10 ms·

Study: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M21-2977 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M21-2977 And before someone asks "But what if it's .. instead?"

Study: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M21-2977 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M21-2977 And before someone asks "But what if it's .. instead?": Yes, they controlled for lots of things: > lower risks for all-cause mortality after adjustment for lifestyle, sociodemographic, and clinical factors The patient data is from UK Biobank, which has quite a bit about each participant. While they can't control for everything (like factors that aren't documented), they can control for a lot - probably including whatever possible confounder someone jumps to. Although it's still subject to the limitations of an observational study, 171,616 people is a big cohort, mortality is clearly measurable, and the observed effect is really large. It's worth paying attention to.

bryanlarsen 4y ago
Did they compare against what the non-coffee drinkers were drinking instead? It's not surprising that coffee is substantially healthier than cola, but is it statistically healthier than tea or water?
- cgh 4y ago
  If you look at the study, you can see they compared with “nonconsumers”, among others.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    Access isn't available without an account. What's a "nonconsumer"? Everybody drinks something.
- troydavis 4y ago
  I don't know any more about this study than is in the links. The NYT reporter covers some of that, though: > Scientists don’t know exactly what makes coffee so beneficial, Dr. Goldberg said, but the answer may lie in its antioxidant properties, which can prevent or delay cell damage. Coffee beans contain high amounts of antioxidants, said Beth Czerwony, a registered dietitian at the Cleveland Clinic’s Center for Human Nutrition in Ohio, which can help break down free radicals that cause damage to cells. Over time, a buildup of free radicals can increase inflammation in the body, which can cause plaque formation related to heart disease, she said, so dietitians recommend consuming foods and beverages that are rich in antioxidants. > There’s also the possibility that coffee drinkers tend to make healthier choices in general. They might opt for a cold brew or a cup of drip coffee instead of a less healthy source of caffeine, like an energy drink or soda, Dr. Goldberg added. “If you’re pounding Mountain Dew or Coca-Cola or Red Bull or all these other drinks, they have tons more sugar, all the artificial stuff — versus coffee, which is a generally unprocessed food.” (Side note: if someone else read this and started drinking coffee because of it, they'd probably be replacing an existing beverage choice as well. IOW, even if substitution effect was the cause or a contributing factor, people acting on the conclusions may still see the effect – and certainly would at public-health scale.)
mjb 4y ago
Emily Oster has a useful post about why, despite the effort, its is difficult to control for everything that matters in observational studies: https://emilyoster.substack.com/p/coffee-definitely-either-kills-you?s=w https://emilyoster.substack.com/p/coffee-definitely-either-k... Specifically: > As result, in the data, sugar starts to look…a lot worse for you over time. In the earliest period of the data there is no observed correlation between the sugar measure and BMI (see below) but by the latest period, it’s hugely correlated. The “sugar-makes-you-fat” story only shows up in the last few years, coincidentally during the period when sugar is less consumed by individuals who exercise, do not smoke and are better educated.
- TameAntelope 4y ago
  Yes, science is really hard, and it’s a good point by Oster, but you’ve got to think about the idea that the folks who conducted this study know as well how hard science is, and for them to publish this anyway means they (and their reviewers) did a pretty good job dealing with this issue (and many others). None of this is conclusive to the point where no further study is necessary, but I’m guessing this study will make some institutions think/rethink their guidance on coffee consumption.
  - jaybaxter 4y ago
    >but you’ve got to think about the idea that the folks who conducted this study know as well how hard science is, and for them to publish this anyway means they (and their reviewers) did a pretty good job dealing with this issue (and many others). What makes you say that about this paper specifically? Certainly in general there are career incentives for authors to publish papers which are not very conclusive, and we know that relatively useless observational studies do get published.
  - rajin444 4y ago
    > for them to publish this anyway means they did a pretty good job The standard shouldn’t be “we did the best we can” for the sake of publishing. It should be “is what we’re doing useful”. > I’m guessing this study will make some institutions think/rethink their guidance on coffee consumption. This is the major issue with all these kinds of studies. The absolute last thing they should be doing is influencing public policy. Data that’s more or less garbage but you treat it like it’s solid because it’s “science” is harmful.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
falcolas 4y ago
> And before someone asks "But what if it's .. instead?": Yes, they controlled for lots of things On Reddit's /r/science board, there's a base rule that "criticism of published work should assume basic competence of the researchers and reviewers". I think it would benefit HN if we all made the same assumption.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  > On Reddit's /r/science board, there's a base rule that "criticism of published work should assume basic competence of the researchers and reviewers". Since most studies/publications cant be replicated, I'd say basic competence is not warranted.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  As someone who reads a lot of published research, no, that is a terrible rule and a lot of garbage gets published. Both historically and now there is no shortage of bad science that gets published, or good science that gets really misreported.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    If you don't trust studies at such a fundamental level, what is the value in reading and commenting on such threads?
    - tuatoru 4y ago
      I don't know what value vorpalhex gets from doing so, but I got value from the gp comment.
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      Studies don't have value just because they are a study. Put another way, just because Cosmo publishes an article doesn't mean it's true - but Cosmo does also publish true articles. Plenty of studies are great and move our understanding forward. More studies answer a very narrow - but important - question. Some studies are just inconclusive, but have value too. You should read studies. You should evaluate the quality of studies as part of integrating them and their conclusions. At the same time just because something was "a study" or got published doesn't make it true or good or useful, anymore than being written in blue ink makes something truthful. The value of science is that it does not require faith.
mikkergp 4y ago
So, in the abstract, they say they controlled for "lifestyle" but then the researchers are paraphrased in the article as saying "This is an observational study, which means the data cannot conclusively prove that coffee itself lowers the risk of dying; there may be other lifestyle factors contributing to that lower mortality risk among people who drink coffee, like a healthy diet or a consistent exercise routine." On the one hand I get what they're saying about their own study design, on the other hand, it might be good to get more info about lifestyle vs lifestyle.
- sdfhdhjdw3 4y ago
  That's because 99% of the time when a study says "we found an effect in Y even after we controlled for X" it just means that they included X in their multi-variate regression and error analysis in their study of Y. "controlled for" sounds like it has something to do with ruling out the effect of something from causality, but it doesn't.
lm28469 4y ago
> And before someone asks "But what if it's .. instead?": Yes, they controlled for lots of things: I'm no experiment designer but I fail to see how you can control for variables when the field of the experiment is "life". There are an unlimited number of variables, wouldn't you find tonnes of meaningless correlations ? The set of variables is unlimited and the focus of the study is so precise that I have a real hard time to understand how meaningful these results can be. > there may be other lifestyle factors contributing to that lower mortality risk among people who drink coffee, like a healthy diet or a consistent exercise routine. Yeah no shit. Or like getting 8+ hours of sleep, or winning the genetic lottery, or working at a desk instead of on a construction zone, &c. If it's all self reported it's kind of garbage to begin with, I know people who think they eat healthy diets, they don't
ryandvm 4y ago
I decided to go the other way and ignore all the potential confounders and just cargo-cult the hell out of all of this stuff. I'm bound to hit a few of the actual factors. Now if you'll excuse me I need to go drink my coffee and glass of red wine while doing yoga/meditation, then eating Mediterranean meals during my intermittent fasting period while making more that $75K per year, sleeping 8 hours a day and living in a "blue zone".
- sammalloy 4y ago
  The red wine thingy was mostly debunked a few years ago. Kudos for adding the $75K part, I got the joke.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > Now if you'll excuse me Well, I guess you're more of the live fast die young crowd and shouldn't expect to be here much longer, not without copious amounts of carrot juice, chili peppers and olive oil.
  - _moof 4y ago
    Don't forget the turmeric. You know, for inflammation.
- nicbou 4y ago
  This sounds like a good life no matter how long it is
SkyMarshal 4y ago
> 171,616 people is a big cohort, mortality is clearly measurable, and the observed effect is really large. This should be a criteria for posting studies in general - large cohort, controls for every known factor, clearly measurable outcome like all-cause mortality, and large observed effect.
chiefalchemist 4y ago
You make good and valid points, but it's also: "..self-reported..." which always raises questions. Also, was this an actual study. Or simply a statistical pattern detected in UK Biobank members? Note: Not trolling, just looking for full context.
- thelamest 4y ago
  It’s a pattern detected in the UK Biobank dataset. I assume by a study you mean an experiment – it wasn’t one. The dataset is longitudinal, which helps a little, but there’s still a big jump from associations to causal links.
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    Right. So this is simply beating up some dataset until a news-worthy pattern appears. Add in self-reported and this is more wishful-thinking than it is science.
andreareina 4y ago
That effect size is the very thing that strains credulity. How did we miss it for the centuries we've been drinking coffee? How do I not notice the effect when I vary my coffee intake?
civilized 4y ago
> they controlled for lots of things If it's an observational study, they didn't control for anything; they adjusted for things.
- troydavis 4y ago
  Yes, thanks for pointing that out.

bryanlarsen 4y ago

Did they compare against what the non-coffee drinkers were drinking instead? It's not surprising that coffee is substantially healthier than cola, but is it statistically healthier than tea or water?

cgh 4y ago
If you look at the study, you can see they compared with “nonconsumers”, among others.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  Access isn't available without an account. What's a "nonconsumer"? Everybody drinks something.
troydavis 4y ago
I don't know any more about this study than is in the links. The NYT reporter covers some of that, though: > Scientists don’t know exactly what makes coffee so beneficial, Dr. Goldberg said, but the answer may lie in its antioxidant properties, which can prevent or delay cell damage. Coffee beans contain high amounts of antioxidants, said Beth Czerwony, a registered dietitian at the Cleveland Clinic’s Center for Human Nutrition in Ohio, which can help break down free radicals that cause damage to cells. Over time, a buildup of free radicals can increase inflammation in the body, which can cause plaque formation related to heart disease, she said, so dietitians recommend consuming foods and beverages that are rich in antioxidants. > There’s also the possibility that coffee drinkers tend to make healthier choices in general. They might opt for a cold brew or a cup of drip coffee instead of a less healthy source of caffeine, like an energy drink or soda, Dr. Goldberg added. “If you’re pounding Mountain Dew or Coca-Cola or Red Bull or all these other drinks, they have tons more sugar, all the artificial stuff — versus coffee, which is a generally unprocessed food.” (Side note: if someone else read this and started drinking coffee because of it, they'd probably be replacing an existing beverage choice as well. IOW, even if substitution effect was the cause or a contributing factor, people acting on the conclusions may still see the effect – and certainly would at public-health scale.)

mjb 4y ago

Emily Oster has a useful post about why, despite the effort, its is difficult to control for everything that matters in observational studies: https://emilyoster.substack.com/p/coffee-definitely-either-kills-you?s=w https://emilyoster.substack.com/p/coffee-definitely-either-k... Specifically: > As result, in the data, sugar starts to look…a lot worse for you over time. In the earliest period of the data there is no observed correlation between the sugar measure and BMI (see below) but by the latest period, it’s hugely correlated. The “sugar-makes-you-fat” story only shows up in the last few years, coincidentally during the period when sugar is less consumed by individuals who exercise, do not smoke and are better educated.

TameAntelope 4y ago
Yes, science is really hard, and it’s a good point by Oster, but you’ve got to think about the idea that the folks who conducted this study know as well how hard science is, and for them to publish this anyway means they (and their reviewers) did a pretty good job dealing with this issue (and many others). None of this is conclusive to the point where no further study is necessary, but I’m guessing this study will make some institutions think/rethink their guidance on coffee consumption.
- jaybaxter 4y ago
  >but you’ve got to think about the idea that the folks who conducted this study know as well how hard science is, and for them to publish this anyway means they (and their reviewers) did a pretty good job dealing with this issue (and many others). What makes you say that about this paper specifically? Certainly in general there are career incentives for authors to publish papers which are not very conclusive, and we know that relatively useless observational studies do get published.
- rajin444 4y ago
  > for them to publish this anyway means they did a pretty good job The standard shouldn’t be “we did the best we can” for the sake of publishing. It should be “is what we’re doing useful”. > I’m guessing this study will make some institutions think/rethink their guidance on coffee consumption. This is the major issue with all these kinds of studies. The absolute last thing they should be doing is influencing public policy. Data that’s more or less garbage but you treat it like it’s solid because it’s “science” is harmful.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

falcolas 4y ago

> And before someone asks "But what if it's .. instead?": Yes, they controlled for lots of things On Reddit's /r/science board, there's a base rule that "criticism of published work should assume basic competence of the researchers and reviewers". I think it would benefit HN if we all made the same assumption.

ekianjo 4y ago
> On Reddit's /r/science board, there's a base rule that "criticism of published work should assume basic competence of the researchers and reviewers". Since most studies/publications cant be replicated, I'd say basic competence is not warranted.
vorpalhex 4y ago
As someone who reads a lot of published research, no, that is a terrible rule and a lot of garbage gets published. Both historically and now there is no shortage of bad science that gets published, or good science that gets really misreported.
- falcolas 4y ago
  If you don't trust studies at such a fundamental level, what is the value in reading and commenting on such threads?
  - tuatoru 4y ago
    I don't know what value vorpalhex gets from doing so, but I got value from the gp comment.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    Studies don't have value just because they are a study. Put another way, just because Cosmo publishes an article doesn't mean it's true - but Cosmo does also publish true articles. Plenty of studies are great and move our understanding forward. More studies answer a very narrow - but important - question. Some studies are just inconclusive, but have value too. You should read studies. You should evaluate the quality of studies as part of integrating them and their conclusions. At the same time just because something was "a study" or got published doesn't make it true or good or useful, anymore than being written in blue ink makes something truthful. The value of science is that it does not require faith.

mikkergp 4y ago

So, in the abstract, they say they controlled for "lifestyle" but then the researchers are paraphrased in the article as saying "This is an observational study, which means the data cannot conclusively prove that coffee itself lowers the risk of dying; there may be other lifestyle factors contributing to that lower mortality risk among people who drink coffee, like a healthy diet or a consistent exercise routine." On the one hand I get what they're saying about their own study design, on the other hand, it might be good to get more info about lifestyle vs lifestyle.

sdfhdhjdw3 4y ago
That's because 99% of the time when a study says "we found an effect in Y even after we controlled for X" it just means that they included X in their multi-variate regression and error analysis in their study of Y. "controlled for" sounds like it has something to do with ruling out the effect of something from causality, but it doesn't.

lm28469 4y ago

> And before someone asks "But what if it's .. instead?": Yes, they controlled for lots of things: I'm no experiment designer but I fail to see how you can control for variables when the field of the experiment is "life". There are an unlimited number of variables, wouldn't you find tonnes of meaningless correlations ? The set of variables is unlimited and the focus of the study is so precise that I have a real hard time to understand how meaningful these results can be. > there may be other lifestyle factors contributing to that lower mortality risk among people who drink coffee, like a healthy diet or a consistent exercise routine. Yeah no shit. Or like getting 8+ hours of sleep, or winning the genetic lottery, or working at a desk instead of on a construction zone, &c. If it's all self reported it's kind of garbage to begin with, I know people who think they eat healthy diets, they don't

ryandvm 4y ago

I decided to go the other way and ignore all the potential confounders and just cargo-cult the hell out of all of this stuff. I'm bound to hit a few of the actual factors. Now if you'll excuse me I need to go drink my coffee and glass of red wine while doing yoga/meditation, then eating Mediterranean meals during my intermittent fasting period while making more that $75K per year, sleeping 8 hours a day and living in a "blue zone".

sammalloy 4y ago
The red wine thingy was mostly debunked a few years ago. Kudos for adding the $75K part, I got the joke.
Maursault 4y ago
> Now if you'll excuse me Well, I guess you're more of the live fast die young crowd and shouldn't expect to be here much longer, not without copious amounts of carrot juice, chili peppers and olive oil.
- _moof 4y ago
  Don't forget the turmeric. You know, for inflammation.
nicbou 4y ago
This sounds like a good life no matter how long it is

SkyMarshal 4y ago

> 171,616 people is a big cohort, mortality is clearly measurable, and the observed effect is really large. This should be a criteria for posting studies in general - large cohort, controls for every known factor, clearly measurable outcome like all-cause mortality, and large observed effect.

chiefalchemist 4y ago

You make good and valid points, but it's also: "..self-reported..." which always raises questions. Also, was this an actual study. Or simply a statistical pattern detected in UK Biobank members? Note: Not trolling, just looking for full context.

thelamest 4y ago
It’s a pattern detected in the UK Biobank dataset. I assume by a study you mean an experiment – it wasn’t one. The dataset is longitudinal, which helps a little, but there’s still a big jump from associations to causal links.
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  Right. So this is simply beating up some dataset until a news-worthy pattern appears. Add in self-reported and this is more wishful-thinking than it is science.

andreareina 4y ago

That effect size is the very thing that strains credulity. How did we miss it for the centuries we've been drinking coffee? How do I not notice the effect when I vary my coffee intake?

civilized 4y ago

> they controlled for lots of things If it's an observational study, they didn't control for anything; they adjusted for things.

troydavis 4y ago
Yes, thanks for pointing that out.