Since our office, The 海角社区 Office for Science and Society, is dedicated to separating sense from nonsense and fact from myth, it should come as no surprise that I have a long-standing interest in coffee. The risks and health benefits of this beverage have been the subject of heated debates going back centuries with the distinction between fact and anecdote often being blurred. Not only have the physiological effects of this beverage been hotly disputed, but there have also been endless quarrels about the best ways to enjoy the beverage. Proponents of espresso, French press, Turkish, drip-filtered, K-cup and civet coffee argue with each other and there are endless discussions about the differences between Arabica and Robusta beans as well as the best ways to roast them.
Myths galore abound about coffee starting with the purported discovery of the effects of ingesting the beans. In the oft-told story, some twelve hundred years ago Ethiopian goat herder Kaldi found one of his goats in聽a highly agitated state, darting back and forth, keeping everyone awake with frantic bleating. The inquisitive shepherd decided to follow the animal and soon found the root of the problem. Actually, the root wasn鈥檛 the problem, it was the bush that grew from the root.
The goat, Kaldi concluded, had become bewitched after feasting on the bush鈥檚 strange, violet-colored berries. This was too much for him to handle, so Kaldi sought help from his religious leader, the Imam. The sage apparently had a scientific spirit and made a brew of the berries. When he sampled the concoction, his heart began to race, and he suddenly felt alert and wide awake. The Imam had discovered the effects of caffeine! He named the beverage 鈥淜aveh,鈥� meaning 鈥渋nvigorating. An entertaining story to be sure, but there is no contemporary corroboration. The first account of Kaldi鈥檚 adventure only appeared in the 15th聽century, after coffee as a beverage had been introduced in Yemen, supposedly to allow Muslims to stay awake during long nighttime prayers. Highly questionable.
It wasn鈥檛 long before the first attack on drinking coffee occurred with Christian clergy denouncing the beverage as a 鈥渂itter invention of Satan鈥� since it was linked to the Muslim world. Pope Clement VIII apparently wasn鈥檛 convinced and around 1600 tasted coffee and found that rather than being devilish, it was angelic. According to the legend, which it almost certainly is, Clement declared that the beverage was too tasty to leave to non-Christians and quipped that it should be baptized.
The first account of coffee鈥檚 supposed health benefits can be found in a pamphlet dating back to the 1650s, now on display in the British Museum. It is actually an advertisement for the first coffee shop established in London鈥檚 St. Michaels Alley and claims the beverage to be a 鈥渟imple innocent thing鈥� that 鈥渜uickens the spirit鈥� and is good for indigestion, headache, gout, dropsy and scurvy. King Charles II didn鈥檛 agree, and in 1675 issued a proclamation that ordered coffee houses to be closed because they attracted 鈥渋dle and disaffected persons鈥� who spread false or scandalous reports about the monarchy. There was so much opposition to this that Charles had to withdraw the proclamation and replaced it with one that allowed coffee-houses to function as long the 鈥渙wners restrained seditious speech.鈥�
Charles鈥� proclamations are indeed factual, but the first study about the health consequences of coffee consumption takes us back into the realm of 鈥減robably a legend.鈥� King Gustav III of Sweden, who reigned in the late 18th聽century, viewed coffee as a threat to public health and ordered a scientific experiment, supposedly the first clinical trial of coffee consumption. The subjects were a pair of identical twins who had been condemned to death for crimes and were offered a chance to have their sentences commuted to life in prison if they took part in the experiment. They happily agreed!
For the rest of their lives, one twin was to drink three pots of coffee every day, the other an equal amount of tea. The tea-drinking twin died first at age 83, but it is not known how long he was outlived by his brother since the king and the physicians monitoring the 鈥渟tudy鈥� predeceased him. Later governments paid no attention to Gustav鈥檚 experiment and tried several times to impose a ban on coffee although unsuccessfully. Today, Sweden is one of countries with the highest per capita coffee consumption in the world with some devotees harkening back to Gustav鈥檚 trial that showed the longevity of coffee drinkers. Of course, the trial proved no such thing even if it had indeed been carried out.
In the 1830s, Sylvester Graham, an American Presbyterian minister and one of the first of what today we would call 鈥渨ellness influencers,鈥� mercilessly attacked coffee as a harmful beverage claiming that it contributed to poor digestion, irritability and sexual overstimulation which at the time was regarded as a great evil. Graham advised abstention as did Dr. John Harvey Kellogg of cereal fame who forbid coffee in his Sanitarium where he catered to rich hypochondriacs from around the world. One of his patients was Charles Post who later started his own cereal company with one of his products being 鈥淧ostum,鈥� a cereal-based substitute for coffee. Post blamed coffee for indigestion, nervous exhaustion and stunting the growth of children.
Postum was advertised in numerous magazines with on particular ad featuring the headline 鈥淎 New Sherlock Holmes Story.鈥� It shows Holmes speaking to Dr. Watson: 鈥淒id you observe the trembling hand, the lack-lustre eye, the nervous attitude, the sallow skin, the fear of impending disaster? Clearly the man is an inveterate coffee-drinker.鈥� Watson answers 鈥淲hat he needs is Postum.鈥� Being a dedicated Sherlockian, I look askew at any such commercial use of 鈥淭he Master鈥� who would never have made such a vacuous comment.
Coffee promoters are no strangers to outlandish advertising either.聽A notorious Chase & Sanborn advertisement with the heading 鈥淚f your husband ever finds out鈥︹�� appeared in the August 11, 1952, edition of Life Magazine. It pictured a man ready to give his wife a spanking 鈥渋f he discovers you鈥檙e still taking chances on getting, flat, stale coffee.鈥� Unbelievable.
Clearly, the history of coffee is peppered with myths, anecdotes and hyperbole on both sides of the seemingly eternal risk versus benefit question. Even the much-publicized recent statement by the American Heart Association with its conclusion that up to five cups of coffee day is cardio vascularly safe for adults is sprinkled with plenty of 鈥渕ays,鈥� 鈥渂uts,鈥� 鈥減ossiblys鈥� 鈥渁ssociated withs鈥� 鈥渃oulds,鈥� 鈥渕ights鈥� and 鈥渁ppears to shows.鈥�
In any case, the evidence does 鈥渁ppear to show鈥� that moderate coffee consumption does not increase blood pressure, it 鈥渕ay鈥� reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, is not 鈥渁ssociated with鈥� a higher risk of atrial fibrillation and 鈥渃ould鈥� reduce the risk of stroke 鈥渂ut鈥� it 鈥渕ight鈥� increase your blood cholesterol unless it is filtered coffee. Certainly interesting information, but I鈥檓 not inclined to increase my coffee consumption from my one morning K-cup o鈥橨oe. I was satisfied, though, to discover after my autopsy of a K-cup that it does contain a paper filter that removes cafestol, the cholesterol-raising component in the coffee bean.
Finally, I鈥檓 also willing to give civet coffee a try. It is made from coffee beans eaten, digested and excreted by the civet cat. It is said to be smooth, with hints of chocolate and caramel. I wouldn鈥檛 mind investigating whether it being prized as the 鈥渃aviar of coffees,鈥� is based on myth or fact.
