WASHINGTON — A new study suggests that your morning brew might be doing more than just perking you up — it could be protecting you from a range of serious heart conditions. Researchers working with the Endocrine Society have found that drinking a moderate amount of coffee is associated with a lower risk of developing multiple cardiometabolic diseases. In simpler terms, your daily cup of coffee (or three) might help ward off conditions like Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and stroke.

“Consuming three cups of coffee, or 200-300 mg caffeine, per day might help to reduce the risk of developing cardiometabolic multimorbidity in individuals without any cardiometabolic disease,” says Dr. Chaofu Ke, the lead author of the study from Suzhou Medical College in China, in a media release.

Source: https://studyfinds.org/3-cups-of-coffee-diseases/

  • celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    0·
    1 day ago

    They’ve been saying coffee prevents heart disease for decades. Why do they keep putting studies out that make it seem like this is a new discovery?

  • Underwaterbob@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    1 day ago

    Caffeine gives me brain-destroying headaches if I just drink a single cup a day for a month or two. Inevitably. I’ve tried to be a coffee drinker a half-dozen times in the past few years because I love the pep I get from caffeine, and every single time, eventually I end up slowly pacing in a dark, quiet room - because even sitting down makes the pain unbearable - wishing the world would end so my head would stop throbbing.

    I guess I just wasn’t drinking enough?

  • TheDeadHorse@lemmy.world
    0·
    1 day ago

    I wonder if some of the positive affect is due to the temporary increase of blood pressure which may flex the walls of the veins and so forth.

  • Billegh@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 days ago

    I look forward to a solution to whatever disease causes people to try and talk to me before I’ve had my coffee.

  • DelightfullyDivisive@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 days ago

    I was curious about why all of the authors of a study from Oxford University seem to have Chinese names. I didn’t find any of their names in a search of Oxford’s staff, either.

    I have no idea what this means, but maybe the study was actually conducted elsewhere using data from the UK? Maybe there are just a ton of graduate students from China at Oxford in their life sciences program? I’m not insinuating any sinister, it just seems odd and I was trying to understand why.

    • meant2live218@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 days ago

      The study isn’t from Oxford. It’s from a team of Chinese scientists (likely in China) who used a large dataset collected in the UK.

      The study is published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, which the Oxford Academic collects and reproduces for their academic press.

  • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    0·
    2 days ago

    Considering that coffee is probably the highest source of antioxidants in a person’s diet, there will be some health benefits. Just dont add dairy milk to it, or it will blunt absorption. Soy milk is fine.

    But if you’re an overweight, overworked, stress filled couch potato who doesn’t exercise and eats poorly, then you’re health is screwed regardless of how much coffee you drink 😂

    • angrystego@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 days ago

      I didn’t really understand the abstract, I’m affraid. Is CGA the same thing as chlorigenic acid and is that the antioxidant you’re talking about? Also, did they test coffee with a little milk? The abstract makes it sound like they tested coffee without milk and coffee made entirely of milk, which doesn’t happen in real life. I am confused.

      • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
        0·
        2 days ago

        It’s one study of many showing this effect. I believe they suggest that the protein in milk is the culprit. The same effect applies to tea… Adding dairy to tea reduces its health benefits.

        • angrystego@lemmy.world
          0·
          2 days ago

          I do get that, I was interested in the amount of milk and the name of the healthy things it blocks from being absorbed - there might be more than one, right?

  • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
    0·
    2 days ago

    than just perking you up

    It doesn’t, if you’re a regular drinker. Rather, you get withdrawal symptoms at morning.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 days ago

      Then you get mornings like today. Do I feel like shit because of withdrawal symptoms, or do I feel like shit from lack of sleep

  • qaz@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 days ago

    Scandinavia has one of the highest per capita consumption of coffee, maybe it’s just a correlation with healthcare /s

  • Blackout@fedia.io
    0·
    2 days ago

    I drink coffee but I put no faith in this reports that always seem to go one way or another. Just drink it in moderation. It wasn’t that long ago a glass of wine a day was considered healthy too.

      • drphungky@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 days ago

        The issue is a lot of teetotalers don’t drink anything because of their existing health conditions, really bad obesity, hypertension, liver problems, etc. So those that don’t drink at all are actually less healthy than the average population, and those that drink in moderation are obviously healthier than those who drink a lot. So the results look like moderate drinking is the most healthy but there’s an (or a lot of) omitted variable bias.

        • mako@lemmy.today
          0·
          2 days ago

          There’s unsubstantiated and nonsensical assumptions in your comment starting with assuming that anyone who doesn’t ingest alcohol does it to avoid exacerbating current health conditions, leading to those that drink moderately being healthier than those who don’t drink. That’s absurd.

          I’ll make an assumption of my own. A significant portion of your identify and social life is in “moderate” drinking and you’re very keen to justify that as “healthy.”

        • booly@sh.itjust.works
          0·
          2 days ago

          More specifically, the more recent studies analyze non-drinkers in two categories: those who just choose not to drink (generally healthier than even light drinkers), and those who don’t drink because they have serious health conditions incompatible with drinking or people recovering from substance/alcohol abuse issues who (generally much less healthy than light drinkers). By separating those who don’t drink versus those who can’t drink, the studies reverse earlier findings that non-drinkers are less healthy than light drinkers.

      • Blackout@fedia.io
        0·
        2 days ago

        No, alcohol has always been toxic. just like tobacco. Might see the same restrictions on their ads in the future.

          • mako@lemmy.today
            0·
            2 days ago

            Please demonstrate the relevancy of your comment by citing medicinal uses of ingesting the alcohol in alcoholic beverages.

            • angrystego@lemmy.world
              0·
              2 days ago

              I was talking about toxins in general in reaction to yout toxin comment. I think it’s logical to research the possibility of alcohol having some beneficial effects, the world is not black and white.

              When it comes to studies of health risks/benefits of alcohol, they unfortunately seem to suffer from the same shortcomings as other health studies: lots of important factors are often ignored, like the type of alcoholic beverage consumed, lifestyle connected to the type or amount of alcohol, previous history of alcohol use… I can, of course, give you a link to a study that finds benefits to moderate alcohol use (although they are far from recomending it). Here’s one example from 2023

              Personally, I think alcohol probably does more damage than benefit even in moderate dosing, but the truth is we still don’t really know and we need much more in-depth studies to find out.

          • mako@lemmy.today
            0·
            2 days ago

            Caffeine is toxic at around 10 grams, which is 80-100 cups of coffee. I’d you’re defining “toxin” as triggering adverse effects at any dosage, then you need to include water, oxygen, and every other substance in existence.

            Alcohol is a biological toxin at any dosage. I find that people who argue this point aren’t doing it from an academic standpoint but to justify their own behavior.