[Nothorized]

> Excessive use of anything tends to be bad.

Many of those 'alarming' articles are mainly studying the point from where the use of anything is dangerous for our health. It is easy to get the numbers and to publish, and the website gets a clickbait.

It's widely knew that too much coffee is dangerous. But a normal dose has plenty of benefits, and a lot of research supports both points.

[DanBC]

> It's widely knew that too much coffee is dangerous. But a normal dose has plenty of benefits

I'd be interested in reliable cites for either of those.

Here's what Cochrane Collaboration says. http://www.evidentlycochrane.net/caffeine-and-health-evidenc...

It's a short list.

[dap]

Here's a round-up: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/upshot/more-consensus-on-c...

[DanBC]

Cool, thanks. Some of those studies seem to find protective benefits with decaf. Or there wasn't enough data to know if the same effects are present with decaf.

> Most studies did not include data on decaffeinated coffee, either because too few people drank it or because data were not available. The few studies that did, though, had differing results. With respect to cardiovascular disease, decaffeinated coffee did not seem to have the same protective effects as regular coffee. With respect to the one stroke meta-analysis, it seemed to be just as protective as regular coffee. In two breast cancer analyses, decaffeinated had the same nonrelationship as regular coffee. Decaffeinated coffee was also protective against lung cancer, not as protective against Parkinson’s disease, and protective against diabetes and overall mortality, but perhaps to a lesser extent than regular coffee.

> But for most studies, there just aren’t data available. The conclusion to take away: There’s less evidence overall for a potential benefit, but still, there’s no evidence of harmful associations.