Three cups of coffee a day could help keep diabetes away

I already feel the need to apologise for this article. After reading and posting similar studies for many years now it is becoming apparent that this type of research is not really science and could possibly, more accurately, be described as bollocks. Time will tell. – Deskarati

Drinking more coffee may slightly reduce your risk of diabetes, and people who drink three or more cups appear to be at the lowest risk of all, an American study has suggested. Researchers at Harvard University’s School of Public Health analysed data on more than 120,000 people’s coffee consumption over several years. They found that those who increased their intake by more than a cup a day over a four-year period had an 11 per cent lower chance of developing diabetes in the following years.

Those who had consistently higher coffee consumption – of three or more cups a day – had a risk which was 37 per cent lower than people who consistently drank one or fewer cups a day, researchers found. The study is the latest to suggest a possible link between coffee and reduced diabetes risk and while the researchers behind the paper said that bigger, clinical trials would be required to confirm their findings, they believe that existing evidence of coffee’s benefit is “well established”. However, experts in the UK said that it was still not clear that coffee was directly responsible for the lower risk scores shown in the study. Via Three cups of coffee a day could help keep diabetes away

This entry was posted in Biology. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Three cups of coffee a day could help keep diabetes away

  1. Phil Krause says:

    There seems to be a patern here. I know lots of people that drink strong black coffee all day that are heavy smokers and they are also very lean.

  2. alfy says:

    I do agree with your opening comments, Jim, but I think we need a new terminology. What you refer to is, unfortunately, real science. It is practised by people with science degrees in the Science departments of respectable universities and employs the scientific method. The problem is that its conclusions are extremely marginal.
    One of the reasons why politicians have such a problem with findings of certain kinds of science is that it is never strong enough to help them make decisions. “If you do x then 5% will probably be 10% better off, but if you do y then 2% will be 15% worse off.” So what do you do?
    Ignore the “science” and make your decision using other criteria.
    The three areas that are most prone to this problem of marginality in research are economics, psychology and education. There are also strong contenders in dietetics and general health research. For example, should people drink alcohol? Answers on a postcard. Clearly, too much is quite definitely bad for you, but with a moderate intake, do the benefits outweigh the various drawbacks?
    To hear three economists offering guidance on how the government (any government) should deal with any economic issue is to cast doubt on the entire credibility of economics as an academic study.
    Writers on these issues have talked of “strong sciences” like physics and chemistry where 98% of the practioners agree on 98% of the basic theories, and “weak sciences” like psychology and economics, where perhaps 20% of practioners agree on 20% of underlying theory.
    The problem of dietetics, health science, and education is that it is “marginal” science. No matter how rigorous or well-designed the investigations are, the conclusions are always marginal and therefore valueless.

  3. Phil Krause says:

    You don’t have to be a scientist to become an expert on diet or “food science”. Even the “real scientists” working for “real universities” on the health benefits of food and drink have little else to their disposal other than surveys and statistics. To get a better idea of what is going on always find out who is funding the research. If you have enough time and money you can find any result you wish using nothing more than surveys and statistics. I think it’s closer to what Jim describes as “bollocks” than science.

Comments are closed.