Drinking Coffee

[tim290280]

I'm not trying to be an asshole here dude. Just calm down. I'm trying to stop people posting convenient or mythological stuff without the flipside.

Obviously I didn't want to see those papers, I just don't like it when people try to shift the burden of proof. But are you seriously trying to say that you posted studies about caffeine which said it can cause addictiong and you build sensitivity to it? Seriously? My granny knew that 70 years ago.

Common knowledge isn't as common as you would think.

Please tell me this is your dry humor again? Because I better hope your not serieusly calling me a liar. Do you really expect me to write a meta-analyse about caffeine/coffee to answer a simple question about coffee? I've read endless papers about the topic (which I'm pretty sure you didn't) and based on that I picked some which I thought are informative. I wasn't hyping, I didn't tell anyone how awsome coffee is, but if I was I could easily included much more, for example the recent paper showing increased glycogen resynthesis PWO.

No, I expect that when someone points out that coffee isn't an elixir of life (which is what your use of hand picked abstracts are insinuating) that you don't get all huffy about it.

You on the other hand, just made a weak statement that coffee should be in moderation, with weak arguments to back it up. You're not putting things in context, if you don't see the benefits greatly outweight the 'drawbacks'.

Ok I'll cherry pick a couple then; coffee has been shown to increase blood pressure and resting heart rate, it acts as a mild diuretic, has carcinogens such as creosote, it interferes with adenosine in the brain, it raises cortisol levels, affects blood coagulation, causes digestive disorders, as we have both stated you build up a tolerance and require doses to remain "normal" which means benefits have a negative flux you wouldn't normally experience, etc etc. So the benefits and drawbacks will be very individual; you or I may not have naturally high BP or a heart arrhythmia but my friend who does can't handle caffeine. Given this example can be often undiagnosed in even young healthy active individuals you have to keep all things in perspective.

No, you did not. You made it sound you knew something special about caffiene. It does not make sense to mention that it does for caffeine, if you infact knew that it does for most things.

You're reading too much into this.

LOL. This is pretty much an insult to his intelligence, as much to mine. Everyone knows that caffeine be addicting and you build resistance to it, aswell that if you drink 20L of it you die. Not mentioning that is not only telling half, I pressume common knowledge to be commonly know.
Should I add to every post: don't forget to breath though, you'll die without it?

As I said common knowledge isn't that common. And your example is spurious; the body has a self regulation system for breathing.

Does it look to you that I pulled those PAPERS from the cover story of the New York Times?

As Bambam said, the article is only as good as the research performed. Ask any scientist about how much crap science there is out there. I praise you for critical reading, too few do it.

Too me it just sounds like you're just trying to look smart, which based on the post I read from you (and your colomn).
Plz prove me wrong and write about the drawbacks of caffeine/coffee, but if you can't, drop the attitude.

My attitude was that a brand new poster was posting only one half of the story. Hence my closing statement of caffeine in moderation! That is a fair attitude to have and I hope that you can calm down and see where I'm coming from. Also I take issue with the "trying to look smart" statement; are you trying to imply that I'm stupid or that I'm an attention whore? Because it is clear that neither are the case :angrydude:

 

[Unregistered]

Common knowledge isn't as common as you would think.

If people here don't know that coffee has caffeine which is a stimulant, keeps you up at night etc, then I don't think I'll be at home here.

Ok I'll cherry pick a couple then; coffee has been shown to increase blood pressure and resting heart rate, it acts as a mild diuretic, it interferes with adenosine in the brain, causes digestive disorders, as we have both stated you build up a tolerance and require doses to remain "normal" which means benefits have a negative flux you wouldn't normally experience

Side effects of most stimulants. Not a problem with non stupid amounts of caffeine. The TS mentioned 0,5L, at which there will be no problems what so ever. At high amounts, every substance is dangerous, at a normal dose, coffee has several benefical properties.

has carcinogens such as creosote,

a) souce?
b) dose and LOAEL?

it raises cortisol levels

It also raises testosteron

So the benefits and drawbacks will be very individual; you or I may not have naturally high BP or a heart arrhythmia but my friend who does can't handle caffeine. Given this example can be often undiagnosed in even young healthy active individuals you have to keep all things in perspective.

Unrealistic. I answered a simple question, and the TS mentioned no special condition. Nobody drops dead from low amounts of caffeine, indivuals being extra sensitive experience this soon enough. Nobody drinks 2L of coffee their first time. Futhermore, it's impossible to list every possible condition and the effects on caffeine in that situation, and do that every time someone asks a simple question. I could go through your post history and in no time have 10 examples of good advice for a normal person being bad for someone with some sort of disorder. Besides, the TS mentioned drinking coffee regulary.

As Bambam said, the article is only as good as the research performed. Ask any scientist about how much crap science there is out there. I praise you for critical reading, too few do it.

I agree, lots of crap out there, but because of this, people conviently say research isn't always true when they read something they don't like (meatheads are especially good at this, because often research doesn't agree with their bro-knowledge). Like I said, I'm pretty sure Bambam didn't even read the papers and a paper from Harvard should to be treated with a bit more respect.

My attitude was that a brand new poster was posting only one half of the story.

It's pretty much the whole story in normal people with non retarded doses.

Hence my closing statement of caffeine in moderation!

Oh but I agree with that, depening on what doses you mean with moderate. Everything gets ugly in extreme amounts, even when it's awsome at lower doses.

That is a fair attitude to have and I hope that you can calm down and see where I'm coming from. Also I take issue with the "trying to look smart" statement; are you trying to imply that I'm stupid or that I'm an attention whore? Because it is clear that neither are the case :angrydude:

Not sure of either yet.
I hope you see where I am coming from. You'll have to agree that your first post in this topic was non-constructive at all, and you can't expect a new member to know your 'dry humor'. And just don't call me a liar (or anything else) anymore, especially not as a reponse to a post in which I basicly say why are you giving me the attitude, I didn't do anything to you.

Less dry humor, more constructive posts and we'll go along fine.

 

[The Creator]

Keep the debating coming. As far as I see it, as long as there is respect in the conversation, this kind of debating forces individuals to dig deep to find science based literature to prove a point and there needs to be more of that around here imo.