As if I needed another reason to drink coffee.
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.
More evidence for Chris Palmer's 'Metabolic Theory of Mental Disorders'
Whether it's coffee ritual, or doing dishes there's something pretty magical about the quiet flow state of engaging with the moment
I recall a friend describing their struggle to quit caffeine, which I mocked at first, until I realized it sounded exactly like my brutal struggle to quit nicotine. Yet, plenty of people quit cigarettes effortlessly. Nicotine is one of the most variable, but caffeine, alcohol and cocaine vary widely too. I imagine we'd find this is the case for most substances if we had the data. In a sane world, we'd give every kid their addiction predisposition profile when they turn 13.
Long exhales in general with a short pause at the end, before inhaling, are also incredibly useful. I try to do this as often as I need.
I would suggest ignoring this document and reading the Nature article linked in the comment above.
This is why people get excited about ketamine and psychedelics as therapeutics. Otherwise, we're just sitting around waiting for the next round of "new" drugs that manipulate the same pathways as all the old drugs (and carry much of the same risks).
The linked paper is pretty obvious AI paper mill content, so I wouldn’t take anything it says as directly true without checking citations. The citation is a meta-analysis so you’d have to check the criteria and the studies.
The most common explanation for the “everything treats depression” result is inclusion of studies that have no control group. The placebo response rate in depression studies is very high as many patients revert to the mean of being not-super-depressed after they are so depressed that they enroll in a study for depression treatments. Paper writers seeking a positive result will abuse this to their benefit by omitting the control group. They’ll collect depressed patients, give them some treatment, and when the average improves they’ll publish a paper saying that the treatment has positive effects in depression. So after reading a lot of papers about depression, you start dismissing claims by default unless you can confirm they came from a properly powered, placebo-controlled, double-blind study.
But hey, if you’re already drinking coffee and enjoying it, continue to enjoy it!
For smoking, I bet you have the urge after a meal to smoke. Maybe you’re triggered when you drive long distances to “calm the nerves”. The issue is those triggers, those behaviors, need to be unlearned before you can attempt to quit. That’s why it’s easy for people who haven’t developed those behavioral habits and hard a hell for those who have. Former smoker myself so I totally get it. I can give that up, but caffeine - coffee? I’ll die with a cup on the counter half full.
The caffeine aspect is completely unnecessary, but coffee still tastes good, warm drinks are still nice. It's all the ritual.
https://rouvy.com/blog/caffeine-in-cycling
Caffeine periodization in cycling: the science behind performance (2025)
I was worried during that stretch of time that maybe the caffeine had been masking some underlying depression I already had, but a couple of weeks in it passed, so I think my brain just needed to rebalance itself to the new caffeine-free reality.
I'm glad I quit (less anxiety, better sleep, I'm finding it a lot easier to eat healthy while not buzzed on caffeine all the time, and the depressive episode was temporary) but going through that makes it pretty easy for me to believe caffeine can have rather powerful effects in this area.
Personally, I wasn't a "trigger" smoker, I was an "every chance I got smoker". I assume my nicotine metabolism is higher than average, which is linked to frequency of consumption and hence propensity for addiction. I also assume I have fast caffeine metabolism since I consume it at all hours with no consequence, but unlike nicotine that's linked to a lower propensity for addiction, which matches my experience.
I used to think this same thing, that my enjoyment of coffee was largely the ritual. But then I switched to decaf for quite a long time and all my little rituals fell away quite quickly.
I still occasionally drank coffee when I felt like the taste, but I certainly wasn’t performing daily morning ritual.
but yeah, exercising can be an addiction? as sex. now doing these daily is fine. it turns into addiction when you can't stop or interfere negatively with your routine
Addiction and dependence have real medical meanings and in the context of this discussion and we shouldn't mix them up. See this very short and to the point lancet medical journal summary, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0...
>Addiction (synonymous with substance use disorder), as defined by the DSM-5, entails compulsive use, craving, and impaired control over drug taking in addition to physical dependence. The vast majority of patients taking medications such as opioids and benzodiazepines are doing so as prescribed by clinicians, with only 1·5% of people taking benzodiazepine being addicted, for example. Physical dependence is much more common than addiction. Importantly, withdrawal effects occur irrespective of whether these drugs are taken as prescribed or misused.
>Failure to distinguish between addiction and physical dependence can have real-life consequences. People who have difficulty stopping their medications because of withdrawal effects can be accused of addiction or misuse. Misdiagnosis of physical dependence as addiction can also lead to inappropriate management, including referral to 12-step addiction-based detoxification and rehabilitation centres, focusing on psychological aspects of harmful use rather than the physiology of withdrawal.
>It should be made clear that dependence is not the same as addiction. The problems with prescribed drug dependence are not restricted to the small minority who are misusing or addicted to these drugs, but to the wider population who are physically dependent on and might not be able easily to stop their medications because of withdrawal effects. Antidepressants (superkuh note: and caffeine) should be categorised with other drugs that cause withdrawal syndromes as dependence-forming medications, while noting that they do not cause addiction.
Also once per week I allow myself an espresso, and I get a nice buzz from it that lasts the entire day.
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.
The mice may not have been depressed because it's hard to be depressed when you're in a k hole
But your experience mirrors mine in going cold turkey which I think demonstrates that caffeine can cause both physical chemical dependence, and psychological addiction.
One day, I decided to stop coffee for some weeks. My motivation to wake up before my kids vanished in a few days. I was quite surprised since it used to be a real pleasure. I guess the ritual part was much less important than the coffee chemical role.
I got back to coffe quite rapidly.
The explanation for the headaches is that coffee raises blood pressure short term, and the blood vessels in the brain prepare for the predicted caffeine ingestion, and if it doesn't come there will be a mismatch.
This chemical dependence is often the number one reason people cannot physically stop their psychological process. Potential effects from quitting include simply dying, or with less strong chemical dependence, feeling anxiety or generally ill.
I've used a novel nootropic which is an adenosine antagonist (KW-6356) for long-lasting energy without dopaminergic stimulation. Something I found and which is commonly reported by other users is mood-enhancing properties:
Add that to conditioned place preference and you have your rewarding coffee ritual.
Even though I quite smoking over 10 years ago I still remember it with the fondness of an old friend.
I wouldn’t claim it works the same way for everyone, but the difference between coffee being a treatment for migraines and migraines being a symptom of coffee withdrawal may be indistinguishable in immediate term.
I quit caffeine for about 2 years and the headaches never subsided (except the caffeine withdrawal ones of course).
They are just a fact of my life I’m afraid.
As much as I’d like to get off of caffeine I am very grateful to have is as a remedy.
For me what I've noticed: 2 cups hits the spot, but I always tend to drink more, around 4 cups. On the 3rd cup my mind gets jittery. It's not so much my body or anything and I don't experience the jitters strongly but at the same time I feel a stronger focus while noticing that stronger focus isn't getting anything extra done. Hence I call it mind jitters.
But I can imagine that at 2 cups people are genuinely just a bit elevated in certain ways.
At first the intro was:
> Using genetically encoded adenosine sensors
And I did not know what was meant with that. Lateron this became more clear - GPCR is a common motif for membrane-based receptor systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_protein-coupled_receptor
So, saying it is "genetically encoded" xyz, means absolutely NOTHING at all, because all the other receptors based on GPCR (see the wikipedia article) are ALSO "genetically encoded". After all some stretch of DNA yields mRNA which in turn is translated into the corresponding aminoacid sequence (= protein), if we ignore splicing and so forth to simplify this (and then transport into the membrane). This is supposed to be a scientific article though - why do they use such a strange terminology e. g. "genetically encoded"? I mean, this follows by simple logic unless it was made completely artificially. Lateron in the article it is more clear, but it is strange that they use those words in the summary-intro part. It almost seems to me as if they wanted to integrate certain keywords as buzzwords or to rank an article higher. I don't quite like that.
Contrast this to Watson and Crick from 1953:
"It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material."
It is probably one of the most famous intro lines, e. g. the "It has not escaped our notice" since it was so casual. (And they built their insights on data of others, so it wasn't just Watson and Crick to have made the discovery; not even only Franklin etc.. but several more that should have been credited with it. Watson and Crick's main achivement here was more that they built it together into a simple, cohesive overview and explanation model. If I recall correctly, Linus Pauling also came close but proposed three helices.)
I tried it but coffee to me just tastes horribly bad. Chocolate on the other hand can be quite great (there is also a lot of horrible chocolate, but good chocolate has a better taste to me than coffee.)
I try to not let taste or smell overrule other decisions made by my brain. Of course it is so visceral that one can not escape it; some stinky fish challenges show how powerful smell is. Some people can not control their body's reactions to bad smell.
Drip, black, is going to be quite... utilitarian.
Unfortunately I also found out that it is basically impossible to get that kind of quality from coffee shops. You must make it yourself, have the right equipment (the grinder is the most important one) and a lot of practice. Then you might have one in 10 god shots... but you taste it... you immediately recognize it.
Severity of withdrawal symptoms from caffeine also varies substantially from person to person. It’s probably not directly killing anyone, but for some people it can be brutally unpleasant and disabling for at least several days.
https://www.kyowakirin.com/media_center/news_releases/2022/p...
Then there’s the beverage industry who pointed out there’s caffeine in tea leaves and other plant material and that it’s not a threat: (1) US vs 40 barrels and 20 kegs of Coka-cola. Ultimately reducing the amount of caffeine in soft-drinks.
Round and round we go allowing companies to use chemicals to keep us buying their consumables.
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Forty_Barrels...
I get what you’re saying. Dopamine withdrawal is real though and if you no longer get dopamine from an action or you physically prevent yourself from receiving that dopamine, it can be just as debilitating as cigarette withdrawal or kicking a (soft) drug habit.
Then there’s the opioids…
I'll couch this in a warning that you need to have the money for it, but for me an espresso machine and good grinder was such a great investment.
It's this thing I appreciate a lot every day.
If you're a drip coffee person I guess this won't apply and you can save a few thousand. Although I'd still recommend getting a grinder (not necessarily an expensive espresso worthy one) and good beans then.
The flavor profiles are akin to wines; no decanting required.
Extremely enjoyable in the early morning moments.
The 'article'[1] is completely written by an LLM.
1. https://genomicpress.kglmeridian.com/view/journals/brainmed/... currently, hopefully it is changed to the actual research link which is https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09755-9
I haven’t had the pleasure of trying to brew my own blonde roast yet.
But I was amazed when I first tried a black coffee brewed properly, and it took me far longer than I want to admit to learn the basic nuances; it was a very fun journey though.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/30/well/eat/why-does-coffee-...
By the way, why does Starbucks make such bad cappuccinos? The milk is foamy instead of creamy. There is no heart shape or any shape really. And the entire beverage is too hot.
I just can not do it. It is just not the same sitting here without the taste, smell and sensory experience completely divorced from the actual caffeine. That is with even taking more caffeine than I would get from my brew coffee.
Exactly, this is why the idea of addiction is more appropriately focused around the actual real world impacts rather than specific chemical mechanisms- the difficulty quitting and the negative impacts on your life. If it's strong enough to overpower your will and destroy your life, that is sufficient, it doesn't matter exactly how.
When it comes down to it, something like an amphetamine drug or other stimulants that directly increase synaptic dopamine, vs a behavior like gambling addiction that exploits the brains instincts and wiring in other ways to still cause the increase in synaptic dopamine are not fundamentally, categorically different in a way that one or the other shouldn't be taken seriously and considered a "real addiction." Either can completely destroy some peoples life, and for other people can be easily controlled and used in moderation.
For me, full immersion brewing is the best as it's far easier to control than expresso - you can fine-tune the water temperature, the grind size and the brew time until you get coffee that astonishes people. Personally, I'm a big Aeropress fan, though I don't know why so many people make horrible coffee using french presses. I think most french press coffee I've drunk has had far too little coffee or too much water in the brew.
Pyramiding the grind works-around the problem well-enough for me, however.
> How do you know that's not frying some kind of receptor in your body?
I've found combination of coffee and light therapy to be quite effective against seasonal affective disorder (the kind of temporary depression where lack of sunlight is a significant cause).
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.
I'm sure there's ways to make quality drip coffee, but all the drip coffee that I've had has been very poor. I've also lost count of the number of times that I see people using boiling water for making coffee.
To my mind, it's easy to get obsessive over making good coffee, but what I'd like to see is just more people knowing how to not make bad coffee. If you're thinking about water temperature and pyramiding the grounds, then you're likely making great coffee.
Might as well have a cake if you need to mask the flavour so much :)
Even non-psychiatric drugs like NSAIDs, insulin, hypertension medication, etc. can have a withdrawal effect.
I might be mistaken, but I am under the impression that addiction is psychological in nature. Take gambling addiction, for example, I am not certain if there is any physical withdrawal effect, but there is definitely a psychological compulsion.
It's hard for me to know where to start, because I feel similarly confused about where you might be coming from, and I don't know your level of background in reading and interpreting biomedical papers. However, I can elaborate a bit on my thinking and mention that I am an academic biomedical researcher that reads, publishes, and peer reviews biomedical papers - but I am not a psychiatrist or medical doctor. This is not my field of expertise, I'm not trying to argue from authority, just mentioning where I'm coming from.
First, for context, this correspondence article is in The Lancet Psychiatry, so is targeted at psychiatrists, and is able to avoid a lot of background that they can safely assume the reader already has, like the diagnostic criteria for common conditions.
You are using the term "chemically addictive," which is not used in the article, and which is a term that simultaneously implies both "physical dependence" or "substance dependence" and "addiction" from back when the two were mistakenly assumed to be one in the same. This article is emphasizing the fact that they aren't the same thing, and both can exist independently of one another. Since that is really the only singular point in the article, and is really hammered home over and over, I cannot see how pulling out quotes would help. I think our disagreement comes from the surrounding context not mentioned, not the contents of the article itself.
The article describes that as of the DSM-5 they directly address the confusion between the two, and separate them into two entirely different things. While not explained in the article, it is important to realize that the DSM-5 now includes behavioral addictions together with drug addictions, and considers physical dependence and/or other types of direct chemical modulation of the reward system to be a contributing factor in many cases, but not essential, for addiction.
This distinction is extremely important, because it allows for addiction without substance dependence to be taken just as seriously, and properly treated and addressed clinically or by other means.
Previously, because of the history of this mistaken connection, psychiatrists and patients would wrongly dismiss (as you are with caffeine) the possibility of serious addiction without a direct chemical dependence mechanism. This left people whose lives were being destroyed by things like gambling and sex addictions to be dismissed as not serious, and not allow them to get real help. On the flip side, it also made doctors wrongly afraid to administer drugs that caused chemical dependence but not addiction, for fear that it would lead to addiction in patients.
However, I would argue that while addictive, the level of addiction potential from caffeine is pretty limited because of the fact that it has pretty severe adverse/toxic effects if you take too much, and the enjoyable aspect saturates out pretty quick. Taking a lot more than a normal amount, enough to damage your health, feels awful, so people aren't likely to become addicted to doing so. Counter-intuitively, the most addictive drugs have low acute toxicity and so you can take increasingly huge doses of them and it continues to feel good rather than just make you uncomfortable and sick like a high dose of caffeine.
The last 20th century vice. It's mine.
And it’s pretty important to realize that well-made decaf doesn’t have to taste worse than regular coffee. James Hoffmanns decaf project proved this for me, and his video about decaf sold me on the idea: decaf drinkers are the OG coffee drinker, drinking it purely for the taste, even without the drug-induced high that caffeine gives you.
Say this next time: “Cappuccino, whole milk, no foam” and see what they do.
Here's where you seem confused. The article is not saying this. It is explicitly saying that medications which one builds up a tolerance to and experiences withdrawal symptoms from are not addictive.
>The DSM-5 referred to the confusion over this issue, stating that “’Dependence’ has been easily confused with the term ‘addiction’ when, in fact, the tolerance and withdrawal that previously defined dependence are actually very normal responses to prescribed medications that affect the central nervous system and do not necessarily indicate the presence of an addiction.” Public Health England makes the same distinction.
You are claiming the article's distinction between addiction and dependence is discussed in order to make a claim about substance abuse and addiction without dependence. This is not in the text at all. What the heck?
I have the decades of domain specific knowledge and time spent reading neuroscience journal articles to know that I don't have to read between the lines of the article here. It's not an opaque or jargon hidden meaning. It's quite plain: dependence is not addiction. Not, "addiction can happen without dependence" which is not addressed or relevant to the paper or this HN discussion about caffeine.
It seems like we’re talking past each other somehow, perhaps one or the other of us misunderstood what the other is saying, but I don't see any value in continuing further.