Re: Coffee is number one source of antioxidants

William Wagner wrote:
: In article <3nj0soF1oobmU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiri@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:
:: William Wagner wrote:
::: In article <3nic28F1jkanU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
::: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiri@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:::: William Wagner wrote:
::
::::: I just don't know!
:::::
:::: Coffee consumption is one of those J-shape things. Coffee has
:::: antioxidants, which is the reason 1-2 cups a day might be
:::: beneficial, but high consumption of coffee also raises homocysteine
:::: and the risk of acute cardiac events. Limiting coffee consumption
:::: to 1-2 cups a day is probably the best thing to do.
::::
::: Thanks Juhana !
:::
::: The about url has a bar graph that compares the antioxidant levels.
::
:: There are many analysis methods and the analysis method used in that
:: site is likely to dismiss some important phytochemicals, which act
:: as antioxidants, like anthocyanins.
::
::: Coffee is a mild diuretic useful for BP lowering which is of
::: interest to folks like me who take avalide.
::
:: On the other hand caffeine might raise blood pressure - it is not
:: that simple.
::
:: J Hypertens. 2005 May;23(5):921-8.
::
:: Blood pressure response to chronic intake of coffee and caffeine: a
:: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
::
:: Noordzij M, Uiterwaal CS, Arends LR, Kok FJ, Grobbee DE, Geleijnse
:: JM. [...]
:: CONCLUSIONS: Regular caffeine intake
:: increases BP. When ingested through coffee, however, the blood
:: pressure effect of caffeine is small. PMID: 15834273
:
: Dam Statistics. ;))) Last quote in below post is interesting.
:
: Bill

Thanks, nice posting. The claims about scientific method are probably true.
I also agree with the quoted sentence you pointed out. Often I have that
kind of approach when reading.

The coffee industry has a financial intrest to find studies to support
coffee drinking. That is why I suspect more the positive results about
coffee consumption than the negative ones.

--
Juhana

: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915&feedId=online-news_rss20
:
:
:
: Most scientific papers are probably wrong
: ? 02:00 30 August 2005
: ? NewScientist.com news service
: ? Kurt Kleiner
:
: Most published scientific research papers are wrong, according to a
: new analysis. Assuming that the new paper is itself correct, problems
: with experimental and statistical methods mean that there is less
: than a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific
: paper are true. John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University
: of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, says that small sample
: sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting
: and other problems combine to make most research findings false. But
: even large, well-designed studies are not always right, meaning that
: scientists and the public have to be wary of reported findings.
: "We should accept that most research findings will be refuted. Some
: will be replicated and validated. The replication process is more
: important than the first discovery," Ioannidis says.
: In the paper, Ioannidis does not show that any particular findings are
: false. Instead, he shows statistically how the many obstacles to
: getting research findings right combine to make most published
: research wrong. Massaged conclusions
: Traditionally a study is said to be "statistically significant" if the
: odds are only 1 in 20 that the result could be pure chance. But in a
: complicated field where there are many potential hypotheses to sift
: through - such as whether a particular gene influences a particular
: disease - it is easy to reach false conclusions using this standard.
: If you test 20 false hypotheses, one of them is likely to show up as
: true, on average.
: Odds get even worse for studies that are too small, studies that find
: small effects (for example, a drug that works for only 10% of
: patients), or studies where the protocol and endpoints are poorly
: defined, allowing researchers to massage their conclusions after the
: fact.
: Surprisingly, Ioannidis says another predictor of false findings is
: if a field is "hot", with many teams feeling pressure to beat the
: others to statistically significant findings.
: But Solomon Snyder, senior editor at the Proceedings of the National
: Academy of Sciences, and a neuroscientist at Johns Hopkins Medical
: School in Baltimore, US, says most working scientists understand the
: limitations of published research.
: "When I read the literature, I'm not reading it to find proof like a
: textbook. I'm reading to get ideas. So even if something is wrong with
: the paper, if they have the kernel of a novel idea, that's something
: to think about," he says.
: Journal reference: Public Library of Science Medicine (DOI:
: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124)


.

Relevant Pages

  • Most Scientific Papers are Probably Wrong
    ... John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School ... have to be wary of reported findings. ... complicated field where there are many potential hypotheses to sift ... School in Baltimore, US, says most working scientists understand the ...
    (alt.support.chronic-pain)
  • Most Scientific Papers are Probably Wrong
    ... John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School ... have to be wary of reported findings. ... complicated field where there are many potential hypotheses to sift ... School in Baltimore, US, says most working scientists understand the ...
    (alt.support.chronic-pain)
  • Most scientific papers are probably wrong
    ... John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School ... have to be wary of reported findings. ... complicated field where there are many potential hypotheses to sift ... School in Baltimore, US, says most working scientists understand the ...
    (alt.support.chronic-pain)
  • Most scientific papers are probably wrong
    ... John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School ... have to be wary of reported findings. ... Traditionally a study is said to be "statistically significant" if the ... School in Baltimore, US, says most working scientists understand the ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Most scientific papers are probably wrong
    ... John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School ... and the public have to be wary of reported findings. ... Traditionally a study is said to be "statistically significant" if the ... School in Baltimore, US, says most working scientists understand the ...
    (soc.retirement)