What to know about new research on coffee and heart risks

Because the study was performed in a small number of people over a short period of time, the results don’t necessarily apply to the general population...

However, the study is consistent with others that have found coffee is safe and it offers a rare controlled evaluation of caffeine’s effect, Kao added.

This is an important part of the results that sometimes gets skipped in the news, scientific conclusions, guidelines and recommendations are not decided because of single reports, even if they are well done and with large number of people, because each study has its own weakenesses and strenghts. The important part is how all the different studies made about something relate to and complement each other.

However, the study is consistent with others that have found coffee is safe and it offers a rare controlled evaluation of caffeine’s effect, Kao added.

Good to know that the conclusions of this study are consistent with the conclusion of other similar studies.

Naturally, through the scientific method, conclusions are produced from single studies.

This is a basic practice and understanding in the scientific field.

What is important is the result found.

Naturally, through the scientific method, conclusions are produced from single studies.

Generalized conclusions? no, that is the opposite of what the expert at the end of the article is talking about. Single studies only give a limited view of the situation, so it is only when many different are considered and their different approaches compared is when an actual conclusion can be drawn.

What is important is the result found.

Not at all, it is also important what method was followed to get those results, the degrees of freedom of their research and how the authors discuss the rest of the evidence available, specially anything that can be considered contradictory, else the results become much less valuable and could even be discarded.

There are many sources that explain in detail why single studies are not enough to terminantly conclude things and instead the whole of the related literature is necessary.

https://idronline.org/single-studies-cannot-inform-policy-making/

This is the reason why the conclusions made by the authors are not generalized and they specifically apply them only to the participants of their study and use a very messurated language to .

Sorry, They use a very measured language to express what they found.

Consumption of caffeinated coffee was not associated with a change in the number of daily premature atrial contractions among participants. Findings from secondary analyses that should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating suggest that coffee consumption may be associated with more premature ventricular contractions and more physical activity but less sleep. No apparent relationship between coffee consumption and serum glucose levels was observed. These findings suggest protean health-related consequences of consuming this common beverage and provide both clinicians and patients with information that may assist in customizing consumption of coffee to appropriately fit with individual health goals.

I ♡ coffee.

But they have been shown to predict a potentially dangerous heart condition called atrial fibrillation.

I am one who suffers from A-FIB at an early age(Surgicaly FIXED). Its great to know that this beast is also a contributer to A-FIB. I would stay away from(coffee and and all stimulants including red bull) it and also away from over time work and getting misserable over nothing you have control over and lowering your booze intake. My advice as a A-FIB survivor.

 And it found that people tend to walk more and sleep less on the days they drank coffee.

That would seem to be self evident.

Its great to know that this beast is also a contributer to A-FIB.

Two sentences before the one you quote it is clearly written the opposite

Researchers found that drinking caffeinated coffee did not result in more daily episodes of extra heartbeats, known as premature atrial contractions.

The PAC are the ones that contribute to atrial fibrillation, but since coffee do not increase the PAC frequency that obviously means it does not increase the fibrillation either.

COFFEE!!! Nature's own remedy for the horror of senescence and, like Hemp, there is MUCH MORE in the molecular spectrum of the coffee bean that is physiologically beneficial than just the 'star' molecule. And not a few large nutritional studies have found coffee to have a positive, if maybe modest, effect on longevity and, certainly, on 'quality of life' in the elderly. Just an extra "thousand steps a day", according to current recommendations, would result is a health benefit. But, beware of the bovine lard with which so many choose to adulterate their holy bean extract, and remember that caffeine is the 'accelerator' but SUCROSE is the 'gasoline' and hypoglycemia may be the 'shakes' that the carbohydrate-starved experience when they drink coffee. The Human nervous system is a very greedy beast particularly when stimulated... also, for some interesting reading especially for Americans, Google: coffee drinkers thinner

Researchers found that drinking caffeinated coffee did not result in more daily episodes of extra heartbeats, known as premature atrial contractions. 

This is an interesting conclusion from this study.

Good to know the experts give us the green light on this.

Good to know the experts give us the green light on this.

Repeating the same misrepresentation of the conclusion do not make it less false, the actual conclusions of the article do not green light anything and they are clearly very careful to say further research is necessary and that their data applies only to the people included in the study, not in general, it is easy to just copy past them again to see how they completely contradict what both accounts misinterpret about them

*Consumption of caffeinated coffee was not associated with a change in the number of daily premature atrial contractions among participants. Findings from secondary analyses that should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating suggest that coffee consumption may be associated with more premature ventricular contractions and more physical activity but less sleep. No apparent relationship between coffee consumption and serum glucose levels was observed. These findings suggest protean health-related consequences of consuming this common beverage and provide both clinicians and patients with information that may assist in customizing consumption of coffee to appropriately fit with individual health goals.*

It's very important to take an hour break at work and not encourage people just to drink a cup of coffee.

Repeating the same misrepresentation of the conclusion do not make it less false, the actual conclusions of the article do not green light anything and they are clearly very careful to say further research is necessary and that their data applies only to the people included in the study, not in general, it is easy to just copy past them again to see how they completely contradict what both accounts misinterpret about them

Actually, the article refers to a scientific study that concluded:

drinking caffeinated coffee did not significantly affect one kind of heart hiccup that can feel like a skipped beat.

This is a straight forward article, and the study is also easy to read, with easy to understand scientific conclusions. Which makes sense, as a scientific study was performed.

Actually, the article refers to a scientific study that concluded:

drinking caffeinated coffee did not significantly affect one kind of heart hiccup that can feel like a skipped beat.

No, it does not, I have already quoted the actual conclusions of the article, something you have made absolutely no effort to argue against, which means they are the much more valid and correct conclusions without any misrepresentation as you tried to do.

What is the point of just repeating something that is clearly contradicted by the authors of the actual scientific report? do you think you know more about their conclusions than they do? because that makes no sense.

This is a straight forward article, and the study is also easy to read, with easy to understand scientific conclusions. Which makes sense, as a scientific study was performed.

Yet, when those conclusions are copy-pasted here you simply pretend not being able to read them, if it is so easy to understand according to you, why is your argument based on ignoring them?

I read the study. The researchers made conclusions, simple as that. Drinking caffeinared coffee did not affect one type of heartbeat. How or why anyone is trying to dispute this conclusion is just plain ignorance of not only science but also of elementary reading.

I read the study. The researchers made conclusions

Except those are not the conclusions commenters are claiming here, you can read those conclusions here in this article because I have already included them, the authors clearly say their findings can't be generalized and that more studies are necessary, there is no way to pretend they did not wrote explicitly contradicting the claims made here.

So, how is it that you dispute those conclusions? are you criticizing yourself in your comment?