Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Medical Medical Myths Exposed

  1. Dec 24, 2007 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7153880.stm

    Oh thank goodness. My health just improved dramatically...again. :biggrin:

    It used to be that coffee was bad and sure to be the death of me. Now it acts as a supply of water, it is high in antioxidants [the greatest source by far in many diets], and it may even help prevent the onset of type II diabetes in adults who are predisposed to it, as I am.
    http://www.physorg.com/news6067.html
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/291/10/1213
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 24, 2007 #2

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I've been saying this to people for decades. Tea, sodas, coffee, juices, all contain water, you can get your required daily "water" from any of these. Just because the water is flavored doesn't stop it from being "water". They'd say 'oh no, flavored water won't work, it has to be plain water". Like if it's flavored, your body won't absorbed it. :rolleyes:
     
  4. Dec 24, 2007 #3

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Mmmm.... I'm sipping an antioxidant-rich health drink made from roasted beans right now! :approve:
     
  5. Dec 24, 2007 #4

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Me too! Mine's fresh out of an espresso machine - I hope that means more anti-oxidants, because it sure means more caffeine.
     
  6. Dec 24, 2007 #5

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Caffeine.... the real vitamin C!
     
  7. Dec 26, 2007 #6

    jim mcnamara

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A small amount of sugar and a tiny bit of potassium or sodium ions in the water enhance the absorption and retention of water. Sounds like soda and some potato chips to me. Or a sports drink like gator ade. Or Pedialyte. All the same idea.
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2007
  8. Dec 27, 2007 #7
    I knew this all along too. Years back I went on a 5 day high altitude training, for a job that was to take me well above sea level. They said pack only what you need to survive. I of course packed my little french coffee press, and 1/2 lb of coffee.

    I was scolded, and was told coffee wasn't a survival item. Then I informed them, that with out it, I would half to toss each one of them off the mountain, in a caffeine deprived rage. So yes, it was a survival item for them.
    As they were drinking their water and hunkering down in snow shelters, I was drinking coffee, lashing branches together in a zoobly like shelter, compleat with fire pit and sleeping platform, and decrotive accessories.
    Coffee rules!
     
  9. Dec 27, 2007 #8
    The reason coffee isn't recommended for things such as exercise, etc. is because of its diuretic effect. However, as everyone has pointed out, it's still water based. I imagine it's also not very good if you have acid reflux.
     
  10. Dec 27, 2007 #9
    Antioxidants and their so called "anti cancer" benefits may be the biggest medical myth out there these days.

    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/antioxidantsprevention


    Coffee, juices, sodas, and other soft drinks are terrible for you because of their high caloric content. After adding cream and sugar a typical coffee probably has around 200 calories. You could drink the coffee black though. But IMO, if you are going to drink black coffee, drink tea instead (no sugar or anything else added). It tastes much better.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2007
  11. Dec 27, 2007 #10

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Thanks for that reference. This is something that I occasionally wonder about myself. Sure, there's laboratory evidence of benefits of antioxidants in preventing things like tumor growth, but most of that is "dumping" an antioxidant directly on cells in a dish. When we eat foods rich in antioxidants, do they actually get absorbed in that form and out to any places where the cancer cells may be developing in high enough doses to have any real effect? I don't know. However, most things promoted as rich in antioxidants and "good for you" also just happen to be fruits and vegetables rich in vitamins that we do need.

    There's nothing terrible about consuming 200 calories. It's the people who consume several servings of juice and soft drinks in a day and don't count the calories in those beverages as part of their calorie intake that run into problems.

    Though, you're exaggerating the calorie content of coffee with milk. A teaspoon of sugar is about 20 calories (depending on how level (15 calories) or heaping (25 calories) you make it), and a tablespoon of whole milk is about 9 calories, and likewise, the cup of filter brewed coffee is about 9 calories.

    http://www.annecollins.com/calories/calories-sugar.htm
    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/calories/NU00185
    http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/14209.html

    So, even if you add in two heaping spoons of sugar with your milk in coffee, you're getting only about 70 calories. Limit yourself to a level teaspoon of sugar, a splash of milk, and your cup of coffee is a mere 33 calories. If you add more milk (i.e., a latte), you're adding calories, but you're also getting all the nutrients in milk that are good for you. Nothing bad about that at all.

    If you switch to tea, you only have 2 calories from the tea itself, compared with 9 in coffee...you save yourself a whopping 7 calories.

    http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/14355.html

    Pace the kitchen floor for 2 min while waiting for the coffee to brew, and you're almost even.
    http://www.onlinebangalore.com/heal/calo_min.htm

    (As for preference for black coffee vs plain tea, that's a matter of personal taste...I'd rather drink black coffee than tea without milk and sugar...at least if we're talking caffeinated, black tea.)
     
  12. Dec 27, 2007 #11
    The reason coffee isn't as good as drinking plain water for hydration is because caffeine is a diuretic and prevents your body from absorbing as much water. I suppose if you drank enough of it that wouldn't be a problem...=P
     
  13. Dec 27, 2007 #12

    Agreed there is nothing wrong with consuming 200 calories, but you have millions of people out there who consume 2,3,or 4+ more cups of coffee everyday. People don't realize how many calories they are consuming from just beverages alone.

    If you have a coffee with two of those small cream packs and 2 packs of sugar you are approaching 200 calories (according to the mayo site). I know plenty of people who use 2-3 creams and 3 or more packs of sugar for just 1 cup of coffee. Many people get their coffee at work, and at work places those small cream packs are much more available than a gallon of whole milk.

    This is just coffee, we aren't even going to touch juices like snapple drinks which have a WHOPPING 48 grams of sugar per serving (and a bottle of snapple has about 2.5 servings). Even orange juice that you buy in a carton has a huge amount of sugar in it per serving since it is concentrated.
     
  14. Dec 27, 2007 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I wonder what the caloric content of a 7-11, 16 ounze, French Vanilla coffee might be; probably about 10,000 calories or so?

    Funny, I've followed the antioxidant business from the start. I think it was the father of a chem professor of mine who long ago [perhaps as much as forty years ago] became convinced of the dangers of free radicals [not the type that scares Russ but the other kind]. Years later the antioxidant craze came along which seemed to vindicate this old claim. Now we are back to square one?
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2007
  15. Dec 27, 2007 #14

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Actually, if you read the link that gravenewworld supplied, it appears that beta carotene may increase the chances of lung cancer, doesn't seem that other anti-oxidants have been found to cause problems and could be beneficial. I never did like carrots.

    Sounds like eating may be hazardous to your health. :wink:
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2007
  16. Dec 27, 2007 #15

    jim mcnamara

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No. Not square one. Maybe square four or five.

    It has been established that foods like dark green veggies - brassicas - and dark orange vegetables when regularly consumed do affect occurrences of colorectal cancers - it lowers them, for example. Turmeric in the diet also has a positive effect on some types of cancers. Cinnamon tea lowers blood pressure. Note that these are natural products, not dietary supplements, tree bark (cinnamon), a rhizome (turmeric), and leaves and stems (brassicas).

    The science of what food does good/bad to you with regard to cancer risk is solid in terms of large population studies. People who consume them fare better. Period.

    It's going from the other direction that still gives very confusing results. You've heard of the 'vitamin paradox'? You can cure scurvy with Vitamin C pills. But, a lot of what antioxidants and vitamins as supplements cannot do in vivo, foods with the same vitamins and antioxidants do accomplish in vivo.

    Bottom line: raw, naked vitamins and especially antioxidants do not seem to affect disease processes in people in the same way those things apparently work when they are part of food.

    I personally think acetyl salicylic acid is a vitamin :smile: After all, look at all of what you fix with aspirin. Too bad it eats your stomach lining for breakfast- but then high doses of a lot of vitamins are toxic in a lot of ways. I vote for an "RDA" for aspirin or maybe willow bark tea that give you about 40-80mg of the stuff.
     
  17. Dec 27, 2007 #16
    LOL yeah probably.


    The fact that anti cancer activity is seen when foods high in antioxidants are consumed may not be from the antioxidants themselves, but from the fact that the food consumed is healthy for you in the first place. There are still many other things in foods that researchers have yet to identify and have no idea what they do. There are some drugs out there that work only as a mixture of two or more compounds that work synergistically. When you separate each compound you may not see any efficacy at all. Such may be the case for antioxidants. There's simply other things in the food products that we consume that all work together to produce anti cancer activity, not just the antioxidants themselves.
     
  18. Dec 27, 2007 #17

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That was pretty much the idea that our old friend had. He wondered if taking a low dose of asprin every day might provide the basic benefits generally attributed to antioxidants today.

    Of course they do sell low dose [81 mg] asprin for heart patients.
    http://www.bayeraspirin.com/products/ar/ar_als81.htm
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Medical Myths Exposed
  1. Fun Myth (Replies: 1)

  2. 10% Myth (Replies: 9)

  3. Is Aids a Myth (Replies: 32)

Loading...