you be half there. Regular coffee in small portions has only a few calories and in the worst case scenario help you with digestion and bowel movement. But what those "kids" drink to start a day with has very little with coffee. When you get some moca-frappucino double-latte expresso with caramel syrup and whip cream on the top, you are scoring plenty of taste and about 500 calories. It's more than breakfast meal should have! And all this excessive sugar and fat definitely can't be helping health-wise. I don't see Starbucks as a coffee company. I see them as perfectionists at blending (similarly, Coca-cola is not in a business of soda, but rather transportation (and they are genius at it), because frankly anyone can blend sugar with cola penuts and water - but the detail is in cheap distribution). There was an article somewhere on the web that all those ingredients you can have while ordering your coffee can be mixed at 40,000 different combinations. Think about it. Why the heck any company would go through a trouble of giving you so many option when they "just sell the coffee". Because majority of their customers do not drink coffee "'cause they need it". They drink it purely for taste! Of course, it comes with a brilliant reasoning: "oh, I need this coffee to start a productive day", even if in reality you only need a pure coffee and maybe little bit of cream and sugar, for taste. 10 calories max. Not a coffee-tasting sugar bomb full of addons, fats and preservatives.
- dasboth 11y ago
  I agree so much. Starbucks and co are definitely not what I would consider coffee shops. I drink coffee because it has an effect on me (as well as a delicious taste, no caramel syrup required), and I can feel its effect very quickly. Starbucks coffees have the same effect on me as eating sweets; no wake-up effect, just a guaranteed sugar crash in a few hours. I was never a fan but I avoid it completely these days.

prodmerc 11y ago

Is caffeine really addicting? I mean, I can quit it any time, but I feel like shit. I can choose not to drink it, I don't get any cravings, but I just feel tired and get headaches more frequently. So I choose to drink coffee. But it's a choice...

forgetsusername 11y ago
>Is caffeine really addicting? I mean, I can quit it any time, but I feel like shit. Those are the symptoms of physical addiction.
- prodmerc 11y ago
  But there's no craving to use it, like with alcohol for example. I can choose not to drink it, not to buy it, I don't feel compelled to do that.

polyfractal 11y ago

> Some even say cholestrol is not bad The main change recently has been an update to the ACC/AHA LDL guidelines about LDL targets. Previously, there were hard targets that the doctor was trying to reach, in particular the 70mg/dl target was considered "optimal" and doctors strived to get their patients down to that. In reality, it's become clear that there is no clinical evidence that an LDL that low is required. Certainly decreasing it from a high level (150+) has been shown to be a good idea (in most cases...it's complicated). But once you've decreased a patients LDL to a lower level, the clinical benefit of hitting 70 is nebulous. So the new recommendations have dropped many of the hard targets, and recommend a more case-by-case evaluation. E.g. if your patient has a high LDL and you put them on a statin, they start exercising, eating better, and levels come down to 80mg/dl ... well, that's probably fine. They are in good shape, monitor and back off the statins. A major reason for the change is because you'd see people on statins and other cholesterol meds for years. These drugs are very safe and low side-effect, and when combined with hard targets, doctors just "leave" patients on statins forever. But despite being safe, you shouldn't be on a chronic medication and there are other risks. So the new guidelines are trying to encourage doctors to use statins more sparingly. Some more reading on the new guidelines: - http://emorymedicinemagazine.emory.edu/issues/2014/spring/features/guidelines-for-treating-cholesterol/index.html http://emorymedicinemagazine.emory.edu/issues/2014/spring/fe... - http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/814152 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/814152