> Let's not kid ourselves. Concentrated caffeine is a drug and not a nutrient.
Coffee can contain both nutrients and contain a drug. They are not exclusive.
The title is misleading in focusing on caffeine. But the article mostly focuses on the benefits of coffee and tea, while occasionally also talking about the drug it contains.
Your analogies don't always work. Nicotine is not consumed as a food. Neither are magic mushrooms consumed on a regular enough basis to be considered for nutritional purposes. Beer however is a better analogy. And both beer and coffee, in moderation, have a lot of studies so far showing a correlation with longer lifespans. So, is that from the nutrients? From the drug within? Or from both? All are possibilities until we pinpoint causation.
In one study [1], of "nearly 500,000 adults in Britain, those who consumed instant, ground and decaf coffee – even as much as 8 cups daily – had a slightly lower risk of death over 10 years than those who did not."
Another large scale study [2] on coffee included 400,000 adults.
Suffice it to say that studies of ~1/2 million people cover a wide range of economic statuses. And there have been enough of these large scale studies already to perform meta-analysis [3], again leading to the same conclusion.
We have similar large scale peer reviewed studies over alcohol. So you'll have to do a lot better than a guess about what the actual causation might be.
> and have the intelligence to keep their habits within moderation.
Wait, I thought poorer people can't afford to drink beer and coffee regularly? Which is it?
The idea that moderation comes with intelligence or wealth is a false stereotype that deserves to die. Plenty of wealthy people and plenty of intelligent people have addiction problems. Wealth and intelligence are bad predictors of addiction. A far better predictor is family history.
>Plenty of wealthy people and plenty of intelligent people have addiction problems. Wealth and intelligence are bad predictors of addiction. A far better predictor is family history.
Family history is strongly correlated with wealth and intelligence, though. [0]
Studies comprising "adults in Britain" consist almost exclusively of mostly relatively well-to-do and highly educated people, compared to the rest of the world. [1]
Britain basically controlled the world during the entirety of the 1800s. They're a lot better off than most still as a result of that extremely long reign.
> Family history is strongly correlated with wealth and intelligence.
And? What does that have to do with your original and wrong claim that wealth and / or intelligence lead people to be better at moderation when it comes to addictive substances?
> Studies comprising "adults in Britain" consist almost exclusively of mostly relatively well-to-do
Your claim was about wealthy. You are moving the goal posts from wealthy to "relatively well-to-do" and "compared to the rest of the world".
And that does not explain why Brits who drink coffee live longer than Brits who do not. Or why the very many studies outside the UK show the same results.
Coffee can contain both nutrients and contain a drug. They are not exclusive.
The title is misleading in focusing on caffeine. But the article mostly focuses on the benefits of coffee and tea, while occasionally also talking about the drug it contains.
Your analogies don't always work. Nicotine is not consumed as a food. Neither are magic mushrooms consumed on a regular enough basis to be considered for nutritional purposes. Beer however is a better analogy. And both beer and coffee, in moderation, have a lot of studies so far showing a correlation with longer lifespans. So, is that from the nutrients? From the drug within? Or from both? All are possibilities until we pinpoint causation.