Is coffee good for you? It depends on the kind of coffee and the quantity

We’ve come a long way from the cans of Folgers that filled our grandparents’ cupboards, with our oat milk lattes, cold brews and Frappuccinos. Some of us are still very utilitarian about the drink while others perform elaborate rituals. The fourth most popular beverage in the country, coffee is steeped into our culture. Just the right amount can improve our mood; too much may make us feel anxious and jittery.

A moderate amount of caffeine can wake you up, boost your mood, energy, alertness, concentration and even athletic performance. The way you prepare your cup of joe may influence your cholesterol levels, too.

IS COFFEE GOOD FOR ME?

Yes.

In moderation, coffee seems to be good for most people – that’s 3 to 5 cups, or up to 400 milligrams of caffeine.

“The evidence is pretty consistent that coffee is associated with a lower risk of mortality,” said Erikka Loftfield, a research fellow at the National Cancer Institute who has studied the beverage.

For years, coffee was believed to be a possible carcinogen, but the 2015 Dietary Guidelines helped to change perception. For the first time, moderate coffee drinking was included as part of a healthy diet. When researchers controlled for lifestyle factors, like how many heavy coffee drinkers also smoked, the data tipped in coffee’s favor.

A large 2017 review on coffee consumption and human health in the British Medical Journal also found that most of the time, coffee was associated with a benefit, rather than a harm. In examining more than 200 reviews of previous studies, the authors observed that moderate coffee drinkers had less cardiovascular disease, and premature death from all causes, including heart attacks and stroke, than those skipping the beverage.

For example, having about five cups of coffee a day, instead of none, is correlated with a 30 per cent decreased risk of Type 2 diabetes, according to a meta-analysis of 30 studies.

In addition, experts say some of the strongest protective effects may be with Type 2 diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and liver conditions such as cirrhosis, liver cancer and chronic liver disease. For example, having about five cups of coffee a day, instead of none, is correlated with a 30 per cent decreased risk of Type 2 diabetes, according to a meta-analysis of 30 studies.

The potential benefit from coffee might be from the polyphenols, which are plant compounds that have antioxidant properties, according to Dr. Giuseppe Grosso, an assistant professor in human nutrition at University of Catania in Italy and the lead author of an umbrella review in the Annual Review of Nutrition.

However, coffee isn’t for everyone. There are concerns about over consumption. This is especially true for expecting mothers because the safety of caffeine during pregnancy is unclear. While the research into coffee’s impact on health is ongoing, most of the work in this field is observational.

“We don’t know for sure if coffee is the cause of the health benefits,” said Jonathan Fallowfield, a professor at the University of Edinburgh, and co-author of the British Medical Journal review.“These findings could be due to other factors of behaviors present in coffee drinkers.”

DOES THE WAY COFFEE IS PREPARED MATTER?

Yes. Do you prefer a dark or light roast? Coarse grinding or fine? Arabica or robusta?

“All of these different aspects affect the taste, but also affect the compounds within the coffees,” said Neal Freedman, a senior investigator with the National Cancer Institute. “But it’s not clear at all how these different levels of compounds may be related to health.”

Roasting, for example, reduces the amount of chlorogenic acids, but other antioxidant compounds are formed. Espresso has the highest concentration of many compounds because it has less water than drip coffee.

The way you prepare your cup of joe may influence your cholesterol levels, too.

A study in JAMA Internal Medicine examined the coffee habits of nearly 500,000 people in the UK and found that it didn’t matter if they drank one cup or chain-drank eight – regular or decaf – or whether they were fast metabolisers of coffee or slow. They were linked to a lower risk of death from all causes, except with instant coffee, the evidence was weaker.

The way you prepare your cup of joe may influence your cholesterol levels, too. “The one coffee we know not suitable to be drinking is the boiled coffee,” said Marilyn C Cornelis, an assistant professor in preventive medicine at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and co-author of the JAMA Internal Medicine study.

Examples of this include the plunge-happy French press, Scandinavian coffee, or Greek and Turkish coffee – the kind commonly consumed in the Middle East. (When poured, the unfiltered grounds settle on the tiny cup’s bottom like sludge. To peek into the future, elders in the region have a tradition of reading the sediment of an overturned cup, like a crystal ball.)

However, the oil in boiled coffee has cafestol and kahweol, compounds called diterpenes. They are shown to raise LDL, the bad cholesterol, and slightly lower HDL, what’s known as the good kind.

“If you filter the coffee, then it’s no issue at all,” said Rob van Dam, a professor at Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health at National University of Singapore. “For people with cholesterol issues, it’s better to switch to other types of coffee.” He’s been studying coffee for two decades. (And, yes, he’s had a lot of coffee in that time.)

However, other researchers say not to throw out the boiled coffee just yet. The clinical significance of such small increases in cholesterol may be questionable, given that it’s not associated with an increase in cardiovascular deaths.

Many consumers have also swapped loose grounds for coffee pods. While there are environmental concerns with single use pods, researchers believe them to hold the same benefits as, say, drip coffee. The latter applies to cold brew, too, but more research is needed.

DO ALL KINDS OF COFFEE HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF CAFFEINE?

No. Espresso has the highest concentration of caffeine, packing about 70 milligrams into a one-ounce shot, but is consumed in less quantities. By comparison, a typical 12-ounce serving of drip coffee has 200 milligrams of caffeine, more than instant’s 140. And, yes, brewed decaf has caffeine, too – 8 milligrams – which can add up.

When buying coffee, you never really know what you’re going to get. At one Florida coffee house, over a six-day period, the same 16-ounce breakfast blend fluctuated from 259 milligrams all the way up to 564 – which goes beyond federal recommendations.

A moderate amount of caffeine can wake you up, boost your mood, energy, alertness, concentration and even athletic performance. On average, it takes four to six hours to metabolise half the caffeine.

But for some of us, knowing how much caffeine is in our coffee can be especially important. You’ve probably noticed it before. How a friend can pound quadruple espresso shots at 10 pm and sleep afterward, while you can’t have any past noon, or you’ll be watching Seinfeld reruns until dawn. Some of us have a polymorphism, a genetic variant that slows our metabolism for caffeine. It’s these individuals that Dr Grosso recommends limit their refills. “They take a coffee, and then they have the second and the third, and they still have the caffeine of the first,” he said.

You can even find out whether you are a fast or slow metaboliser through a variety of direct-to-consumer testing services, including 23andMe.

IS COFFEE ADDICTIVE?

Evidence suggests there can be a reliance on the drink, and tolerance builds over time. Withdrawal symptoms include a headache, fatigue, irritability, difficulty concentrating, and depressed mood.

Indeed, caffeine is a psychoactive drug, and coffee is its biggest dietary source. About a half-hour after sipping a cup of joe, the caffeine kicks in, and is quickly absorbed. Blood vessels constrict. Blood pressure increases. A moderate amount of caffeine can wake you up, boost your mood, energy, alertness, concentration and even athletic performance. On average, it takes four to six hours to metabolise half the caffeine.

For those knocking back more than 400 milligrams of caffeine a day, there’s not enough evidence to assess the safety, according to the Dietary Guidelines. Higher doses can lead to caffeine intoxication, with its shakiness, nervousness, and irregular heartbeat. Caffeine is also linked with delaying the time it takes for you fall asleep, how long you stay there, and the reported quality of that shut eye.

“I think that caffeine is so common and so ingrained in our culture, and daily habits, that we often don’t think about it as a potential source of problems,” said Mary M Sweeney, an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

Extremely high doses of caffeine can be fatal. But researchers say that’s more likely to occur accidentally with caffeine powder or pills.

Cutting down coffee may help with gastroesophageal reflux, too. A new study found that women drinking caffeinated beverages – coffee, tea, or soda – were associated with a small but increased risk of symptoms, like heartburn. The study’s authors predicted fewer symptoms when substituting two servings of the drinks with water.

Current available research hasn’t determined what amount of caffeine can be safely consumed during pregnancy, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Caffeine does cross the placenta so some doctors may recommend pregnant women stay below 200 milligrams of coffee daily.

Extremely high doses of caffeine can be fatal. But researchers say that’s more likely to occur accidentally with caffeine powder or pills. “You don’t see a lot of people going into the emergency room because they accidentally drank too much coffee,” said Dr. van Dam.

WHAT IS A COFFEE BEAN?

Inside the red fruit of coffea lie two coffee beans. Green in color, the duo spoon together, the rich brown hue to appear only after roasting. In fact, they aren’t beans at all. “It’s like a cherry, you pick off the tree,” said Patrick Brown, a professor of plant sciences at University of California, Davis. Unlike the cherry, though, the seed is the prize, and the flesh is discarded.

Coffee is also a good dietary source of vitamin B3, magnesium and potassium.

In addition to caffeine, coffee is a dark brew of a thousand chemical compounds that could have potential therapeutic effects on the body. One key component, chlorogenic acid, is a polyphenol found in many fruits and vegetables. Coffee is also a good dietary source of vitamin B3, magnesium and potassium.

“People often see coffee just as a vehicle for caffeine, but, of course, it’s a very complex plant beverage,” said Dr. van Dam.

With coffea’s estimated 124 species, most of flavours remain untapped; and perhaps will be forever, with an estimated 60 per cent under threat of extinction, largely from climate change, disease, pests and deforestation. What fills our mugs at cafes, the office, and on road trips are from two species: Arabica and canephora, known as robusta. Arabica fills specialty cafes, and costs more than robusta, which fuels instant coffees and some espressos.

For all of the pomp swirling around arabica, the fact remains it is an extremely homogeneous little seed. Almost all of the world’s arabica coffee progeny traces itself back a few plants from Ethiopia, coffee’s birthplace, or Yemen.

DOES ADDING MILK OR SUGAR CANCEL OUT BENEFITS?

Doctors don’t know. One 2015 study found that those adding sugar, cream or milk had the same associated benefit as those who preferred it black. But the coffee industry has exploded since the ’90s when the older adults in the study filled out their dietary history. “It was only about a tablespoon of cream or milk, and a teaspoon of sugar,” said the study’s lead author, Dr Loftfield, with the National Cancer Institute. “This is very different, potentially, than some of these coffee beverages you see on the market today.”

Sweet coffee and tea are the fourth largest source of sugar in the diets of adults, according to the October survey from the USDA. That includes dessert-like beverages, like Dunkin’ Donuts’ 860-calorie creamy frozen coconut caramel coffee drink, with 17 grams of saturated fat, and 129 grams of total sugars. Experts say some of these drinks bear little relation to the 2-calorie cup of black coffee of the past, worrying health officials.

“When you talk about a drink that has that load of unhealthy fats and that much sugar, can’t possibly be a healthy beverage on balance,” Dr Jim Krieger, a clinical professor of medicine and health services at the University of Washington. “That amount of sugar alone is astronomical compared to the current recommendations of US Dietary Guidelines of 50 grams of sugar a day.”

The concern is heightened, experts say, especially because an estimated 43 percent of teens are now drinking coffee – nearly doubling since 2003 – according to the research firm Kantar, driven partly by sweet drinks.

“People should worry a lot about what they put in the coffee and what the food and beverage industry puts in it,” said Laura Schmidt, a professor at the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine. “And sweetened coffee is one of the things that the beverage industry is pushing on the public now that consumers have turned away from soda for health reasons.”

SHOULD I START POUNDING DOWN MORE COFFEE?

Depends on your goals in life.

If you are enjoying the drink in moderation, doctors say continue onward, and savour those sips. And for those patients with a sensitivity to the beverage, Dr Sophie Balzora, a gastroenterologist, weighs the benefits and risks very carefully. The clinical associate professor of medicine at N.Y.U. School of Medicine understands its cultural significance, and knows to tread lightly. As she put it: “Robbing people of their coffee seems cruel.”

By Dawn MacKeen © The New York Times


Taken from this article:
Is coffee good for you? It depends on the kind of coffee and the quantity

Are plant-based Impossible Burgers really more healthful than a meat-based burger?

The meat industry has a warning for consumers: Beware of plant-based meat.

That is the message behind a marketing campaign by the Center for Consumer Freedom, a public relations firm whose financial supporters have included meat producers and others in the food industry. In recent weeks the group has placed full-page ads in The New York Times and other newspapers raising health concerns about plant-based meat substitutes like the Impossible Burger and the Beyond Burger, which are designed to look, taste and even appear to bleed like real meat.

Millennials are gobbling down plant-based burgers, prompting meat producers to question the health benefits of "ultra-processed imitations."

The ads call them “ultra-processed imitations” with numerous ingredients. “What’s hiding in your plant-based meat?” asks one ad featuring a sad face made of two patties and sausage. Another directs readers to a site that compares plant-based burgers to dog food. In November, the group’s managing director, Will Coggin, wrote an opinion piece in USA Today that labeled fake meats as ultra-processed foods that can spur weight gain, although the research on processed foods has not included plant-based meats. A few days later, the center’s executive director, Rick Berman, wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal criticizing plant-based meats as highly processed and no healthier than meat. Its headline: “‘Plant-based meat’ is all hat and no cattle.”

Impossible Foods, which makes a popular plant-based burger, said the campaign was misleading and fearmongering. The company says plant-based meat alternatives are better for consumers and better for the planet, requiring less land and water and producing fewer greenhouse gas emissions than meat from cattle. The new “disinformation” campaign, they say, is a sign that Impossible Foods’ mission – to disrupt the meat industry and replace animals in the food system – is working. “It’s a point of pride to have that organization come after us,” said Pat Brown, the company’s chief executive. “It’s hard to imagine a stronger endorsement.” (The Center for Consumer Freedom did not respond to requests for an interview.)

Replacing a hamburger with a plant burger is not an improvement in diet quality if you chase it with French fries and a sugar-laden soda.

Unlike other vegetarian meat substitutes, the new plant-based burgers are winning over meat lovers. The market research firm NPD Group says that 90 per cent of the customers purchasing them are meat-eaters who believe the products are more healthful and better for the environment, said Darren Seifer, an analyst at NPD, which recently predicted that plant-based meats will have staying power because of their popularity with millennials.

“The two big brands, Beyond and Impossible, have replicated the burger experience without having to sacrifice the taste of the burger,” he said. “So now a lot of consumers feel like they have a healthier option, they are reducing the amount of meat they consume, and they just feel better about that.”

But are plant-based meats really better for you than meat? It depends on how you eat them, said Dr. Frank Hu, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health. Replacing a hamburger with a plant burger is not an improvement in diet quality if you chase it with French fries and a sugar-laden soda, Hu said.

For consumers trying to choose the healthiest option, Hu said studies comparing the metabolic effects of eating beef burgers versus plant burgers are currently underway. In the meantime, he considers the meat substitutes “transitional foods” for people who are trying to adopt more healthful diets.

In August, Hu, along with a group of health and climate experts, published a report in JAMA that explored whether plant-based meats can be part of a “healthy low-carbon diet.” Studies show that replacing red meat with nuts, legumes and other plant foods can lower mortality and chronic disease risk, but it’s not possible to extrapolate that processed burgers made with purified soy or pea protein will have the same health benefits, said Hu.

Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat say the building blocks of their burgers are plants. The Beyond Burger has about 18 ingredients, including purified pea protein, coconut and canola oils, rice protein, potato starch and beet juice extract for coloring. Beyond Meat says it uses no genetically modified or artificially produced ingredients.

The meat substitutes “transitional foods” for people who are trying to adopt more healthful diets.

The Impossible Burger is made with similar basic ingredients but it gets its protein largely from soy and potato, and it uses an iron-containing compound from soy called heme to enhance the burger’s meaty flavor. Both products use methyl cellulose, a plant derivative commonly used in sauces and ice cream, as a binder.

Compared to a beef patty, the Impossible and Beyond burgers have similar amounts of protein and calories, with less saturated fat and no cholesterol. They also contain fiber; real meat does not. But compared to real beef, the two plant-based burgers are considerably higher in sodium, containing about 16 per cent of the recommended daily value. An uncooked four-ounce beef patty has about 75 milligrams of sodium, compared to 370 milligrams of sodium in the Impossible Burger and 390 milligrams in the Beyond Burger.

This fall, Burger King said it had its most successful quarter in four years, driven by sales of its plant-based Impossible Whopper. Dunkin’ Donuts announced it was rolling out a breakfast sandwich made with Beyond Meat sausages in 9,000 of its stores after a successful trial run in New York City. More than 50,000 grocery stores and restaurants, including fast food chains like Subway, White Castle, KFC and Carl’s Jr., carry products from Beyond Meat or Impossible Foods.

Despite the popularity of plant-based burgers, beef burgers are still overwhelmingly the more popular choice at restaurants. Americans purchased 6.4 billion beef burgers at quick service restaurants during the 12 months that ended in May, compared to 228 million plant-based burgers in the same period.

An uncooked four-ounce beef patty has about 75 milligrams of sodium, compared to 370 milligrams of sodium in the Impossible Burger and 390 milligrams in the Beyond Burger.

While meat consumption in America is at an all-time high, many Americans have shifted from eating beef to poultry. In the past three decades, beef intake has fallen by about a third, while chicken intake has more than doubled and pork intake has remained fairly steady. Studies show that cost, convenience and health concerns are among the top reasons Americans have cut back on beef.

But the health messages about red meat have been confusing. Earlier this year, a group of scientists challenged decades of nutrition advice, saying that warnings linking red meat consumption to heart disease and cancer are not backed by strong scientific evidence, though it was later revealed that the study’s lead author had past research ties to an industry group whose members include fast food companies and a beef processor.

Meat producers are taking the fight against fake meat to lawmakers. At least 25 states have introduced bills making it illegal to use the words “beef” or “meat” on products made from plant ingredients or cultured meat that is grown in a lab. Missouri became the first state to pass such a law last year, which was initially proposed by the Missouri Cattlemen’s Association.

In October, Rep Roger Marshall, a Republican from Kansas and the top recipient of livestock industry donations in the House, introduced a federal bill that would require companies to put the word “imitation” on their plant-based meat products. The bill calls for the products to carry a statement on their packages “that clearly indicates the product is not derived from or does not contain meat.”

Marshall, an obstetrician, said he introduced the bill after hearing from constituents. Patients of his told him they were confused about the health benefits of plant-based beef substitutes, and beef producers told him they were frustrated that the products are sold in grocery stores next to ground beef. “Kansas has a very large beef industry and they said, ‘Why are we allowing this fake meat in the meat department?’” he said.

Brown, the chief executive of Impossible Foods, said his company’s mission is not to convince consumers that the Impossible Burger is the most nutritious food they can eat. It is simply to persuade people who want a “cow burger” to eat an Impossible Burger instead.

“The niche that this fills is not the same niche that a kale salad fills,” he said. “If you’re hungry for a burger and you want something that’s better for you and better for the planet that delivers everything you want from a burger, then this is a great product. But if you’re hungry for a salad, eat a salad.”

By Anahad O'Connor © 2018 The New York Times


Taken from this article:
Are plant-based Impossible Burgers really more healthful than a meat-based burger?

Red and processed meat increases heart risks, latest study concludes

Four months ago, the Annals Of Internal Medicine published a controversial report that encouraged people not to worry about the health risks of eating red and processed meat, contradicting decades of nutrition advice.

A new study found a meat-heavy diet carries a small but increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

The report was widely criticised by public health experts, including leading health groups like the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society. Some experts called for the paper to be retracted, while others celebrated its findings and used it to raise questions about long-standing dietary guidelines discouraging meat consumption.

On Feb 3 (Monday), a group of prominent researchers pushed back, publishing a large study in JAMA Internal Medicine that once again highlighted the potential harms of a meat-heavy diet. The researchers analysed data on a diverse group of thousands of people who were followed for an average of three decades.

They found that people who had the highest intakes of red meat, processed meat and poultry had a small but increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease. People who regularly ate fish, however, did not see an increased cardiovascular risk.

The new findings are unlikely to settle the debate over red meat and its link to chronic disease. But they provide further evidence for experts who argue that red and processed meats contribute to the risk of heart disease, and they suggest that health authorities are unlikely to alter their recommendations to limit meat consumption.

One of the authors of the new study, Professor Linda Van Horn, is a member of the advisory panel that is currently helping the federal government update its influential Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which have long recommended that people limit their intake of red and processed meat. Prof Van Horn is a member of two advisory panel subcommittees, including one that is drafting recommendations on dietary fats and seafood.

The findings reinforce recommendations that people should prioritise foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, legumes, fish, nuts and seeds, and limit their intake of foods such as red and processed meats, refined grains, fried foods and sugar-sweetened beverages.

In an interview, Prof Van Horn said that the new study relied on some of the highest quality data available. She said the findings reinforce recommendations that people should prioritise foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, legumes, fish, nuts and seeds, and limit their intake of foods such as red and processed meats, refined grains, fried foods and sugar-sweetened beverages.

“When you eat a diet that is rich in processed and refined foods, it collectively contributes to increased risk of disease and denies you the benefits of the fibre, vitamins, minerals and plant-based proteins that contribute to health,” said Prof Van Horn, division chief of nutrition in the department of preventive medicine at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

The conclusions of the new study contrast with those of the report last fall in Annals, which found that reductions in red and processed meat intake resulted in fewer deaths from cancer and heart disease but concluded that the evidence was weak because much of the data came from observational studies that cannot show cause and effect. The authors said that any increased risk was too minimal to warrant telling people that they should cut back on meat.

Critics complained that the research was flawed. They argued that the authors evaluated the evidence against meat using a tool that was designed for clinical drug trials, not dietary studies. The lead author of the report came under fire for failing to disclose conflicts of interest, including taking money from a food industry group to publish a similar paper in the Annals three years earlier that used the same methods to discredit widespread guidelines urging people to eat less sugar.

In December, the Annals issued a correction on the meat paper acknowledging the lead author’s undisclosed conflicts.

The authors of the latest paper had a different interpretation of the evidence on meat consumption. Their analysis, initiated a year ago and funded in part by the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health, looked at data on 30,000 people who were followed for decades as part of six long-running studies on cardiovascular disease. Among the studies included in the analysis was the landmark Framingham Heart Study.

Begun in 1948, the Framingham study has helped scientists identify what are now recognised as some of the leading risk factors for heart disease, such as smoking, high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes and physical inactivity.

The researchers examined the subjects’ diets and whether it impacted their heart disease and mortality rates. The study was observational, meaning the scientists could isolate links between diet and lifestyle behaviours and cardiovascular outcomes but they could not prove cause and effect. Ultimately, they concluded that eating two or more servings of red meat, processed meat or poultry per week was linked to a 4 per cent to 7 per cent higher risk of developing heart disease. They found that the higher the intake, the higher the risk.

While many people who eat meat do not develop heart disease, the findings reflect what other large studies and scientific reviews have consistently found as well, including the recent Annals report: Higher amounts of meat intake are associated with a small but increased risk of developing heart disease.

Ultimately, whether to eat meat is for individuals to decide. Animal welfare issues are a concern for many. Sustainability issues are also a consideration, as red meat in particular has a high environmental impact.

As far as health is concerned, red and processed meat consumption is one of many overall diet and lifestyle factors that play a role in cardiovascular health, said Associate Professor Norrina Allen, a senior author on the latest study and associate professor of preventive medicine at the Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine. She said that while some people might consider it a minor factor, it is nonetheless important not to dismiss.

“I would say that even though it seems to be a small amount of risk, any excess risk for something as major as heart disease and mortality is worth considering,” she said.

By Anahad O'Connor © The New York Times


Taken from this article:
Red and processed meat increases heart risks, latest study concludes