this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2024
183 points (91.8% liked)

science

14892 readers
30 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

WASHINGTON — A new study suggests that your morning brew might be doing more than just perking you up — it could be protecting you from a range of serious heart conditions. Researchers working with the Endocrine Society have found that drinking a moderate amount of coffee is associated with a lower risk of developing multiple cardiometabolic diseases. In simpler terms, your daily cup of coffee (or three) might help ward off conditions like Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and stroke.

“Consuming three cups of coffee, or 200-300 mg caffeine, per day might help to reduce the risk of developing cardiometabolic multimorbidity in individuals without any cardiometabolic disease,” says Dr. Chaofu Ke, the lead author of the study from Suzhou Medical College in China, in a media release.

Source: https://studyfinds.org/3-cups-of-coffee-diseases/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BrafMeToo@lemm.ee 34 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] pyre@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

I don't care this is good enough for me

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Almost all science and logic in the history of the world is based on correlation. Discovering the causal link comes later, or more often than not never.

Your glib comment seems smart to people on the internet, but what it actually demonstrates is a complete lack of understand of both words.

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Yes, but in case of this kind of nutrition/health studies the correlation=/=causation is often a big problem. There are usually so many things at play and the studies just look at a tiny subset of them, making the results irrelevant or just plain wrong. I think this field would benefit greatly from a more ecological approach - in ecology, scientists often use methods for multidimensional analysis of a big number of factors that can or do influence the studied problem. This is rarely seen in medicine and nutrition, unfortunately.