I can help but feel lied to when there is only a laundry list of "good"s and no analysis on downsides.
When I read "it helps with this" "it prevents this", I always ask "but at what cost". Can an exogenous molecule that was so adaptive be missed this bad and now consuming it will just fill that gap we had for millions of years?
Let's not kid ourselves. Concentrated caffeine is a drug and not a nutrient. We drink it because it is psychoactive and we habituate to it. Try drinking redbull as a caffeine-naive person or not drinking coffee as a daily drinker. If an exogenous substance is that potent, it is a drug. (Even though I like it myself too, it is also pretty shit of a drug in my opinion, with 5 hr half-life, a dice roll every time whether it is gonna create more sleep than focus and a steep tolerance curve.) Magic mushrooms also have nutritional value, nicotine also has some benefits, beer has tons of calories, they might even have adaptive value with occasional use. You might enjoy them, you might drink coffee everyday. That is fine. But they are all drugs and not nutrients.
> Can an exogenous molecule that was so adaptive be missed this bad and now consuming it will just fill that gap we had for millions of years?
I think the simplest answer to this is that for most of human evolutionary history, calories were scarce. And caffeine, like all stimulants, boosts metabolic rate both through thermogenesis and increased activity. That's a hard downside to overcome, even with a plethora of other health benefits.
For our hunter-gatherer ancestors, an endogenous chemical that burned an extra 100 calories a day could very likely mean the difference between life or death during a drought. That's not the case today, because calories are essentially free (in fact we're literally dying due to a surfeit of calories).
I can't believe I never thought of this. With this in mind, it seems that any drug is more likely to be a net positive iff it increases metabolic rate. I wonder if that is the case.
A lot of nutrients (e.g., caffeine, vitamin D3, the fiber in raw carrots) are the closest thing we have to a "free lunch" because the evolutionary pressures that limited access to these nutrients are gone.
Our brains used to compete for scarce calories and nutrition, but now we can vastly increase these things with little to no downside.
There is no scientific distinction between food, drugs, and nutrients. They're all molecules. All that matters is the dosage.
> There is no scientific distinction between food, drugs, and nutrients. They're all molecules. All that matters is the dosage.
A few micrograms of LSD and a cheeseburger is not different only for their dosage. One stores solar energy in its molecules in a form we can harvest. Other crosses blood-brain barrier in a way that alters its functioning drastically. Their structural-functional organizations are drastically different, hence the different categories.
Your CPU is also just a bunch of molecules probably as much as your PCs power button, but one packs a very different nature of consequentiality in that small "dosage" of matter than the other.
The one that stores solar energy crosses stomach barrier in a way that alters it’s functioning drastically by giving it energy. Who knows if LSD equivalents found in plants helped proto-humans (from cells to any mammal) develop key aspects of the brain and therefore we are still receptive to them. Just because it’s used as a recreational drug today doesn’t mean that “it’s altering it’s functioning drastically” that’s just today’s society’s opinion on it or just because today we’re just simply abusing it by using large quantities of LSD (just like over eating and going obese, you’re drastically changing the body).
LSD works more like a toxin than a nutrient. I don't mean that LSD is deadly, it is actually a pretty safe drug in that regard, but the way it works is similar to how toxins work.
The way it works is that to some neurons, it looks a lot like serotonin, a neurotransmitter produced by our own body. In technical terms, it is a 5-HT2A agonist. But unlike serotonin, it doesn't want to get out, causing the affected neuron to fire constantly.
Not so different from carbon monoxide, which takes the place of oxygen in red blood cells and doesn't want to let go.
Even if the effects are completely different, they are both caused a molecule that mimic what our body normally uses, but not only it doesn't behave normally, but it is also much more durable. Causing a large effect with a small dose.
And in fact, LSD is derived from ergot fungi, which are toxic and have causes many deaths in the past.
The fact that LSD is of the family ergotamine, and that the fungus ergot which happens to contain ergotamine has caused deaths, is a meaningless statement.
Chemistry and psychopharmacology is an incredibly complex topic, and it isn't as simple as saying "Well, X is related to Y, and X causes A, ergo Y must cause A."
There's a concept called "structure-activity relationship" (SAR) in medicinal chemistry, and it's the study between a molecule's "physical" (for lack of a better word) shape and it's effects.
If you aren't familiar with medicinal chemistry, as a human your assumption is probably to go "Well, X molecule is really close to Y molecule, so they must do similar things."
Unfortunately, this just is not how it works.
Look at amphetamines. Saying something is an "amphetamine" is meaningless, because what an "amphetamine" is and does is entirely dependent on _which_ amphetamine it is.
Regular "amphetamine" is a simple stimulant.
Then you have psychedelic amphetamines, like 2,4,5-Trimethoxyamphetamine, which aren't stimulatory at all and act more like LSD.
Both of them are, by definition, "amphetamines", but no commonality in terms of effects/psychoactivity.
A single structural change makes the difference between being benign or being incredibly toxic, being a stimulant or a psychedelic, etc.
You can't talk about these things with sweeping generalizations.
The only way to have a legitimate, rational discussion about chemicals is to completely rid the physical structure from your head and discuss it in terms of it's receptor affinity, ligand-binding, and Ki values.
Everything else is complete pseudoscience and quackery.
So the categorization of toxins vs. nutrients is just "bio-active molecules which are either detrimental or beneficial" to the organism?
Or do nutrients always have to transfer solar energy as some post above alludes to? Vitamins functionally support the organism without delivering energy - but they are considered as nutrients too.
Or are we going to include the criticality of its absence? The absence of vitamin C causes scurvy. The absence of caffeine merely means losing luxury benefits "on top of" what we strictly need.
In that way and as the benefits seem to outweigh the negatives, one could definitely argue that caffeine is a nutrient.
But I grind up my old computers, pulverize them into powder, fill empty gel caps with it, and take 1000mg of it every day. It standardizes my daily dose of computer usage. Don't try this with Apple products though: LSD has nothing on them.
According to Ray and his research, yes. Eating cooked carrots will promote unwanted bacterial growth in the intestine, and can increase the absorption of beta carotene, which in increased amounts can suppress metabolism.
A key distinction between drugs and the other two is that the body easily develops an increasing tolerance and dependence on the former, unless strict moderation is applied. Yes, this also applies to sugar.
Sort of like nicotine. I don't think we would have made the transition to desk work as easily as we did without it. I'm pretty sure the US space program depended on it.
Interesting observation. I think it could be argued that the average nicotine user today us a dramatically different kind of person than they were then.
During the time frame that the user you replied to was referencing, nicotine consumption was the norm. Now, with the extensive change in societal perspective that nicotine consumption has undergone, those who still use gravitate towards the uneducated and less successful.
BTW if nicotine were such a powerful mental booster, nicotine patches would be vastly more popular. They provide all the upsides of nicotine without any of the downsides of smoking (harmful byproducts of burning, the smell, the need to go outside, etc).
I still think something else keeps smokers smoking: the taste, the ritual, looking cool, etc.
Do they though? I've wondered this before as a non-smoker.
I assume patches are slow release but smoking provides a bigger hit all at once. Sometimes that's important, both in terms of impact and building tolerance.
Nicotine without smoke is still not a great thing to consume and has it's own negative effects such are arterial hardening leading to increased heart attacks and strokes. While it is far better than smoking, it still known to cause long term health problems. Getting the stimulating effects of nicotine also takes fairly sensitive portion control. Too little and it is not going to stimulate, too much and you will want to barf for the next 45+ minutes.
It's odd, I rarely drink but sometimes I will and alcohol motivates me to just bang out code or do something else that I've been putting off for a while. I've noticed this at night for personal projects but also after the rare work lunches.
I'm not saying it's good quality code, but it definitely removes the barriers to starting that I often struggle to get over. And starting is the most important step of iterating, I can fix it up tomorrow.
I've noticed the same thing sometimes. I particularly notice when there's a thing where there's an obvious flawed approach to the problem, but the flaws probably don't matter.
Interestingly, I can replicate that mind-state even without alcoho. The same is true of a couple other states of mind that I originally arrived at though the use of mind altering substances (sadly it does not work for caffeine though).
> I particularly notice when there's a thing where there's an obvious flawed approach to the problem, but the flaws probably don't matter.
Yeah absolutely. I often get hung up in architecture astronaut mode about whether this is the right solution, and entering that "who cares? make it work or nothing matters!" mindset is very liberating.
I've been taking some herbal anxiety pills because a friend suggested them.I didn't expect much but it does seem to let me focus on the process and not the what-ifs when I need to.
For me it's Kratom. It's helped me out of deep depression and also does more to help with migraines than any painkiller I've tried.
I've been using it regularly for about 5 years now (with occasional cycles to reduce tolerance). So far, I have found no downsides except for the taste.
When I stop taking it, there's one day of grumpiness which I would say it of similar strength to effect of stopping coffee after a regular habit.
(EDIT because I'm not allowed to make a new comment for some reason, this is a reply to the comment below)
Every person is different and you must take care of what you put in your body. I take kratom because it's a double whammy that reduces two problems - depression and migraine - to manageable levels, while having low potential for addiction. I have so far encountered no negative effects from taking it, only positives.
However, I would prefer _not_ to take it. I would prefer _not_ to have depression and migraines and not to need any drugs to maintain a normal lifestyle.
I work on this by maintaining a healthy diet, exercising regularly, sleeping well, meditation, and maybe I'll get there someday. In the meantime, kratom has increased my quality of life a lot over the past few years. This is not intended as a suggestion that anyone else should take it, just an anecdote about my experience.
Regarding constipation - I have heard this before, but never personally experienced it. I mix each dose (<1tps) with a full cup of water, which probably helps.
Yeah, it's not a wonder drug. There are serious risks. And in terms of treatment for something like depression, it should be regarded like any other depression treatment: it may work for some and be crap for others, and do awful things to some people. If you have access to quality professional mental health care, that should be your first stop, before self-educating.
Interestingly a number of these things on this list aren't unfettered good things. E.g reducing iron absorption, or increasing fuel efficiency, e.g if you're vegan, or you're trying to lose weight respectively those aren't good things. So I think that resolves the mystery, it's not a missing nutrient, it's just a chemical that can be used to offset consequences of other patterns of consuming exogenous molecules
Regarding absorbing iron on a plant based diet, it's important to distinguish between heme iron and nonheme iron, and that namely most vegans have no trouble getting enough iron from beans and greens.
I don't consume energy drinks under normal circumstances. I save it for that once every 6-12 months when it's 11 PM and something critical needs to be done by SOB. With it I can get 4 hours of zone quite reliably. Then at 3 AM I crash, hard.
Unfortunately this isn't how caffeine works. Your body adjusts quickly to daily use. Any perceived increase of "boost" due to long term daily caffeine usage is mental. (Which probably has value for many people)
Except not exactly, because for some of us fast metabolisers, half life of caffeine can be less than 4h, meaning by fasting from 1600 to 0800, you are down to trace levels, and the body is reversing its tolerance.
I've done informal tests and steady state caffeine every day for a month is not the same as abstaining. You alleles, and hence mileage, may vary.
For poor metabolizers like me, caffeine has about a 12 hour half life and I can’t even sleep if I have a small dose in the morning. I know this is true because I’ve accidentally taken caffeine in various forms and it’s always 3am and I’m banging my head trying to figure out why I can’t sleep until I realize I had a chai tea or something without thinking.
In fact caffeine is a huge detriment to my ability to be productive, and the last time I quit coffee it took a full month and a half for the grogginess and lethargy to go away. Never again!
This is what convinces me caffeine is a drug and not a vitamin or nutrient. If I miss my daily vitamin I don’t even notice but if I miss my daily dose of caffeine it’s difficult for my brain to function on account of the inevitable withdrawal headache.
You would certainly notice if you missed some essential vitamins. The modern diet is just good enough to get you enough of all of them without too much effort.
Alternative hypothesis: Vitamins have a longer half-life in your body, therefore missing a dose does not cause the concentration in your body to drop as quickly.
I’m a poor metabolizer of caffeine and actually it’s far worse when it’s a long half life. I literally can’t sleep until 4am if I drink tea in the morning.
From Robin Hanson's "The Age of Em: Work, Love, and Life when Robots Rule the Earth"(2016):
> Today, people who are seen as “workaholics” tend to make more money, to be male, and to focus their socializing on scheduled times such as holidays. They also tend rise early to work alone and they often use stimulants (Kemeny 2002[0]; Currey 2013[1]).
[0]: Kemeny, Anna. 2002. “Driven to Excel: A Portrait of Canada’s Workaholics.” Canadian Social Trends 64, March 11.
[1]: Currey, Mason. 2013. Daily Rituals: How Artists Work. Knopf, April 23.
I work in a fairly demanding work environment and have a big family and always thought this. But I found out I could do without caffeine. I replaced it with lifting weights four times a week and cardio 3 times a week. I sleep better, no longer drink alcohol.
It is nice to drink coffee of course. But I think it comes at a hidden cost. I feel much less stressed out now and I am more efficient at work too.
So perhaps you can try it out for just a month? Drinking no coffee and see how you feel?
I also went down the path for harder drugs, modafinil even speed for a while. But in the end it is not worth it.
That was exactly my point. The molecule is not novel. It indeed existed and we had the opportunity to evolve with its ambient presence. If the laundry list of advantages were that important, it would have created selective pressure on those who didn’t consume it. But it didn’t prove itself as indispensable while other nutrients did; that’s why they are nutrients and caffeine isn’t.
>It indeed existed and we had the opportunity to evolve with its ambient presence.
It may exist in a number of plants all over the world but that doesn't mean that people were harvesting and using it outside of certain isolated cultures until fairly recently, compared to evolutionary timescales.
If anything I'd expect significant genetic variation representing adaptations only present in some groups.
Carbs are not essential indeed. But consuming carbs when available gave us net selective advantage, which is why it's been the biggest part of our post-agricultural diet. And those carbs didn't exist in isolation but in the context of other macro and micronutrients including vitamins.
Can't say the same about caffeine sources, they weren't consumed for their nutritional content, and the supposed selective advantage of their consumption apparently didn't matter as much as carbs'. We didn't witness a supremacy of caffeine using populations, but we witnessed ones that could utilize carbs.
>a dice roll every time whether it is gonna create more sleep than focus
This is highly individual. There are people who can go to sleep after drinking a cup of coffee, who feel sleepy after drinking small amount (how small actually varies) and then people like me that can go on for 5 more hours no matter how tired, even after being awake for more than 24 hr - there is no dice roll, works 100 %.
That you can sleep does not imply you get the same quality of sleep. It's well known that alcohol and caffeine reduce sleep quality. So even if you can sleep after having a coffee, it's probably still not a good idea. Have a decaf if it's after 3pm.
This always reminds me that there is a difference between public health policy and individualised care.
Generally speaking, you're probably correct, and yet for some individuals some of the time some amount of alcohol, caffeine, psilocybin, mdma, etc etc etc, may have a beneficial effect for some period of time.
In case you aren't aware, there are a number of active clinical research trials underway demonstrating the efficacy of MDMA and psilocybin, under the support of the FDA:
In other words, these medicines are being explored specifically through the lens of public health policy. The question of their benefits being a statistical anomaly (when used in appropriate settings) is looking increasingly unlikely.
Some anecdata: I generally do not feel caffeine at all after ~2 hours. This is consistent under all circumstances; whether it's the morning cup puttering out around lunch time or whether it's an after-work latte fading long before I need to sleep.
Honestly, if I'm truly tired I can go to sleep immediately after drinking a cup. I don't generally intend to do this, obviously, but I've never felt like coffee prevented me from sleeping. It gives me clarity and makes me feel invigorated, but it doesn't feel like the opposite of sleep.
Studies on that are inconclusive at best, mainly due to the fact that people who rely on caffeine for daily function often do so due to having issues with sleep in them first place.
And no it’s quite likely not the the chicken the the egg problem.
Don’t get me wrong downing 3 double espresso shots 30 min before bed time is probably not a good idea however there is nothing that indicates that caffeine consumption during the day would have an impact on sleep in fact many studies showed that moderate amounts of caffeine even 2 hours before bed did not have a negative impact on sleep and a few studies even showed improvement in REM sleep when caffeine was taken but again nutrition studies are notoriously problematic.
I drink coffee/espressos each day, probably too much. Just recently after not having my usual Americanos I had a massive headache before bed. Advil did nothing so I figured it must be a caffeine withdrawal headache. They're hell and there's no way I can sleep with one so I made a shot of espresso and downed it quickly. Within 30 mins my headache went from a jackhammer pounding my skull to a distant woodpecker, and after another 30 mins I was asleep and slept fine. The big confounding factor with caffeine studies might be tolerance.
I had a similar experience on a long flight. I figured I'd avoid caffeine so I could sleep better, but I just woke up a few hours into the flight with a bad headache. Headed back to the galley to get some coffee, then slept halfway well.
Excedrin or the generic OTC "migraine" medications are good for this: a bit of caffeine, aspirin, and acetaminophen. Easier to carry around than having to scout out coffee and a bit more general purpose than caffeine pills alone.
The big confounding factors with caffeine is that nutrition based studies are extremely hard to run to the point where they are almost as bad as sociology studies.
Controlling for all the factors is nearly impossible.
Age, life style, genetics and everything else in between introduces so many variables that you simply can’t estimate or predict their impact on the study.
Even in your specific example it might be caffeine dependency or it might be something else completely like giving up 3-4 americanos a day and not making up for the liquid intake loss which left you more dehydrated in the evening.
Long time ago when I was chronically tired and with random sleeping patterns (going out, staying late...) I could drink strong coffee 30mins before sleep and have no problem getting to sleep. But some time later when I normalized with daily rhythm and stress I could not, I had to drink last coffee before 4pm, then a few years later before 2pm and less coffee. Now, when I am religious about getting to sleep before 11pm and am mindful about my energy levels, stress, eat well for long periods, train moderately, one coffee in the morning is more than enough to feel strong kick until the evening almost. I am thinking of even dropping that for some black/green tea. I think that so many people are chronically overstressed, undersleeped and with overworked adrenal glands, that they can’t even notice the real downside until they get into a better position for some time. And coffee in a run down body is just for keeping things bearly going.
Anecdotally as a caffeine addict I sleep fine but worry a bit about the opposite problem, that after the morning coffee effect wears off I get sleepy. I'm not sure if I might have more consistent energy if I stopped.
The main issue with caffeine, however, is that it is very bitter and so most caffeinated beverages come with a large amount of sugar to mask the taste.
When I started drinking coffee regularly in college, I decided I would only allow myself to drink it black to avoid sugar and milk (I can't digest lactose).
It didn't take long at all before I preferred it that way. Now I love a back espresso with no sugar.
Same with tea, for me. I drank tea and tisanes with sugar and milk when I was young. Then over time I went to just sugar, and then plain. Now I prefer tea/tisane/coffee plain.
> Let's not kid ourselves. Concentrated caffeine is a drug and not a nutrient.
Coffee can contain both nutrients and contain a drug. They are not exclusive.
The title is misleading in focusing on caffeine. But the article mostly focuses on the benefits of coffee and tea, while occasionally also talking about the drug it contains.
Your analogies don't always work. Nicotine is not consumed as a food. Neither are magic mushrooms consumed on a regular enough basis to be considered for nutritional purposes. Beer however is a better analogy. And both beer and coffee, in moderation, have a lot of studies so far showing a correlation with longer lifespans. So, is that from the nutrients? From the drug within? Or from both? All are possibilities until we pinpoint causation.
In one study [1], of "nearly 500,000 adults in Britain, those who consumed instant, ground and decaf coffee – even as much as 8 cups daily – had a slightly lower risk of death over 10 years than those who did not."
Another large scale study [2] on coffee included 400,000 adults.
Suffice it to say that studies of ~1/2 million people cover a wide range of economic statuses. And there have been enough of these large scale studies already to perform meta-analysis [3], again leading to the same conclusion.
We have similar large scale peer reviewed studies over alcohol. So you'll have to do a lot better than a guess about what the actual causation might be.
> and have the intelligence to keep their habits within moderation.
Wait, I thought poorer people can't afford to drink beer and coffee regularly? Which is it?
The idea that moderation comes with intelligence or wealth is a false stereotype that deserves to die. Plenty of wealthy people and plenty of intelligent people have addiction problems. Wealth and intelligence are bad predictors of addiction. A far better predictor is family history.
>Plenty of wealthy people and plenty of intelligent people have addiction problems. Wealth and intelligence are bad predictors of addiction. A far better predictor is family history.
Family history is strongly correlated with wealth and intelligence, though. [0]
Studies comprising "adults in Britain" consist almost exclusively of mostly relatively well-to-do and highly educated people, compared to the rest of the world. [1]
Britain basically controlled the world during the entirety of the 1800s. They're a lot better off than most still as a result of that extremely long reign.
> Family history is strongly correlated with wealth and intelligence.
And? What does that have to do with your original and wrong claim that wealth and / or intelligence lead people to be better at moderation when it comes to addictive substances?
> Studies comprising "adults in Britain" consist almost exclusively of mostly relatively well-to-do
Your claim was about wealthy. You are moving the goal posts from wealthy to "relatively well-to-do" and "compared to the rest of the world".
And that does not explain why Brits who drink coffee live longer than Brits who do not. Or why the very many studies outside the UK show the same results.
I can't think of a single thing we put in our bodies that couldn't be harmful if done to excess. Maybe I lack imagination though-- comment below with candidate "safe" substances!
Concentrated vitamin A can also kill you, and a complete lack of it can bring health issues too. Even too much water can be bad for you, along with too much sugar. Too much of X is not a sufficient argument to say something is bad.
During lockdown I quit coffee cold turkey, I didn't feel anything. No changes in energy level or anything. I don't even feel anything other than the flavor difference between tea and coffee.
Most tea contains caffeine too. Usually less, but if you drink more tea than you drank coffee you might just take as much caffeine (or more, even) as you did before.
Caffeine has the unfortunate side effect of raising my blood pressure about 10 mmHg. While I love coffee I had to give it up. I can't imagine that would be good for me long term.
> I can help but feel lied to when there is only a laundry list of "good"s and no analysis on downsides.
Keep in mind that there's a strong selection bias here. We've been drinking coffee for hundreds of years. If over that time we had ever noticed it had any notable negative side effects, we would have relegated it to the very very long list of substances which are more of a mixed bag.
In the short term over the duration of effect. I don't think I've ever seen a reliable study that demonstrated any reliable evidence of long term harm from coffee with any certainty.
Ray Peat is an interesting researcher. His ideas tend to be original (as in he does his own research & analysis). Yet, I find a lot of things in his writings that don't gel with my research or the broader research. Namely, he does his own selective reading and comes up with a theory---just like everyone else. E.g. he doesn't recognize hormesis (benefits from fasting or occasional nutrient deprivation). He also espouses a heavy sugar laden diet such as drinking orange juice on a continuous basis and avoiding fiber and starches. He sometimes paints a very black and white picture: XYZ is good, ABC is bad, ignoring the context or the nonlinear dose response relationship.
Long story short, he's a curious character. I would take his writings with a grain of salt.
He speaks as if he's making "black/white" statements, but if you listen to him long enough, his ideas do contradict each other. I think the most valuable thing to take away from him is that only you can detect good health by paying attention and making decisions in real time, and that the optimal combo will always be in flux. It's like when he constantly restates his bio on radio shows. He's just a conduit for whatever his intuition tells him is right. I don't hang on the specifics of his work, but rather the mindset that intuition, curiosity, and attention will save you.
As an example, sometimes Ray will say starch is bad, and other times he will say that starch is compatible with a healthy lifestyle. His stance on most things is probably the dose and the condition of the body at any given time determines the nutrient/poison, but he will make firm statements over radio shows and podcasts because, if I had to guess, he says what he thinks is best for the audience given the medium and time constraints. Ultimately, you as an individual will miss things if you rely on someone else's observations instead of your own. Ray's recommendations are a good starting point, but you will likely be better off if you have the last word on what you do and do not do. And Ray would be the first to admit that :).
Caffeine gets a lot of love and hate. Personally, I think it's close to a miracle molecule. What other drug can give such an effective boost to wakefulness, mood, and focus with the only main side effects being possible sleep loss and jitteriness/discomfort? Many focus on physical side effects, but I have never seen any evidence of it negatively affecting mental health, despite being psychoactive. I have not consumed amphetamine, cocaine, or the like, but I have tried many legal "nootropics" and all are <= effective compared caffeine with more side-effects.
I take a small portion of a caffeine tablet under my tongue for exercising and occasionally for study and work. I am more healthy today than I was a year or more ago, a large part in thanks to caffeine getting me off my butt to run when I don't feel like running, and (safely) allowing me to push myself harder and get a better cardiovascular workout.
Is it accurate to call it a vitamin-like nutrient? No, because obviously it's not like vitamin D3 or C where very high levels are beneficial and we don't need caffeine to survive, but it can be taken in moderate doses indefinitely and still positively impact one's health. It depends on how you define "nutrient".
> What other drug can give such an effective boost to wakefulness, mood, and focus with the only main side effects being possible sleep loss and jitteriness/discomfort?
Modafinil. At least for me (and basically everybody I know that tried it) it's much better than caffeine. Much clearer wakefulness, more focus, less physical, more deep concentration, and fewer side effects (if any).
I agree that it may not be suited for every situation, and I really, really wish there were more long-term studies, but at least the ones there are (that I'm aware of) do not suggest horrible results. Given that it produces great results for many people, I feel like we're missing a massive opportunity by focusing on "if you're not really ill, you don't need medication".
I've been off caffeine for going on 40 days now. Work/health were suffering and I needed to hit the reset button. Some days its rough, but on average the change is worth it now. Last week I was able to deal with an extremely stressful event at work without losing my calm. If I had been hopped up on my usual morning brew under similar circumstances, I probably would have made some serious career-altering mistakes (not necessarily my career).
I have a theory that 50 years from now people will look back on caffeine the same way we look back on everyone smoking in the 50's. There were tons of "smoking is healthy" articles back then too, and it was baked into the culture. Caffeine's negatives are more hidden and second order effects that come from increased cortisol levels, lack of sleep, adrenal fatigue, etc. I've done a bunch of research on this and might write it up in a blog post someday.
The difference being that caffeine is consumed today pretty much the same way for hundreds of years (unlike modern cigarettes) and doesn’t have all the lobby behind it (at least not one as strong as alcohol or cigarettes, if any). The whole “smoking is healthy” phase was marketing (and the studies showing the link to cancer date back to 1920s) - same for eating bacon & eggs in the morning, or tricking people into consuming sugary corn flakes as if it’s a healthy food.
If I’d have to bet, I’d say we’ll trend to having purer caffeine drinks, or maybe better understand how it plays out with other chemicals.
Eggs are pretty nutritious and don't have a lot of calories. I eat mine with a small amount of bacon and feel full 'til lunch. It is odd to me that you put it in the same breath as sugary cereals.
Sorry, I meant specifically the combo of bacon & eggs. Bacon, historically, isn't a breakfast food - it just became a staple in the US due to a lot of marketing, trying to make it sound "healthier" than it is (in particular the nitrite-heavy, thin-sliced bacon sold in supermarkets, which is a lot unhealthier than the european/canadian style)
I'd assume it depends on where the eggs come from: Are eggs that are from caged chickens fed antibiotics, the same as eggs that come from chickens that are free to run around and feed on food made only from organic plants?
No chicken are fed antibiotics! It’s against the law and chicken manufacturers use that as a marketing ploy - “antibiotic free chicken” is as much as “water is wet”. Also free range is a sham - you can add a small fence leading to outside opening but the rest of the building can be dark and crowded and still call it free range. The chicken industry is truly a modern day mafia
Caffeine is well established to interrupt sleep. Interrupt doesn't necessarily mean a person wakes up either. It can mean 9 hours of less restful sleep than without caffeine. Over the long term, the less restful sleep can lead to other problems.
Coffee/caffeine doesn't stop me sleeping, it makes me not want to sleep.
The difference is, I can drink a couple of coffee (long black, strong) then go to bed and sleep soundly. But I have to argue with myself all the way to bed... because now I dont feel like I need it :-P
I used to be like that but it completely changed once I hit my 40s. Now coffee (even decaf to some degree) makes me anxious and causes sleep problems. Going off coffee improved my life a lot.
> Caffeine's negatives are more hidden and second order effects that come from increased cortisol levels, lack of sleep, adrenal fatigue, etc. I've done a bunch of research on this and might write it up in a blog post someday.
Care to post any links to this research/citations for those claims?
You aren't going to find any legitimate research that caffeine causes adrenal fatigue or is associated with adrenal fatigue because there's no such thing as adrenal fatigue.
True on "adrenal" fatigue, but it does increase cortisol levels and blood pressure. Chronic use will also lead to increased run-of-the-mill fatigue.
Caffeine works by blocking adenosine receptors, which is part of the mechanism for feeling tired. So the brain compensates by creating more receptors and flooding the brain with adenosine.
If there are no caffeine molecules in the brain to block the receptors, you will crash. Consume more caffeine, and voila: you feel normal again.
We have enough examples to look at. Even if caffeine ends up linked to some detrimental effects, its nothing on the scale of smoking/lung cancer. Plenty of people both drink or don't drink coffee and in the aggregate its not affecting outcomes to a noticeable degree.
I'm skeptical it will go that way. If you look at the history of smoking, wikipedia has
>Pipe smoking gradually became generally accepted as a cause of mouth cancers following work done in the 1700s.
ie. the negative effects were obvious for a long time. There's nothing like that with caffeine - if anything is seems to extend lifespan perhaps in humans and definately in Caenorhabditis elegans https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3922918/
Sugar-laden diets combined with both a mineral poor diet (ergo, no dental remineralization) and a constant subclinical dehydration (did you drink your gallon of water today? no? saliva is the vehicle for said remineralization, and is one of the first to be hit during early stages of dehyrdation; water is required to maintain the pH of your mouth) is bad your teeth.
The worst coffee can do is stain already poor enamel. Coffee is hardly acidic, and its a myth that its more destructive.
Now, if you drink your coffee with sugar? Thats bad, learn to drink it black.
Anything on this list that is below a pH of 5 you should strongly avoid. pH is a log scale, so, pH of 5 is 10x worse than 6, 4 is 10x worse than 5 or 100x worse than 6; the hydroxyapatite in tooth enamel starts to dissolve at 5.5, and coffee is only 5.11, well within your mouth's ability to handle.
If he warned you because you suffer from bruxism, not because of tooth decay, for most people, just follow the normal rules for coffee that everyone else should follow: avoid caffeine 6 hours before bed.
I agree with you that acidity is the main cause of enamel erosion. The correlation between beverage acidity and tooth decay is such that I think we should highly discourage children from drinking any carbonated or acidified drink .
I disagree that "pH of 5 is 10x worse than 6, 4 is 10x worse than 5 or 100x worse than 6". pH is logarithmic with respect to hydrogen ion activity but hydrogen ion activity is not linear with respect to enamel erosion in a human mouth [1].
You can also wash it away with a glass of water. It's common in cafes to get a glass of water with coffee. After every sip of coffee take a sip of water. This helps wit hydration as well.
>Coffee drinkers have been found to have lower cadmium in tissues; coffee making removes heavy metals from water.
How does that work? Where do the metals go?
Searching in the rest of the article I find:
>Coffee drinkers, for example, have been found to have lower levels of cadmium in their kidneys than people who don’t use coffee, and coffee is known to inhibit the absorption of iron by the intestine, helping to prevent iron overload.
I'm immediately suspicious of the way this is framed (I know many people who suffer from lack of iron, I guess they should avoid coffee). And what about the heavy metals then?
Phenols/catechols in general tend to reduce (in the electron sense) and complex with metals. This can be anti-nutrious if binding iron or calcium, or beneficial, if binding heavy metals.
Yes, this is indeed a weird way to frame the effect of coffee on iron absorption. There's a lot of medical litterature about how coffee often play a role in iron deficiency.
Lets talk about Decaffeinated coffee (asking for a friend...)
(a) what benefits of coffee are not attributable to the caffeine, and
(b) does the decaffeination process introduce any "side effects" in terms of harmful chemicals etc.
Seriously - I was drinking far too much coffee during lockdown and have switched 2 days ago to decaf. Too early to tell, but it feels like less triggering of hyperness...
You still get the benefits coming from the antioxidants found in coffee.
Regarding the decaffeination process, all modern processes should be safe and not leave any harmful chemicals around.
I used to drink decaf, but I just missed the taste of an actual Arabica specialty coffee. Because the decaffeination process removes more than just the caffeine, even specialty decaf is not as good.
I recently came across some interesting research by the US DoD into optimal caffeine consumption for alertness based on an algorithm they were developing. I can't quite recall the details, but you can find a web version of the tool here: https://2b-alert-web.bhsai.org/
Anyhow, as I recall (and I could be wrong), you actually want to start low and end high. Obviously decaf in the evening may still be good though, given you want to be able to sleep without detriment.
That's interesting, but considering the mainstream scientific position seems to be the opposite (though it's possible its more nuanced and I've misunderstood it), I will wait until that changes, though its always useful to read dissenting opinion.
Thanks! I also saw research where the optimum I think was drinking a cup of coffee in the early afternoon 30 minutes or so before a powernap. This beat (1) No coffee (2) straight coffee, no nap (3) nap, no coffee.
I think it tested alertness in a driving game...
No worries, and great input - I'm a huge believer of coffee-naps, I used to go on about them to friends and family all the time but stopped having them lately. Thanks to your reminder, I'm going to get back on the wagon. Appreciate it!
I do same. First cup is regular. Then decaf rest of day.
For some reason, when I worked from home, I was getting a headache in the afternoon. All the time. Then one day I only got a chance to get my first cup of coffee. On that day, no headache. So upon further testing it turned out that I can only drink one regular cup when working from home. But on weekends or working from the office, this is not an issue. Only working from home.
Having a mix of decaf and regular grounds also makes it easy to slowly wean yourself off caffeine without destroying your productivity and mood. I have a spreadsheet to chart out how many grams of caffeinated/decaffeinated coffee grounds (and teabags) I'm allowing myself.
Over time, decrease the caf and increase the decaf.
Last time I looked I couldn't find decaf that didn't have significant amounts of caffeine in it. The lowest amount of caffeine I could find was a product that said it had about half as much caffeine as regular coffee. Has that changed?
If you're interested in a brief 'story' of caffeine - its roots and history leading up to its role in society today, check out Michael Pollan's 'Caffeine: How Caffeine Created the Modern World' audiobook.
It's a short listen (by audiobook standards at least) and explores the the 'good', the 'bad' and everything in between of caffeine and coffee, often using himself as a lab rat to test theories that he comes across in his research.
The one thing that interests me in this piece is the bit about cadmium and heavy metals and the references at the bottom don't seem to list a study pertinent to this.
I've used "search page" and I've skimmed through all the titles, but I have crap eyesight. So maybe I'm missing the reference.
But I would love to see good research relating caffeine or coffee consumption to somehow helping with heavy metal issues.
The initial phrasing about heavy metals sounded to me like it was referring to the brewing process (without being specific as to which one).
At first approximation, I'd be surprised if agitating heated water in the presence of particular matter that increased its acidity, then running it through a fine woven filter, didn't have some net effect.
As for the exact mechanism and efficacy, that's unfortunately buried under 10,000,000 search results for coffee enema products...
I would think the heavy metals bit might be about metals in the coffee itself, from the soil it's grown in. This is common for cacao[0]. What sucks is, iirc, only the EU has limits for cadmium in food imports (or may in the near future?). Beyond that, California requires stuff to have a Proposition 65 label if it's too high in cadmium (but California's limit is significantly higher than what the EU was going to be).
>I'd be surprised if agitating heated water in the presence of particular matter that increased its acidity, then running it through a fine woven filter, didn't have some net effect.
Yeah, I caught that. But I also chalked it up to "the most defensible thing to say." It's part of why I would like to see studies of some sort.
I've done a little googling myself and wasn't thrilled with the results either, which is why I returned to the article to look at its sources to see if I could find a better place to start -- a thread to pull, if you will, to begin to unravel this question. Good sources tend to lead to other good sources, if only by telling you what sorts of phrases to use in your next search.
Coffee is rich in phenols and catechols, molecules with a strong electron reduction potential. Metals are more easily absorbed in the cation (eg Fe+2) state. Food and drink is a primary source of heavy metals for most humans. Reducing agents in the diet would reduce e.g. cadmium and mercury from +2 to the less available metallic state, where it would be excreted.
2) Don't make any claims about effect size (i.e. correlation strength & predictive strength)
You can basically make this point about literally any substance with enough studies on it. Ranging from melatonin to insulin, to idk... probably not mercury? So I guess that's a strike against 1 and 2 being fully generalizable.
The funny thing is caffeine is produced by the plant to try to poison herbivores. It’s a very effective insecticide. So are perhaps most other drugs made by plants.
Eggs and milk are produced to be eaten (by the new organism) and are as close to "stuff produced to be eaten" that you get, perhaps. Super nutrient dense growth broths.
Seeds and legumes are meant to be eaten (by the new plant), but often have anti-plant-eater defenses (like cyanide), including in fruit. Eggs and milk do not seem to have such an analogue.
Fat stores are produced to be eaten (by the host itself), alas.
You can enjoy caffeine and that’s fine. Nothing wrong with that. But it is a drug. Your body does not need caffeine to sustain itself, like it does nutrients.
> You can enjoy black pepper and that’s fine. Nothing wrong with that. But it is a drug. Your body does not need black pepper to sustain itself, like it does nutrients.
A definition of "drug" that counts spices as drugs is probably not a useful definition.
Raw nutmeg is actually a very powerful drug, and even dried ground nutmeg has an interesting long-lasting high if you take enough of it.
I've done it a long time ago... it's really unpleasant to actually consume that much nutmeg, even in gel capsules, but the feeling is pleasant, warm, and hazy. I took it in the middle of the day and started to feel the effects late at night, and then the next morning I woke up sky high. It's a fairly lucid drug with an strong body high, but I don't recommend it!
I did some reading on that a few months ago when a friend was trying to convince me to filter coffee using paper (apparently that remove cafestol and kahweol).
It seems like recent studies have shown more mixed results for these compounds. They can (mildly) increase cholesterol, but are also anti-carcinogenic in the lower intestine and may help to regulate blood sugar.
> Early studies confirmed that coffee diterpenes (especially cafestol), effectively increase human plasma triacylglycerol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL), may be a potential risk of inducing some cardiovascular diseases [7,14]. However, from a more comprehensive perspective, cafestol and kahweol show a remarkable two-faced effect. In addition to the deleterious effects on serum lipid levels and liver enzymes in some cases, extensive studies have demonstrated that cafestol and kahweol exhibit a wide variety of pharmacological activities, including anti-inflammatory, anti-angiogenic and anti-tumorigenic properties.
I love caffeine and coffee! I used to drink two to three cups per day but for the last 6 months I’ve been feeling rather unwell when taking it; I start getting sweaty hands, shakes, heart palpitations, and start feeling sick and anxious shortly afterwards. I would love to be able to keep drinking coffee but the price is now too high! I have been drinking decaf coffee which is okay but I miss the real thing. If anyone knows a way I scan keep my caffeine buzz without the above I’d love to know...
I wonder if you have some cardiovascular problem like hyptertension or coronary artery disease. Not trying to scare you! It sounds like you are becoming more sensitive to caffeine in general but many of these symptoms could be due to high blood pressure
Drinking coffee without adding l-theanine has always made me jittery and hyperactive. I recommend trying it. It's what makes the caffeine buzz from matcha/green tea better than coffee's.
FWIW, 200mg of L-Theanine is included in my workout recovery supplement. Research seems sparse but here's what they say about it: (scroll down, click ingredients tab) https://athleanx.com/athleanrx/reconstruxion
Check your condition- are you getting enough sleep, food, water? Are you consuming it late in the day and reducing your sleep quality? What about your dose, has it grown?
I experience the worst side effects when I've been fasting too long, or drink it late in the day.
If caffeine is so good for us and not simply the drug that it is why do I feel so lousy for at least 2 weeks after giving it up? There is most definitely a withdrawal effect. Furthermore this article muddies the water between caffeine and coffee. How many of the listed benefits are due to the non-caffeine elements within coffee?
By that logic, giving up water for two weeks would lead to withdrawal effects. Does that make it bad? Not defending caffeine, only pointing out poor logic.
I posit that you, sir/madam, are the one exhibiting poor logic. Giving up water for two weeks would lead to death. That's hardly the same as temporary mild withdrawal symptoms of coffee.
That is the difference between a drug/supplement like caffeine, and an essential nutrient like water or vitamin C.
The logic is not poor at all, for quite mundane reasons. Giving up water will kill you, while giving up caffeine for enough time means it is no longer needed (and it is also, quite obviously, not needed for people who don't drink it already).
I feel kind of lousy if I stop daily workouts but then I get used the new schedule/metabolism after a few weeks. Caffeine might be bad but I don't find this argument perfectly compelling.
I am an avid coffee drinker and a former cigarette smoker. While I won't deny that caffeine is addictive, the addictive power is so mild that it's mostly irrelevant. I skip having coffee on some days accidentally. The idea of accidentally going a day without smoking a cigarette is unfathomable. The times I've gone without coffee for a few days or weeks I have felt a little bit sluggish. The times I have gone days or weeks without smoking were nightmarish ordeals that consumed my every waking thought. Point being, I would be very careful to assume things about 'addiction' when it's a phenomenon comes in so many shapes and sizes.
I'll match your single sample of anecdata as a previous smoker from the midwest and occasional coffee drinker:
I never found nicotine addictive. It never compelled me to increase my consumption beyond a few cigarettes a day, usually in social settings. I never became a regular purchaser of cartons of cigarettes. It was purely a social activity as most my peers were smokers and participating in the smoke breaks was a huge part of socializing. But it never escalated beyond that, there was simply no draw and stopping cold-turkey was completely uneventful with zero physiological effects.
Coffee however, has such a profoundly stimulating effect on me, it completely derails my life for days after a lone day of consumption. It's a very on-vs-off modal existence, and if I fall into the on mode for more than a couple contiguous days, I begin craving it and actively seeking it out. And when I manage to finally resist those cravings, I end up going through ~three days of hangover-like withdrawal hell which if I'm not up for enduring will just push me back on the wagon to make it stop.
For me, coffee/caffeine is far more sinister and addictive than cigarettes.
Without disputing your personal experience, the parents anecdote is reflective of how most people experience the addictive qualities of nicotine vs caffeine.
"Conclusion: Dependence to traditional cigarettes and snus seem to be relatively similar while NR (nicotine replacement) was rated lower and coffee lowest."
The difference between my anecdote and yours is that everything I said is backed up by volumes of medical literature and everything you said sounds like you have a rare sensitivity to caffeine.
Purely anecdotal, but for me it was the other way around. Last January, for my New Years Resolution, I kicked my pack-a-day-equivalent e-cigarette addiction. Three to four days of feeling anxious, some weird eating habits, a few headaches, but I still felt fairly productive. In February, I tried to quit coffee. Nonstop headaches for the week, complete inability to keep to a sleep cycle, and the worst irritability I've ever had. (I was at ~3 cups/day prior to quitting) Everyone is different - and some people do have quite terrible caffeine addictions.
I suppose if my office gave out free cigarettes and the whole team grabbed one after lunch, I would have had a harder time quitting too. Caffeine is so ingrained into my work life that it's impossible to escape from.
What definition of addiction are you going by? Most seem to include some mention of 'despite adverse effects' or similar. Otherwise isn't it just dependence?
I don't know. I can feel a slight dependence on caffeine if I have been drinking a lot during some weeks and then stopping cold turkey (slight headache, possibly slightly more tired in a day or two) but it does not feel very addictive.
For a long period of time I only drank coffee during the week and not weekends, sometimes I stopped some summers and when I slept badly I stopped drinking coffee for a while. No problem at all with any of that.
I do like like the small energy burst in the morning when I'm working and I like the ritual when it is winter in Sweden it is dark and cold outside and you are freezing, then drinking a cup of coffee as you start up your computer is nice.
I have cycled between heavy consumption and no coffee intake at all. On the first few days I often had headaches and felt slightly depressive (I'm pretty much never feeling depressive otherwise) and unproductive. After a week or so off of caffeine I start to feel great until I restart my coffee habit (the first few days are amazing; it just tastes too good; it is social to drink coffee with friends, family and coworkers; etc.)
I think in particular with coffee there is if anything the opposite cultural bias. Being German, there's a popular Canon (loosely translated)
"don't drink coffee, coffee!
The Turkish potion is not for kids,
weakens the nerves, makes you pale and sick.
Don't be a muselman (muslim, archaic),
who can't do without it"
My almost 90 year old grandmother still talks like this about coffee and many people forget nowadays how bad of a reputation coffee had in the West until it got really popular, and despite not having many obvious bad health effects, and maybe even having positive ones.
that's surprising and I guess you're relatively young and don't have kids because I've actually still heard it sung by kids in kindergarden. There's also Bach's coffee Cantata in a similar vein, and quite a lot of fiction dictated to the allegedly detrimental effects of drinking coffee.
And sadly often a lot of it is tied to the image of the "sickly Turk" which is a popular stereotype attached to most things imported from 'oriental' cultures. You may remember debates about the hookah craze a decade ago or so.
Coffee and caffeine are not mutually exclusive. Coffee is one of the best drinks for antioxidants (without milk). Caffeine in large quantities is bad for the health. Moderate and experiment.
People who aren’t super healthy don’t typically feel like drinking lots of caffeine. I think that’s a more likely explanation than caffeine having tons of assorted health benefits.
Coffee is a social drink in many countries, and associated with relaxation, meeting people, being creative. And it has been like that since the first coffee houses...
As someone with acid reflux caffeine is like nuclear waste. I never drank coffee or tea at all until my mid 30s. Now I have GERD and still drink it, I should stop.
When I read "it helps with this" "it prevents this", I always ask "but at what cost". Can an exogenous molecule that was so adaptive be missed this bad and now consuming it will just fill that gap we had for millions of years?
Let's not kid ourselves. Concentrated caffeine is a drug and not a nutrient. We drink it because it is psychoactive and we habituate to it. Try drinking redbull as a caffeine-naive person or not drinking coffee as a daily drinker. If an exogenous substance is that potent, it is a drug. (Even though I like it myself too, it is also pretty shit of a drug in my opinion, with 5 hr half-life, a dice roll every time whether it is gonna create more sleep than focus and a steep tolerance curve.) Magic mushrooms also have nutritional value, nicotine also has some benefits, beer has tons of calories, they might even have adaptive value with occasional use. You might enjoy them, you might drink coffee everyday. That is fine. But they are all drugs and not nutrients.