zlacker

>>PaulHo+(OP)
On chronic coffee consumption: "One meta-analysis found that RR coffee 0.757, RR caffeine 0.721 (12). Another one found RR 0.76, with an optimal protective effect at ∼400 mL/day (13). In comparison to many drug treatments that have an effect size in this range, this is not a small effect size. A risk reduction of 20 to 25% is quite impressive."

As if I needed another reason to drink coffee.

>>k1musa+Vi
One thing I've learned over the years is that specifically setting out to enjoy and appreciate something on a daily basis is beneficial to overall satisfaction with life. And for me, that's my morning cuppa before the rest of the house wakes up. Is it (just) the coffee or is it (also) the rituals surrounding coffee?

>>boothb+Wj
It’s 100% the addiction.

It’s ok, me too. At home I’m a 4-6 cup a day drinker. On the go 2-3 Starbucks. I have a serious problem.

>>reacto+al
Caffeine is not chemically addictive. It can lead to depedency but that is not addiction. Motivation and wanting are not altered but unpleasant withdrawl effects can occur.

>>superk+Jy
What’s the point of this distinction, what does it mean that it’s not chemically addictive? It causes withdrawals, dependence, it definitely acts on brain chemistry.

>>ses198+qE
"Addiction and physical dependence are not the same thing" https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0...

>>superk+NP
That lancet article very well refutes the point you are trying to make. The term “chemical addiction” is not really used anymore because it really just refers to mechanisms of chemical dependence, which are neither necessary or sufficient to cause addiction on their own.

There has been a major shift in how addiction is understood in modern research, but you have it backwards- your perspective of chemical addiction or direct chemical mechanism being important is the old discredited concept, not the new one, which sees it as a psychological process that requires no direct chemical mechanism at all.

>>Univer+FS
>That lancet article very well refutes the point you are trying to make.

No. That lancet article very well refutes the point you are trying to make. I'm flabberghasted by your interpretation. Could you please try to support this interpretation with quotes? I can't even begin to understand how to converse with this point of view since such a POV does not exist in the lancet article. I've read it a handful of times and now once again trying to understand you. But it's not there. I recommend you re-read the article.

I have quoted the appropriate bits supporting my, and the articles very title's, claims already in the other comment in this thread and you may refer to it.