>>21398717 (OP)
I don’t think anyone does. For any popular food item you’ll find lots of studies saying it’s somewhat good for you and lots which say it’s somewhat bad. These will get exaggerated by media and influencers to say stuff like “DRINKING RED WINE IS THE FRENCH SECRET TO A LONG LIFESPAN” or “EVERY SIP OF WINE TAKES AS MUCH TIME OFF YOUR LIFESPAN AS A CIGARETTE,” (I think lungs can recover a little from smoking so the framing of every cig telling the yama to shave 5 minutes off your lifespan doesn’t make sense). Food studies are often observational ones that are huge victims of conflating correction with causation. If you’re unfamiliar with that concept, here’s a famous example: ice cream sales are correlated with drowning deaths. It’s not that ice cream somehow causes you to drown or that drowning makes you crave ice cream, it’s just that both are more popular in hot weather. IRRC whenever you see the word “associated” in a scientific article, that just means the scientists found a correlation.
>>21398823
>>21398780
Here, in the replies to your post we already have two anons disagreeing about this. One shows a study and claims coffee is good for you because the scientists found a correlation with dying less, while the other says getting addicting to caffeine is bad for you. Perhaps both are right, and while the coffee is good for you the caffeine part of it is bad, and you should be drinking decaf to reap the benefits without the drawbacks.
