4 ms·

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20182054/#:~:text=In%20the%20CAIDE%20study%2C%20coffee,decreased%20risk%20of%20dementia%2FAD https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/201

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20182054/#:~:text=In%20the%20CAIDE%20study%2C%20coffee,decreased%20risk%20of%20dementia%2FAD https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20182054/#:~:text=In%20the%2.... this says coffee is associated with a reduced risk of dementia which is pretty much what I've read over and over again

eloff 6y ago
Thank you! I was freaking out about my beloved coffee addiction.
- zikzak 6y ago
  Never blame the coffee.
  - eurasiantiger 6y ago
    That seems like a cognitive bias.
eurasiantiger 6y ago
That study conflates caffeine and coffee from the very first word in the abstract. I wouldn’t trust it at all — it’s like an article about CPUs but the writer doesn’t understand the difference between a processor (called CPU) and the rest of the stuff in the computer case (which, as a whole, is also called CPU).
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  So I read the whole paper, and not just the abstract. The authors do not conflate caffeine and coffee in the meta-analysis, in fact, they cite several studies that document the association between coffee consumption and the reduced risk of cognitive decline.
  - eurasiantiger 6y ago
    Did you check whether those studies do this conflation? Were they epidemiological studies (which cannot prove causality), or double-blind randomized studies (which can)?
    - codyswann 6y ago
      I think that burden falls on you since you're the one trying to discredit the study.
      - eurasiantiger 6y ago
        Well, yeah. The studies were all longitudinal studies relying on self-reporting and some found an increased risk for >5 cups per day. Since a ”cup” is not a well defined measurement anyway, these are not very rigorous studies. It’s baffling that scientists so readily interpret these results to mean something, when it’s infinitely more likely they’ve missed some unexpected confounders. I found no mention of MAO inhibitors, beta-carbolines or heterocyclic aromatic amines in coffee. The authors seem to be unaware of their existence, even though they could explain the results in many ways.
- jv22222 6y ago
  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-019-0604-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-019-0604-5 Those studies reported higher coffee drinkers had 31–65% decrease in the risk of AD dementia, which is quite comparable to about 65% decrease of Aβ positivity rate in higher coffee drinkers (27.14%) compared to lower coffee drinkers (17.61%). Furthermore, the relationship between higher coffee intake and lower Aβ positivity was prominent for lifetime coffee intake than for current coffee intake. This suggests that the protective effects of higher coffee intake against Aβ pathology involve the chronic effects associated with prolonged exposure rather than an acute or short-term effect. Note: "coffee drinkers" not "caffeine"

eloff 6y ago

Thank you! I was freaking out about my beloved coffee addiction.

zikzak 6y ago
Never blame the coffee.
- eurasiantiger 6y ago
  That seems like a cognitive bias.

eurasiantiger 6y ago

That study conflates caffeine and coffee from the very first word in the abstract. I wouldn’t trust it at all — it’s like an article about CPUs but the writer doesn’t understand the difference between a processor (called CPU) and the rest of the stuff in the computer case (which, as a whole, is also called CPU).

heavyset_go 6y ago
So I read the whole paper, and not just the abstract. The authors do not conflate caffeine and coffee in the meta-analysis, in fact, they cite several studies that document the association between coffee consumption and the reduced risk of cognitive decline.
- eurasiantiger 6y ago
  Did you check whether those studies do this conflation? Were they epidemiological studies (which cannot prove causality), or double-blind randomized studies (which can)?
  - codyswann 6y ago
    I think that burden falls on you since you're the one trying to discredit the study.
    - eurasiantiger 6y ago
      Well, yeah. The studies were all longitudinal studies relying on self-reporting and some found an increased risk for >5 cups per day. Since a ”cup” is not a well defined measurement anyway, these are not very rigorous studies. It’s baffling that scientists so readily interpret these results to mean something, when it’s infinitely more likely they’ve missed some unexpected confounders. I found no mention of MAO inhibitors, beta-carbolines or heterocyclic aromatic amines in coffee. The authors seem to be unaware of their existence, even though they could explain the results in many ways.
jv22222 6y ago
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-019-0604-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-019-0604-5 Those studies reported higher coffee drinkers had 31–65% decrease in the risk of AD dementia, which is quite comparable to about 65% decrease of Aβ positivity rate in higher coffee drinkers (27.14%) compared to lower coffee drinkers (17.61%). Furthermore, the relationship between higher coffee intake and lower Aβ positivity was prominent for lifetime coffee intake than for current coffee intake. This suggests that the protective effects of higher coffee intake against Aβ pathology involve the chronic effects associated with prolonged exposure rather than an acute or short-term effect. Note: "coffee drinkers" not "caffeine"