What’s right, what’s wrong, and what’s interesting.

The following article is based on this LinkedIn post by William (Bill) Murray, NCA President & CEO 

---

When it comes to coffee coverage in the media, a healthy dose of context (and common sense) is critical.

Take this week’s Daily Mail article, “How Six Cups of Coffee a Day Can Help You to Live Longer,” on new research from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Let’s take a look of the story, in light of the science:

RIGHT:

The article noted that studies suggest coffee drinkers live longer than non-coffee drinkers, as result of coffee protecting against age-related conditions such as dementia, cancer, and heart disease.

WRONG:

The author wrote, “While the evidence on coffee and life expectancy is far from conclusive…”

Actually, the evidence about as conclusive as it gets.

When it comes to coffee and health coverage, it’s often about content algorithms – not accuracy. As a result, consumers get bounced from headline to headline and lose faith in research, which makes it all feel “far from conclusive.”

But science is not sentiment. Researchers look for the weight of evidence when drawing conclusions: or, in other words, the outcome indicated by the majority of rigorous, well-designed studies.

Similarly, it isn’t “proven” that eating vegetables is good for you – but study after study suggests that it is. As with coffee.

Which leads us to the next point…

INTERESTING:

The open question is how coffee works, which calls for further investigation.

The article notes that plant-based compounds in coffee, polyphenols, may be responsible for the healthy aspects of drinking coffee.

Could this be the future?

Might this understanding lead to coffee-based derivatives, therapies, and solutions targeted at disease?

I’d bet on it!

Read the original article at the Daily Mail

See Bill Murray’s original post on LinkedIn, and share your comments below.