Talk:Coffee

Less sections

In an effort to conform to CZ style, I've removed a section header. I'm now a firm believer that entries should be more or less a narrative, forcing the reader to read the entire article than being able to pick and choose their content.

Also, I believe there's a grinding scale that is an actual measurement of grain/particle; I'll find it and add it as I don't believe many people are familiar with "medium".--Robert W King 09:05, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

Are there any references to the statement that there are 6000 coffae species? It seems to me a rather large number. If it is true it should be referenced, because it sounds a bit unbelievable, at least to me Jasper Wubs 10:32, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Here's the ITIS Report for Genus "Coffea", http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=35189. Note that there are 6 Direct Children Species of the Genus. --Robert W King 10:47, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Okay, so there is one genus with six species, how do you then arrive at 500 genera with 6000 species? I checked the articles history, you wrote that right? Or do you mean subspecies/varieties? Jasper Wubs 10:58, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

I mean subspecies/varities, but that all falls under "Species" of the "Genus" Coffea. --Robert W King 11:01, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes but they are then not species in the biological sense, to which the article links, right? Perhaps you could say there are six species (linking to biological species there) and than that man has produced some 6000 varieties of these species? I guess that would be more accurate. Jasper Wubs 11:05, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

We're going into theoretical ground here if we start discussing natural versus genetically modified species, and that's not really within the scope of this article.--Robert W King 11:06, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Let me just say, in advance, I am not a biologist so I'm not really an expert in this field, but if you can word it in such a way that it pertains to the subject of the article (so it doesn't go into GM specific-technicality-land) then by all means ;).--Robert W King 11:09, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

There's a USDA link I think we ought to use, let me see if I can find it.--Robert W King 15:22, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Found it.--Robert W King 15:26, 9 August 2007 (CDT) Great! Jasper Wubs 15:35, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

I changed it, and I think it is in pretty straightfoward way. There is no need to go in details in this article, but for the sake of the accuracy of the wording I think its for the better. As a biologist I was astonished to read that there were 6,000 species of coffee, it just seemed to be very unlikely to me, and I think that such kinds of, unintentional, errors can cost the project some of its credibility. That is why I asked you for a reference. That there are some 6,000 varieties of coffee is far more likely, given the amount of change selective breeders can induce on a species and the economic importance of the commodity, it just screams for innovation of the breeds. I hope you can agree with the changes I made. Jasper Wubs 15:32, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

I think it's a good, and more clear change. Thanks much! --Robert W King 15:34, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm a bit confused by the title/original subject of this comment. In regard to the more/less sections issue, I think it's fair to say that the purpose of sections and subsections is to add clarity and organization, regardless of whether one believes the article should flow like a narrative. As this article becomes more developed and lengthier, sections and subsections will be helpful tools for keeping everything tidy and clear. When used correctly and in moderation, they can also refer to each other and easily enhance each other. Is the point to force someone to read the entire article when they're only looking for a certain bit of information? Who are we to say what information readers need or want? Well, regardless, I've added a section on coffee and health and will be adding to it significantly over the next week or so.  ;) -- Sarah R. Taylor 11:18, 21 January 2008 (CST)

Coffee, caffeine, and health

Over the next couple of weeks (as my busy grad student schedule allows), I'll be adding a significant amount of information to this section: it will address what is known and what still remains to be investigated about the effects of coffee consumption on cardiovascular disease, physical fitness, brain function, reproduction, bone and joint health, type 2 diabetes and weight loss, and the digestive system. It will cite quite a few academic sources, which means it'll take forever to edit/add the references (unless anyone has any tips/tricks to offer?), but it should ultimately end up being a fairly thorough summary and synthesis of current information on the topic. (Researching coffee and its health risks/benefits is something of a hobby of mine.) I'm new to the "wiki" thing, so feel free to offer editing tips and suggestions, especially where it seems like I fall short.

Eventually, adding a subsection somewhere in the article referring to preparation methods would be helpful. That way, when I refer to the differences in health risks/benefits due to preparation, I can easily link or refer back to the different methods and how they're performed, etc. so that readers can distinguish for themselves and make informed decisions about their coffee drinking habits.

I think that's it for now... for those keeping an eye on this topic, feel free to add/comment/inquire/etc. throughout the process! -- Sarah R. Taylor 11:27, 21 January 2008 (CST)

Contradictory and or confusing

There are sections here which need reworking or clarification:

• At present, no clear causal relationship has yet been found between cardiovascular disease (CVD) and coffee consumption. Although results of scientific studies have been contradictory or inconclusive, there are some possible links between coffee consumption and the risk for CVD: for example, coffee prepared without a filter contains compounds known to raise low density lipoprotein levels. Additional risk factors, such as smoking, may also confound the relationship between coffee consumption and CVD. Nevertheless, most current studies suggest that habitual and moderate consumption of filtered coffee does not increase CVD risk.

How can studies be claimed as contradictory or inconclusive, but then suggest that habitual and moderate consumption does not increase CVD risk?

• Many studies have indicated that low to moderate doses of caffeine may have ergogenic (beneficial) effects on physical fitness. Caffeine in low doses increases exercise tolerance, reduces muscle pain during exercise, improves respiratory efficiency, delays fatigue, and increases endurance. Despite the documented benefits of caffeine, however, caffeinated coffee is commonly considered to be a mild diuretic, although recent studies have found that this is not the case.

This needs clarification, how it can it be considered something yet not be?

• Coffee consumption has been associated with various aspects of mental health and brain function, including lowered risks for neurodegenerative diseases. Coffee is well-known for its positive effects on mental alertness and psychological left, benefits often attributed to caffeine content. Among habitual drinkers, even heavy intake does not seem to be associated with decreased sleep duration.

What does sleep duration have to do with alertness?

• Overall, current scientific literature suggests that coffee and caffeine are more likely to enhance rather than impede mental function.

This statement is redundant.

• Studies conducted over the past few years indicate a possible association between caffeine and reduced fetal viability, but this relationship is not well understood and results have often been contradictory.

How can the studies indicate anything if the results are contradictory?

• Because caffeine interferes with reproduction among females, pregnant women are commonly advised by family, friends, and physicians to avoid drinking regular coffee during pregnancy., then Moderate coffee drinking may be non-harmful and possibly even beneficial during later stages of pregnancy, but heavy coffee drinking is not recommended among pregnant women in their first or second trimesters.

This is extremely contradictory.

A lot of this section needs citation, and clarification, I think. --Robert W King 09:50, 13 February 2008 (CST)

The information on health and coffee is confusing and contradictory because that is exactly how the medical world seems [from newspaper and journal reports] to be on this issue. I don't see how we can improve on the mess that is out there, because otherwise it would constitute original research. We can flag it up for our medical editors to comment on, if they care to. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:18, 13 February 2008 (CST)

I don't mean to be a hornet, but I would appreciate it. --Robert W King 11:20, 13 February 2008 (CST)

Does one really have to be an Omniscient Editor to interject an occasional "apparently contradictory" or some such within the text at appropriate places? I certainly use the word "apparently" mercilessly within articles that I work on when things aren't 100% clear one way or another. Why can't the same approach be used here without it being considered original research? Ie, one authority says one thing; another study, equally prestigious, says what "apparently is the contrary." We, the Authors, are simply reporting the facts, ma'am. Hayford Peirce 11:47, 13 February 2008 (CST)

I'm not so much concerned over whether or not there's original research involved, but the fact that there's so much "well, yes, but not exactly, also not really". If there's a lot of controversy and misleading or inaccurate information over the benefits of coffee (or caffeine, for that matter, if that's truly what the debate is about) then that should be covered itself (the uncertainty). It might be a pet peeve, but given that we are supposed to be better than 'that other guy', we should do our best to not be vague, uncertain, or ambiguous. Maybe more research is required, but I don't know enough about chemistry and biology to dictate that, although perhaps David could weigh in... --Robert W King 12:02, 13 February 2008 (CST)

I have no particular interest in coffee beyond the single cup I drink every morning, but if this article is as much of a mish-mash as everyone says it is, why couldn't it be rewritten from the point of view of: "Coffee is something many people have drunk for several centuries now but it is beclouded by a mass of contradictory medical evidence as to its supposed benefits and/or drawbacks." Just because there *is* contradictory evidence doesn't mean that an article can't be written about the different evidence without falling in WP wishy-washyness....Hayford Peirce 12:20, 13 February 2008 (CST)

Yes, you're probably right, Hayford. The thing is, that until fairly recently the medical profession was absolutely certain that coffee is bad for you. IN hte last few years, the contradictory research has appeared, suggesting that coffee also has beneficial effects. Of course, the problem derives from a childish assumption that anything is either "good" or "bad", when it should be clear to everyone that most things possess good and bad qualities, and it is usually not possible to place a food or substance, or person, in the pigeonholes of "good" and "evil". But, there we are...Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:05, 13 February 2008 (CST)

Very true. One of my favorite quotes (if only I knew how to pronounce two of the key words) is from my one-time favorite author and still role-model as a writer, Evelyn Waugh, when writing in 1963 or so about his old-time hero Basil Seale, now, many years later, a semi-geezer: "Peter was a year or two the younger but he, like Basil, had scorned to order his life with a view to longevity or spurious youth. They were two stout, rubicund, richly dressed old buffers...." Like Peter (Pastmaster, I believe) and Basil I drink my coffee, eat my eggs and confit of duck, drink my wine and my rum, and say to hell with the latest medical opinions: they will surely change to the opposite side one of these days.... (By the way, in the days of Dr. Johnson and the original coffee establishments, wasn't the stuff supposed to be *good* for you?) Hayford Peirce 17:25, 13 February 2008 (CST)

Hi there: I'm not surprised by the comments so far, as the research is just as contradictory and confusing as presumed. I've been pulling and rewording bits and pieces of an article of mine that was recently published in Nutrition and Food Science journal (see https://webfiles.colorado.edu/taylorsr/docs//SRT_November%202007_To%20Sip%20Or%20Not%20To%20Sip.pdf). I really have no desire to rewrite the entire article here on CZ, but there's information out there should others wish to follow through on the research and continue to mash together current knowledge about the health risks/benefits of coffee. What I've contributed so far was merely a start, in hopes that others would pick up the topic and contribute. Part of the problem is that epidemiological studies and experimental studies don't always agree or even speak to one another, and entire papers have been written about the supposed association of coffee and X risk factor, using data that was gathered for an entirely different purpose. Once an association has been found, investigators go back to look at the data more closely, only to find that they were mistaken or didn't account for some other factor. Thus, the world of medicine appears to flip-flop on its opinion about coffee and whether or not it's "good" or "bad." Usually, they end such papers with the all-too-familiar statement that "more research is needed..." and so I have had to state as much, myself.

Nevertheless, I will try to do some rewording and may add more to/refine this section further as time permits, but I encourage anyone who's interested to read the Nutrition and Food Science paper, dig into the bibliography, argue/rewrite/share etc. Cheers! Sarah R. Taylor 11:45, 14 February 2008 (CST)

Hypothesis

I have an idea on how to clear up some of these misconceptions, but I'd like to have some biologists input. I came across this whitepaper today (http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/ancham/asap/pdf/ac702196z.pdf) which details a process behind the development of a machine designed to recognize elements that determine qualities of coffee. Of particular note is page 4, which has a table titled "List of Compounds Representing 95% of the Individual Ion Trace Signals, the Compounds were identified by GC (gas chromatography)/MS (mass spectrometry)".

So my questions are as follows: have all the chemical compounds in coffee been identified, and do we know what effects those compounds have on the various functions of the human body? If these items have already been documented, then we could use that as an analysis to describe the effects of coffee, without necessarily dipping into the original research realm. This would be almost the same type of thing that David Volk is doing with the pharmaceutical compound pages. --Robert W King 10:49, 14 February 2008 (CST)