Re:The false god of coffee
by ekiru on Saturday October 24, 2009 @12:53PM
(#900649)
Pointing out the long-term benefits of something without acknowledging either the long-term or short-term(which aren't really short-term if you continue to use it in the long term, but simply take effect sooner) costs doesn't justify any conclusions about whether the benefits typically outweigh the risks.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Check the link... the disadvantages come directly after the benefits. My note on paper filters came from that.
Very, very few things in life are without both positive and negative effects.
But coffee is bad mainly for people with certain stomach problems or those who are too sensitive to caffeine -- blood pressure doesn't seem to increase from coffee use, claims later research. (This paragraph added since it seems you are not going to check a link if you life depended upon it! :-) )
Edit: Syntax etc in last paragraph
I did check the link, but I thought that you were only referencing the benefits. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
I would have reacted the same way if someone had claimed health benefits for e.g. Coca Cola. :-)
It just haven't reached the public conscious yet that coffee weirdly seems to be such a good lifestyle choice.
Strait coffee might be good for you. Starbucks style 800 calorie drinks use coffee is probably bad for you.
"A glass of wine a day is generally healthy. But what if you pour that daily glass into the sauce of a 5000 calorie dinner?!"
Then I realized your point -- in the US, lots of people think of 800 calorie drinks containing coffee as "drinking coffee"?
Well... there are certainly even weirder advertisement effects on my home culture. :-(