Publicizing Coffee Research

I doubt that your father is taking TNF. He's probably taking a TNF inhibitor, which should actually improve any type 2. But you say he doesn't have diabetes.

 

There are various non-diabetes causes of neuropathy, but I confess this is not something I know a lot about.

 

 

reply

 

   I don't know what the long term effects of drinking

coffee are( does anyone?). But I have my 1 1/2 cups

in the morning and never noticed any immediate effect

on BGs. Although using flavored coffees does seem to have

some deffect. Of course caffiene  has other effects,

but probably more positive than negative.

 

reply

I don't think anyone knows the long-term effects of coffee drinking. We do know that people adapt to it.

 

There are receptors on your cells that bind a chemical called adenosine. When the receptors bind adenosine, you get sleepy. The caffeine binds the same receptors and keeps the adenosine from binding, so you don't get sleepy and feel pumped.

 

But the body doesn't take this lying down, so to speak, and the cells simply produce more adenosine receptors. After a while, you need to drink coffee just to have normal alertness. You're addicted.

 

For me, coffee triggers heartburn, so I now have to limit the amount I drink. But for years I drank a lot, up to the equivalent of 16 cups a day [8 cups of double-strength]. I always drank it black, no sugar.

 

reply

http://www.toddycafe.com/cbinfo/

 

Like you, my wife has heartburn problems with coffee.  We have been very pleased with the cold brew coffee system described at the link above.

reply

Thanks. I've tried those cold-water things, and the taste wasn't right for me.
reply

You're not alone. I did a blog post on the problems of some of the studies that the newspapers blow up with sensational headlines: 
reply

  The media does like to report sensational stories, even unexpected results of studies,

  but the real problem is the quality of the studies themselves. Even many published in

  "respectable" medical journals- how "scientific"  are they really?

 Many of these studies are not even carried out using the double-blinded, placebo controlled methodology. Almost always on small sample sizes. Most are "sponsered"

 by pharmacuttical companies and directed towards obtaining the "desired"

 result, or positive review of a product.

    The scientific method has historically been used to discover "new" things

about our world. Let's face it, most so called "medical" studies are not science,

and doctors are not scientists in the historical sense. Few have ever been

trained in the scientific method.

   I'll finish by saying that if medical journals want to do science, they should

REPEAT every published study, with their own team of independent experts

and real scientists (probably from areas, other than medicine).

 

reply

There are a lot of things that would be nice. The problem is that the money for research is limited. Where would we like to have our tax dollars go (much research that isn't sponsored by drug companies, which aren't unbiased, comes from government)? Toward a definitive answer about a small increase/decrease in diabetes risk from drinking coffee or from eating 7 eggs a week or toward a new understanding of the basic biochemistry of the disease that might lead to new treatments? Me, I'd vote for the latter.
reply

 My point was that too many so-called "scientific" studies are published

 by the respectable medical journals, without the thorough checks and

 balances that are needed, to give the results any real meaning. Medicine has

moved into the statistical field, whole heartly to justify ...whatever,

without much knowledge or training in the valid application of statistics.

I think even pollsters know a lot more about this field than so-called

"medical researchers". At least they get the results right more often.

   I am not suggesting that these meaningless studies be carried out

or supported by government. I just think we take them too seriously-

as if they provided all the answers to our problems.

  It is well known in science that just one study, even when carried out

perfectly cannot prove anything. It can only point toward a direction

for further investigation. If ten other independent truly scientific studies

lead to the same or very similar results, THEN it may mean something.

                        Regards,

                         Joe

reply