Skip to main content

Coffee conundrum — good or bad?

Here we go again — yet another study on coffee consumption and health, this time claiming that moderate coffee consumption lessons the risk of clogged arteries and heart attacks.

I wonder if anyone really takes any notice of such studies.  Just five years ago another study found that people under 55 who drank more than 28 cups of coffee a week were at an increased risk of early death from all causes, with a more than 50 per cent increase in mortality.  So you can take your choice on cup you drink from.

Now, it is claimed  in research published in the online journal Heart people who drink a 'moderate' amount of coffee daily are less likely to develop clogged arteries that could lead to heart attacks.

Researchers from South Korea found that people consuming three to five cups a day had the least risk of coronary calcium in their arteries. Now I wouldn't consider five cups a day as being 'moderate', but I suppose there are some addicted coffee drinkers who take more.  I drink just one cup of coffee in a day,  but often go without.  I drink gallons of tea.  A really good cup of coffee is something to look forward to.

There has been much debate over the effect of coffee consumption on cardiovascular health.

Despite earlier concerns about a potential increase in heart disease risk associated with drinking coffee, a recent meta-analysis of 36 studies showed that moderate coffee consumption was associated with a decreased risk of heart disease. Coffee consumption has been associated with improved insulin sensitivity and reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, but it has also been linked to increased cholesterol concentrations and heightened blood pressure.

In the current study,  an international team of researchers led by the Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Seoul, in the Republic of Korea, set out to examine the association between coffee consumption and the presence of coronary artery calcium (CAC) which is a early indicator of coronary atherosclerosis – a potentially serious condition where arteries become clogged up by fatty substances known as plaques or atheroma and which can cause the arteries to harden and narrow, leading to blood clots which can trigger a heart attack or a stroke.

They studied a group of 25,138 men and women – average age of 41 – who had no signs of heart disease, attending a health screening examination.

The participants’ screening examination included a validated food frequency questionnaire and a multidetector cardiac CT (computed tomography) for diagnostic imaging to determine levels of coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores.

Annual or biennial health screening examinations are common in Korea, because health examinations are mandatory for all workers under the Industrial Safety and Health Law there and CAC scoring has become a common heart disease screening test.

The researchers estimated the CAC score ratios associated with different levels of coffee consumption compared with no coffee consumption and took potential confounders into account such as education level, physical activity level, smoking status, BMI, alcohol consumption, family history of heart disease and consumption of fruits, vegetables, and red and processed meats.

They categorised coffee consumption as none, less than one cup a day, one to three cups a day, three to five per day and at least five or more per day.

The researchers found the prevalence of detectable CAC was 13.4% amongst the whole group of people and the average consumption of coffee was 1.8 cups per day.

The calcium ratios were 0.77 for people who had less than one cup per day, 0.66 for those having one to three cups every day, 0.59 for those consuming three to five cups per day, and 0.81 for people having at least five cups or more every day compared with non coffee drinkers.

The association was similar in subgroups defined by age, sex, smoking status, alcohol consumption, and status of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and hypercholesterolaemia.

The association, therefore, was U-shaped, with participants drinking three to five cups per day having the lowest prevalence of arteries that had clogged up.

Possible explanations for the findings, say the researchers, are  that chronic coffee consumption has a possible link to reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, a strong risk factor for atherosclerosis, and that coffee drinking might improve insulin sensitivity and β-cell function.

The authors conclude: “Our study adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that coffee consumption might be inversely associated with CVD [cardiovascular disease] risk. Further research is warranted to confirm our findings and establish the biological basis of coffee’s potential preventive effects on coronary artery disease.”

So there it is.  Make what you will of it.  I doubt it will have much impact on how much coffee you drink. It will certainly make coffee drinkers feel a bit better.  Indeed they probably do already as another study published in 2013 found that drinking two cups of coffee a day halved the risk of suicide.  On the other hand, although you might be happy you might also get fat because another study published in 2013 showed that regular coffee drinkers were at increased risk of weight gain.

In 2012 a study claimed coffee could protect against bowel cancer.  On balance there are currently more studies demonstrating some kind of benefit of drinking coffee than there are demonstrating adverse consequences.  Is the balance swinging in favour of coffee?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As