Does Coffee Lower Risk Of Clogged Arteries?
No.
I mean...anything's possible. But my long-standing view is: if progressive elites are fawning over any food or beverage, it will have magical medical powers attributed to it.
So I'll just assume that this is that.
I mean...anything's possible. But my long-standing view is: if progressive elites are fawning over any food or beverage, it will have magical medical powers attributed to it.
So I'll just assume that this is that.
posted by Winston Smith at
1:38 PM
10 Comments:
Does this mean you think a heavy sugar diet is probably OK, too? (I mean, that's a common Progressive stance, too.)
My physician seemed satisfied with my consumption of only 2 cups of Joe a day. But yeah, from Alex Jones and his brain-boosting supplements to the C-E-biotin combo marketed to women as a skin health supplement, mans’ eternal search for a catholicon continues.
My physician was satisfied with my daily consumption of 2 cups of java a day. From Alex Jones’ supplements to the combo of C-E-biotin vitamins marketed to women for skin health(ask Johnny Quest) the search for a catholicon never stops.
Look, these studies rely on human intervention studies (hopefully). One half gets to thes tuff, one half gets a placebo. Then one infers what the study says to all of humanity. Perfect? No, but they give clues to what might or migt not lead to a healthier outcome. It's the best we can do with this complex biological organism known as humans. A few more studies should hopefully help give a clearer picture. I'm not trying to diss anyone here, but it's honestly the best we can do and i'm glad there are those exploring these issues.
Aa: right. Coffee is an obvious choice for epidemiological studies because (a) use is widespread. (b) caffeine is a stimulant, so we *know* the stuff is biologically active. So I'd expect results of some sort, some of which will be walked back after further data. (The statistics of this kind of thing is difficult.) Previous such studies led to use of baby aspirin to reduce heart attacks.
The mechanism of action here really isn't that surprising, to be honest. Coffee accelerates blood flow through the body by raising the heart rate. Simple caffeinated water would likely have the same effect. Accelerated blood flow likely makes arterial obstructions somewhat less likely to build up.
The degree to which the effect has power is almost certainly small. One could sensibly argue, in my opinion, that there is a genuine progressive elite desire to overblow studies which represent foods and beverages characteristic to their habits as beneficial, and it's almost certainly the case that headlines which broadcast these medical benefits (or detractions) without providing information about the slightness of the degree of effect are intended to do just that.
But that could also just be an artifact of the clickbait-driven culture in general.
And the predisposition towards food and beverage is likely mostly a progressive-elite thing for socio-economic reasons. When you have the means to spend significant time in deliberations over which coffee flavor is your favorite, it becomes a predisposition. And when you are of these means, crafting regulations about what people can and cannot purchase is easy; it won't impact you, but the people who purchase these things because they have neither the time nor the desire to fritter away their time on such relatively small concerns in their lives. It's no surprise that this then becomes an angry debate.
But, despite the inability to recognize the likely mechanisms of action in play, the science is probably slightly on the side of the progressive elite in most cases. For example, sugar-heavy diets are highly correlated with obesity not necessarily because simple sugar has some unique capacity to cause weight gain in comparison to other sources of calories, but because it's so easy to consume so much of it. As a former amateur bodybuilder, to gain weight on meats and vegetables alone is a hell of a lot harder than to down a couple huge 32oz Mountain Dews each day, let me tell you. You could bring two and a half steaks to work with you, or you could drink three of those Mountain Dews.
Which is more likely to happen?
And now, according to an ignorant judge (and mostly likely an incompetent defense attorney and slimy lawyer for the plaintiff), cups of coffee in California will come with a cancer warning...despite zero scientific research backing it up.
I SAID 'NO'
I doubt the sugar thing largely because none of the popular food scares in my lifetime has survived once the hysteria died down. Eggs, butter, meat, fat in general, carbs (carbs were awesome...then they were eeeeevil)...sugar + fat together --> slightly less deadly than plutonium....soda as uniquely fat-producing...diet soda as abracadabra just like soda...potatoes were alleged to be uniquely fattening for awhile there...what am I forgetting...
I mean...*eventually* they're going to have to get it right just by sheer chance, I guess.
Excesssive sugar drinks aren't bad for you because they make you fat (although they make it whole a lot easier to take in extra Calories.) They are bad because they
(A) put stress on the liver
(B) cause a big spike in blood glucose levels
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home