Is this a valid study? (most dietary studies are pretty poor)
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.
I agree with you that dietary studies, particularly radically new findings, should be considered with appropriate skepticism.
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.
Regardless of how valid the study is, it is most likely useless.
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.
> Is this a valid study? (most dietary studies are pretty poor)
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
Does "antioxidant" there just refer to tannin, really? If you like tea strong, it's necessary to add some milk to bind to some of the tannins so it remains drinkable and doesn't try to turn your esophagus to leather.
When Americans put "cream" in their coffee, it's often actually milk. Especially if they are making it at home (most people I know don't keep half-and-half in the fridge just for coffee). So kind of a cousin of a cappuccino.
Diabetes is a problem with blood sugar regulation which is primarily accomplished via insulin regulation. if you have a problem regulating something it is almost always best to minimize both the amount and variability of use of that thing.
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).
Disagree, I use a tsp of cane sugar in mine, you can't agitate it efficiently by hand and it needs to be piping hot to help it dissolute. You need something like a cheap $10 handheld milk frother/mixer or something that can get into it better than your hand going anti-clockwise. I typically add a small amount of hot water and get a thick sweet enough paste then add more hot water if I'm doing instant and for ground the same but add a strain step at the end.
Given that this is an association study, I like to interpret it as if you drink coffee and you often add sweetener, you may be more likely to develop type w diabetes than others who drink coffee and don't add sweetener.
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.
yes, thus their point. It's probably not the sweetener or sugar in the coffee, it's that folks who add sweetener are also more likely to have a lifestyle that gives them type 2.
We haven't come to generally accept food as an addiction yet. We still talk about obesity (a symptom) and not food addiction (the problem). It would be like saying lung cancer is a problem but only very vaguely hinting that you might want to cut down on the smoking.
I made a decision about 13 or 14 years ago to not drink my calories and it took another 11 years to actually cease all liquid calories - booze has a lot.
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.
Same and within the same timeframe. It occurred to me that eating calories is a lot harder than drinking them so I made up a diet of the only liquid being water and no desserts. I’ve since refined it but the base idea was reasonably effective.
Same, I no longer drink any calories outside of exceptional cases such as supplements when running long distances. Black coffee and water are the only things I drink. Haven't drank alcohol in a while either.
To add some nuance, unused/unnecessary sugar will cause diabetes.
If you are in high cardiovascular load consuming more than you can take in as eg with long distance triathlon, to my knowledge you will not increase your diabetes risk. It's more a matching supply and demand thing.
The specific thing I'm pointing out is sugar in drinks. As someone pointed out in the thread I linked, it seems like there's a big difference in how your body handles liquid sugar versus sugar that's in food. There are plenty of people that have lots of sugar in food (i.e., a lot American food has copious amounts of sugar in breads and other non-sweet type food) but don't have diabetes.
There are many types of sugar and digestive pathways. Solid vs liquid intake tells you hardly anything. Until someone tests liquid vs solid dextrose difference and then for all other types I'm not going to be impressed. Time chewing is also a factor for food.
At this point people should know that T2D predisposition is mostly inherited (in fact more heritable than T1), the trigger is just better understood. Most of the time at least - people still get it without the stereotypical risk factors.
I mean if you go in between the two you find folks happily enjoying the appetite suppressing side effects of low dose stimulants and some antidepressants.
It's really deceptive how the title of this post implies causality despite the study not stating a causal link exists.
"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 would be interesting to analyze a dataset of commercially sold prepared "coffee" drinks from vendors like Starbucks to see how many are actually coffee, versus coffee-flavored soft drinks, and how this changed over the last few decades.
I think at this point this has basically become an old man yells at cloud take. Folks ordering at Starbucks know exactly what they're getting down to the number of pumps. You've always been able to get any form of unadulterated coffee hot or cold. All the drinks are coffee, you can find the worker manual for Starbucks floating around online and it has all the drink recipes. And it's because coffee is crazy cheap, it would be more effort to fake it. Most of their desert drinks use espresso pulls as the base coffee flavor.
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 stopped coffee. My sugar levels went up and my weight went up too. Coffee kept me working hard. It also affected my bowel movement negatively. So no coffee meant lazier, more nutritious lifestyle.
Readit News
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
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
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).
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.
Deleted Comment
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.
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-...
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.
Deleted Comment
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.
Deleted Comment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up0HiH4yCYw
"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.
Deleted Comment