Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Thursday July 22 2021, @04:29AM   Printer-friendly

Researchers Find No Link between Habitual Coffee Consumption and Arrhythmia:

In a large, prospective, population-based community cohort study of 386,258 coffee drinkers, greater amounts of habitual coffee consumption were inversely associated with a lower risk of cardiac arrhythmia; in fact, each additional daily cup of coffee was associated with a 3% reduced risk of developing an arrhythmia; these associations were not significantly modified by genetic variants that affect caffeine metabolism.

“Coffee is the primary source of caffeine for most people, and it has a reputation for causing or exacerbating arrhythmias,” said Professor Gregory Marcus, a researcher in the Division of Cardiology at the University of California, San Francisco.

“But we found no evidence that caffeine consumption leads to a greater risk of arrhythmias.”

“Our population-based study provides reassurance that common prohibitions against caffeine to reduce arrhythmia risk are likely unwarranted.”

[...] The higher amounts of coffee were actually associated with a 3% reduced risk of developing an arrhythmia.

“Only a randomized clinical trial can definitively demonstrate clear effects of coffee or caffeine consumption,” Professor Marcus said.

[...] “Coffee’s antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties may play a role, and some properties of caffeine could be protective against some arrhythmias.”

[Bolding in original removed.]

Journal Reference:
Eun-jeong Kim, Thomas J. Hoffmann, Gregory Nah, et al. Coffee Consumption and Incident Tachyarrhythmias, JAMA Internal Medicine (DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.3616)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 22 2021, @05:23AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 22 2021, @05:23AM (#1159047)

    But they used Mendelian randomization. And probably the F-statistic. And Bayesian priors. And mixed effects regression. How can you with your small words possibly trust your own lying eyes?

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1