3 ms·
This was also a good lesson that if I continued to listen to the pop science, the general consensus was that coffee was a net positive. And that was my stance
by aantix 3y ago
This was also a good lesson that if I continued to listen to the pop science, the general consensus was that coffee was a net positive.
And that was my stance for a long time.
I didn't realize that there could be such a distinction in one's reaction to caffeine intake.
"The genetics of caffeine sensitivity also have implications for cardiovascular health.
In a 2006 study of more than 4,000 people, researchers found that for slow metabolizers, consuming more cups of coffee per day was associated with an increased risk of a heart attack. Fast metabolizers had no such increased risks."
- eslaught 3y agoHow do you know what kind you are? I have zero response to caffeine up to a certain point, and then past that I get shaky and anxious. One cup of tea, no response. Two is too much. Coffee is often on the edge. But no effect on alertness no matter how much or little I take.
- aantix 3y agoYou'll have to do a genetic test like Nebula, 23andme, etc. Then look at CYP1A2, marker rs762551, to see if you have the C/C genotype. If you have a 23andme account: https://you.23andme.com/tools/data/?query=rs762551 https://you.23andme.com/tools/data/?query=rs762551
- protomolecule 3y agoOr not. https://www.reuters.com/technology/hackers-advertise-sale-23andme-data-leaked-data-forum-2023-10-06/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/hackers-advertise-sale-23...
- cco 3y agoSimilarly, it was wild for me to learn recently that the standard deviation for how many calories our body utilizes for a given calorie intake was WAY bigger than I thought. Everyone intuitively knows that if 100 people each consume 100 calories, there will be some variation in how much of those 100 calories is "used" by each individual. But I had no idea the distribution is on the scale of 330%! Meaning in this example, some people would only get 30 usable calories, and some would get the full 100! That was way larger of a spread than I thought.
- Noumenon72 3y agoDo you have your source? This doesn't make much sense from an evolutionary perspective, for natural selection to be indifferent to inefficient energy intake. Unless it's the increased efficiency that is new, like adult lactose tolerance.
- wredue 3y agoI, too, would like a source here, as most consensus is that, for a hundred people of equal physical activity, eating habits, height and weight, the necessary caloric intake for a day is only +-75 or so. So that persons numbers make very little sense.
- aantix 3y agoWould love to see the source of this study - genuinely curious.