Caffeine Addiction is a Well-Defined Condition
At first, nearly everyone will answer “no” to the above question. After all, Just about anything in moderation – even arsenic – is o.k, right? We all understand that when it comes to diet and health, everything is dose-related.
With more serious inquiry, however, two important facts arise:
- Since caffeine is addictive, moderation is extremely difficult.
- What is “moderate” differs widely from person to person. In fact, it may be impossible to define.
Importantly, these points are not merely opinions. Caffeine addiction, also called “caffeinism,” is a well-defined condition as described in psychiatric and medical journals. This research is carefully cited in my book, Caffeine Blues (Warner Books, 1998).
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I cannot take caffeine . Not because of some religious promise, or personal bias . Caffeine adversely affects one of the medications that I take.
I cannot eat chocolate , drink coffee, tea, or any caffeinated drink.
In the past, I have. The drinks are good; dont get me wrong . For my own health I cannot drink them at all. And I dearly miss the chocolate. But I want to stay out of the hospital.
I dare anyone who claims that caffeine is your friend to quit cold turkey. Depending how many oz. of caffeine you consume daily, you might get be able to go a couple of days. Caffeine in small doses is harmless enough, but I think if most of us were honest with ourselves, we'd agree that if we could hook ourselves up to our morning coffee intravenously, we would.
First off, many people regard caffeine as some kind of stimulant, when it's actually an inhibitor. Adenosine is the neurotransmitter in charge of letting your body know it's time to rest. When you feel tired, it's because adenosine is binding to your nerve cells. To a nerve cell, caffeine looks like adenosine. Caffeine therefore binds to the adenosine receptor. However, it doesn't slow down the cell's activity like adenosine would. As a result, the cell can no longer identify adenosine because caffeine is taking up all the receptors that adenosine would normally bind to. Instead of slowing down because of the adenosine's effect, the nerve cells speed up.
So now you have increased nerve cell activity, and when the pituitary gland senses all the activity, it automatically thinks there is an emergency going on, so it secretes adrenaline. That's why you get all pumped up. This pumped up feeling seems good, but in reality, it raises your blood pressure, and overworks your liver and your heart. And being in a constant state of arousal is incredibly harsh on your nervous system.
Not only that, but caffeine manipulates dopamine production which makes you feel good. Short term, this is fine, but long term it can lead to depression (even severe depression, depending on how much you ingest.)
The #1 flaw in caffeine consumption (even moderately) is that the effects of caffeine take 12 hours to wear off. So even if you're finished with your morning java by 10 am, if you go to bed by 9 pm, you're still missing out on some serious REM. Which means that the next morning you'll be needing more caffeine. This is why 90% of Americans drink at least one cup of coffee every day. That's not moderation - that is addiction, and frankly, it's self-inflicted.
Don't get me wrong - I've had my fair share of all-nighters that were made possible by copious amounts of caffeinated beverages, but I'm not an idiot, either. Pumping your system full of chemicals on a daily basis in an attempt to bypass normal bodily functions (I.E. sleep) just seems like a bad idea in general.
Addiction to a substance that is not harmful doesn't matter. So who cares?
Caffeine actually inhibits the muscle contraction of sphincters, which might seem trivial, but it's not. The sphincters in your stomach keep hydrochloric acid from oozing into the rest of your GI tract, which isn't built to withstand an acidic environment. Your lower esophageal sphincter is especially affected by caffeine, and if that little guy isn't kept nice and tight, you could get HCl gas seeping up into your esophagus - which can actually lead to esophageal cancer. And just for the record, it's a really horrifying way to go. Think oral cancer in your throat.
Not trying to scare you into putting down that cup of joe - but it's not harmless.
That can be a problem but varies from person to person. If you have the problem it is obvious as it causes a lot of discomfort (heart burn/indigestion). Personally I don't have the problem and besides, the vast number of people affected by this are "heavy", not moderate coffee drinkers. High fat foods cause that problem with me so I simply avoid those kinds of foods. At one time I was a "heavy" coffee drinker but was forced to cut back because it was causing irregular heart beats. There are many things that we do that can have harmful consequences such as driving a car. We can't live in a bubble so we have to balance the benefits vs risks.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/esophageal-cancer/DS00500/DSECTION =causes
Tbcass, you're losing this argument badly. Your responses are based in emotion, personal opinion, and anecdote, but an argument like this requires a scientific discussion. While I'm sure everyone is happy to honor your personal experiences, please be careful not to extrapolate that to the general public.
I am a board-certified otolaryngologist with decades of experience treating reflux disease, and I'm here to tell you that acid reflux is a silent epidemic that Starbucks et al would really prefer that you don't hear about. Livvy is unfortunately spot-on concerning the effect of caffeine (and nicotine as well for that matter) on the lower esophageal sphincter, and your statement that "if you have the problem it is obvious" is absolutely wrong. In fact, by some estimates, and in my experience performing endoscopy on patients with myriad upper airway diseases related to this condition, well over half of patients who suffer from significant reflux don't complain of the traditional acid sensation, substernal discomfort, or so-called " water brash". Instead, predominant complaints can include any of the following: a sense of something stuck in the throat, dry cough, raspy/hoarse voice (especially upon arising in the morning), postnasal drip, frequent throat clearing, some difficulty with swallowing, and so forth. Although obesity is a risk factor for reflux, the VAST majority of the patients that I see with this condition are not obese. Furthermore, reflux that only makes it into the esophagus (and not all the way to the larynx) may have none of the associated symptoms described above, but will still increase the risk of Barrett's esophagus and esophageal malignancy.
Hopefully that cleared things up a little.
I am well aware that caffeine has deleterious effects on some people and those people should avoid caffeine. It is also a fact that for most people there are benefits to moderate consumption caffeine and several scientific studies bare this out as it increases mental alertness and could lower your risk of diabetes , Parkinson's disease, and colon cancer , could lift your mood and treat headaches and could lower your risk of cavities?. The following is excerpted from the following web site.
http://men.webmd.com/features/coffee-new-health-food
" In recent decades, some 19,000 studies have been done examining coffee's impact on health . And for the most part, their results are as pleasing as a gulp of freshly brewed Breakfast Blend for the 108 million Americans who routinely enjoy this traditionally morning -- and increasingly daylong -- ritual. In practical terms, regular coffee drinkers include the majority of U.S. adults and a growing number of children .
"Overall, the research shows that coffee is far more healthful than it is harmful," says Tomas DePaulis, PhD, research scientist at Vanderbilt University's Institute for Coffee Studies, which conducts its own medical research and tracks coffee studies from around the world. "For most people, very little bad comes from drinking it, but a lot of good."
Consider this: At least six studies indicate that people who drink coffee on a regular basis are up to 80% less likely to develop Parkinson's, with three showing the more they drink, the lower the risk. Other research shows that compared to not drinking coffee, at least two cups daily can translate to a 25% reduced risk of colon cancer, an 80% drop in liver cirrhosis risk, and nearly half the risk of gallstones.
Coffee even offsets some of the damage caused by other vices, some research indicates. "People who smoke and are heavy drinkers have less heart disease and liver damage when they regularly consume large amounts of coffee compared to those who don't," says DePaulis.
There's also some evidence that coffee may help manage asthma and even control attacks when medication is unavailable, stop a headache, boost mood, and even prevent cavities."
Actually it is only your personal bias that led you to believe I was losing the argument. The OP seems to feel that nobody should consume any caffeine at all. I pointed out to her and will say to you that if an individual that does not suffer negative consequences from caffeine then go for it. As for your being an otolaryngologist I believe that gives you a skewed and unrealistic view of the effects of caffeine to the general public. It's like an auto mechanic who bases his opinions on the number of broken vehicles he sees but doesn't take into account the number of vehicles that are without problems. Are you trying to tell me that nobody should drink coffee because some suffer negative consequences? It isn't like smoking where there are proven, common life threatening conditions that are caused by smoking. Besides esophageal malignancy which is quite rare (only about 16000 cases diagnosed a year or .005% of the population) the problems associated with Barrett's esophagus are treatable if they are troublesome and are not life threatening. I stand by my opinion that for the majority of us Coffee consumption in moderation does more good than harm. My whole argument about coffee consumption is based on risk vs benefit, not that it is 100% without risk.
"There are many things that we do that can have harmful consequences such as driving a car. We can't live in a bubble so we have to balance the benefits vs risks."
Most of us need to drive cars in order to get from point a to point b. Nobody needs to drink caffeine. Esophageal cancer is obviously a worst case scenario. I don't oppose anything based on one hypothetical scenario. But the reason muscle relaxation occurs during caffeine ingestion is because you're forcing your sympathetic nervous system to switch on (your fight-or-flight response). Being wired like this all the time is TERRIBLE for your entire body. It's hard on your liver, it constricts blood flow to the brain, it raises your blood pressure, and just makes your body overwork itself as a whole.
The major reason I oppose caffeine is because, generally speaking, caffeine is usually not the only thing going into your body when you consume any caffeinated beverage. The top three sources in America for caffeine are all awful for you.
First off - soda. Sure, coke and pepsi only have about one third the amount of caffeine found in coffee, and they even have non-sugary substitutes to take out all that nasty corn syrup. Unfortunately all sodas are bubbly because of CO2. Carbon dioxide is a waste product, and your body works very hard to keep it out of your system, so when you drink soda for caffeine you're doing a number on the chemical composition of your innards.
Second - energy drinks. That stuff is poison. Not only does this product also have way too much CO2, but originally the source for taurine (an active ingredient in energy drinks) was bull's urea. Hence the brand name Red Bull. Hasn't anybody noticed that taurine has the word "urine" in it by now? Yeah...there's a reason for that.
Finally, coffee. Most Americans do not take their coffee black. If you do, well, caffeine's still bad for you. The average small cappuccino from Starbucks has around 50 grams of sugar in it. Somebody ingesting an average of 48 oz a day is consuming at least 200 grams of sugar - that's twice the recommended daily allowance. I'm going to assume that my example is also consuming other sources of sugar - so they're getting much more than just twice their daily value.
I actually do think that the growing numbers of coffee consumption has a lot to do with the growing numbers of type 2 diabetes in America. Is it because of the caffeine? No. But the reason most of us deal with all the crappy additives in coffee is because we are in pursuit of that fix.
I drink coffee with 1% milk only. I don't drink any of the other garbage you listed. True coffee lovers want as little in their coffee as possible. Personally I don't care what other people drink. If they want to kill themselves that's their business. Remember this is about Caffeine, not sugar or all the other garbage you mentioned.
As for needing to drive a car I say not as much as you think. If we drive to work or to somewhere else we have to be, you are right. However how often do we drive to do something recreational or to visit a friend etc? This is for our personal enjoyment yet we are risking our lives every time we do it. I drink coffee for personal enjoyment. It is far safer than driving a car.
The negative effects of caffeine you mention occur with heavy amounts. This discussion is about moderate amounts. Too much of anything is harmful. Vitamins are necessary for survival but can kill you in excessive amounts. Moderate amounts of alcohol have proven to be beneficial but we all know how harmful excessive drinking can be. You're trying to turn a discussion about moderate amounts of caffeine into a discussion about something completely different.
"The negative effects of caffeine you mention occur with heavy amounts." Absolutely not. When you ingest just one cup of coffee, blood flow to the brain is constricted, and your sympathetic nervous system is switched on. Because in reality, not only are you introducing chemicals into your brain, but you're also pushing out natural chemicals that make you sleepy. So it's a two part process resulting in a doubly effective response.
I don't think it's a change in subject to list the major (almost only) sources of caffeine and then point out that all those sources are filled with even more crap. I think it's slightly moronic that Americans whine and moan about cardiac disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, wah wah wah.... and then guzzle heavy doses of chemicals and then say that it's good for you. The thing about caffeine is, it only aggravates your nervous system. It won't raise your blood pressure today, it won't give you cancer next week. And a great number of people will probably die from other causes before caffeine ever has a chance to really take a toll on their bodies. Does that mean it's safe to drink? Does that mean it's smart? It is a chemical. It is technically, officially, a drug.
About the only thing coffee, soda, and energy drinks are good for is the economy.
There are a lot of things that have IMO insignificantly harmful effects. I feel sorry for you. You must spend a lot of time worrying about every little thing that might hurt you. My mother ate too much of the wrong kinds of food, drank too much alcohol and coffee, smoked cigarettes (2-3 packs a day) and lived a healthy 90 years. My father lived almost as long with a similar lifestyle. Me, I'm 63 and as healthy as a horse (my doctor can't believe my age), I'd rather enjoy life! Ahh, now for another cup of coffee.
63, huh? No wonder you're set in your ways.
First off, 90 years is great and all, but longevity doesn't equal quality of life. Of course, even if your mum didn't have any health problems, tobacco companies touted people like her as examples of why smoking wasn't bad for your health.
Then again, when you were my age, people probably still thought that having a smoke once a day was actually good for your health.
Typical response from a young person who thinks they know it all. I was like you once, naive and idealistic. I am anything but set in my ways and am quite open to new ideas. What I do have is experience and a lifetime of knowledge to draw from. I look at things logically. I have seen new ideas come and go, most of which had little merit. I have seen substance after substance attacked for being harmful to your health only later found to be harmless. I also have a perspective on life that allows me to see that a totally risk free existence is impossible. Caffeine may be bad for a few people but that doesn't mean that everybody should abstain, especially if that that individual isn't harmed by it.
At no time in my life did anybody believe that smoking was anything but harmful. I used my parents as examples to show that even something as harmful as smoking can be relatively harmless to some people. Caffeine is harmless to the vast majority of people. I think it's foolish to try to eliminate every single thing that might have have a remote possibility of doing you harm.
You never did address the automobile issue. How do you justify riding in or driving an automobile for non essential purposes when the possibility of harm or death from doing so is vastly greater than drinking a couple cups of coffee a day? I wouldn't be surprised if there are other things you do that were far more dangerous. Do you go out in public where there are other people? Wow, aren't you afraid of all the diseases you might catch?
Worrying about harmless substances like coffee is a sign of how soft and shallow our society has become. It wasn't that long ago that people were just glad to have enough to eat or weren't dying from infectious diseases. It happens today in Africa. Shouldn't you be worrying more about the Aids epidemic in Africa or people starving than whether or not there is a remote possibility that some benign substance might harm you?
"Typical response from a young person who thinks they know it all. I was like you once, naive and idealistic."
"I look at things logically."
Really? I'd like to point out that I'm the only person in this thread who's actually taken the time to research what caffeine actually does to your body - something that even the "expert" on this subject didn't get around to mentioning. My argument is based on scientific data, yours is based on your own personal opinion.
As for the automobile issue, it's irrelevant. It's like saying consuming 400 grams of sugar a day isn't that bad for you and you should continue doing it because, hey, there's probably a lot worse things you're putting into your body.
And as for calling you an old man - I don't actually think 63 is old. I personally have a strong vendetta against ageism. But when you said "You must spend a lot of time worrying about every little thing that might hurt you." you were just asking for it, weren't you? I mean, you don't even know me. You don't know my motivation for caring about the typical diet of the average American. Maybe I think it's reprehensible that companies try to spoon feed us chemicals and ignore the side effects because their product just happens to be one of the most profitable substances in this country, hmmm? The only reason Americans put up with the side effects of coffee when they're so scathing of things like hydrolyzed oils is because partially hydrogenated oil isn't addictive. I think that's plenty illogical of us.
By the by, I'm not condemning you for drinking what you like. I'm condemning the idea of ignoring facts (I.E. the effects of caffeine on the central nervous system) when the facts don't agree with your opinion. Which is obviously what more than 90% of Americans do when it comes to caffeine.
Frankly, if you drank 8 oz. of straight up, black coffee every morning, I think it would actually be good for you (it would likely decrease your risk for colon cancer ). But come on. How realistic is that? We take this stance of "well if a little is good for you, a lot must be better." I got news for you - just because the typical American drinks 50 oz of coffee a day doesn't make that number moderate. That's at least six times more than anybody needs. Coffee companies know that. The scientists who are paid by coffee companies to back them up definitely know that. And just because they don't come out and say it, doesn't make it not true.
And fyi, just because you're older than me doesn't make you smarter. I'd bet big money that I'm a lot less naive than you think I am.
I know the research and the claims on both sides of the issue. I've come to the conclusion that consumed in moderation caffeine has no significant harmful effects.
Comparing caffeine to hydrolyzed oils is disingenuous. The dangers of hydrolyzed oils are well researched and documented and such oils have no benefit whatsoever whereas caffeine benefits as you stated. The possible risks of hydrolized oils are, IMO, far greater than the risks of drinking coffee.
I said that you must worry about every little thing is because the risks of moderate caffeine consumption are so trivial that I don't understand why you should even care. There are far bigger issues in life.
50oz of coffee a day for the average American? That's a lot and it's more than I drink but if someone want's to drink that much (or more) I could care less. That's their business.
I honestly believe that as a person gets older and assuming they maintain a certain level of intellectual activity and keep up with the times that yes, older people are better able to separate personal feelings from logic and are consequently better able to draw more logical conclusions based on their greater level of experience and are in many ways "smarter". I know I'm a lot smarter than I was 30 years ago.
I don't want to offend you but to me you seem to be a little too concerned with what other people do with their lives. Maybe you should be more concerned with your own life and let people live theirs. You can't control the world.
Don't really know if I'm addicted because I have never tried to quit! 30 years and still going strong.
I average about 48 ozs. a day. I have stopped for several days at a time just to see what would happen with no ill effect.
Moderation is difficult with almost everything we ingest, particularly food. This is like asking about addiction to chocolate. Where do we draw the line and actually enjoy a couple of small vices without so much nit-picking from the government or medical industry? I think this is all about control.
I don't think it is "controlling" to ask the food and beverage industry to disclose the caffeine content of their products. This would AT LEAST give Americans a chance to tally up their caffeine intake and get a sense of how it may be affecting them. In the last six months, seven NEW caffeinated "energy" drinks came to nation-wide markets, including some that do not even LIST caffeine. Instead, they list GUARANINE, which in fact does not exist. Guaranine is CAFFEINE as found in the herb guarana. These scams harm people who may be trying to avoid caffeine, but are told that the product is better or safer because it contains guaranine. Same thing for "Mateine." I blew the whistle on that scam 10 yers ago as being nothing more than caffeine derived from the herb Mate'.
I'm tired of people like you who want to control the harmless habits of other people. I've been drinking coffee for 45 years without ill effect. Why do you care? Get off your high horse and stick it up your a... Your no expert. Your an advocate.
He was known for his voracious appetite for coffee and it's said he drank up to two gallons a day (it's also said he didn't sleep much, what a surprise) - but when asked if he thought coffee was a slow poison, he's alleged to have replied, "I think it must be, for I've been drinking it for forty years and am not yet dead!"
While nothing is totally harmless, especially when consumed in excess, all evidence points to coffee being quite benign and it's good points out weigh it's bad. To point out a few potential ill effects from excessive coffee drinking doesn't justify such advocacy against it's use. It's like someone advocating restricting the use of cars because so many people die or are injured in car accidents. Everything carries some risk. We can't live in a bubble.
The expert in question is not crying to control other people, he is simply asking that companies provide us with more information about the products we consume. He is not advocating anything except the people's ability to make informed choices - how is that a bad thing?
He is helping you to remain in control, not taking it from you.
That's the first step toward more and more regulation. Caffeine in moderate amounts is harmless. Everything is harmful in excessive quantities. As all the truly harmful things are now regulated the health Fascists are now looking for new game. We have a society and government that wants to control everything. Read Orwell's 1984. All this energy , and money would be better spent on helping starvation in poor countries or stamping out Aids.
No one here is promoting an Orwellian society ... anyone that has made it this far into the comments is here because they have concerns about their own health or that of their loved ones. While I wholeheartedly support your argument against increasing government regulation, as a physician I see the harmful effects of misleading propaganda from those who would make a profit from your miseducation on a daily basis; forums like this are about the only way that the public has to educate themselves on the "real story". After you've learned what you can here, you're free to go do whatever you want... that's the beauty of a free society. Little guys like me just want you- all of you- to know what those who have no profit motive have to say about your health.
"No one here is promoting an Orwellian society "
I run into people all the time on these forums who promote government control over our personal lives. The fact that she never once suggested she thought it was all right for me to drink coffee or anyone else who suffers no negative consequences suggests she believes that no one should drink coffee and possibly even believes that government control is necessary (like tobacco ).
I was referring to Livvy not Stephen Cherniske. My mistake. Stephen Cherniske only wants disclosure of what's in our food and drink. With that I am in 100% agreement.