Discussion
Turns out your coffee addiction may be doing your brain a favor
rf15: Is that right? Isn't it more related to the fact that people in education/etc. actually drink more coffee for culture reasons but also use their brain more? could that be the actual reason? Because I don't see how all the coffee zombies in my workplace would last longer long term when they're already useless and aggressive today (until they had their coffee)
adrithmetiqa: Exactly. Just another “study” finding a correlation without causation.
cineticdaffodil: Then again if you have dementia, you are highly likely to lesve the office environment and any study, thus reversing causality.
CuriouslyC: This was a follow-on to a study of nurses showing coffee drinkers have lower all cause mortality.Caffeine has been shown to exert effects via adenosine receptor antagonism and influence on cAMP & AMPK pathways. These same pathways are implicated in a lot of issues with aging. Caffeine also has some anti-inflammatory properties and Coffee beans are also a strong anti-oxidant though I don't really think that matters much.
qwertyuiop_: Does decaf have the same effects ?
storus: Isn't this all about brain hypoperfusion coming from some sort of dysautonomia and/or mitochondrial dysfunction and worse blood vessels as we age? We know that medication that helps blood flow and endothelium improves brain long-term, like sildenafil.
sumeno: No, only caffeinated> decaffeinated coffee intake was not associated with lower dementia risk or better cognitive performance
codyb: Does not apply to the White House
sumeno: The studies compared people from the same occupation, so no, that is not likely the reason
rf15: But that can still not account for cultural/work ethic differences.
HardwareLust: You'd be missing out on the anti-inflammatory properties of the caffeine, so maybe it might have some effect?
trollbridge: Coffee, like other beans, is loaded to the hilt with antioxidants, particularly once it’s hyper-concentrated, and the roasting and brewing process eliminates all the mechanisms beans normally use to avoid animals wanting to eat them.
jader201: Actual study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/28447...”After adjusting for potential confounders and pooling results across cohorts, higher caffeinated coffee intake was significantly associated with lower dementia risk (141 vs 330 cases per 100 000 person-years comparing the fourth [highest] quartile of consumption with the first [lowest] quartile; hazard ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.76 to 0.89]) and lower prevalence of subjective cognitive decline (7.8% vs 9.5%, respectively; prevalence ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.93]).”So about 18% relative reduction. But if your risks are already low (e.g. active and healthy diet) the relative reduction is less impactful (e.g. 4% to 3.28%).
weird-eye-issue: > the relative reduction is less impactful (e.g. 4% to 3.28%That's also an 18% reduction
Xunjin: I think what he means is a reduction of 18% based on 4% is way less than 18% based on 80%.
tmoertel: The actual study (1) is observational and makes no casual claim, only that there exists a statistical association between caffeine consumption and dementia. Nevertheless, people are apt to misinterpret the finding as “caffeine consumption prevents dementia”:Caffeine -> DementiaHowever, the two variables would be correlated if the causal arrow were reversed and dementia influenced the propensity to consume caffeine:Caffeine <- DementiaAnd we would also observe the correlation if a person's general health influenced both the propensity to consume caffeine and dementia risk:Caffeine <- General Health -> DementiaSince caffeine is a stressor, we would expect to see reduced consumption among people with reduced general health. But we would also expect increased dementia among that same group. So the relationships in the diagram immediately above are plausible and would give rise to a spurious correlation between caffeine consumption and dementia risk.While studies can try to “control for confounding factors,” it’s easy to overlook or misunderstand the true causal relationships in play, causing spurious correlations. In other words, you can create false “causal” relationships through imperfect identification and control of confounding variables.In short, take this article’s claims with a suitable dose of suspicion.(1) https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/28447...
foobarian: Makes you wonder. Coffee is tasty, so we drink it, and find out much later it also has these awesome side effects. What if there are plants out there that have even better health effects, but we'll never get decades worth of data on their consumption because they taste bad?
infinitewars: Percents of percents always felt kludgey. PSA: use Decibans!Then you can say this is a 0.86 dB reduction in risk for everybody.https://rationalnumbers.james-kay.com/?p=306
throawayonthe: - coffee seeds are not actually 'beans'- caffeine is the main mechanism it uses to deter pests like insects, definitely not removed in the roasting and brewing process- like many fruits, they're sweet and nutritious, encouraging larger animals to eat it- the stuff marketed as dietary antioxidants still hasn't been shown to improve anythingwhat are you talking about
