It’s Official: Coffee is Good For You
Published by Hanno Kaiser August 16th, 2006 in UncategorizedThis is from the NYT:
Coffee is not usually thought of as health food, but a number of recent studies suggest that it can be a highly beneficial drink. Researchers have found strong evidence that coffee reduces the risk of several serious ailments, including diabetes, heart disease and cirrhosis of the liver. … Larger quantities of coffee seem to be especially helpful in diabetes prevention. … [R]esearchers found that people who drank four to six cups of coffee a day had a 28 percent reduced risk compared with people who drank two or fewer. Those who drank more than six had a 35 percent risk reduction. … [W]omen who drank one to three cups a day reduced their risk of cardiovascular disease by 24 percent compared with those drinking no coffee at all.
There you have it! I’m off to get myself another cup.
Technorati Tags: coffee
License
This work is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.5 License.
5 Responses to “It’s Official: Coffee is Good For You”
Leave a Reply
Search
Categories
- Admin (10)
- Carpe Diem (1)
- Constructivism (4)
- Culture (38)
- Flusser (1)
- Hobbes (4)
- Jurisprudence (71)
- Kant (6)
- Law and Economics (16)
- Law and Society (91)
- Philosophy (53)
- Privacy (7)
- System Theory (6)
- Theories of Punishment (18)
- Uncategorized (17)
Posts by author
Hosted by SiteGround
I’m mildly concerned with Hanno’s recent spate of coffee threads. Don’t the tea get no love?
I’m rather fond of both: drinking tea (black, with a little milk and sugar) through the daylight hours, and a very strong cup of coffee (organic, fair trade and all that) after dinner.
And perhaps by way of making this discussion yet more provocative, we might have a look at Henry Farrell’s post over at Crooked Timber: ‘The Coffehouse Mob’: http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/16/the-coffeehouse-mob/#comments
The post is about Brian Cowan’s recent book, The Social Life of Coffee: The Emergence of the English Coffee House (2005). Apparently Cowan argues against the role assigned to coffehouses in Habermas’s The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (English trans., 1989). I comment on some things in the post, which includes excerpts from the book, but in all fairness I’ve yet to read Cowan so my remarks were tentative reactions to what I read there.
Thanks for your remarks, Patrick. It’s neat to learn more about Habermas. All I know firsthand about him comes from my reading, rereading, and rerereading of the essay, “What is Universal Pragmatics?”.
Also, I’ve heard some people combine their coffee and tea into a single beverage and call it “toffee”, but I suspect they are lunatics.
“toffee”–oh my, crazy indeed. I think we might term this an instance of gustatory cognitive dissonance.
You certainly chose one of the more difficult Habermas titles. Many, many years ago I wrote a seminar paper in which I attempted to defend H.’s interpretation of Freud in Knowledge and Human Interests (1978 English ed.) against Adolf Grunbaum’s positivistic attack in The Foundations of Psychoanalysis: A Philosophical Critique (1984). Despite the sometimes turgid and difficult prose (problems of translation?) and his theoretical hubris, I’ve always learned much from his work. I suppose it hasn’t hurt that I’ve often found his politics congenial to mine. Law & Society readers would, I think, be interested in his Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996).