Is it the lack of sugar or is that people who don't put sugar in their coffee have a bunch of other things they do? Maybe people who don't put sugar in their coffee are less likely to eat donuts. Maybe people who don't put sugar in their coffee are more likely to workout. Maybe people who don't put sugar in their coffee are more like to have better genes for T2D and that same collection of genes makes the predisposed to not put sugar in their coffee.
I'm not saying sugar isn't bad. It is! (I don't put sugar in my coffee) But, 1 teaspoon a cup doesn't sound like enough to have a measurable impact without knowing that everything else about the people is the same.
Reminds me this podcast
https://podcast.clearerthinking.org/episode/252/gordon-guyat...
But it sounds like you're dismissing all science out of hand! What are we left with then - truthiness?
Is there any indication that this study is a poor one? It seems to have a lot of positive indicators. It also generally agrees with what we already "know" about both coffee and about sugar.
> I don't put sugar in my coffee
We're on the same page. AeroPress?
These kinds of studies have been done for decades and type 2 diabetes rates have only gone up.
There has been clear evidence for decades that obesity and high carb diets increase risk of diabetes. Comparing tea to coffee or Skittles to m&Ms is a useless research project as far as diabetes goes. Because it is extremely unlikely that someone will discover that the cure for diabetes was a small change in lifestyle like that.
Here’s a great video about how these researchers are using big data to reveal insights into nutrition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8JQtwLNKXg
Is this a valid question? most critiques without any supporting evidence are pretty poor
really? "most" dietary studies? so 'most' of what we know about nutrition and diets is pretty poor? In the past 75 years there was no real nutrition science done?
The authors affiliations are below[1], are you saying they have no idea how to conduct a valid study? Why are you dismissing a study out of hand, with anecdotes and cliches, instead of reading it and commenting on what's actually published?
Why are you anti-science?
[1]
Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States
Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Navarra—IdiSNA (Instituto de Investigacion Sanitaria de Navarra), Pamplona, Spain
Department of Nutritional Sciences, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials Unit, Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Centre, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States
CIBER Fisiopatología de La Obesidad y Nutrición (CIBERObn), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain
Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
This is silly, many societies drink tons of strong black tea without polluting it with milk or sugar, and do just fine. (I come from one, and have never had any problems with my esophagus — maybe it has already turned into leather without me noticing?) It does often cause nausea on an empty stomach, though, so filling it with something first might actually be useful.
The long answer is, in our time of great abundance, the most common version of type 2 diabetes by a mile is the one where blood sugar is always elevated because fat cells have stopped responding as well to insulin and insulin is also always elevated. Elevated insulin stops energy release from fat cells and keeps fat cells absorbing glucose and storing it as fat for as long as they can until they get large, unresponsive and usually start releasing inflammatory chemicals (aka they start causing you a bad time) thats when insulin jacks up further and once jacking insulin up stops working you now get classified as having type 2 diabetes. so in so far as our fat cells are not highly responsive to insulin, sugar is bad and inso far as sugar contributes to your fat cells getting unresponsive to insulin over time it's bad too (barring a famine that being at maximum fatness will help you survive).
It’s a very American study. Who puts cream in their coffee?! And what about cappuccinos? (Almost all of my coffee consumption is cappuccinos…)
Lots of people all over Europe too
Whipped creme is perhaps the most common form (cream + sugar whipped).
Not sure about "half and half" though, think that's just an American thing / product.
At home everyone just drinks it black or with (oat)milk. But if you want it to taste better, just add a bit of cream =)
EDIT: applies to NY/NJ, US
See my answer above. Did you ask for one of the styles with cream, or specifically for cream?
Drinking a lot of cappuccinos could potentially raise cholesterol levels due to heavy milk consumption. But if you have them with skim milk, that reduces that problem.
Plus I personally have abnormally low blood cholesterol (in spite of a heavy cappuccino habit). My doctor thinks it is a harmless genetic mutation in cholesterol metabolism. At least one of my siblings has the same thing which supports my doctor’s theory.
Filter coffee uses a paper filter and paper filters can trap most of the cafestol.
> Cafestol, a diterpene present in unfiltered coffee brews such as Scandinavian boiled, Turkish, and cafetière coffee, is the most potent cholesterol-elevating compound known in the human diet.
Or rather: Is it actually milk you put in coffee? So weird, why not use cream?
As for why cream or half and half, less sugar and lactose.
No matter how long you stir it... you take a sip, and there's a coffee flavor over here and a sugar flavor over there.
Not adding sweetener because it's associated with type 2 diabetes is probably less protective than being the type of person who naturally didn't add sweeteners.
Sugar in my soda, cream in my coffee thanks.
It seems like having sugary drinks is not just bad for you, but like really bad for you.
I always wonder why I see “quit smoking” PSAs on TV, but not for sugar bombs like soda or even Starbucks fraps.
Of course, illness has an even larger cost to society and to overall happiness, but that's much less measurable, and therefore has less effect on public policy.
At least with cigarettes there was a public nuisance argument because of the smell and also the secondhand effect. I dont find general public health a compelling argument for restricting sugar.
From my limited travels in Europe, I see countries with problems, but with people who appear to be happier and healthier.
mental health care, addiction treatment, obesity, college loans. At the root of it all, even if they won't admit it directly.
Is it? You'll either have higher health insurance costs to cover the people destroying their bodies, or you'll have to prove to your insurance provider that you live a healthy lifestyle somehow. Both seem like a bad thing.
This system also affects your freedoms in many ways. If a large portion of the population gets fat, you have a smaller pool of people that are able to do physical work, making it more expensive for you. You have a lot more demand for healthcare, making it more expensive for you. You have people demanding car-centric infrastructure because they can't walk, and that will affect you. Etc.
> most Americans will take freedom over free health care
When you're addicted to something (alcohol, nicotine, sugar, gambling, ...) is it really "freedom"?
In a single payer system, the government is mandated to provide you with health care, since you are paying for it with your taxes (or would be if your income was high enough), no exceptions.
Typical tools of such governments include:
- taxes on products which are deemed of danger to public health, for example taxes on cigarettes in the EU. The government is then mandated to invest these taxes into the health care system
- public health campaigns (ads etc.)
- age restrictions, as they exist on alcohol in the US.
Legislation shifts to represent newest advances in science, yes. That's not per se a bad thing.
Not every country with a single-payer system is an authoritarian communist hellscape, you know.
And from a more theoretical viewpoint the societal cost of unhealthy people is still there at the least in loss of productivity, so the argument for prohibition is still there and the US is only really liberal in things that are backed by wealthy corporations/people that have subverted the government.
In the end I guess freedom is the straw man here.
It is sad how so many people in the US were persuaded to be so afraid of supposed "communism" that they are actively voting against their interests.
Corporate profits. They want you to get addicted for recurring revenue.
That thing is almost double. And in pure sugar form...
I do put a splash of heavy cream in my coffee, otherwise I wouldn't drink coffee at all, as unsweet iced tea is a more palatable flavor to me. But I don't like hot tea or cold coffee.
I understand cream has calories, but I have to take a small bit of fat to allow certain medicines to work, am I only have coffee a few times a week. Like 3 "cups" a week.
Peanut butter, before anyone wonders.
Dark-roasted coffee is shitty beans that are burned to cover up their poor quality: https://medium.com/@stoffel.brian/the-real-reason-coffee-at-...
I do like light roasts, except i "feel" they're a bit too caffiene-y.
I just really like tea, more. PG Tips, Uncle Lee's green, tisanes of all descriptions. It's more "refreshing" to me. Personal preference.
also i noted the reason i don't mind the cream, other than it's delicious - i need literal fat for certain medications. If i don't have coffee a couple hours after getting up, i'll eat a tablespoon of peanut butter for the same result.
As I understand it, the darker the roast the more caffeine has been “burnt” off, so this would explain what you’re describing.
It's weird that i feel like we're talking about illicit drugs.
Not only is giant sugar spikes bad for your glucose levels, I have seen several suggestions that high sugar levels increases the rates of cancer: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9775518/
Concentrated sugar is a poison.
If cause-and-effect are so obvious, why do so many Americans continue to consume sugar to the point of diabetes?
Like caffeine might work. but meth might work too.
Meth might reduce your risk of type 2 diabetes but it has all kinds of other side effects.
Even regarding the main effect, my understanding is that it's "concentration boost" in both cases, just seen more socially acceptable for people who lack concentration in the first place. Is there any study that would demonstrate the difference?
Actually getting it - if you consume very few simple carbs, you can lower your A1C and you won't get T2D. You can even reverse T2D.
> Most of the time at least - people still get it without the stereotypical risk factors.
People consume too much sugar! That was my point in posting the link.
"Coffee reduces risk of T2DM" is much different than the author's conclusion: "Adding sugar or artificial sweetener significantly attenuates the magnitude of the inverse association between higher coffee consumption and T2D risk, whereas the use of cream do not alter the inverse association." The key word there is "association."
It's hard to work around the fact that coffee, dairy, and sugar taste really good together. Coffee really wants to be a dessert, it's why it's in so many of them. Starbucks just rolled with that and people love it.
I don’t think it works.
What?, no, it is not ok to add cream or sweetener. It is permissible to add more coffee, a "shot in the dark", coffee with a couple of shots of espresso, or just a mug of espresso. Fresh made,carefully selected beens roasted by obsessives,stove top espresso machine that isn't parsimonious, and produces a full measure, once a day, early in the day. The idea of anything else, produces in me what must be like a gallick umbrage, but of course not so all encompassing and consuming as bieng french.
So which makes sense
Plants and animal meat don't have salt - they have sodium (or sodium ions).
Humans harvest, refine, and even enrich (e.g. with iodine) salt deposits to create table salt used in cooking and produced food stuff.
But salt? We need to ingest salt. Not necessarily out of a little plastic shaker, but in some form.
Isn't sugar sugar, no matter in what form?