Against Caffeine

[Harbal]

Conversely, a penguin could also end up hitting an innocent by-stander out of the way of an incoming car, so when measuring implausibilities, you need to weigh them out to the positives ones as well.

I think you used up your quota of implausibilities in your last post.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Conversely, a penguin could also end up hitting an innocent by-stander out of the way of an incoming car, so when measuring implausibilities, you need to weigh them out to the positives ones as well.

I think you used up your quota of implausibilities in your last post.

Well my point is that when considering an implausible event that is very unlikely to occur, it could also be that something good will come from it as well, hence why the concern is not worth it even if granted.

[Gloominary]

@Sir Suck

They could be playing a game of 4 dimensional chess. They could be playing a game of 5 dimensional chess to fool those such as yourself who would think that such a limit would just be there for added-plausibility, and they really aren't corrupt. Maybe your brain lacks imagination because you're not considering that? Or maybe, we should come to a conclusion where evidence and reasoning actually lead. I see absolutely no evidence to think that 'Big Pharma' is colluding with these companies to cover up the adverse effects of caffeine, in a fact I have reasons to think against that.

The point is you said it was impossible, or highly unlikely the FDA would set any kind of limit on coffee if the FDA cared more about making big coffee profits than health, and I swiftly demonstrated your claim is false.
It's not rocket science, it doesn't require mental gymnastics or twists of logic to say that downplaying something's negativity a little-some is easier to get away with than downplaying a thing's negativity a lot-completely.
While that in and of itself doesn't prove the game is rigged, it does demonstrate it'd make sense to set some sort of limit, so the public would assume they're doing their job, when in fact they're still grossly negligent.

This isn't just about conspiracy, 80-90% of the scientists who conduct these experiments are probably caffeine addicts themselves, so many of them may have a bias.

Some of them may even care a little about our health, so they'll set some limits, but at the end of the day making big coffee profits is still their primary objective.

You're assuming what 'tastes bad' for us tastes bad to an animal, and from that assumption you're also assuming that most things that do taste bad are harmful, in order to make a point off your assumption that most drugs also 'taste bad', and again I don't really know what you mean by that. I'm not sure if most animals actually have a perception of what 'tastes bad' in the sense that we do, and I don't think you're qualified to make such a claim either. I'm inclined to think it's more instinctual, but whatever. We'll leave it at that.

Yea right, humans are the only animal beings who use taste to determine what's edible, or have a sense of pleasure, all the other animals exclusively use instinct.
Very implausible thinking, you speak and think of the other animals as if we weren't animals.
We know animals use taste and smell to determine what's edible and not.

The point about some of them having different tastes and thus reacting to different plants and things differently based on different nutritional requirements and what constitutes toxins for their bodies is moot.

All the animals use their all their senses and instincts to determine what's good/bad, for them, and while they're not perfect, they have to be better than not most of the time, or they and their faulty senses and intuitions will perish with them, that's natural selection.

If you were in the wild, and taste is all you had to go on, and you had no knowledge of the flora and fauna, you would be wise, not to trust your senses completely, but to generally eat more of what tasted good and avoid what tasted bad.

Yea right, chimps getting drunk in the wild is evidence drugs have been 'ingrained in our psychology' for a long time, and so are presumably good for us.
Are you now saying alcohol is a good drug?

No, that is not why I brought it up. You asked me if we lived in a 'pro-drug' world, and I provided it as a piece of nuance that while we ourselves may very well be, the legislature and cultural influence around the world is not.

How does this right here have anything to do with what you said about chimps and alcohol?

I think you should tell me, as you're the one saying it's apparently a big problem in our world. They could get to their destination and calm themselves down, pull off to the side, go back, etc. I don't doubt that in a hypothetical situation caffeine could have an adequate responsibility for getting someone into a car accident, but I also don't doubt that in a hypothetical universe, a giant tornado in Antarctica could sweep up all the penguins in a sort of penguinado and hurl them at someone while they're driving, and committing a mass penguin genocide could be a solution to this issue; It just would not be a good one to what is already an implausible and exceedingly rare concern.

Let's invent a thought experiment we unfortunately don't have the resources to carry out.
Let's say we have two groups of people.
The first group is injected with something that induces a panic attack (or 15 cups of coffee), the second group is given nothing, now the two groups must drive a vehicle through an obstacle course.
All other factors being equal, which group would you think would perform better?

We can argue the merits of low doses of coffee over a long term, but there's no question high doses make people more-less mentally, emotionally unstable, volatile, such a state isn't good for executing any task, let alone driving.

Sure, some individuals might recognize they're having a panic attack and get off the road, but sometimes panic attacks creep up on you, you don't realize it until it's too late, or you're too mentally far gone to realize just how mentally far gone you are, but even if only a few individuals failed to recognize they were having one, that's still going to increase the number of car accidents.

[Gloominary]

People feel often listless and under the weather.
Coffee or some other drug (Red Bull, coke etc.) can make them active again.

Taking caffeine away without offering another effective remedy will not work.

What can people do to get the same effect as coffeine ?

1. Watch a horror movie ?
2. Jump up and down for about 500 times ?
3. ...

People feel under the weather in part because of coffee.
Coffee rousing people more than their body is naturally inclined can harm it in the long.
People often get a more shallow sleep than they otherwise would, and experience withdrawals the next day, thus coffee causes or amplifies the problems it temporarily alleviates.
The body tends to wear down from over-stimulation, and gradually overtime, the withdrawals worsen, and soon you're taking the drug just to feel normal, nevermind get an extra boost.
If you want an extra lift you're going to have to take increasingly higher doses which'll cause even more side/negative effects.

If you're looking for an extra boost, you can take more time out to eat better and drink more water.
Eat some fruits, or drink some juice or eat some honey, these things'll give you some pep with no-fewer repercussions.
Some people take supplements, but myself I don't.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

The point is you said it was impossible, or highly unlikely the FDA would set any kind of limit on coffee if the FDA cared more about making big coffee profits than health, and I swiftly demonstrated your claim is false.
It's not rocket science, it doesn't require mental gymnastics or twists of logic to say that downplaying something's negativity a little-some is easier to get away with than downplaying a things negativity a lot-completely.

I never said it was impossible, it's just not the more likely option; Your alternate explanation doesn't dismiss the fact that it's still evidence against the suggestible motive, because any single motive can be dismissed with accusations that they're just using advanced reasoning. You have to go with the option that actually has the evidence to support it, and to put it bluntly, there is none that the FDA or Big Pharma is colluding with caffeine manufacturers.

I made a point that it's also possible that the FDA is one-upping you in a case of reverse-reverse phychology in an attempt to trick someone like you into thinking their limit is only there to downplay because they knew that you would think that limit is there to downplay; This is as possible what you purport the FDA is doing.

This isn't just about conspiracy, 80-90% of the scientists who conduct these experiments are probably caffeine addicts themselves, they have a bias.
Some of them might even care a little about our health, so they'll set some limits, but at the end of the day making big coffee profits is still their primary objective.

Conversely, a lot of the data you propose can't be trusted because you have an extreme bias against caffeine? No one is addicted to caffeine in this extreme meth-esqe way that you purport. You need to stop it, it's simply not align with reality. Even if all the studies on caffeine are bias, it's not to say the reverse of the findings are true, or even accurate. Regardless, that's not really the type of bias to watch out for in a scientific study. Mostly it's about business ties that cause concern, and not personal affairs.

...Like the author of the book that you linked to earlier, and his inclination to suggest that caffeine is bad for you based on the fact that he sells his own product that claims to 'negate' the adverse effects of the very substance he claims is this demon. You still haven't disowned 'Dr' Stephen Cherniske, by the way, so I'm still waiting for that.

Yea right, humans are the only animal beings who use taste to determine what's edible, or have a sense of pleasure, all the other animals exclusively use instinct.

I'm not saying they don't have an ability to taste, I just don't think most if any of them have the intricacy to determine to themselves what 'tastes bad' and what 'tastes good', as though they were some sort of connoisseur on the food network. I'm sure it could also be demonstrated that our taste buds differ pretty radically from most other animals, so I don't think we could even project our senses onto them.

How does this right here have anything to do with what you said about chimps and alcohol?

Because whether or not our closest relatives have a similar desire to seek out drugs is relevant to determine if it's a biologically-developed urge? You asked me if I was trying to say alcohol is a good thing, that isn't what I was saying or why I brought it up.

Let's invent a thought experiment we unfortunately don't have the resources to carry out.
Let's say we have two groups of people.
The first group is injected with something that induces a panic attack, the second group is given nothing, now the two groups must drive a vehicle through an obstacle course.
All other factors being equal, which group would you think would perform better?

Your 'experiment' pre-proposes the answer you want. You're ignoring the principle of why it is I'm stating that implausibilities need to be ignored altogether - because there's a very high factor of improbability.

We can argue the merits of low doses of coffee over a long term, but there's no question high doses make people more-less mentally, emotionally unstable, volatile, such a state isn't good for executing any task, let alone driving.

We also know that tornadoes exist, and they could in fact pick up penguins. Maybe we should start working on that penguin genocide?

Except, there's no evidence that either penguinado, or caffeinated driving, is a wide-spread problem, or even a minuscule one that happens occasionally.

[Gloominary]

@Sir Suck

I never said it was impossible, it's just not the more likely option; Your alternate explanation doesn't dismiss the fact that it's still evidence against the suggestible motive, because any single motive can be dismissed with accusations that they're just using advanced reasoning. You have to go with the option that actually has the evidence to support it, and to put it bluntly, there is none that the FDA or Big Pharma is colluding with caffeine manufacturers.

I made a point that it's also possible that the FDA is one-upping you in a case of reverse-reverse phychology in an attempt to trick someone like you into thinking their limit is only there to downplay because they knew that you would think that limit is there to downplay; This is as possible what you purport the FDA is doing.

It's not the more likely option, both are equally likely.

What would the point of 'reverse-reverse' psychology be in this instance?

Money is almost certainly corrupting some of the science, why wouldn't it be?
Scientists are motivated both by love of truth, and love of money.
If there's good points and bad points for and against coffee, but there's only a profit motive for reporting on the good points, the good points are going to be reported on more.
It certainly happened in the past with other big stimulants and substances, and no stimulant or substance is bigger than coffee.
The only real question is, to what extent is this happening?
Our society is generally corrupt, some of the most prestigious scholars will even tell you that, which makes any particular corruption more plausible.

Furthermore, from our collective experience coffee is plainly worse than much of the available science suggests, high doses lead to anxiety/panic attacks, among other negative symptoms, which almost certainly lead to vehicular accidents, among other accidents.
There's also lots of other negative effects we haven't covered in as much detail in this thread.

Lastly, there is also some very well written negative literature on coffee in the alt community.
Some of this community seems to be at odds with government, but since no one has a monopoly on truth, it may turn out they're right and the government is wrong.

Conversely, a lot of the data you propose can't be trusted because you have an extreme bias against caffeine? No one is addicted to caffeine in this extreme meth-esqe way that you purport. You need to stop it, it's simply not align with reality. Even if all the studies on caffeine are bias, it's not to say the reverse of the findings are true, or even accurate. Regardless, that's not really the type of bias to watch out for in a scientific study. Mostly it's about business ties that cause concern, and not personal affairs.

...Like the author of the book that you linked to earlier, and his inclination to suggest that caffeine is bad for you based on the fact that he sells his own product that claims to 'negate' the adverse effects of the very substance he claims is this demon. You still haven't disowned 'Dr' Stephen Cherniske, by the way, so I'm still waiting for that.

I may be biased, you may be, they may be.
But if I'm overly attached to my views, at least it's not because I also have a substance addiction.
I'm not suggesting this alone means all the science on coffee is bunk, but it's going to be more bunk than the science on a drug scientists aren't also addicted to, in all probability.
This, in conjunction with the profit motive, and how the system arguably idolizes/requires this fight/flight mode to perpetuate itself, means coffee will tend to be placed in a positive light rather than looked at objectively.

...Like the author of the book that you linked to earlier, and his inclination to suggest that caffeine is bad for you based on the fact that he sells his own product that claims to 'negate' the adverse effects of the very substance he claims is this demon. You still haven't disowned 'Dr' Stephen Cherniske, by the way, so I'm still waiting for that.

I don't trust government institutions sufficiently to conclude anything about Cherniske.
It was a well written book, it resonated with me and my experiences and the experiences of people I've talked to, and I don't even remember him mentioning anything about supplements in the book.

I'm not saying they don't have an ability to taste, I just don't think most if any of them have the intricacy to determine to themselves what 'tastes bad' and what 'tastes good', as though they were some sort of connoisseur on the food network. I'm sure it could also be demonstrated that our taste buds differ pretty radically from most other animals, so I don't think we could even project our senses onto them.

And that ability to smell and taste, millions of cells and nerve endings, obviously evolved to give animals and human animals survival advantages, and animals and manimals, uncorrupted by civliization, will tend to avoid things like drugs/poisons, and tend to be attracted to what's food for them.
Whether they derive pleasure from it or not is a moot point, we're discussing its utility, in regards to survival.
That being said, I don't see why you have to be a connoisseur to know whether you enjoy a sensation or not, babies can do that, and I'm sure cats and dogs can too. Seems like you're out of touch with your own sensations.

[Gloominary]

If you think driving with an anxiety/panic attack and all the other, mostly negative symptoms associated with high doses of caffeine is probably just as good as driving sober, and if you think suggesting it's worse than driving sober is akin to something fantastical like suggesting coffee gives penguins the ability to fly, than I don't know what more to tell you except: you're plain delusional on this.

[Gloominary]

People want to hear good things about caffeine, since everyone is addicted, they don't want to hear bad things.
They're going to go to the doctors that tell them good things, they're going read the literature that tells them good things, they're going to subscribe to the journals, magazines, newspapers, websites and so on that publish good things.
Now while that in and of itself doesn't prove coffee is actually this sinister drug, it does mean we're probably being fed a somewhat sugarcoated reality of it at least.

At the very, very, very least driving while having a caffeine induced panic attack (symptoms: a feeling of intense fear, terror, or anxiety, trouble breathing or very fast breathing, chest pain or tightness, a heartbeat that races or isn't regular, sweating, nausea or upset stomach, dizziness and shaking...), or driving during severe caffeine withdrawal (symptoms: headaches, sleepiness, irritability, lethargy, depression, lack of concentration...), is just as likely to cause an accident as sobriety (but really we know it's much more likely), so at best it's 50/50, and that's stretching it.
Where as something fantastical like if you take this drug you'll transform into a goat is, if not impossible than next to it, so comparing the two is totally absurd.

[thedoc]

Anyway, that about wraps it up for me, for now.

Promise?

Well I see that you have broken your promise and come back with more BS.

[thedoc]

. . . . . . .

Gloomy, please put on your tinfoil hat before you post anymore. You don't want the caffeine rays to effect your brain.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

What would the point of 'reverse-reverse' psychology be in this instance?

Maybe they're just pulling a prank on people like you? Can you show me how there necessarily isn't a point?

Money is almost certainly corrupting some of the science, why wouldn't it be?
Scientists are motivated both by love of truth, and love of money.
If there's good points and bad points for and against coffee, but there's only a profit motive for reporting on the good points, the good points are going to be reported on more.
It certainly happened in the past with other big stimulants and substances, and no stimulant or substance is bigger than coffee.

I don't doubt that institutions being corrupted is a possibility and has happened, as I've already told you several times, but just because it's a possibility does not mean that it is actively happening. Discerning something as a possibility is not evidence for that something, especially when that something requires a complex harmonization like the FDA playing a psychological mind-game by actually discouraging what you say they want to promote; This is just plainly unintuitive, it's like saying we're all brains in jars living in a simulation just because we could be. You don't just show how it can happen, you need to show that it is happening, and then we can work from there. Pointing to past historical examples is not evidence in and of itself.

It sounds like you're admitting that the positive data for caffeine found in scientific studies are actually legitimate, but this sounds like a change in pace from my former impression that you thought these studies were completely bogus, not simply selective in their facts. So needless to say, I'm confused as to what you actually believe.

Furthermore, from our collective experience coffee is plainly worse than much of the available science suggests

Lastly, there is also some very well written negative literature on coffee in the alt community.
Some of this community seems to be at odds with government, but since no one has a monopoly on truth, it may turn out they're right and the government is wrong.

You keep asserting that, and it's something you keep asserting without providing any new source - but it's your research against mine; I'm not unwilling or even reluctant to debunk the sources of this so-called 'alt-community', but I'd need to see those sources first and the actual studies that give you this impression about caffeine. Instead of just repeating yourself on things you've already said, and me telling you you're wrong, just present the source that back them up already. Maybe you actually have some worthy data? I can tell you what you have sourced, ala "caffeine blues", assumable as an example of this 'alt-community', it doesn't look good, and it certainly does not show that you have a very critical eye.

But if I'm overly attached to my views, at least it's not because I also have a substance addiction

I would say that you are heavily over-exaggerating the consequential 'bias' from a caffeine 'addiction', and I would also add that it's apparent to most people tuning into this thread that the type of attachment you have to insist caffeine is this demon of a drug, presents a much greater bias than anyone on planet earth has experienced with coffee.

I also don't know that this idea that addicts are blind to the reality of the drug they're taking is necessarily true. Sometimes, it's addicts who realize the adverse effects better than anyone else.

I don't trust government institutions sufficiently to conclude anything about Cherniske.
It was a well written book, it resonated with me and my experiences and the experiences of people I've talked to, and I don't even remember him mentioning anything about supplements in the book.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the government, but somehow, I have a feeling you wouldn't be satisfied with whatever source I chose to discredit him. Quackwatch is an independent site, and has references from many different sources outside its own.

Cherniske is a man who bought a degree from an unaccredited college later shut down specifically for illicit activity in the fake degrees they handed out, has no sufficient training in the fields he claims to have, and has a business tie to a supplement that reinforces what he believes. He is a fraud, and you wasted your time reading this sham of a book. I guess that's just a pill harder for you to swallow than a caffeine tablet.

And that ability to smell and taste, millions of cells and nerve endings, obviously evolved to give animals and human animals survival advantages, and animals and manimals, uncorrupted by civliization, will tend to avoid things like drugs/poisons, and tend to be attracted to what's food for them.
Whether they derive pleasure from it or not is a moot point, we're discussing its utility, in regards to survival.

That being said, I don't see why you have to be a connoisseur to know whether you enjoy a sensation or not, babies can do that, and I'm sure cats and dogs can too. Seems like you're out of touch with your own sensations.

Poisons typically yes, but again I don't know if many other animals specifically go out of their way to avoid naturally occurring drugs. It's been demonstrated, even within this thread, that certain animals specifically seek out drugs, so I'm not sure such a general statement could be made comparing it with an instinctual avoidance of poisons.

I just don't like projecting human phychology onto other animals. I don't know how deep their opinions about different types of foods goes, I don't feel I'm qualified to make such a claim.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

If you think driving with an anxiety/panic attack and all the other, mostly negative symptoms associated with high doses of caffeine is probably just as good as driving sober, and if you think suggesting it's worse than driving sober is akin to something fantastical like suggesting coffee gives penguins the ability to fly, than I don't know what more to tell you except: you're plain delusional on this.

Close but no cigar. It's that someone who can't handle 10-15 cups and then proceed to go driving and get in an accident, is not incomparable to as much of a concern as you should have about penguinado occurring. They both seem to have as much statistical backing, that is to say - none. In no city on earth, have I ever seen any connection ever made between caffeine usage and a rise in car crashes. So the moral is we can sit here and blue sky implausibilities, and the potential solutions to them all day, but it doesn't mean that we should implement those solutions.

You seem to often conflate a granted possibility with what is a likely possibility

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

People want to hear good things about caffeine, since everyone is addicted, they don't want to hear bad things.
They're going to go to the doctors that tell them good things, they're going read the literature that tells them good things, they're going to subscribe to the journals, magazines, newspapers, websites and so on that publish good things.
Now while that in and of itself doesn't prove coffee is actually this sinister drug, it does mean we're probably being fed a somewhat sugarcoated reality of it at least.

I was well aware of many of the arguments that people have used to try and say caffeine is bad for you, before this discussion between you and I even started, but I just disagree with them because they tend to use fallacious reasoning and false premises. Like the idea that an increased pulse or heart palpitations are inherently bad for you, but they're actually not.

I'm not sure if you got the impression, but I'm actually intrigued and fairly well-researched in the topic of supplements in general. Which has also opened me up to a lot of the bullshit that exists within it, from the ZYTO scans, to probiotics used for depression. I'm the exact opposite, and have a very skeptical mind to much of what I hear from those within this sort of non-mainstream, "natural/alternative medicine" and nutritional sector of discussion, because I know from experience that much of it turns out to be easily disproven, or has misleading or incomplete research surrounding it.

It's not that I'm unaware of this "alt-community" - if this is what you mean when you use that term - and that's why I prefer peer-reviewed studies and scientific consensus, it's that I'm actively aware of it, and that's exactly why I'm against much of it.

[Gloominary]

People want to hear good things about caffeine, since everyone is addicted, they don't want to hear bad things.
They're going to go to the doctors that tell them good things, they're going read the literature that tells them good things, they're going to subscribe to the journals, magazines, newspapers, websites and so on that publish good things.
Now while that in and of itself doesn't prove coffee is actually this sinister drug, it does mean we're probably being fed a somewhat sugarcoated reality of it at least.

I was well aware of many of the arguments that people have used to try and say caffeine is bad for you, before this discussion between you and I even started, but I just disagree with them because they tend to use fallacious reasoning and false premises. Like the idea that an increased pulse or heart palpitations are inherently bad for you, but they're actually not.

I'm not sure if you got the impression, but I'm actually intrigued and fairly well-researched in the topic of supplements in general. Which has also opened me up to a lot of the bullshit that exists within it, from the ZYTO scans, to probiotics used for depression. I'm the exact opposite, and have a very skeptical mind to much of what I hear from those within this sort of non-mainstream, "natural/alternative medicine" and nutritional sector of discussion, because I know from experience that much of it turns out to be easily disproven, or has misleading or incomplete research surrounding it.

It's not that I'm unaware of this "alt-community" - if this is what you mean when you use that term - and that's why I prefer peer-reviewed studies and scientific consensus, it's that I'm actively aware of it, and that's exactly why I'm against much of it.

I don't take supplements either, I'm just as skeptical of what the alt community is peddling.
My philosophy is asceticism/minimalism, only taking what the body arguably needs, and not a lot else.

[Gloominary]

If you think driving with an anxiety/panic attack and all the other, mostly negative symptoms associated with high doses of caffeine is probably just as good as driving sober, and if you think suggesting it's worse than driving sober is akin to something fantastical like suggesting coffee gives penguins the ability to fly, than I don't know what more to tell you except: you're plain delusional on this.

Close but no cigar. It's that someone who can't handle 10-15 cups and then proceed to go driving and get in an accident, is not incomparable to as much of a concern as you should have about penguinado occurring. They both seem to have as much statistical backing, that is to say - none. In no city on earth, have I ever seen any connection ever made between caffeine usage and a rise in car crashes. So the moral is we can sit here and blue sky implausibilities, and the potential solutions to them all day, but it doesn't mean that we should implement those solutions.

You seem to often conflate a granted possibility with what is a likely possibility

We've never been blinded to drugs say turning people into frogs and pigs, but we have been blinded to health complications arising from big pharma, sugar and tobacco, so again, to compare the two possibilities is ridiculous.

It sounds like you think we're it, like we've arrived, like we know what's good now and what's bad now, but sometimes revolutions occur in science.
The scientists of their day thought bloodletting was a good idea, in the early 20th century we thought shock treatment and lobotomies were a good idea.
1000 years from now, if humanity is actually progressing and continues to progress, the people of that time might look back and probably will look back and say: WTF were these crazy people thinking?

You're an optimist and I'm, arguably, a realist.