×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Coffee Wards Off Cancer

CmdrTaco posted more than 2 years ago | from the thats-my-excuse dept.

Biotech 286

Thorfinn.au writes "A new study indicates that heavy coffee drinking staves off deadly prostate cancer in men. Some 47,911 US men were surveyed over the period 1986 to 2008 for the research. During this time some 5,035 of them developed prostate cancer with 642 dying of it. According to analysis by investigating scientists, men who drank the most coffee (a fairly normal six-plus cups per day) had a 20 per cent lower risk of developing any kind of prostate cancer. If they did get prostate cancer, the java-swillers were much less likely to die from it than others: their risk of deadly prostate cancer was no less than 60 per cent lower than normal. Even less thirsty coffee drinkers who only put away one to three cups daily saw their chance of deadly prostate cancer fall by a useful 30 per cent."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

286 comments

Missing from the summary (5, Informative)

pz (113803) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164668)

According to the interview with one of the study's authors on NPR today, one of the very important factors is that decaf works as well. Which is to say, the measured benefit probably is not from caffeine.

Re:Missing from the summary (1)

mellon (7048) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164936)

Ah, but decaf never tastes as good...

(delightedly wanders off to make some happy juice...)

Re:Missing from the summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36165064)

I can't tell a difference between decaf and regular. Extra-super-strong-bitter-aroma coffee makes a difference but other than the whole "decaf tastes worse" is a myth in my opinion.

Anyway ... off to make another cup of coffee

...of the summary; the abstract does say: (1)

dazedNconfuzed (154242) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164986)

The association appears to be related to non-caffeine components of coffee.

- from the linked-to abstract.

Actual Research Paper and Conclusion (5, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165026)

According to the interview with one of the study's authors on NPR today, one of the very important factors is that decaf works as well. Which is to say, the measured benefit probably is not from caffeine.

Indeed. Here's a PDF of the paper [wordpress.com] which has all the actual numbers. It also lists in their conclusions several possible investigation routes:

Coffee contains chlorogenic acids (CGAs), which inhibit glucose absorption in the intestine and may favorably alter levels of gut hormones, which affect insulin response (1). Quinides, the roasting products of CGAs, inhibit liver glucose production in experimental models (1). Coffee also contains lignans, phytoestrogens with potent antioxidant activity, which may have positive effects on glucose handling (37). In humans, coffee drinking has been cross- sectionally associated with lower glucose levels after oral glucose loads and better insulin sensitivity (38–40). A cross-sectional study in women found a negative correlation between coffee consumption and circulating C-peptide, a marker of insulin secretion (41). Insulin may promote tumor progression through the insulin and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) receptors in cancer cells. Insulin levels have been associated with a greater risk of cancer progression or mortality among men diagnosed with prostate cancer (9–11), even though insulin has been unassociated (12,13) or inversely associated (14) with overall incidence. Coffee is a major source of antioxidants and is estimated to provide half of total antioxidant intake in several populations (2,3). Coffee has been associated with improved markers of inflammation in cross-sectional studies and in a recent trial (4,42,43). Inflammation is hypothesized to play a role in the development of prostate cancer through the generation of proliferative inflammatory atrophy lesions (15). Various dietary antioxidants may reduce inflammation and have been associated with lower risk of advanced prostate cancer (44,45). Coffee drinking may be associated with increased sex hormone–binding globulin (SHBG) and total testosterone levels (5). One study in Greek men found a positive association with estradiol levels but not with SHBG or testosterone (6), whereas another found no association between coffee and sex hormones in young Greek men (7). Coffee has been consistently associated with higher SHBG levels in women (46–49). Sex hormones play a role in prostate cancer, though the relationships between circulating levels within normal ranges and risk have been difficult to elucidate. It has been hypothesized that although testosterone is necessary for the initial development of prostate cancer, it may limit progression of the disease (50,51). A pooled analysis of 18 prospective studies found an inverse association between SHBG levels and prostate cancer risk (51).

Re:Missing from the summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36165384)

Which is to say, the measured benefit probably is not from caffeine.

Not surprising, really, since coffee contains about 1000 different compounds...

Wards off cancer? (3, Insightful)

NickstaDB (2006530) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164676)

What doesn't? Then a week later the media is full of reports that it gives you cancer or vice versa..!

Re:Wards off cancer? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164972)

Well coffee has the distinct advantage in that if you drink 100 cups, you can move at nearly the speed of light. Or so I saw on a show once.

Re:Wards off cancer? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165268)

The difference here is that for years scientists (in particular nutritionists) have been telling us that drinking a lot of coffee is bad for us and doing studies to try and prove it. Gradually, bit by bit, the studies have been coming back showing that not only is coffee not bad for us, it is actually good for us. For every study that shows that coffee has some minor negative health affect, there are two studies showing that coffee has some significant positive health affect. Sometime in the last 10 years they finally gave up on the idea that coffee is bad for us.

Diuretic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36164692)

Related to the fact the caffeine is a diuretic maybe?

Re:Diuretic (1)

roger_pasky (1429241) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164876)

Agreed. Statistics is a harmfull toy in wrong hands. According to statistics, "in Vatican there are 2 Popes per square kilometer".

Re:Diuretic (2)

Tx (96709) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164928)

That's a myth; caffeine in the quantities you ingest it by drinking coffee, has very little [nytimes.com] diuretic effect at all.

Re:Diuretic (1)

turtledawn (149719) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165082)

Well what the hell is it in the stuff that sends me running to the bathroom every half hour then? And stinking of coffee to boot.

Re:Diuretic (4, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165266)

Maybe that you are drinking a large amount of fluid has something to do with it?

Drink the same amount of water in the same time period... Lookie same effect.

A fairly normal six-plus cups of coffee? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36164694)

Maybe if you're one of those for whom it's only three sleeps 'till Christmas.

Quick! Someone tell the Daily Mail! (2)

RDW (41497) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164696)

Re:Quick! Someone tell the Daily Mail! (1)

wsxyz (543068) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165004)

But when it was in the Daily Mail it was pseudoscientific nonsense fit only for troglodytes.

Now it's true.

Coffee... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36164710)

This is why I drink so much coffee. Or rather, it is now. Really, my body is just a coffee filter:
http://www.notquitewrong.com/rosscottinc/2009/02/11/the-system-150/

10% contract prostate cancer? (1)

fantazem (466353) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164726)

Hang on, nearly 10% of men in the study contracted prostate cancer?! That seems extraordinarily high doesn't it?

Re:10% contract prostate cancer? (4, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164774)

Nearly all men will get prostate cancer if they live long enough. It's slow growing and asymptomatic, so it might not even be the worst health problem grandpa has.

Re:10% contract prostate cancer? (4, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164840)

That's actually one of the big areas of research for that particular cancer now: the early stage stuff, at least, is pretty curable; but the methods are invasive and often result in incontinence or impotence. There is thus a good deal of interest in knowing which tumors are on track to kill you relatively horribly, relatively quickly, and need to be treated aggressively, and which ones are just going to sit there, with a scheduled breakout ~10+ years after you die of something else entirely.

You don't want otherwise reasonably healthy 65 year olds dying of metastatic cancer; but you also don't want to have somebody spend a decade dribbling urine in order to remove a tumor that wasn't even going to be noticable outside of a diagnostic setting until a few years after the pneumonia got them anyway...

Re:10% contract prostate cancer? (5, Interesting)

pr0t0 (216378) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165060)

Not only does coffee help prevent prostate cancer, but so does regular masturbation too. A study came out in 2003, and then resurfaced in 2008 and 2010 that men who masturbate regularly can help reduce the risk of prostate cancer by as much as 40%.

So while nearly all men will get prostate cancer if they live long enough, I sure as hell won't!

Starbucks and Kleenex: the path to a long and happy life.

Re:10% contract prostate cancer? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165282)

So if I masturbate 3 times a day and drink 24 cups of coffee daily I have a 100% chance of never getting prostate cancer?

Re:10% contract prostate cancer? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164874)

No. It's a 20 year study. 17% of men get prostate cancer over their lifetimes. If the study population were 50+ at the start that seems low. if the study population were under 30 at the start that that seems really high and I suspect their population consisted of Chernobyl residents...

Re:10% contract prostate cancer? (5, Informative)

EvilStein (414640) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165334)

Yes. An equal number of men die every year from prostate cancer as women from breast cancer, yet breast cancer receives an overwhelming majority of the press, funding, and research. Look up the article "Politics behind the pink." I guess it's because we all love tatas but the prostate just isn't very sexy. Kind of sad, really..

This is unacceptable. (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164732)

Coffee contains a known psychoactive stimulant, one which many people find pleasant. This makes it a drug. Drugs are axiomatically evil(unless associated with rugged American individualism and/or cowboys). Therefore, coffee cannot possibly have any positive effects. Scientists! Get back to the lab and produce better results.

Re:This is unacceptable. (2)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164742)

Drugs are axiomatically evil(unless associated with rugged American individualism and/or cowboys).

What do you think cowboys drank on cattle drives and other long trips? Coffee

Re:This is unacceptable. (2)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164776)

Nope, they did not. They ATE coffee, which amplifies the effect. Just for the record.

Re:This is unacceptable. (2)

xclr8r (658786) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164778)

You are forgetting that if it makes some one work longer or harder for the bottom line then it is encouraged until you are burnt out and tossed aside for the next caffeine junky.

Re:This is unacceptable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36165058)

Cocaine does this and yet it is illegal.

Re:This is unacceptable. (1)

Lundse (1036754) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165118)

"We meant those other drugs. Those untaxed drugs. Those are the ones that are bad for you."

Re:This is unacceptable. (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165294)

It is pretty foolish to lump coffee in with crack just because the umbrella word "drug" covers both. The risk/benefit ratio of one says nothing about the other. (It would make more sense to pick on alcohol, which is a commonly used drug with devastating effects for some users).

Re:This is unacceptable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36165350)

Drugs are axiomatically evil(unless associated with rugged American individualism and/or cowboys).

But the definition of cowboy breakfast is coffee in a tin cup. Lose.

Diuretic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36164764)

Related to the fact that caffeine is a diuretic?

Correlation != Causation, title writer (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36164768)

FTA:

coffee may be associated with a reduced risk of prostate cancer.

and

We observed a strong inverse association between coffee consumption and risk of lethal prostate cancer.

Show me biochemical interactions and a pathway of downregulation of metastatic prostate cancer cells and I'll buy your title.

That being said, I'm going to go have a couple cups of joe.

Re:Correlation != Causation, title writer (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165030)

FTA:

coffee may be associated with a reduced risk of prostate cancer.

and

We observed a strong inverse association between coffee consumption and risk of lethal prostate cancer.

Show me biochemical interactions and a pathway of downregulation of metastatic prostate cancer cells and I'll buy your title.

That being said, I'm going to go have a couple cups of joe.

It took you 8 minutes to issue that "correction", AC. I have to wonder if slower "correlation is not causation" posting is correlated with time of day.

Re:Correlation != Causation, title writer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36165186)

Overly simplistic comment. Statistics, research & design, and the process are not religion.

Once again for the cheap seats (0, Redundant)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164782)

Correlation does not imply causation. For all this study appears to show, it could be that drinking hot water is the reason for the relationship. I'd like to see a study conducted where group A drinks coffee and group B takes a supplement that contains the components of the coffee bean which are present in brewed coffee.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164844)

One route by which a false causation could occur here is through one of the most obvious effects of caffeine - its a diuretic. The summary could have just as easily said "Pissing often helps prevent prostate cancer"

Re:Once again for the cheap seats (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164912)

Add to this: pissing often without any side effect, and you will see why even then coffee drinkers are cancer-free.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164952)

Yes, if you ignore the decaf drinkers were the same as the normal coffee drinkers and hence the abstract finishes with: "The association appears to be related to non-caffeine components of coffee."

Re:Once again for the cheap seats (1)

Rary (566291) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164964)

One route by which a false causation could occur here is through one of the most obvious effects of caffeine - its a diuretic. The summary could have just as easily said "Pissing often helps prevent prostate cancer"

The study does point out that decaf coffee had the same effect as regular, so it's not the caffeine, or any effect of the caffeine, that does this.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165042)

Even without caffeine, extra fluids will make you piss more. Constantly cleaning out your urinary tract sounds like a more feasible mechanism of action than some unidentified chemical in coffee that isn't common in other parts of the human diet. Decaf coffee isn't a valid control, water is.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165228)

But if that is the case, it's still causation; coffee does reduce the chances of prostate cancer, even if any other liquid mainly composed of water does the same. Causation doesn't mean it's the only cause.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165264)

No, because it being coffee is not the cause. The statement 'coffee prevents prostate cancer' contains the implicit assumption that coffee does so more than control. This may seem nitpicky, but summarising scientific research requires fairly precise use of language.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36165176)

"Pissing often helps prevent prostate cancer"

That claim is easy to test: compare with beer drinkers, tea drinkers, cola drinkers and also with diabetics.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165320)

Actually that wouldn't be false causation, since drinking actually does cause pissing. It would just mean the result could be broadened to people who drink anything else that isn't too harmful. (Virtually all "causes" are indirect if you break things down enough.)

Re:Once again for the cheap seats (3, Insightful)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164848)

The number of potential reasons for the correlation is staggering. Think of the other things that could be different in the lifestyle and diet of someone that drinks 6 cups of coffee a day versus someone that drinks 1?

It's painful everytime a horrible summary like this makes it through.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164962)

What is first, the chicken or the egg? And to answer your correlation question, it does not matter, as long as you are the happy chicken, making a lot of eggs. Translated, it does not matter if the coffee or the life-style linked to the heavy coffee drinkers is the real reason, as long as the final result is cancer-free life.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36165198)

Of course it matters! If the cause for the correlation is not coffee itself, but that people who are more likely to drink a lot of coffee are also more likely to , and it is really X which causes less prostate cancer, then you can't simply start drinking coffee and hope for less prostate cancer, can you?

This is an unsubstantiated example, but what if people who drink more coffee are usually people who work a lot and thus have better jobs, and thus can afford to eat better food? Then you should be eating better food, not drinking more coffee..

Re:Once again for the cheap seats (1)

residieu (577863) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165406)

There's a difference. If drinking coffee really did reduce the risk of prostate cancer, it would make sense to encourage men to drink coffee. If it's just that people who drink coffee are at lower risk for some other reason, then encouraging men to drink more coffee will not reduce their risk of cancer.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats (1)

symes (835608) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164886)

But causation does imply corrrelation. Anyhow - don't dismiss this work because of the design. It provides a clue to something that might have great bearing on a rather nasty condition. With this epidemiological data in hand, scientists can now look at devising better designed more expensive research that will determine the relationship, if any, such as the one you propose.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats (1)

Darfeld (1147131) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164900)

Either way, I'll drink a cup more of coffe, just to be safe, since even if their is no direct link, it seems to imply less prostate cancer in the futur...
That is, until further experimentation find something more precise.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165014)

Oh look, someone else who knows the snappy phrase, but doesn't understand it. Actually, that subject sounds familiar... you're the one who always posts this same crap, aren't you?

There are three possibilities - coffee reduces prostate cancer risk, reduced prostate cancer risk increases coffee consumption or a third factor increases coffee consumption and decreases prostate cancer risk. While the third one is possible, the first is much more likely, and even the summary says "indicates."

Your complaint doesn't have anything to do with correlation; it's that "coffee" isn't a specific compound. While true, objecting to a preliminary study on those grounds is silly. If the effect is real someone will eventually chase down exactly what the mechanism is.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36165306)

I don't think he was dismissing the study, but the "coffee wards off cancer" title and the summary which says "heavy coffee drinking staves off deadly prostate cancer".

in general, "is associated with reduced occurrence of" != "staves off"

Re:Once again for the cheap seats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36165390)

Yes, it's possible that there's something else going on (Being at high risk for prostate cancer makes coffee taste like shit). But it's certainly an interesting finding that should be further studied.

Re:Once again for the cheap seats (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165402)

And no where in the summary, article or paper (OK, I didn't read the paper, but I seriously doubt it would make such a ridiculous claim) is it said that "Drinking coffee prevents cancer". The title kinda does if you read it that way, but a three word catchy title is hardly the "meat" of anything. All that's being claimed is a significant statistical correlation between drinking coffee and a reduced risk for this particular type of cancer.

Even wetter wednesday, if nothing changes... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36164790)

why should we care? still waiting? more stand-up talknician routines. more threatening now? will the FSF guys be arrested for sex crimes too? julians, adrians, everybody's at risk, of being arrested, or worse. scary? 13 year old tagged by ss.gov at school for unapproved tweeting. so we're safe from him now. the key to the bells & whistles of just one city is way to much trust to put in one human. our/our planet's fate however, is different?

same old; how many 1000 babys going up in smoke again today? how many 1000's of just folks to be killed or displaced again today? hard to put $$ on that. the cost of constant deception, to our spirit? paying to have ourselves constantly spied on & lied to by freaky self chosen neogod depopulationers? the biblically styled fatal distraction holycost is all encompassing, & never ends while we're still alive, unless we cut them/ourselves off at the wmd. good luck with that, as it's not even a topic anywhere we get to see, although in real life it's happening everywhere as our walking dead weapons peddlers are being uncontracted. you can call this weather if it makes you feel any better. no? read the teepeeleaks etchings.

so, once one lie is 'infactated', the rest becomes just more errant fatal history.

disarm. tell the truth. the sky is not ours to toy with after all?

  you call this 'weather'? what with real history racing up to correct
itself, while the chosen one's holycostal life0cider mediots continually
attempt to rewrite it, fortunately, there's still only one version of the
truth, & it's usually not a long story, or a confusing multiple choice
fear raising event.

wouldn't this be a great time to investigate the genuine native elders social & political leadership initiative, which includes genuine history as put forth in the teepeeleaks etchings. the natives still have no words in their language to describe the events following their 'discovery' by us, way back when. they do advise that it's happening again.

who has all the weapons? who is doing MOST of the damage? what are the motives? are our intentions & will as the ones who are supposed to be being represented honestly & accurately, being met? we have no reference to there being ANY public approval for the current mayhem & madness pr firm regime style self chosen neogod rulership we've allowed to develop around us, so we wouldn't have to stop having fun, & doing things that have nothing to do with having to defend from the smoke&mirrors domestic frenetics, of the unproven genocides. rockets exploding in syria fired from Libya? yikes?

  the zeus weather weapon is still being used indiscriminately against the population, our rulers' minions are fleeing under fire.

the whore of babylon has been rescued by the native elders. she has the papers of challenge authored by the hymenical council, & is cooperating wholeheartedly with the disarmament mandate.
disarm. thank you.

censorship, or convenience?
Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, anonymous comment
posting has temporarily been disabled. You can still login to post.
However, if bad posting continues from your IP or Subnet that privilege
could be revoked as well. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in
the timeout corner or login and improve your posting. If it's someone
else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is bogus, you are right moderation@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID and SubnetID, (which have been maliciously edited from time to time for effect by /.censory)
which are always changing, you butthead

Only in America (0)

hjf (703092) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164818)

Only in America could anyone call 6 cups a day "fairly normal". Well yes, if you're drinking that dirty water you Americans like to call "coffee". Normal people on the rest of the world, drink decent, strong coffee.

I seriously don't get the point about doing that. If you want a light drink, go for tea. Coffee is such an amazing, rich, delicious drink, that drinking it as a replacement for water is just stupid. I prefer single cup of expresso in the middle of the afternoon, rather than sipping a giant plastic cup all day long.

Re:Only in America (1)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165044)

Hey! That's not how we do things in AMERICA! In America we have one giant plastic cup of "expresso" (really? you go overboard with the superlatives but don't even know how to spell it?) in the morning, a second big giant plastic cup of espresso in the afternoon, and top it off with a Monster energy drink in the evening! Some people use "5 hour energy" instead, but that's for WUSSES because those bottles are small and small things are for WUSSES!!!!

Okay, seriously, i can't tell if the original statement was sarcastic or just totally out of touch. Six cups a day? I've lost track of the number of people in my office who have some method of making their own coffee in one cup batches (usually a french press or a one cup filter) bring in the their own coffee rather than using the office supply and have one or two cups a day at most.

Or maybe i'm the one who's out touch, but i suspect the people who go to Starbucks for breakfast lunch and dinner are like all stereotypes, seen a lot more in movies, TV and bad jokes than they are in real life.

(Although what's with the "dirty water" as opposed to "strong coffee" thing? The problem with Starbucks isn't that they make it too weak, the problem is that they burn the beans to a crisp. Weakness is about the last thing i'd complain about with their coffee.)

Re:Only in America (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165366)

The last few companies I've worked at have been going to progressively lower-quality coffee in the office. While they were good, you could hardly taste the urine in the coffee. After three or four rounds of coffee budget cuts, the urine actually improved the flavor.

I can't stand Starbucks' insipid brand after spending the last couple of years going to a local place where the coffee actually tastes like coffee (And almost never like urine.)

Re:Only in America (1)

Tx (96709) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165074)

I'd think 6 cups a day is pretty average for many coffee drinkers, not just Americans. I'm in the UK, and certainly in my workplace we have a round of coffee/tea about once an hour, so 6 mugs of coffee a day is pretty typical. There's nothing wrong with using it as a replacement for water, it does the job just fine, and tastes better.

Re:Only in America (2)

dykofone (787059) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165088)

As a heavy consumer of both the American dirt water and more "cultured" European styles of coffee, I will defend the American drip coffee as a product of utility. Cheaper, easier to make, can be kept in a pot for hours without degrading, and about 30% more caffeine per serving (130mg in a cup of drip coffee, 100mg in a shot of espresso). We drink that dirt water to survive, not to savor.

That doesn't mean we don't enjoy the finer coffees (I will obsess over a French-pressed dark roast Sumatran), it just means there's a place for both. I'm a beer snob too, but if I'm out fishing on a canoe in the Texas heat I have no shame reaching for a cold and refreshing Keystone Light. I'm not out there to pontificate on the malts used or the varietal of hops, I'm out there to get drunk on a boat, and you can't argue the utility of cheap canned beer.

Java (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36164850)

Yeah another reason that Java is better then .Net =)

Coffee alternative (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164896)

I don't like coffee. I've tried it, hated it, and have no intention of "learning to like it".

Fortunately there's another well-established way of warding off prostate cancer, which I enjoy quite a bit.

Re:Coffee alternative (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36165336)

Oh, are you a ketchup lover too? My bottle says the lycopene from processed (but not raw) tomatoes can help prevent prostate cancer. You must mean that.

Re:Coffee alternative (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165344)

Fortunately there's another well-established way of warding off prostate cancer, which I enjoy quite a bit.

The preparation is a little more of a chore though, no?

enough with the statistics (1)

timlyg (266415) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164904)

Why are all hopes of remedy in cancer stuck on statistics and not actual subsequent scientific medicine?

Re:enough with the statistics (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164954)

Because actually solving problems is haaaaaard!

In all likelihood, drinking coffee is probably just correlated to working or living conditions that don't involve as much exposure to carcinogenic substances.

Re:enough with the statistics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36165048)

well, then you should know, soya bean is likely to prevent cancer.

Re:enough with the statistics (1)

Darfeld (1147131) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165250)

Because the subsequent scientific medicine cost money and times and that the later paper aren't nearly as news-worthy, because you never find a Cure For Cancer after all?

And maybe because cancer being cancer, there are lots of parameters you can't quantify precisely so you ends up forced to use statistic to get some result?

Statistics may be overrated, but it doesn't mean they are worthless or meaningless. They work, provided you don't do anything stupid with them.

Re:enough with the statistics (1)

timlyg (266415) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165364)

Well, what I think is very scientific about it is every time a statistical claim on cancer 'remedy' is announced, there is no subsequent analysis of the case. But I suppose due to the definition of 'statistics', they aren't treated as badly as those in homeopathy.

Plants are your friend (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164910)

With coffee - broccoli, green/black/white tea, soybeans, red grapes, turmeric, rosemary, garlic, berries and eating a plant-based high-fiber diet helps as well to ward-off cancer.

Great news (1)

soupforare (542403) | more than 2 years ago | (#36164938)

Between the coffee and the masturbation, my prostate is safe as houses. I've just read that my heart loves booze [arstechnica.com], too. Everything's amazing now!

Did they die of heart strokes ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36165024)

This would be an easy explication: heavy coffee drinkers do not die of prostate cancer because they die of something else
before.

Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. (1)

Peter Trepan (572016) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165112)

Three times is enemy action. Coffee has so many widely reported health benefits, it makes me wonder if some coffee growers association has discovered that it's killing people.

"(a fairly normal six-plus cups per day)" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36165144)

You poor man. Instead you die an early death, possibly cardiovascular such, from constantly being jacked-up on caffeine, negating those semantical extra years of life from not getting prostate cancer. Oh, the irony.

Tea? More Fluids in General? (1)

wren337 (182018) | more than 2 years ago | (#36165170)

Disappointing that they didn't track hot tea drinkers as well. It would be interesting to know if this was associated with generally being better hydrated, or something specific to coffee. // just switched to green tea from coffee

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...