Drinking coffee may make diabetes worse?
I drink a lot of coffee. Is it good for me? Nah. And when I get a throbbing headache from it, sometimes there's nothing better to do than just feed the monster and drink more. So, yeah, I drink too much coffee but what's a father of five supposed to do?
So, when I read today's BBC article, Coffee May Make Diabetes Worse, my ears perked up and I took note. The BBC quotes a study that suggests that "daily consumption of caffeine in coffee, tea or soft drinks increases blood sugar levels for people with type 2 diabetes."
Huh? It sounds like caffeine is the culprit, not necessarily coffee. If tea and soft drinks also produce the same effect, it sounds unfair to blame the holy bean.
It gets better. The article continues, "the ten people who took part in the study were monitored with a tiny glucose monitor embedded under the skin."
I always like studies that use a large, randomized subject pool. Ten people doesn't quite cut it.
Even more: the patients were studied for a whopping 72 hours. Sorry, this study doesn't quite pass the muster.
So, the lesson for investors? Don't go out and short Kraft (NYSE: KFT) or Procter and Gamble (NYSE:PG), Nestle (OTC: NSRGY), or Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX) based on one data point. These coffee giants produce good product that like everything else in life, when taken in moderation, is not only enjoyable but life-enhancing.
So, when I read today's BBC article, Coffee May Make Diabetes Worse, my ears perked up and I took note. The BBC quotes a study that suggests that "daily consumption of caffeine in coffee, tea or soft drinks increases blood sugar levels for people with type 2 diabetes."
Huh? It sounds like caffeine is the culprit, not necessarily coffee. If tea and soft drinks also produce the same effect, it sounds unfair to blame the holy bean.
It gets better. The article continues, "the ten people who took part in the study were monitored with a tiny glucose monitor embedded under the skin."
I always like studies that use a large, randomized subject pool. Ten people doesn't quite cut it.
Even more: the patients were studied for a whopping 72 hours. Sorry, this study doesn't quite pass the muster.
So, the lesson for investors? Don't go out and short Kraft (NYSE: KFT) or Procter and Gamble (NYSE:PG), Nestle (OTC: NSRGY), or Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX) based on one data point. These coffee giants produce good product that like everything else in life, when taken in moderation, is not only enjoyable but life-enhancing.
Related Articles From Blogging Stocks
- Citigroup to shareholders: Buy your own coffee!
74 days ago
- Why newspapers are like cigarettes
85 days ago
- Starbucks $3.95 breakfast: Brand-new day?
123 days ago











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-28-2008 @ 4:48PM
Mark said...
You know what drives me a little nutty with this article, and many others. It's using the shocking headline with a question mark technique to appear controversial. While it's notable to point at the study and show that the methodology is flawed, you could do so with a technically worded headline rather than this attention grabbing reuse. The author, and this website, could do a community service by not covering the study at all, thereby burying an un-newsworthy story by simple omission.
A more suitable place for this story would be a personal blog, especially given the personal nature of the writers tone. The last time I indulged in listening to someone's own experience with coffee consumption was during an episode of the Brak show.
1-29-2008 @ 4:46PM
emily carlson said...
At select Starbucks stores in Seattle, you can buy a cup of joe for a buck.
Ssssshhhh.
It's a new initive by ex-CEO-just-recently-unretired-because-of-falling-stock-prices Howard Schultz. Starbucks is hurting, and something needs to be done.
But who goes to Starbucks because of it's "cheap" prices??
A year ago, Schultz wrote a bitter memo to his executives about what he calls "the watering down of the Starbucks experience." He complained that the soul of Starbucks was gone, and urged the higher ups to bring back customer service.
So he's back in action, determined to change the coffee giant's luck.
There's no question Starbucks is in trouble. In the past year and a half, stock prices have fallen nearly 50%, from a high of $39.63 in May 2006, to closing at $19.66 today. Schultz blames the company's out of control growth. Also ailing are skyrocketing milk prices, the troubling economy, and pressure from McDonald's.
But why dollar coffee?
Isn't that the turf of McDonald's?
But the answer is...not really.
Mickey D's recently announced plans to open "McCafe's." In other words, coffee bars featuring cappuccinos, lattes, and mochas whipped up by baristas, a la Starbucks.
This, after Starbucks added drive-thru windows and hot breakfast sandwiches.
It seems the two mega chains are going after each other... by coping each other.
McDonald's is upgrading, while Starbucks seems to be.. well, downgrading.
The dollar cupajoe seems to be an effort to get crowds in the door, but in the move Starbucks is moving away from it's brand.
Starbucks is the king of $6 cups of coffee. They survived the economic downturn of 2001, when analysts feared the worst for a company who prides itself on hoity-hoity coffee. Starbucks customers LIKE that they shelled out bug bucks for their latte. The well known siren laden white cup is almost a status symbol, recognized in all corners of the world.
Starbucks needs to go back to the "third place." Howard, get rid of the drive-thrus, the expensive merchandise, and the cookie cutter stores. You don't need to sell your coffee for a dollar.
More on Starbucks:
More on Starbucks:
http://emily-carlson.com
http://emilycarlson.org
http://emilycarlson.info
http://emilycarlsonchristmas.blogspot.com/
http://eacarlson3.bravejournal.com/
1-28-2008 @ 4:48PM
Jon Haines said...
I cannot believe the irresponsible reporting that goes on in our press and media, what's more - the BBC are publically funded, we are all paying for this garbage. They should get themselves a better science editor for a start and start questioning rather than embellishing and promoting such poor research.