Ok, now do coffee.
this post was submitted on 21 May 2025
578 points (97.7% liked)
science
18668 readers
57 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I haven't seen a lot, health-wise, that suggests coffee is detrimental. Environmentally it's a harder sell every year with climate change and the number of coffee drinkers still yet to peak, but the economics will counter that soon enough.
i read an old study that caffiene, had a affect against blood sugar, probably due to its diuretic effects.
Is it dosage related or is any amount of red meat bad? And by red meat is it beef in particular or does it also include lambs and camels?
From a health perspective you can simplify it to mammals = red meat. Birds, fish, reptiles, insects etc = not red meat.
And yeah it's dosage based. Generally speaking you want to stay under 350g (by cooked weight) red meat a week. More than 500g a week is when it starts to be consistently linked with higher health risks. If you want to be really technical it could be said 0g is better than 350g, but in this range the increased risk tends to be near insignificant.
I'll preface this by saying I didn't read the article, nor did I read any of the studies and underlying methodology so it has probably been addressed and corrected for but like a few of the other commentors have mentioned, by measuring it based upon consumption of a single item, it would be hard to see if it really just showed an indicator of overall consumption as opposed to a singular food being the cause.
Lets say one of our sample respondents consume 350g of red meat on average in a week and that consisted of approximately 10% of their diet (by weight). Compare that to a person who had 350g of red meat on average in a week and it consisted of approximately 5% of their diet (by weight). This would be an Extreme example but the second person is literally consuming twice the amount of food (by mass).
load more comments
(15 replies)
And this is yet another reason why we need independent science funding, kids
Science has been canceled until 2028
Found the American.
True, but also want to emphasize that this has worldwide implications, the NIH is a major contributor to clinical research. Probably more harmful if it produces garbage data than less data
load more comments
(3 replies)
Also, RoundUp is so safe you can drink it!
https://youtu.be/QWM_PgnoAtA?t=26
The cognitive dissonance...
A study of studies? That's interesting. I wonder how often that happens? I should do a study about it. A study of studies about studies.
A review of studies is a meta-analysis. What you're describing is a meta-meta-analysis, which is also a thing! Here's one I found from a cursory search..
Alt text: Life goal #29 is to get enough of them rejected that I can publish a comparative analysis of the rejection letters.
I've had my team of "experts in the obvious" work on this for one and a half minutes and they came to the same conclusion. This is a human greed business issue, not a science one.
load more comments
(2 replies)
No shit. Nice someone did the study so they could get there.
Ain't that a surprise. Studies on the effects sugary drinks have on your health backed by Coca Cola are also funny
"I just take scientists out and give them a bunch of funding for their research, and they always give me the results I want. Now of course they could always say no, but they won't because of the implication. You know, that if they produced results that disagreed with me, that I would refuse to fund future studies. Of course I would never do that, but they don't know that. So they give positive results for me. You know, because of the implication."
It's this comment that made me realize that Dennis is the human embodiment of our capitalistic system
And this kind of shit unfortunately is fuel for anti-vaxxers and conspiracy types. It's not just misinformation on social media that we have to thank for people's mistrust, it's also the scientists that downplayed how bad sugar is or who turned a blind eye to what cigarettes do in the interests of money.
Capitalism bitch!
I'm reminded of the scientist paid for by big tobacco in Thank You for Smoking...
There is no such thing as an impartial sponsor; some are more obviously biased than others, but the belief in a fictitious impartiality is part of the problem. It shouldn't take a meta-study for people to see am obvious conflict of interest.
I'm biased. You are biased. Everyone is biased.
Hi, please, don't. These baseless "corrections" that are really just semantics aren't helping anyone, and just contribute to anti-intellectualism.
We know what an impartial sponsor is in the context of this study - it's a sponsor that doesn't have a profit motive.
Obviously humans are biased. Scientists know that. Scientists train on that concept from day one. Observational studies are hard to control for bias, but that doesn't mean the field of science is silly for trying anyway.
The placebo-controlled double-blind study is the gold standard of scientific experiment for a reason.
An impartial sponsor is not a sponsor that is inhuman and has no preconceptions. We all know that's impossible.
An impartial sponsor is one that does not have clear signs of partiality - like a literal profit motive. That's all.
Edit - and for the record, in science, everything requires study. If you want to claim that conflicts of interest are impacting scientific results, you study it.
That's what it means to be impartial. To not trust assumptions based on your preconceptions. Assume as little as possible, consider as many possible explanations as you can, and verify everything.
What if the sponsor is the blanket university funding for a professor's research? It may have some bias, but there is no steak in the actual result.
I expect to see "these results call for more research on the topic", but that's pretty much it.
steak
stake?
Accepting funding from sponsors responsible for pollution & publishing environmental toxicology studies that disfavor those sponsors was pretty common at the university medical office where I worked.
view more: next ›