Home > Opinion > Tutsch, Cindy > 2011 >
.
Starbucks, Anyone?
.
Submitted: Apr 1, 2011

Poking around the GC archives and the White Estate archives today, I found an SDA baptismal charge recorded in the May 29, 1907 issue of The West Michigan Herald (evidently a forerunner of the Lake Union Herald.) Anyway, here's vow #5: "You covenant to live to the best of your ability in accordance with the light God has given with reference to healthful dress and healthful living, leaving aside alcoholic liquors, tobacco, tea, coffee and similar hurtful indulgences."

In another little treatise that predates the first Church Manual by about thirty years, John Loughborough lists sixteen questions to be asked of Adventist candidates for church membership. Number ten in this list asks, "Do you understand the principles of Christian temperance as taught by the Seventh-day Adventists, and will you carry out those principles, abstaining from the use of liquors, tobacco in all its forms, coffee, tea, and swine's flesh? In short, will you study the subject of Bible temperance, and practice it in your life?"

Captain Joseph Bates, one of the three founders of the Seventh-day Adventist church, forbade the use of tea or coffee on his ship years before the visions of Ellen White on temperance.

It seems that something unfunny has happened on the way to the forum. Today, many Adventist churches serve fully caffeinated coffee in their lobbies and fellowship halls, and for thousands more Adventists, caffeine has become the drug of choice.

I don't get it.

For a faith community whose members' fidelity to healthful living is touted all over the world, we seem mighty eager to let the addiction of caffeine enslave us. But beyond addiction, are there other detrimental effects from consuming caffeine? Let's consider a few:

The American Psychiatric Association says caffeine-induced disorders may be characterized by panic attack symptoms that resemble primary mental disorders. (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 1996, pp 212-214) Radiologists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison said caffeine reduces blood flow by nearly one-fourth in the gray matter of the brain where nerve cells concentrate. Consuming coffee is associated with increased levels of several inflammatory markers, a finding that could help explain previous reports linking the beverage to heart disease.

Scores of studies have shown that caffeine can be harmful to your health in the following ways:

--Irregular heartbeat
-- Restlessness
-- Nervousness
-- Insomnia
-- Flushed face
-- Twitching or trembling
-- Distracted thoughts and speech
-- Physical agitation
-- Nausea
-- Light-headedness
-- Diarrhea
-- Mood swings

Obviously, not everyone who drinks a cup of joe is going to have all of these symptoms, or even any of them. The studies indicate, however, that persons who ingest caffeine are more likely to experience these symptoms than those who do not. Additionally, some studies suggest caffeine may cause cell mutations that lead to cancer, even repressing the repair of genetic mutations caused by low levels of radiation.

Now it's true that research on coffee's relation to cancer/heart disease is sometimes conflicting. Some studies suggest that coffee protects against estrogen receptor negative breast cancer (would those studies be funded by the coffee industry perhaps?) But there are more studies that link coffee consumption with risk of bladder, colon, ovary, pancreas, kidney and yes, even breast cancer. The cancer-causing chemical acrylamide found in coffee may be a factor, according to the UN World Health Organization.

A few biblical principles may help us with the coffee conundrum, and maybe some other health-related choices as well:

"So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God." I Corinthians 10:31 NRSV

"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body." I Corinthians 6:19-20 NRSV

"Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers." 3 John 2 This sounds like it's as important to guard your health as it is to say your prayers!

One anecdote: Dr. Howard Gimbel, chair of the Department of Ophthalmology at Loma Linda University, is often asked by decades-younger colleagues how his hands can operate with such precision in delicate eye surgeries. His answer: "I've never used caffeine. Not even as a student in medical school and certainly not now. I believe that choice has given me the steadiness in hand dexterity that I continue to enjoy today."

If you're still standing in line for that Grande Mocha Frappuccino, think about where those beans were picked and the social injustice to agriculture workers toiling in the "sweatshops of the fields." But Fair Trade is another topic for another day and another blog.

BTW, don't be too quick to judge if you see me schlepping a cup of Starbucks around O'Hare. Starbucks does carry hot soy milk, you know. Even flavored hot soy milk, if you must know. . .

References

Aaronson, L & Macnee, C.L. (1989). Tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine use during pregnancy. Journal of Obstetric and Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing,18(4), 279-287.

Alm, B., Wennergren, B., Norvenius, G., Skjærven, R., Øyen, N., Helweg-Larsen, K., Lagercrantz, H., L M Irgens, L.M., (1999). Caffeine and alcohol as risk factors for sudden infant death syndrome, 81:107-111.

American Psychiatry Association (2000), Quick Reference to the Diagnostic Criteria from DSM-IV-TR. American Psychiatry Association, Arlington, VA.

Ascherio, A. & Chen (2003). Caffeinated clues from epidemiology of Parkinson's disease. Neurology, 9, 61(11 Suppl 60), S51-4.

Ascherio, A., Weisskopf, M.G., O'Reilly, E.J., McCullough, M.L., Calle, E.E. Rodriguez, C. & Thun, M. J.(2004). Coffee Consumption, gender, and Parkinson disease mortality in the cancer prevention study II cohort: the modifying effects of estrogen. American Journal of Epidemiology, 160(10), 977-984.

Baylin, A., Hernandez-Diaz, S., Kabagambe, E.K., Siles, N. & Campos, H. Transient. (2006). Exposure to coffee as a trigger of a first nonfatal myocardial infarction. Epidemiology, 17(5), 495-497.

Bech, B.H., Nohr, E.A., Vaeth, M., Henriksen, T.B. & olsen, J. (2005). Coffee and fetal death; a chort study with prospective data. American Journal of Epidemiology, 162 910), 983-990.

Bell, D.G. & Jacobs, I. (1999). Combined caffeine and ephedrine ingestion improves run times of Canadian Forces Warrior Test. Aviation Space Environmental Medicine, 70(4), 325-329.

Botella, P. & Parra, A. (2003). Coffee increases state anxiety in males but not females. Human Pyschopharmacology Clinical Experiments, 18, 141-143.

Bruce, C.R., Anderson, M.E., Fraser, S.F., Stepto, N.K., Klein, R., Hopkins, W.G. & Hawley, J.A. (2000). Enhancement of 2000-m rowing performance after caffeine ingestion. Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise, 32(11), 1958-1963.

Chou, T. (1992). Wake up and smell the coffee: caffeine, coffee and the medical consequences. Western Journal of Medicine, 157, 544-553.

Chou, T.M & Benowitz, N.L. (1994). Caffeine and coffee: effects on health and cardiovascular disease. Comprehensive Biochemistry, Physiology, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Endocrinology, 109(2), 173-189.

Cornelius, M.C. & El-Sohemy, a. (2007). Coffee, caffeine, and coronary disease. Current Opinion of Lipidology, 18(1), 13-19.

Corti, R., Binggeli, C., Sudano, I., Spieker, L., Hanseler, E & Ruschitzka, F. (2002) Coffee acutely increases sympathetic nerve activity and blood pressure independently of caffeine content: role of habitual versus nonhabitual drinking, Circulation 106, p. 2935-2940

Curatolo PW, Roberson D. The health consequences of caffeine. Ann Intern Med 1983 May; 98 (5 Pt 1):641-653.

Domingue-Rojas v., de juanes-Pardo, j.R., Astasio-Arbiza, P., Ortega-Molina, P. & gordillo-Florencio, E. (1994). Spontaneous abortion in hospital population: are tobacco and coffee intake risk factors? European journal of Epidemiology, 10(6), 665-668.

Dluzen, D.E. (2000). Neoroprotective effects of estrogen upon the nitrostrital dopaminergic system. Journal of Neurocytology, 29, 387-399.

Doweiko, H.E. (2006). Concepts of Chemical Dependency (6th edition),United States: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Farag, N.H., Vincent, A.S., McKey, B.S., Al'Absi, M., Whitsett, T.L., Lovallo, W.R. (2006). Sex Differnce in the hemodynamic responses to mental stress: effect of caffeine consumption. Pyschophysiology, 43(4), 337-343.

Florack, e.I., Zielhauis, G.A. & Rolland, R. (1994). Cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, and caffeine intake and fecundability. Preventive Medicine, 23(2), 175-180.

Focking, M., Schmiegelt, D. Trapp, T. (2005). Caffeine-mediated enhancement of glucocorticoid receptor activity in human osteoblastic cells. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 337, 435-439.

Ford, R.P.K., Schluter, P.J., Mitchell, E.A., Taylor, B.J., Scragg, R. & Stewart, A.W. (1997). Heavy caffeine intake in pregnancy and sudden infant death syndrome. Arch Disease and Child, 78, 9-13.

Gloyd EA, Young-Seigler AC, et al. Chronic etanol ingestion produces cholinergic hypofunction in rat brain. Alcohol 1997 Jan-Feb;14 (1):93-98.

Greenberg, J., Boozer, C.N. & Geliebter, A. (2006). Coffee, diabetes, and weight control. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 84, 682-693.

Griffiths, R.R. & Woodson, P.P.(1988).Reinforcing properties of caffeine: studies in humans and laboratory animals. Pharmacology Biochemical Behavior, 29, 419-427.

Hannan, m.T., Felson, D.T., Dawson-Hughes, B., Tucker, K.L., Cupples, L.A., Wilson, P.W. & Kiel, D.P. (2000). Risk factors for longitudinal bone loss in elderly men and women: the Framingham Osteoporosis Study. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 15(4), 710-720.

Happonen, P., Voutilainen, S. & Salonen, J.T. (2004). Coffee drinking is dose-dependently related to the risk of acute coronary events in middle-aged men. Journal of Nutrition, 134(9), 2381-2386.

Hatcher, A.S. (1989). From one addiction to another: Life after alcohol and drug abuse. Nursing Practice, 14(11), 16-20.

Heppe, J. & Robson, P. (1996). The effect of caffeine on cue exposure responses in ex-smokers. Addiction, 91(2), 269-273.

Higdon, J. & Frei, B.( 2006). Coffee and health: a review of recent human research. Critical Review in Food Science and Nutrition, 46, 101-123.

Jack, E.J. (2004). Critical review of dietary caffeine and blood pressure: a relationship that should be taken more seriously. Psychomotor Medicine, 66, 63-71.

Jensen, T.K., Henriksen, T.B., Hjollund, N.H., Scheike, T., Kolstad, H., Giwercman, A., Ernst, E., Bonde, J.P., Skakkebaek, N.E. & Olsen, J. (1998). Reproductive Toxicity, 12 (3), 289-295.

Johansson, C., Mellstrom, D., Lerner, U. Osterberg, T. (1992). Coffee drinking: a minor risk factor for bone loss and fractures. Age and Aging, 21(1), 20-26.

Jose, G.D. & Helena, T. (2005). Is coffee a functional food? British Journal of Nutrition, 93, 773-782.

Judelson, D.A., Armstrong, L.E., Sokmen, B., Roti, M.W., Casa, D.J. & Kellog, M.D. ( 2005). Effect of chronic caffeine intake on choice reaction time, mood, and visual vigilance. Physiological Behavior, 85(5), 629-634.

Juliano, L.M. & Griffiths, R.R. (2004). A critical review of caffeine withdrawal: empirical validation of symptoms and signs, incidence, severity, and associated features. Pyschopharmocology, 176(1), 1-29.

Kozlowski, L.T., Henningfield, J.E., Keenan, R.M., Lei, H., Leigh, G., Jelinek, L.C., Pope, M.A. & Haertzen, C.A. (1993). Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 10(2), 171-179.

Lin Y, Phillis JW. Chronic caffeine exposure enhances adenosinergic inhibition of cerebral cortical neurons. Brain Res 1990 Jun 18;520 (1-2):322-323.

Lopez-Garcia, E., vanDam, R.M., Willett, W.C., Rimm, E.B., Manson, J., Stampfer, M.J., Rexrode, K.M. & Hu, F.B. (2006) Coffee consumption and coronary heart disease in men and women: a prospective cohort study. Circulation, 113, 2054-2053.

McKim, E.M. (1991). Caffeine and its effects on pregnancy and neonate. Journal of Nurse Midwifery, 36(4), 226-231.

McLellan, T.A., Lewis, D.C., O'brein, C.P., Kieber, H.D. (2007). Drug dependence, a chronic medical illness. Journal of American Medical Association, 284, 1689-1695.

Mith, A. (2002). Effect of caffeine on human behavior. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 40, 1243-1255

Moriyama T, Uezu K, et al. Effects of dietary phosphatidylcholine on memory in memory deficient mice with low brain acetylcholineconcentration. Life Sci 1996;58 (6):PL111-118.

Nehlig, A.(1999). Are we dependent on coffee and caffeine? A review on human and animal data. Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews, 23, 563-576.

Nehlig, A& Boyet, S. (2000). Dose-response study of caffeine effects on cerebral functional activity with a specific focus on dependence. Brain Research, 858, 71-77.

Pereira, M.A., Parker, E.D. & Folson, A.R. (2006). Does coffee consumption reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes in individuals with impaired glucose? Diabetes Care, 11, 2358-2390.

Quinlan, P., Lane, J. & Aspinall, L. (1997). Effects of hot tea, coffee and water ingestion on physiological responses and mood: the role of caffeine, water and beverage type. Pyschopharmacology, 143, 164-173.

Rapuri, P.B., Gallagher J.C. Nawaz, Z (2007). Caffeine decreases vitamin -D receptor protein expression and 1,25(OH)(2)D(3) stimulated alkaline phosphates activity in human osteoblast cells. Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (in print).

Rosmarin. P.C. (1989). Coffee and coronary heart disease: a review. Progressive Cardiovascular Disease, 32(3), 239-245.

Ross, G.W. & Petrovitch, H. (2001). Current evidence for nueroprotective effects of nicotine and caffeine against Parkinson disease. Drugs and Aging, 18(11), 797-806.

Satel, S. (2006). Is caffeine addictive? A review of the literature. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 32, 493-502.

Stuart, R., Hopkins, W.G., Cook, C. & Cairns, S.P. (1998). Multiple effects of caffeine on simulated high intensity team sports performance. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 37(11), 1998-2005.

Schwarzschild, M..A., Chen, J.F. & Acherio, A. (2002). Caffeinated clues and the promise of adenosine A (2A) antagonists in PD. Neurology, 58(8), 1154-1160.

Slattery, M.L., Caan, B.J., Anderson, K.E. & Patter, J.D. (1999). Intake of fluids and methylxanthine-containing beverages: association with colon cancer. International Journal of Cancer, 81, 199-204.

Smith, A., Sutherland, D. & Christopher, G. (2005). Effects of repeated doses of caffine on mood and performance of alert and fatigue volunteers. Journal of Pharmocology, 19(6), 620-626.

Sudano, I., Binggeli, c., Spieker, L., Luscher, T.F., Ruschitzka, F., Noll, G. & Corti, r. (2005).Cardiovascualr effects of coffee: is it a risk factor? Progressive Cardiovascular Disease, 20(2), 65-69.

Svikis, D., Berger, N., Haug, NA. & Griffiths, RR. (2005). Caffeine dependence in combination with family history of alcoholism as a predictor of continued use of caffeine during pregnancy. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(12), 2344-2351.

Stuart, G.R., Hopkins, W.G., Cook, C. & Cairns, S.P. (1998). Multiple effects of caffeine on simulated high-intensity team sports performance. Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise, 37 (11), 1998-2005.

Tan, E.K., Tan, C., Fook-Chong, S.M.C., Lum, S.Y., Chung, H., Shen, H., Zhao, Y., Teoh, M.L., Yih, Y., Pavanni, R., Chandran, V.R. & Wong, M.C. (2003). Dose-dependent protective effect of coffee, tea, and smoking in Parkinson disease, a study in ethnic Chinese. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 216, 163-167.

Tavani, A. & Vecchia, C.L. (2004). Coffee, decaffeinated coffee, tea, and cancer of the colon and rectum: a review of epidemiological studies, 1990-2003. Cancer Causes and Control, 15, 743-757.

Torstein, V., Bakketeig, L.S., Trgg, K.U., Lund-Larsen, K. & Jacobsen, G. (2003). High caffeine consumption in the third trimester of pregnancy: gender-specific effects on fetal growth. Pediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 17, 324-331.

Tucker, K.L., Morita, K., Qiao, N., Hannan, M.T., Cupples, L.A. & Kiel, D.P. (2006). Colas, but not other carbonated beverages, are associated with low bone mineral density in older women: the Framingham Osteoporosis Study. American Journal of Nutrition, 84, 936-942.

vanDam, H., Lorist, M.M. & Zijdewind, I. (2005). The effect of caffeine on cognitive task performance and motor fatigue. Psychopharmocology, 180, 539-547.

vanDam, R.M. (2006). Coffee and type 2 diabetes; from beans to beta-cells. Nutrition Metabolism and Cardiovascular Disease, 16(1), 69-77.

U. S Department of Agriculture National Nutrient Database. Retrieved January 22, 2006 from http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. (2004).
The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure, NIH Publication no 04-5230, 1-87.

Westerterp-Plantenga, M.S., Lejeune, P.G.M. & Kovacs, E.M.R. (2005). Body weight loss and weight maintenance in relation to habitual caffeine intake and green tea supplementation. Obesity Research 13 (7), 1195-1204.

William, M.H. (2006). Sports nutrition. In Shils, M.E., Shike,M. Ross, A.C., Caballero, B. Cousins, R.J. (10th ed.), Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease (pp1723-1740). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 

Comments

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 1st, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

I notice (there may be more) only one date on the lists of studies on coffee--1989--which is 20 years ago. There have been numerous studies, reported almost weekly, of the health benefits of MODERATE coffee use which has been largely ignored by proponents of complete abstention of both coffee and alcohol.

Much has been made each time a study shows confirmation with SDA health practices, but largely ignored, or the many that show the healthful benefits of these prohibted products. I could cite an equal number of studies with sufficient time, but it would still not convince someone who has ignored them to date.

Adventists may promote healthful diet and use of products, but these should never be more than suggestions as they cannot be shown in the Bible to be prohibited. Alcohol has always been used by Jews as well as all other cultures. Like any product, abuse can result, but so can abuse of sugar, salt, and any product when not used excessively Where is the Scripture to show that these products should be prohibited? Pork is one, but again, it was not prohibted for Christians, but Jews, and the new Christians were told that no food was "unclean."

ALL drugs are capable of harmful effects. Many take prescribed durgs that have allowed healthier living, even postponed death. Yes, there are often unwanted side effects, but the benefits must be weighed against harmful side effects. Coffee, for a very few individuals DOES cause the effects listed, but for the much larger population, one cup of coffee daily enhances their work, mental ability, and has no side effects at all. Older citizens are benefited even more by coffee and moderate intake of alcohol. How can all these studies be ignored if not by intended selection?

If one attempts to use EGW a their healh advisor, there are many suggestions she has given that are not only passe, but could be dangerous. She was a product of her time: "consumption" was a dread disease while today it is easily treated with prompt medical care; "night air" or "miasma" was the causative factor for malaria which was still not widely understood.

Personally, and I am certainly not alone, those seniors, of which I am one, have enjoyed longer life than the expectancy tables because we have not refused to listen to our physicians and have known what is beneficail for our bodies. Is mere "living" worth foregoing such things as coffee when it greatly improves both mentally and physically, the life present and ahead?



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 1st, 2011 todd@reconciler... says:

One of the churches I'm a part of serves coffee--not because we're trying to promote its use, but rather to communicate hospitality to Adventists and non-Adventists alike. To non-Adventists, it is standard practice at any place of business or organizational meeting to provide coffee to guests, clients and customers. We are trying to show similar hospitality at our church. With Adventists we use the coffee to communicate that we are not sweating the "small stuff." Avoiding caffeine is a good thing--but it's minor in importance compared to the "weightier matters of the law."

I see no "conflict of interest" in an Adventist church offering caffeinated beverages (along with non-caffeinated beverages) during designated hospitality times and then have a healthful living seminar where people are encouraged to remove caffeine from their diets. Just like there is no conflict of interest over having meat served at potluck dinners (hospitality event) and then teaching vegetarianism (healthful living). In fact, it would seem to communicate a more proper understanding of the role of diet in the overall framework of the gospel and Christian growth.

Todd Leonard



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 1st, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Having in the baptismal certificate or fundamental beliefs that Adventists believe in healtful living should be sufficient. Listing everything possible that may be harmful to some gives it far more importance than warranted. People need to decide such personal things for themselves, just like items of clothing, jewelry, and "proper" sabbath observance. These should not be subjects the church mandates but lets people decide such personal matters for themselves. Meat-eating is another. It should never be a test of fellowship, nor should those others mentioned.

Coffee is almost a universal sign of hospitality. Around the world in many cultures it may be tea or a drink of some kind that is a gesture of friendliness extended to the guest. Long ago, the SS class in a church I once attended had hot water and instant coffee or cocoa and no one checked who drank which. Often there was a cookie or donut "hole" to accompany the social hour that preceded the class discussion. It was a welcoming class and all the members expressed their appreciation of the gesture. Somehow, a water fountain does not exude the same warmth.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 1st, 2011 amed soliz says:

Personally I had horrible headaches with caffeine, my brain’s adenosine receptors, where caffeine works, are to sensitive to that medication/poison. As far as know this is not a nutrient.

We have even a major health problem with cardiovascular diseases, the number one cause of the death. Also obesity is in the rise, http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html . I wish in our churches could be an example on good taste and nutrition. In the social breaks as well as in the potlucks there is an abundance of empty calories. It’s sad to see some the members with health problems related over eating. One of the strongest points of the SDA church is health message; it is ironical to see how we ignore such a treasure.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 1st, 2011 KellymanSDA says:

First we stop believing the writings of Ellen White, then pick and choose from the Bible, then eventually leave the church altogether. Compromise only weakens our hold on the faith of Jesus. Believe His prophets and prosper. These things are true. I don't pretend to be perfect in obedience to all I know but I don't excuse my behaviour by citing cultural differences and practices. Instead I acknowledge my short comings to Christ and continue to plead for His grace to work in me. Drinking coffee only serves to dull the sensitive workings of my conscience.

Keep Faith, Have Hope, Always Love............


-Kelly
 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 2nd, 2011 klriley says:
 
Perhaps we went wrong by short-circuiting the original argument. We argued originally that God wanted us to have good health and that good physical health was connected to good spiritual health. Both are necessary if we are to do the work God has for us. Most of our pioneers almost killed themselves with their lifestyles before they learnt that lesson. Somewhere along the line we emphasised that we only had to do what the Bible directly commanded, and people started checking their Bibles to see what was said about coffee, tea, alcohol, meat, etc, etc, etc. Our original argument was not that the Bible prohibited these things, but that the Bible commanded us to care for our bodies in the best way possible, and ingesting these things did not fulfill that command. By allowing the question to change from "what does God require?" with the answer "good health practices", to the question "what does the Bible specifically and clearly forbid?" with the answer "not much", we have changed from a focus on good health to a focus on examining the minutiae of obscure Bible texts to excuse our own behaviour or to fault the behaviour of others. Rather than arguing over what is forbidden, perhaps we should focus on what is best for us. Perhaps a return to a commonsense approach to good health (with appropriate texts from the Bible and Ellen White considered) might be more persuasive than our current approach. Especially if we began practicing before preaching.

Kevin

 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 2nd, 2011 guibox says:

There are many health benefits to moderate coffee drinking such as:

* Prevention of type 2 diabetes

* Rich source of antioxidants such as polyphenols which increases brain function

* Prevention of heart and stroke

* Increased metabolism

* Decreased risk of alzheimers and Parkinsons

* Decreased risk of liver cancer

Again, as Elaine said, the key is MODERATION.

I guarantee that the sweets and sugary juices we serve at potlucks have a much more adverse effect on our health than coffee.

Darrell C

 


Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 2nd, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

guibox, a good list of coffee's benefits and all can be amply documented from medical studies of TODAY, not of the 19th century!

On another SDA blog a writer told of the many conversations developed through visit to Starbucks. People were talking about last-day events and their meaning, and made wonderful openings to introduce some concepts that many people are asking today. Starbucks, and similar coffee shops have long been the places for stimulating conversations. In fact, it was the introduction of coffee in Europe that enabled the Enlightenment--men would sit and converse on new findings in science, philosophy, and discoveries that have changed our world. Dismisiing the many benefits of coffee is to remove from lives one of the more traditional hospitality gestures. Stoicism has never been wildly popular nor attractive.


 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 2nd, 2011 markham says:

As Cindy has aptly explained -- no good really comes from caffeine and more damage than anything else.

It is trure that some potlucks serve far too much food loaded with sugar, etc. It would be interesting to see Cindy write an article about some of the unhealthful practices that plague too many potlucks

Truth Seeker



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 2nd, 2011 guibox says:

Markham,

At best the evidence is 50/50 and more so with over use, not moderation. Caffeine also is relative to the individual as to it's effects. For some, sugar affects one person much more than caffeine to another. Yet it is the coffee and caffeine that is demonized when the sugar gets a pass.

Why?

Simple when you get down to the roots of it: Sister White says so and this has always been our pioneers' stance. Bottom line. The medical evidence could be 80/20 in favor of coffee but it would not matter. This is further proven when many SDAs still demonize even decaffinated coffee simply because:

"Drinking coffee is sinful..Sister White says so'

For many, it is not about the caffeine. It is because we've associated coffee with sin and therefore, it doesn't matter how 'vegetarianized' it is made. It is still coffee and thus still sinful to drink.

 


Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 2nd, 2011 amed soliz says:

Some of you mentioned “the wonderful benefits of caffeine” could you provide the references. I hope that these ones are based in randomized prospective control trials (RCT) published in peer review journals sponsored by independent grants.

I have been in the medical profession for more than 30 years I’ll love to be enlightened by such articles. We use caffeine as a drug to treat apnea of prematurity. The efficacy is supported by the evidence but the long term safety is still is been evaluated.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 2nd, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Aspirin is a "miracle drug" and has been used for over 100 years, but it still has bad effects on some people. Every food, every obect we use in our bodies has the potential to be harmful.. But the SDA rule is: "Sister White says it shouldn't be used"--end of discussion.

Adventists are disengenuous in claiming health reasons for objecting to coffee, as there is no bad effects for the general population. She also was against pickles, mustard, and if one made an objective examination, many other foods could be found for which she objected--but often which she herself ate.

Why is there belief that studies showing the harmful effects of coffee are immediately accepted; yet the many that show the beneficial effects, also shown by medical studies, is dismissed? The best evaluation is personal--if it is of benefit for you--use it and stop worrying about some 19th century non-medical advice who has been shown to be wrong on many things. Why not check Mary Baker Eddy; she was against medical adice; just pray. Again--moderation in good things. There has already been evidenced showing that the heavy use of sugar is far more damaging to the human body.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 amed soliz says:

Aspirin is prescribed for specific conditions, and are based in studies. Caffeine also is a drug. Where are the studies to support the “wonderful benefits”? Until somebody shows the references, (RCT) the supposed benefits are just a gossip shared in the halls of Starbucks.

My wife, a pediatric neurologist, a leading authority in headaches in children and adolescents removes all the caffeine from the diet of her patients. She was doing that in one the most prestigious medical center in USA long before she became SDA.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:

Scientists have always been divided regarding the harmful effects of caffeine laced beverages like tea, coffee and coca cola etc. This would include green tea which also contains caffeine.

Second to water, tea is the most common drink on the planet so you know who will keep funding research to protect their interests. Here's a link with some information regarding the effects of caffeine allergy and research references:

http://www.doctoryourself.com/caffeine2.html

I grew up in a home that didn't use these stimulants as beverages and personally think they have a horrible taste so I don't drink it.

T



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 Seminarystudent1 says:

Seminary Student ,

Excellent article cindy , Something is for sure that in My church as long as I am the Pastor , we will never serve coffee . When People visit churches even if they have never attended before , they are not looking for " a good coffee drink " but they are searching for God . Somehow , we are trying to replace the word of God with food . If we let the bible speak , if the Jesus is alive , if the message of the living God has power stil today , we will touch people lives and help them to fill their deepest needs with the gospel not with coffee. When the church lacks something , automatically they try to replace it with something they can buy at the store . We need to practice hospitality , that is important , I remember when we were little , how Mom always invited people home after church and how much our church grew not because we gave them "any coffee " but because we cared for them . I am so thankful that even though I grew up in a country where coffee is the main product . We never have cofffee in our house , I think we need to practice more the principles of healthful living , when I have bible studies with people , coffee is presented as a drug ,and I help them get out of coffee. It is also interesting the "arguments " people give here , Elaine said " the Jews used alcohol " we don't follow Jewish tradition if it is not biblical . Jews also had some of them more than one wife , etc . we follow the bible . Most of the ones who advocate the use of coffee probably have never given a bible study to someone but they beleive that if we offer all these good things people will come , that is so dillutional . We need to go and look for people not people coming to our churches . So let's start working for God and not following "traditions " that won't help to spread the message .



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 Hansen says:

Amed,

I read a few articles which stated that caffeine is highly water soluble; consequently, if you brew tea, wait about a minute, and then toss the first brew, following brews from those leaves will have little, if any caffeine. One article said that if you toss the first two brews, after waiting a minute, there will be virtually no caffeine in following brews. Of course, for some teas, after two brews, the flavor is gone. Other types of tea, such as pu'er, one can brew the leaves several times before the flavor is gone.

So in the case of pu'er, it is entirely possible to drink tea which is essentially caffeine free. As a medical professional, do you agree with this?

Are there other compounds in tea, aside from caffeine, which are believed to be harmful?



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

"Coffee can cause mild anxiety when consumed in large doses, but these side effects pale in comparison to the myriad positive effects on human health imparted by a daily cup or two of coffee, according to Dr. Stephen Alexander, an Associate Professor of Molecular Pharmacology at the University of Nottingham, UK, writing in the Daily Mail newspaper online. Coffee temporarily boosts IQ and improves short-term memory, particularly in the elderly, where it also speeds reaction times and increases reasoning ability. Coffee focuses the mind, and Dr. Alexander reports that credible studies indicate that caffeine may stave off Parkinson's disease and other forms of dementia, and may even reverse Alzheimer's disease effects on the brain."

There are numerous studies on coffee's effect on humans done by reputable medical scientists. The Center for Science in the Public Interest has also duplicated such studies. The above is only one, but they can all be found on the internet and too numerous and time-consuming to search. As a regular subscriber to "Nutrion," a publication of CSPI, they have also reported similar benefits for Alzheimier, Parkinson's and general mental acuity and lower cancer rates.

For those who do not wish to drink coffee, just "don't." But to promote that idea for others is fallacious and cannot be supported by the best medical evidence. For those few who cannot tolerate the effects, wisdom also dictates abstention. Biblically, there can be no support for abstinence.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 amed soliz says:

Tom

There are several methods how to remove the methylxantines (caffeine, theophylline and theobromine ) from their natural products, all of them appear to be laborious and still after that no all caffeine is remove.

They are different kinds of tea; they contain not only caffeine but also theophyille, probably the mayor component, which is another drug.

I you ever go to Bolivia even in the 5 start hotels they will offer you “coca leaf tea” the same plant from were cocaine is extracted.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 amed soliz says:

Where is the medical evidence? I went to search in reliable medical journals. (You may try Ovid). There is evidence that caffeine may have benefits in rodents. In humans the best study “CAIDE” has serious limitations.
 
  1.         Here are not controls (people that don’t drink coffee) this one is a big limitation!
  2. they were comparing among coffee drinkers less that 2 cups/day, 3-5 and more than 5
  3. The group that had better results was the ones who were drinking 3-5 but also this was the group that was smoking less. So the benefit was because of coffee or because there were less smokers?
  4. The authors admitted serious limitation in this study, such a significant degree of education among the groups.
Medicine is full of mistakes that have been initiated by small pilots studies or epidemiological observation that later were proven to be wrong by prospective randomized control studies or meta-analysis. So any responsible scientist will wait until more information is collected before is recommended.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:

Are we talking caffeine as a beverage or medicine? There is a difference.

It is an accepted 'social drug' like alcohol and is also quite addictive and therein lies the danger. I'm no scientist but I have observed that those who frequently use these caffeine beverages are quite a 'cranky' lot when coming down from the 'high' - until their next fix. They won't acknowledge that of course. Most drug addicts don't.

Any form of 'addiction' is always a huge risk to spiritual growth and development except of course been 'Addicted to Jesus' ...

T



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 Hansen says:

It's amazing that more studies on caffeine have not been performed. After all these years, LLU has not done a credible study on this subject?



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 brad says:

Cindy, would you suggest that this statement about abstaining from caffeine should be put back onto baptismal statements?



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Perhaps LLU has not considered coffee use to be of significance. I have been a subjec in their health study since the beginning, and don't recall ever being asked about coffee consumption. Maybe they know something we don't know? And if, by any chance, they agreed with the studies showing the positive effects, would they dare publish it?



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

"Scores of studies have shown that caffeine can be harmful to your health in the following ways:

Note: The operative word CAN BE! Usually, the results are given in number and percent. An equal number can be shown to have beneficial effects. IOW, its use always depends on the individual's response. For the surgeon mentioned, coffee was a "no-no." But anyone familar with studies rejects such anecdotal stories as completely unreliable.

To repeat: if coffee affects you negatively: DO NOT USE. For many, it offers benefits as has been shown in a number of diseases. No need to start the habit, but those long MODERATE users have already determined the personal benefits.

The Bible admonitions can be used for many things we injest. Having the wisdom to allow individuals to interpret the Bible is the principle of religious freedom for others to read and interpret the Bible for themselves.

Same with alcohol: there is nothing in the Bible promoting complete abstinence. It is even advocated in the OT for those who are unable to get to the storehouse, to use it for strong drink!



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 Ella M says:

I find the occasional use of coffee to be a nonissue, though I don't like it myself unless it is mild in some sort of desert. I am sure there are times when it is necessary like when driving all night. It is not recommended by some of the new national leaders in disease prevention and reversal who are promoting a vegan diet.

Now alcohol is another matter as it has been responsible for a lot of crime, bloodshed, violence and accidents. Families have been devistated by it, lives ruined. I know you will say that is only for some, but for the 10% or more that become addicted, it becomes a worldwide plague. If any other disease were so pandemic as alcoholism, the medical profession would be up in arms. It is more ruinous than smoking which is decreasing in popularity. I would want to see that happen with alcohol, but I doubt that it will. Is it worth the couple of extra years the "strong" ones might live with a little wine? I would say it is selfish to drink (promote it) with so many suffering because of it.

As for doctors, of course they are needed, mostly for emergencies. However, there are so many wrong decisions by them and lack of interest in prevention (plus the mistakes in hospitals), that sometimes we are better off without them. It just takes lots of discernment to know the difference.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 Ella M says:

Elaine,

Listing everything possible that may be harmful to some gives it far more importance than warranted.

I think you are quite right on this one and the rest of your post. People should have the information, but let them make their own decisions on these nonissues that may have been issues a hundred years ago in all the churches. It's not now; we just need to present the principles and let the members apply them.

I do think all churches should offer health programs and health information, and let the people make their own personal decisions without judging them--it's their lives. I would not want to see alcohol removed from our "no" list, however, or recreational drugs--which are the same thing.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 llindmark says:

This time I just have to write and confront the rubbish under the title Starbucks. Must be an April Fools joke (1 April)!? We certainly have them a lot around here in Scandinavia, but I did not know that EGW Estate or their employees started to pick up this amusing trend:) Dr Tutsch your review is extremely onesided and not at all trustworthy. I am surprised and truely upset that someone with your background (DMin) pretend to have the knowledge (a long reference list) to write so knowingly wrong stuff and with the intent to ”prove” some old folklore more than 100 years old. To insert arguments of "Fair Trade" makes the case almost intolerable as if this would only go for coffee beans. I only buy ecological and fair trade coffee. I am ashamed to ever have been asscociated with this kind of nonsense. How can you honestly believe you or anyone else with this mindset can truthfully carry the gospel to a dying world. I remember from the early 1970’s when I was in charge of the youth in the Stockholm church - coffee being a hot topic. It was heavily debated if we could serve coffee to the homeless (mostly alcoholics) we as youth (also together with other christian churches) tried to reach with food, warm drink and social contact mainly out in town during night walks, but also in the church. It was a battle, also at the church board level. They tried to forbid us serving coffee, but none of them had never been out meeting the homeless or less trying to understand their situation. Shameful. Not serving coffee would have been refusing a chance to have some contacts with them, give them some food, listen to their story, sing with them, pray with them, etc. We never gave in for which I am glad still to this day.

I have since been working with nutritional, biochemical and medical science for almost 40 years and have a Dr Med Sc (PhD) degree in nutrition and metabolism from Stockholm and Gothenburg University. The more I have studied and done my own research in nutrition and medicine the more it has become clear to me that the SDA health doctrine is wrong and much too onesided, especially it’s legalistic parts.

If one really would like debate a health/nutrition/medical topics at atoday I would recommend the editorial board to ask some with better insight and firsthand experience. Maybe there is another agenda?

"Even water if ingested in too large quantities can be a poison"



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Ah, Ella, the voice of reason! It is so easy to pick out OPS (Other people's sins) and point fingers and Adventists seem so adept at that.

Given good healthy living information, each person should decide. There are far more problems with too much sugar than in even too much coffee! The constant advice for cutting down the intakes of sugary drinks, hidden sugar in food, and excess refined carbs will soon be the larrgest cost in treating diabetes and heart disease. How many patients are treated for coffee drinking?

Yes, abuse of alcohol is a huge problem; nevertheless, the large majority never abuse, and the ones who do cause the problems with DUI, domestic violence, etc., Today, it's the illegal use of prescription drugs that is the newest problem. If coffee ever caused one-tenth of the problems that abuse of alcohol and prescription drugs, it would be widely known. The huge illegal drug trade, much of it with Mexico, is not for importing coffee!

THe problems (?) with coffee should be compared with sugar (a favorite of SDA potlucks) and cheese! No one would dare show up with coffee, but which is worse?



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Lindmark,

Your comments were sorely needed from a professional who is so much better informed on the effects of coffee. If fewer people listened to an employee, however devoted to EGW's writings as being the "last word: oblivious to science, the church would not be burdened with such out-dated baggage. To invest her as an authority on every subject possible is to make her ineffective on all.No one has those qualifications.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 amed soliz says:

Lindmark

Could provide the references for your work ? did you study the effects of caffeine? where were published?



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

After reading the complete list following the original article it is somewhat deceptive as not all, by any means ,are negative for caffeine. Some were the effects of alcohol (something Starbuck does not sell) on mice! Others were showing the effect on fertility, and many were of the benefits of coffee. It would have been far more persuasive if a summation of the studies were given, rather than simply quoting EGW and "listing" refe references, many that were contrary to the thesis!

This would never pass the requirements for documentation of a scholastic thesis.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 CherryAshlock says:

Find your wings and soar!

llindmark,

"The more I have studied and done my own research in nutrition and medicine the more it has become clear to me that the SDA health doctrine is wrong and much too onesided, especially it’s legalistic parts."


please tell me what the health benefits are of smoking? eating meat? over indulging in alcohol? using recreational drugs?

I am not sure if you are dissing the whole health doctrine or just the caffeine part. I can't take you seriously if you are saying the whole sda health doctrine is bunk.......part of the practices encouraged are sunshine, rest, water, exercise, spiritual growth, fresh air........

I agree that moderation is key and that being ocd about the 'rules' and the ensuing stress caused is more detrimental then actually indulging in something 'forbidden'

Luckily God loves me whether I drink coffee or not!



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 amed soliz says:

Caffeine is a DRUG not a nutrient! Look any book of pharmacology and you will find out that caffeine produces dependency (addiction) and withdrawal. It has numerous side effects. Caffeine is only approved to treat apnea of prematurity, in occasions in some migraines (although also caffeine produces headaches). Until now there is not a proof (in RCT) that caffeine has others benefits or are indicated to treat o prevent diseases.

Some people mention moderation what does mean for an individual? One cup, one soft drink or five drinks a day? How do you know already you are addicted to caffeine that you do not function normally at least you have your daily dose of your drug?

A word of caution if any in this blog is thinking to combine caffeine with alcohol that could be your last drink. The FDA has released a strong caution to avoid the combination of these drugs that could be fatal



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 Hansen says:

I was in Laos recently and thought I was buying a tamarind drink. Turned out to have been an iced, Laotian coffee. I just tasted it before tossing it in the rubbish. It was absolutley delicious, bittersweet, ice cold, and thick and creamy, nothing like the bitter, black water my Dad used to drink.

I had the same experience with chewing tobacco. An old Adventist man I knew had been chewing tobacco on the down low for 40/50 years as an Adventist. His daughter, a denominational employee, was trying to help him "get the victory." There was an ongoing struggle between them.

One day, I found a pack of Beechnut chewing tobacco. Even though his chew of choice was Redman, I decided to try a plug to see what it was that had such a grip on him. When that stuff hit my cheek, I nearly flipped. It was so delicious, I could hardly believe it. It reminded me of the Sugar Daddy candy bars that I enjoyed so much as a kid. Well, I spit out that plug and went on my way, with a little more sympathy for the old guy who was struggling to "get the victory."

Perhaps that is what is so bewitching about gay sex and various other sins with which we struggle. As for coffee and tobacco, in terms of sensual delight, both seemed spectacular. If gay sex is like that to many young people who want to try it on, my advice is to Just Say NO to coffee, chewing tobacco, and homosexuality!

Actually, coffee drinking might be a gateway drug of sorts to the homosexual life style. I bet that most gay Adventists have experimented with coffee or drink it now. I knew a girl who was raised Adventist, more or less. She became a go go dancer in a topless bar. I know that she drank coffee. She also ate unclean foods such as bacon.

Just Say NO, in harmony with the counsel of Sr. Ellen G. White.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 CherryAshlock says:

Find your wings and soar!

hansen, are you serious? if coffee is a homosexual gateway then most of the world would be gay instead of the small percentage that are. crazy talk! illogical!



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Those are the best stories yet! Coffee the gateway to gay sex! We've heard it all, and right here. Who would have guessed! We really should be warning he young people of the REAL hazards of coffee and where it might lead. Maybe all those Starbucks crowds are really homosexuals! Must be something in those capuccinos!



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 klriley says:

Read Hansen's last line, remember what he has written in the past, and go back and reread his post. A lot of people are going to have to develop their sense of irony before they're ready for heaven, because God seems to love it. I sometimes wonder how much of the Bible that we take seriously was just the authors reflecting God's sense of irony. Some of you have obviously had way too much coffee [or something] today!

Kevin



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 3rd, 2011 Hansen says:

Cherry, I'm not saying that coffee is a gateway drug to homosexuality for the Babylonian Sunday keepers and atheists. I was referring to the Adventist youth and older people who become gay. I figure that most of them experimented with coffee drinking prior to their first homosexual contact; furthermore, I suggest that coffee drinking is a corollary of the gay Adventist lifestyle.

Think about it. Do you actually believe that most gay Adventists are traditional Adventists who just happen to be homosexual? Do they subscribe to every single one of the fundamental beliefs? Have they signed and carried out the temperance pledge? Do they Ingather?

Of course not. Truth be told, and it is embarrassing to even mention it, but it is extremely likely that most gay Adventists disregarded the inspired counsel regarding "secret vice" as well. Coffee drinking [intemperance, including drunkenness]+ secret vice+ genetic factors+ familial/social conditioning, all may contribute to homosexuality.

The one Adventist physician I knew who had AIDS was an alcoholic. His friend, who also had AIDS, took more medication than his prescription allowed. I was chatting with him one day and mentioned the prescribed dosage. "G** d******," he said, "I'm dying here. Give me the F*****g pills."

So while it may sound crazy to you, intemperance in one form another very likely plays a roll in these things. Most of the gays I knew who had AIDS back in the nineties were probably coffee drinkers.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 4th, 2011 pat travis says:

I don't get it....

"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit," Rom.14:17.

regards.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 4th, 2011 klriley says:

I was sure you were not being serious. Now I am not so sure. Most SDAs disregarded the advice re 'secret vice', and there is no evidence that most are gay. Over 50% disregard the advice to be vegetarian, but I would find it very hard to believe that 50% of SDAs are gay - no matter how far we stretch the meaning of gay. Ellen White herself took decades to decide not to eat meat ever again, and follow through on that. Coffee drinking has never been considered seriously as a cause of anyone being gay - and I suspect there is a good reason for that. You also have to explain how so many people in non-coffee drinking areas of the world became gay if coffee is in any way implicated.

I can't believe I am actually joining in this conversation.

Kevin



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 4th, 2011 pagophilus says:

I'll support Hansen on this one. Finally someone around here can see the link.

It's not that coffee drinking leads to homosexuaity. It's that lack of self-control in one area leads to more lack of self-control in other areas. And homosexuality is a just another form of perversion. It's a choice people make (and don't start quoting me discredited studies to prove me wrong and blame it on genetics. You may as well blame football addiction on genetics as well. And remember that genes have switches that can be switched on and off.)

On the coffee topic, a colleague of mine (health professional, non Adventist, probably non-Christian) has just announced that he is quitting drinking coffee because it only has negative effects on your health and does not increase concentration or performance, simply increases alertness. What does he know that you don't Elaine et al?

If you have 2 studies which contradict each other, keep in mind that plain logic tells you at least one of them must be faulty. Go and read the fine print.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 4th, 2011 pat travis says:

Well from some of these astute "self control" observations if one is overweight and thus lacks self control well... all sorts of "deviant" behavior is just on the horizon. :>)

An alarm must go off in all SDA churches this weekend...but wait...being overweight isn't that bad is it...after all we are healthy and don't " don't eat meat, drink wine or caffeine" how can that possibly lead to "these linked perversions."

Lord help us...to see simply temperance in all things concerning food and drink is the best mantra...and mind your "eating and drinking" and not anothers.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 4th, 2011 CherryAshlock says:

Find your wings and soar!

hansen, thanks for brightening monday morning for me! i understand temperence etc. but i think you will find tons of exceptions to 'your' rule if you ask around.

i am not attracted to jesus by your seemingly judgmental statements. i know a starbucks employee who is gay, smokes, and is lovely and likes to talk about God. I have learned alot from him about how to respect and love people who make different choices. If I judged him by quoting egw and the bible i would lose his friendship and the opportunity to share how God leads in my life with him.

I understand your deeply held beliefs since I grew up a sda and still am. I just cringe when sda's are so good at spouting the 'rules' but sound so angry and judgmental and not welcoming and actually a bit scary. How do you mingle with the 'world' with such an attitude? How can you be salt or light when you are rejecting people who make different choices then you? I find a gentler approach attracts more people....



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 4th, 2011 amed soliz says:

I have to admit i had a good laugh seen some of the comments in this blog thanks guys! i needed to relax a little bit
 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 4th, 2011 pbobmason says:

Wow, this is a super fun thread what with all the science and irony and incredulity flying through the conversation. I nearly spilled my morning beverage ducking to avoid a zinger or two!

Don't worry, my morning beverage is 14 oz. of water, microwaved for 90 seconds. I highly recommend it, but, as has been pointed out, I'm careful not to overdo it and go for the 96 oz. supergulp with its attendant deleterious effects.

Out of all this, a couple of things have made incredible sense to me:

1. I think we made a correct mistake with our specificity in the baptismal vows. Once we start listing things, we get into a game for which there is no time out or final bell. Things that are on the list lose credibility by comparison with things that aren't, and a legalistic mindset is fed even as the appetite is not. I don't disagree with those old lists. That's why I call it a correct mistake. It seems that most of the worst mistakes are correct.

2. If we believe that God gave this insight to Ellen White, no scientific study should dissuade us from following the counsel received. The scientific studies are demonstrably contradictory (I do not speak from ignorance; I receive regular updates and read them), almost no researcher can credibly claim total objectivity on this subject (have you read Charlie Sheen's latest study on crack?--OK, I know I'm pushing it here--WINNING!), and even if scientists uniformly endorsed caffeine, they don't hold a candle to divine inspiration. If the Bible story is to be believed, Noah really went out on a limb (actually, an extensive collection of tar-coverd gopher limbs) without any scientific support!

3. How we need the Holy Spirit to guide us through the complexities and nuances of mutual accountability and freedom in the body of Christ. "Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand." Romans 14:4. "And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15.

4. The answer is love. "But speaking the truth in love may grow up into Him which is the Head, even Christ." Ephesians 4:15. Too much 'truth' is given without love, and too much 'love' is offered without truth. If we get satisfaction about being 'right' when we offer 'truth', love is lacking; if we acceptingly stand by as people lead themselves to destruction (be it minor or major), can we then say we are truly loving them?

Soooo . . . I know, that was more than a couple of things. I hope you love me anyway, though, 'cause I love all of you, and wish God's leading for you from wherever you are all the way to heaven where we can meet for sure!



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 4th, 2011 pbobmason says:

I must offer one caveat on my previous comment: I have no idea of the scientific training or lack of it of Noah or anyone in his family.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 4th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

For a hearty laugh, these comments take the cake! I've learned so much invaluable information that in my 86 years I never knew! Just think, I could have been a lesbian and blamed it on beginning to drink coffee a couple of years ago. But, there's still time; who knows?

Or, I should have dropped dead from a heart attack of colon cancer, or whatever else coffee has been blamed for. What an exciting world of new and dazziling scientific information. Whatever did our poor ancestors do when deprived of such wonderful news!



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 4th, 2011 Seminarystudent1 says:

Elaine ,You speak with a lot of wisdom , wow you are 86 years old ! I will take you more seriously from now on , you are a wise woman .



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 4th, 2011 Preston says:

Coming soon . . . "Veggie- Latte." You heard it here, first!



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 4th, 2011 Frank Allen says:

Our church, through EGW, has a long historical posture discouraging coffee and tea, usually combined with tobacco, alcohol, eating meat, spices, rich foods, and opium. The reasons for refraining were not optional, for which many SDA’s today would be more comfortable. Instead it was often discouraged on moral grounds—as God’s will.

To be honest, absolutism in regard to food, in our multi-national church, bothers me. I find EGW’s positions at times tough to defend, although I want to support them, if publically recommended I am not sure they would not create new converts. I cite a few troublesome examples spanning over 40 years from EGW:

(1) Camp Meeting pledge: Ellen & James circulated a temperance pledge “to abstain from Java coffee and the herb that comes from China [green or black tea]” The attendees were to pledge never to use “liquor, tea, and coffee.” Some “hesitated, thinking that the platform was too broad in including tea and coffee, but finally their names were given, pledging themselves to total abstinence.” (Te 82. 1887).


(2) Is a sin: “Tea and coffee drinking is a sin…a darling idol” (CD 425, 1896). “Tea, coffee, tobacco, and alcohol we must present as sinful indulgences” (3SM 287).


(3) Hinders sanctification: To Ellen it was impossible to stand before God a­­s a “perfected people” if they used “flesh meats, tea and coffee” (CD 161. 1909). It blunts the conscience so “sin does not appear very sinful, and truth is not regarded of greater value than earthly treasure” (CD 425).


(4) Money spent is totally wasted: “Every penny expended for tea, coffee, and flesh meat is worse than wasted,” and will “hinder the best development of the physical, mental, and spiritual powers” (CD 402, 1902).


(5) Given to anger: The use of coffee and tea results in “unsound judgment and unbalanced mind(s)…hasty, impatient, accusing spirit, viewing the faults of others as through a magnifying glass, and utterly unable to discern their own defects” (CD 421, 1890). “Coffee benumbs the brain” and making it impossible to keep a “calm state of mind” without “flying into a passion (anger)” (CD 423). “Under the influence of (‘tea, coffee, and flesh meats’) these poison the nervous system…” (3T 487). “Tea acts as a stimulant and, to a certain extent, produces intoxication” (MH 326, 1905).


(6) Imbalances the judgment and morals: “The habit of drinking tea and coffee… the whole system suffers. The nerves are unbalanced, the liver is morbid…quality and circulation of the blood are affected, and the skin becomes inactive and sallow. The mind, too, is injured….only to leave it weaker and less capable of exertion. The after-effect is prostration, not only mental and physical, but moral. As a result we see nervous men and women, of unsound judgment and unbalanced mind” CTBH 35, 1890).


(7) Hinders mental & spiritual progress: Coffee is a “hurtful indulgence,” for it creates “exhaustion, prostration, paralysis of the mental, moral, and physical powers,” and unless this “habit is overcome; the activity of the brain is permanently lessened.” The “tea and coffee habit” wares “away the life-forces, and the restlessness caused by shattered nerves, the impatience, the mental feebleness, become a warring element, antagonizing to spiritual progress” (CTBH 34, 1890).


(8) Creates disease: “Diseases of every stripe and type” is comes by the use of “tea and coffee and the narcotics, opium and tobacco” (CD 421, 1887).


(9) Increases need for medication: The sick “who persist in the use of tea, coffee, and flesh meats” will need drugs (prescription) to recover. If they would give up these indulgences “many might recover without one grain of medicine…Drugs need seldom be used” (CH 261, 1890).


(10) Loss of vitality: “Tea and coffee” produces “headache(s), wakefulness, palpitation of the heart, indigestion, trembling, and many other evils, for they wear away the life forces” (MH 325, 1905).


(11) Reward & blessing on gifting: The money spend on “tea and coffee” if given to the church “would receive more blessings here and a reward in heaven” (EW 121, 1882).


(12) Users cannot enter heaven: “The practice of using liquor, tobacco, tea, and coffee must be overcome by the converting power of God. There shall nothing enter into the kingdom of God that defileth” (Te 69. 1897).


(13) God demands a covenant of denial: “Regarding the evils of the use of flesh meats, tea and coffee…” believers should “make a covenant with God by sacrifice.” “God demands that…self-denial be practiced…this is a work that must be done before his people can stand before him a perfect people” (RH, 1910).


(14) God not heal us: “For thirty years the light on health reform has been coming to the people of God…They have continued to use tea, coffee, spices, and flesh meat. Their bodies are full of disease. How can we, I ask, present such ones to the Lord for healing?” (CD 400, 1903).


(15) Cannot worship God: “Those who are in the habit of using tea, coffee, tobacco, opium, or spirituous liquors, cannot worship God…divine grace would be powerless to animate, enliven, or spiritualize their prayers or their testimonies. These professed Christians should consider…Is it from above, or from beneath?” (CD 426, 1881). Its use “blunts the effect of truth upon the heart” and makes it “impossible for the spirit and power of the truth to sanctify when controlled by sensual desires” (CE 181. 1893).


(16) Increases gossip and slander: “When these tea and coffee users meet together for social entertainment…their tongues are loosened, and they begin the wicked work of talking against others….An unseen Watcher is writing their words in the books of heaven. All these unkind criticisms…envious feelings, expressed under the excitement of the cup of tea, Jesus registers as against Himself. ‘Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me’” (CD 423).

(17) Breaks laws of health with sure penalty: “Some have backslidden…with tea and coffee. Those who break the laws of health will become blinded in their minds and break the law of God” (RH 1884). “Unnatural appetite, whether for tea, coffee, tobacco, or liquor, is intemperance, and is at war with the laws of life and health. By using these forbidden articles…the Creator never designed. This indulgence in any of the members of the human family is sin. . . . (it) is a violation of the law of God. The cause produces the effect. Suffering, disease, and death are the sure penalty of indulgence” (Ev 265, 1899).

"Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?" And He said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man." Mark 7:18-23 NKJ



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 4th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Seminary Student: Thank you for the nice comment. They all come from long years of observtion.

Frank Allen: Whew! what a relief! I thought coffee was the cause of homosexuality and now that it's been revealed as the cause of so many conditions, how do those who have never used it explain their conditions when they have practiced abstinence?

The physicians should be informed of these astounding facts! Now, all of these can be treated simply and with no cost: simply eliminate all those things from one's diet and he will be ready for heaven, and remember not even meat!



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 4th, 2011 pat travis says:

Frank,

When Ellen agrees with scripture I agree with her. The quotes are the first compilation over a 40 yr. span I have seen. They are problematic to say the least. If someone chooses not to use these things wonderful. To guilt trip on these issues, barring opium which is harmful when chronically used except for pain, is indeed problematic.

Your scriptural quote plus Rom.14:17 and 1 Tim. 4:3-8 clearly oppose the "new light" teachings done in moderation.

regards,

pat



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 4th, 2011 CherryAshlock says:
Find your wings and soar!

pbobmason

do you pick and choose which egw insights to follow? i believe she said things about bicycles, baseball, bowling......i am guessing you have owned a bicycle in your lifetime and probably even played baseball.........

i think there are more contemporary reasons to not drink alcohol, smoke, abuse drugs, eat meat then only because egw said something....i have no problem believing egw was inspired but some things were statements that applied then....principles can still be applied but not the 'rule'.......we look at some things in the bible that way also...some things were only pertinent to the time in which they were written...i don't find many christians following all the rules in leviticus.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 4th, 2011 Steve Moran says:

Cindy I have a few questions I would like to toss at you related to this article:

1. Are you proposing or do you think we should amend the 28 fundamentals and/or baptismal vows to include a complete prohibition of coffee and tea? Why or why not?

2. Would you be willing to write a similar blog post about being overweight?

3. Do you believe that we should amend the 28 fundamentals and/or baptismal vows to prohibit anyone who is overweight from being baptized? Why are why not?

4. Same questions for not doing acts of kindness for the least of these.

5. Same questions for not loving each other within the church.

6. Same questions for gossip.

My point is, that I am having a very difficult time believing that given and the pain and suffering that takes place in this world today as we know it, that Jesus would be spending very much time addressing the issue of caffeinated drinks.

The reason I am so bothered by stuff like this is that it makes the God of the Adventist church look petty which he is not. It makes the Church look petty and I hope we are not, though I sometimes fear that we are.

In the grip of grace

Steve Moran



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 4th, 2011 Seminarystudent1 says:

Seminary Student,

Mr. Steve Moran , I think we need to have love for people first . I went to preach to nice church about a month ago . The people were very friendly , it was a small church most of the people were immigrants , these people did not have much in material things . After the service they invited us for putluck , they served meat , I didn't eat meat cause it makes me sick but we had a good fellowship and I only ate the salad . My "legalistic " tendencies wanted to condemn these nice people but I refrained myself , I think my wife helped me to do that . They want me to go back . I fell in love with these people the humility they have and the love for each other is unique . We are planning on doing some cooking classes to help them eat better .My Job is not to condemn them but to love them and try to help them to have healthier lives . In tha case of coffee research and Inspiration of Ellen white has confirmed that Coffee is not good for us . Instead of giving them coffee , how about given them something better . Should we serve cigarrets ,just to attrack people ? how about alcohol ? If we really love people we should give them what is going to be for their benefit . The gospel is the power of God , when we don't have the power we try to replace it by doing things against the law of God .



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 4th, 2011 David C. Read says:

Did you ever wonder about the role of caffeine in nature? After all, it is a naturally occurring substance. As good ol' wikipedia will confirm for you, caffeine is an insecticide. It kills insects that might otherwise eat the plant or its seeds.

Does that sound like something you should be ingesting?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine.

 


Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 brad says:

This issue is not whether or not caffeine is good or bad for you. The issue, in my mind, is that this article suggests (by its praise of these old requirements regarding caffeine abstinence) that this would be a good idea for our church today. Given that obesity, for example, is unquestionably a higher risk behavior for ones health than mild-moderate caffeine consumption, the logical assumption then is that this also should be included on the list of "who's in and who's out."

Several years ago I saw someone holding a sign that said "God hates fags!" which was accompanied by a verse in Leviticus or Deuternomy. I couldn't help but noticing that this individual was rather obese. Given that Deuteronomy 21 allows for the stoning of gluttonous children it seemed quite hypocritical for this person to pick out the one verse to condemn homosexuals while ignoring the verse that condemned their own vice.

It's sad to me that this article was published. I doubt that the author has read the articles that are listed in her extensive "references". The number one article that comes up after a google search of the phrase "dangers of caffeine" has the identical list, copied word for word (even with two dashes) that Cindy lists in her article. In other words, the mindset for this article was not, "I'm going to do a scientific investigation of the pro's and con's of caffeine and give my humble opinion as a non-scientific individual", etc. The mindset was, "I know that caffeine is bad, SDA's should go back to their roots on some of these issues, and I'm going to find the 'evidence' that I am looking for."

With all the significant issues that could be discussed, articles like this foster a judgmental and condemnatory so that some can feel better about themselves, "At least I'm not like THAT!"

The author asks me not to judge if I see her holding a Starbucks cup. Would she judge me if I am holding one?



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 Hansen says:

Frank, Nice assortment of statements. In addition to the physical issues, such as headache, heart palpitations, and indigestion, EGW mentions several problems related to personality and moral character By moral character, I mean anger, impatience and the likely verbal abuse which accompanies bad moods.

The scientific literature, while not particularly damning, does agree that caffeine passes through the blood brain barrier, thereby directly affecting the brain and thought processes. Physical manifestations aside, people should be concerned about foreign substances which affect the thoughts.

Steve,

Scripture says we should keep our hearts with all diligence because from the heart proceeds the issues of life. If caffeine impacts our thought processes in a negative way, why would anyone want to use it?

This is an entirely different issue than straining at gnats while swallowing camels. The idea is that caffeine impairs our ability to be concerned about the weightier matters of the law, such as love mercy, and justice.

Jesus said that even the hairs of our heads are numbered, that God is concerned about the death of little sparrows. Apparently he isn't so big He overlooks those little things. If the death of a sparrow concerns him, how does he feel about verbal abuse, anger, and other forms of strife which create psychic injury to other people.

EGW says that caffeine consumption contributes to that. And that is something that most people would agree the world would be better without.

If you are a coffee or tea drinker, the next time you do or say something injurious to others, consider that caffeine may hve caused you to act or speak or think like that.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 CherryAshlock says:
Find your wings and soar!

hansen

"if you are a coffee or tea drinker, the next time you do or say something injurious to others, consider that caffeine may hve caused you to act or speak or think like that. "

since you do not drink coffee or tea what is your excuse for saying something injurious to others? silly me but i thought satan/sin caused one to say hurtful things........



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 pat travis says:

Is this the same Hansen that recognizes the difficulties of the tradtional "prophectic understanding of EGW on 1844?" Is it possible these present things are also a bit overstated? Just curious...I'll ask my phrenologist what he thinks. :>)

The body is a "physiological machine" which includes powerful opiates such as endorphins and enkephalins for pain and mood control. It can process many chemicals which are not at a toxic level without damage to it. Of course, there are some chemicals that can cause permanent damage at low dosage but I suggest alcohol, caffeine, spices, and "meat" are not among them.

Pat

 


Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 pat travis says:

David,

As I sit here sipping on my diet coke I am comforted by knowing I will kill insect larvae in my G.I. tract. :>)

I am also reminded by some in SS classes that meat will not exist in heaven.

I remind them that neither will sexual intercourse be practiced in heaven but I do not purposefully avoid either sex or meat in the present age as scripture blesses both for humanity within the parameters given.

Did you know you can drink to much water that will result in death? Moderation in all things good.

regards,

pat



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

I'm sipping my home made iced capuccino while writing this and can testify that it has given me an evern rosier outlook than before. The urge and ability to do some minor housekeeping, and other chores that often are put off for more sedentary things. At my age, a little "help" is welcomed, and such "side effects" are a boost, both mentally and physuically. Every prescribed "drug" has even worse potential side effects which must be weighed against benefits. The benefits of coffe have, indisputably, proved to be of beneift for so many and so many conditions, that some 19th century advice is far too outdated to be considered. Consideration should be given to the illogical rfeason for accepting only partially such outdated medical advice while rejecting all the rest. Simply consider the expected longevity in the 19th century with today to realize how crude medical advice was at that time.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 amed soliz says:

Some the comments in this blog still are giving me a reason to have a good laugh. Laugh is good for my heart. I hope the ones are given me this “medication for my heart” are not done under the influence of high dose of caffeine or the withdrawal of it.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 pat travis says:

Elaine,

If you keep that up you may die young! Just how long do these folks expect to live a quality lifestyle pain free...death can be a blessing...perhaps the only "blessing" of dementia is that it causes one to meet so many new friends.

Amed,

Normally I like my "opiate high" from physical exercise but the weather is horrible in central Florida today...so the Coke Zero will do.

To much smiling means your really oblivious to knowing what is happening! :>)

pat



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 amed soliz says:

Pat

The weather in Coral Gables, Fl is great so I’ll drink a nice “natural fruity smoothie”

You may watch for the “Zero” too, the other day my friend Dr Davis, Chief of research from Tuffs University, gave a lecture. He showed insulin release is stimulated by the diet soft drinks.

Coffee and caffeinated drinks are very popular in “south of the border” and still the incidence of GI parasites is the highest. Do you think maybe they need more Cola drinks to kill the parasites? :)



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 pat travis says:

Amed,

I guess it shows David's theory of "toxic levels my be suspect." :>)

There is the story of the SDA pastor showing how both alcohol and Cola's would kill earthworms. After the demonstration and asking if there were any comments a little lady on the back row said she was thankful she would not have worms!

I guess it's an issue of perspective.

The front is passing so perhaps I will get out!

regards,

pat



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 amed soliz says:

Pat

The surprising part of Dr Davis presentations was even with one soft drink insulin is released. Therefore the anabolic process is started so CHO FAT and protein are storage. Maybe this could partially explain why some people despite avoiding sugars but consuming artificial sugars still they don’t lose weight.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

I am constantly reminded of the several centenarians who, when asked to what they attributed their long life, answered:L "regular toddy of Jack Daniels, and a good cigar! Some of the longest life expectancies are in Sardinia where alcohol is a daily drink. If coffee and alcohol was an expected cause of bad health and shortened life span, where are such reputable studies? Nineteenth century predictions are meaningless. Personally, I can think of absolutely no reason to change anything in my lifestyle whatsoever, and fully expect to live another ten years, as many of my ancestors have done.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 pat travis says:

Amed,

Use these formulas as an average for BMR and multiply the total by 1.2 for a total daily calorie intake and if you get even light exercise you will lose weight...even with 4 diet drinks per day!

The Harris-Benedict Formula is a calorie formula using the factors such as age, sex, weight and height to determine BMR. In this formula, the lean body mass is not taken into consideration. (These are BMR averages)

Men: BMR = 66 + (13.7 x wt in kg) + (5 x ht in cm) – (6.8 x age in years)

Women: BMR = 65.5 + (9.6 x wt in kg) + (1.8 x ht in cm) – (4.7 x age in years) http://www.buzzle.com/articles/basal-metabolic-rate.html -->


No gas and the car doesn't run. Total Calories for weight control and exercise for muscle tone should be the mantra + a diet drink per day.:>)

regards,

pat



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 richardalva says:

Cindy Tutsch,

Thank you for your article. It was excellent, easy to read and well-cited. I think its sad to see how much disagreement there is on this issue, but in this world of sin and illness I guess it is to be expected.

I am a former Hazelnut frappucino addict and I was a strong financial supporter of the coffee industry in my late teens-early 20s.

I have observed first-hand the manifestations (in myself and others) regarding the physiological manifestations of illness and disease (as it is well-documented); also, the brain-biochemistry (emotional health and mental health) component is huge in this issue. Coffee does much to fuel irritability, impatience, depression, anxiety, anger and moodiness the world over.

It is no surprise that those who defend its consumption seem to generally be lacking cooler heads and civil dispositions.

Thanks again for speaking out and trying to help.


Richard Alva



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 pat travis says:

Richard,

I have a daughter who can not tolerate caffeine...so she doesn't drink it. Others can despite your condescending attitude to those who don't share your reactions with moderate intake?

Some should never have alcohol or sex due to potential addictive behavior responses but...that's why we are individuals and respond differently to various stimuli and chemicals. Until and unless one can appropriately use God's various gifts without harmful side effects, then, they shouldn't.

regards,

pat



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Pat, we just can't tolerate too much of your good sense here ;-).

I'm a living testimony to the one-cuppa daily that gives me the joie de vivre for living! Why should I deprive myself of such an easy and yes, healthful, tidbit of living?

Maybe if a few solemn parishoners had their breakfast coffee, Sabbath services would be more stimulating and not so deadened (that could go fot some pastors, too, who needn't shout to keep the pew-sitters awake!).



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:

Hey, Mrs Elaine Nelson

Regarding your comment: "Personally, I can think of absolutely no reason to change anything in my lifestyle whatsoever, and fully expect to live another ten years, as many of my ancestors have done. "

What about eternal life? When Jesus Comes. You haven't included it in your calculation!

Have a great day...

T



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Trevor, surely you are no implying that drinking coffee would imperil one's eternal salvation? Really?

For another look at the benefits of coffee from scientific studies:

It’s surprising when something that was once considered questionable for your health turns out to have health benefits, usually with the proviso to use it “in moderation.” That happened with chocolate and alcohol, and now it is coffee’s turn, reports the February issue of the Harvard Health Letter. Here’s some of the mostly good news about coffee:

Blood pressure. Results from long-term studies are showing that coffee may not increase the risk for high blood pressure over time, as previously thought. Study findings for other cardiovascular effects are a mixed bag. Cancer. Coffee might have anti-cancer properties. Last year, researchers found that coffee drinkers were 50% less likely to get liver cancer than nondrinkers. A few studies have found ties to lower rates of colon, breast, and rectal cancers. Cholesterol. Two substances in coffee — kahweol and cafestol — raise cholesterol levels. Paper filters capture these substances, but that doesn’t help the many people who now drink non-filtered coffee drinks, such as lattes. Researchers have also found a link between cholesterol increases and decaffeinated coffee, possibly because of the type of bean used to make certain decaffeinated coffees. Diabetes. Heavy coffee drinkers may be half as likely to get diabetes as light drinkers or nondrinkers. Coffee may contain chemicals that lower blood sugar. A coffee habit may also increase your resting metabolism rate, which could help keep diabetes at bay. Parkinson’s disease. Coffee seems to protect men, but not women, against Parkinson’s disease. One possible explanation for the sex difference may be that estrogen and caffeine need the same enzymes to be metabolized, and estrogen captures those enzymes.

3 Coffee is the #1 source of antioxidants in the U.S. diet.

Yes, indeed. And plenty of them, according to researcher Joe Vinson, PhD, a chemistry professor at the University of Scranton.

Fruits like dates, cranberries and grapes are high in antioxidants, and pack plenty of other benefits in terms of vitamins and minerals.
But when it comes to getting antioxidants from natural sources, Americans get more from coffee than they do from any fruits, vegetables or other beverages.

Coffee protects against heart disease in the over-65s.

Researchers from the SUNY Downstate Medical Center and Brooklyn College have discovered that drinking plenty of coffee protects the over-65s from heart disease. Decaf won’t help, as it’s the caffeine in coffee that has the protective effect.

Diabetes:

Medical researchers have been aware of the beneficial connection between coffee and diabetes for many years now. If you feel that your family medical history or lifestyle put you at risk of getting Type 2 Diabetes, then drinking coffee can significantly reduce that risk. Diabetes affects an estimated 18.2 million Americans, and the number rises each year. Type 2 diabetes is the most common form of the disease, and prevents the body from producing enough insulin.

Coffee can protect against getting Alzheimer’s

As remarkable as it may seem, scientists have conducted a study which suggests you can go a long way towards preventing Alzheimer's disease simply by drinking five cups of coffee a day.

Gary Arendash, a researcher at the Byrd Alzheimer's Institute in Tampa, Florida, says giving mice with Alzheimer's the human equivalent of five cups of coffee, or 500 grams of caffeine, a day has plaque-busting effects and reverses symptoms of impaired memory in aging Alzheimer's mice.

According to his study, the caffeine in coffee can reduce levels of two enzymes that play a role in the complex process of amyloid plaque formation.

"I don't know of any drug under development that can address and suppress both of these enzymes," Arendash said.

 


Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 pat travis says:

Elaine,

Good Harvard Letter.

Just had some "flesh foods" and a cup of coffee to raise my "animal passions" from "challenged" for when my wife arrives from work. ;>)

regards,

pat

 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 llindmark says:

Trevor Hammond and others:

Please stop all insinuations that coffee consumption could lead to lost salvation. It is too serious to fool around about. There is not one shred of any biblical support for this absurd idea. This attitude is a highly sectarian and only fosters unsound alienation and inappropriate blog climate. I would welcome Dr Tutsch to distance herself from these views.

More coffee health benefits – recent studies:

Coffee Drinking Linked to Reduced Stroke Risk in Women

Low or no coffee consumption was associated with an increased risk of stroke in a study of 34,670 women (ages 49 to 83) followed for anaverage 10.4 years. Drinking more than a cup of coffee a day was associated with a 22 percent to 25 percent lower risk of stroke, compared with those who drank less, in a study reported in Stroke: Journal of the American Heart Association.

http://stroke.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/42/4/908

Sweden has one of the highest coffee consumption in the world and Swedish women second highest longevity of all countries.


Coffee can protect against diabetes

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/why-coffee-protects-against-diabetes-190743.aspx


Coffee a very potential liver protector

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hep.23162/abstract

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/18/6/1746.abstract

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VSC-4XFFJKS-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=23f51a819f704006d7172332c616383e


Elaine: I have only just past 60 and look forward to many good cups of coffee with family, friends, churchgoers and bloggers like yourself.

 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 amed soliz says:

My father was a writer and he had all the habits of a bohemian writer. He died when he was 86 y/o. Now somebody could say “you see it does no matter how you live”… Not to fast. Many times I wondered if he had healthy habits still could be alive and writings books.

It is well know and publicized what people in Sardinia Okinawa and the conservatives SDA from Loma Linda are the ones who are living longer. The difference is that new generation in the islands have changes their habits and are dying younger that their ancestors. The SDA people of LL are calling the attention of many.

I had the opportunity to work in the health systems of Columbia University, University of Miami, Vanderbilt University and Miami Children’s Hospital. In all these institutions have a healthy respect for the live stile that comes from LL. What they noticed that this blog is missing? Could be experience and wisdom?

 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Lindmark,

I heartily endorse the suggestion that both Dr. Tutsch and those bloggers who persist in condemning coffee, to the extent of suggesting it could be indicted in one's eternal salvation has gone way too far. This sort of unscientific and "pushing" of EGW has caused too many to reject Adventism, and should not be continued. It is a disgrace to the church for official spokespersons to be given such publicity that is in total disagreement with the best and latest scientific evidence. The inconsistency of clinging to certain portions of 19th century advice, while rejecting those that might have life-threatening conditions needing the latest medical advice, is no less cultic than the Christian Scientists' teachings. Adventism can, and should do better. It is an embarrasment to the church.


 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Lindmark,

I heartily endorse the suggestion that both Dr. Tutsch and those bloggers who persist in condemning coffee, to the extent of suggesting it could be indicted in one's eternal salvation has gone way too far. This sort of unscientific and "pushing" of EGW has caused too many to reject Adventism, and should not be continued. It is a disgrace to the church for official spokespersons to be given such publicityo that is in total disagreement with the best and latest scientific evidence. The inconsistency of clinging to certain portions of 19th century advice, while rejecting those that might have life-threatening conditions needing the latest medical advice, is no less cultic than the Christian Scientists' teachings. Adventism can, and should do better. It is an embarrasment to the church.

 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 readyforJesus says:

It amazes me how it is said No alcohol, tea or coffee for SDA as ones body is the temple because Ms White said so. Yet how many go to the doctors/ hospitals take drugs for ailments etc and not think nothing of it yet tea, coffee is banned and is included into the baptismal vows when Jesus didn't command it. Why do some Adventist pick n choose even in regards to what we put inside our bodies just because a few can't practice good old moderation. A cup of coffee, tea alcohol does not make an addict it is up to that individual willpower or self control. Ms White said a lot of things i don't see Adventist upholding like if you eat meat u won't be fit for translation into the kingdom and vegetarian is the way to go, but i see a lot of meat eating going on. There is double standards going on picking and choosing what to adhere to and what no to bother about if one can get away with it.

 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 amed soliz says:

Where is the evidence about the wonderful benefits of caffeine? So far the studies were done in rodents or other species, the studies in human are weak and with several limitations, they lack of controls and are not RCT. ( Big limitations!)

When is proven in RCT and meta-analysis that caffeine improves my IQ even in 1 point, decreases risk of dementia cancer or other serious diseases I’ll the first one to take the drug caffeine. And for that we have to have the proper studies which until now are missing.

Until that day still all the “wonderful benefits” are gossip of the Starbucks halls

 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Ahmed,

The studies of the beneficial effects of coffee were all done on HUMANS. The only one not done on humans was mice. This is because it is impossible to diagnose Alzheimer's except at autopsy as the findings are deep in the brain. Mice are conveniently used. Alzheimer's is today diagnosed symptomatically but because it may be atherosclerotic dementia, otherwise known as "senile dementia" or have other causes not determined until death. Many studies, however, are done on mice when it involves postmortem exams, for the very obvious reasons.


 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:
 
Dear Elaine and llindmark and readyforJesus

Hold on - I think you may have got a bit carried away with the other reponses and 'jumped' to conclusions. No, I have not implied that salvation is based on whether one drinks coffee or not. Elaine mentioned adding ten years or so to her lifespan with her current lifestyle coupled with the ancestral longevity that runs in her family. I only mentioned that Elaine may have not counted eternal life when Jesus comes in addition the the ten years envisaged in her comment.


Making an addictive stimulant seem healthy and good for consumption is irresponsible and contrary to the Health Message of the Seventh-day Adventist Church which promotes Healthy Living and a Balanced Christian Lifestyle.


Any form of addiction (except of course been 'addicted to Jesus') is detrimental to ones spiritual growth and development; and is no joking matter. Caffeine addiction is no different. While we are not saved by what we do, we will be judged by it.

  • Rev 20:13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.
  • Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.
  • James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
  • Rev 3:1,2 "To the angel of the church in Sardis write: These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God.
Cheers - May your cup runneth over...

T

 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 richardalva says:

For those of us who prefer to think of some of our health behaviors as amoral, ambiguous or "balanced," here is yet another perspective from a completely secular source.

The APA.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2008/04/caffeine.aspx

There have been over 18,000 studies conducted as an attempt to demonstrate the benefits of caffeine. I ask you, if a substance is harmless or even beneficial, do you really need +18,000 studies to try to justify its use?

Many of you are right in saying that the 19th century is antiquated. In 2011 EGW would have had many other options for treatment at her disposal and would have never had to avail herself of coffee.

I've used a humanistic argument, a logical/statistical argument and a historical perspective argument. Much has already been said from the area of science and clinical trials. I know this may not sway any "believers." But it demonstrates how hard it can be to see something as harmful if we approve of it, use it and "feel just fine."


Richard M. Alva

 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Any substance can become addictive, but the mere use of a substance is not indicative of addiction. Many people regularly use bread, eggs, or many other foods. Would they qualify for addiction is bread used every day?

I do not use alcohol in any form, never have, but there is nothing biblically requiring abstention, only the abuse. This is applicable to coffee, sugar, and any substance. There are many who are addicted to sugar, and it is known to give a "fix" of instant energy for many people. Should total elimination be advised?

Moderation in all things, or as the Bible says: temperance in all things. Never misuse or reinterpret the Bible to say what it does not say. It cheapens anything else one wishes to say about the Bible.

 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 CherryAshlock says:
Find your wings and soar!

Read the China Study if you want to discover what we ingest that is more worrisome then coffee or tea. A plant based diet would do more for health and protecting the planet then anything else. Do not pick on coffee or tea if you eat meat!

I wonder why our institutions even advocate being vegetarian and healthy. Not many members follow that advice. I can't even find food to eat at many church related events. Sad.....why don't we stop promoting something we don't follow.

I realize this is another soapbox but ties in with all the comments about ingestion and health.


 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 amed soliz says:

Elaine

for more than last 20 years i have been doing research ( basic, transitional and clinical) i'm familiar with the limitations. I look in OVID if was any Randomized control trail (RCT) of caffeine looking for benefits in adults. There were none. I found a few epidemiological studies, they have serious limitations as i posted before. That is why the use of caffeine is limited only to treat apnea of prematurity and may be some migraines. Now if eventually the RCT show us significant benefits for other diseases i'll agree to use as a medication. In medicine we learned the hard way, many promising preliminary studies did not hold their promises when were tested with rigor (RCT)

As you mentioned in one of the your comments were learn to be wise observing. I observed many times when some medication is promising to decrease cancer, dementia or other serious conditions usually they dont do it. Honesty i believe than in this blog, was given to much hope and credit to caffeine.

By the way your comments of "watching for those cappuccinos" really made me laugh. I think when you were still participating in the SS it was fun. Who knows may some day you do it again.


 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 TruthWave says:

@Elaine: Ignoring the inspired words of our prophet is dangerous. What health message does Babylon have to give to the world? Coffee and surgar coated donuts for breakfast? Come on! We have to raise the bar of our health message, as it is medical experts are predicting that the Baby Boomers will be the first generation in modern history to have an average lifespan shorter than their parents. Alcohol and Coffee don't increase longevity.

 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 TruthWave says:

@Todd: We don't need to lower our standards down to what the "world" expects to win converts to our faith. We need to friendly and warm people, but why do you think that people out in the world will be offended when you don't offer them everything that they want? We have something better to offer them!


Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 5th, 2011 CONTROLFREAK111 says:

The 'Health Message' isn't Biblical and every believer outside of the SDA Corp. knows this.


Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 6th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:

Hello CONTROLFREAK111

Off the record, how is Cornerstone111 (Nath) doing? I know he is fighting Cancer and maybe you might know if he is ok. Thanks.

You came down hard on him for some reason - like a ton of bricks...

Cheers

Trevor

 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 6th, 2011 amed soliz says:

Controlfreek

the health message is all over the Bible, look carefully, Jesus was healing all the time, He wanted for all the people to have abundant life.

 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 6th, 2011 CONTROLFREAK111 says:

That is an interesting concept armed, but hardly the point of the exercise.

Unlike today where it is largely forgotten generational sin is a real scourge and Jesus smashed the Pharisee hoard to Kingdom come when he healed the life long disability, proving that he was God, and indeed would and could forgive sin.

BTW living on grasshopper and honey cocktail, day in day out, would not now or ever be acceptable in SDA world, and I don't recall Jesus taking John aside at the Jordan and suggesting that he get on a health kick and give up the bad tucker, I wonder why?

"The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away."


 

On April 6th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:

Hey all our caffeine Junkies... check this National Geographic Feature out!

Part 1

Caffeine Addiction Is a Mental Disorder, Doctors Say

George Studeville for National Geographic Magazine January 19, 2005

Question: What do heroin addicts who receive a daily dose of methadone have in common with people who feel they cannot function without that morning cup of caffeine?

Answer: They are tending to their addiction—keeping the physical devils of drug withdrawal at bay.

As writer T.R. Reid pointed out in his January 2005 National Geographic article, "Caffeine," researchers agree that regular caffeine use triggers a physical dependence, a mild form of addiction.

The article describes how some heavy caffeine users grow irritable, get headaches, or feel lethargic when they can't get that coffee, soft drink, energy drink, or cup of tea. But should those effects of caffeine withdrawal be classified as a definite psychological disorder?

Yes, contends Roland Griffiths, a professor of behavioral biology and neuroscience at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

Griffiths, who helped review the caffeine article in National Geographic, is a principal author of a comprehensive caffeine-withdrawal study. He hopes the report presents a strong case to include caffeine withdrawal in the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Known as the DSM, the manual is published by the American Psychiatric Association. Mental-health practitioners use it to help identify conditions and treatment strategies. The next edition will be published in 2010.

In addition, Griffiths believes that the diagnosis criteria for caffeine withdrawal should be updated in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, a medical manual used by the World Health Organization.

His conclusions are based on a review of more than 170 years' worth of scientific research and published medical observations on the physiological affects of caffeine and its withdrawal symptoms.

The researchers cited 57 experimental studies and 9 survey studies to support their recommendations for including caffeine withdrawal in the DSM. Their study was reported in the October 2004 issue of the journal Psychopharmacology.

"Doctors and other health professionals have had no scientifically based framework for diagnosing the syndrome," said Griffiths, explaining why he undertook the research project.

(Coffee Break - See part 2 in my next post)

Hope your cup runneth over!

T


 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 6th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:

Hey all our caffeine Junkies...

Part 2 - See part 1 above...

Caffeine Addiction Is a Mental Disorder, Doctors Say

In an interview, Griffiths said that the studies had demonstrated that people who take in as little as a hundred milligrams of caffeine per day—about the amount in half a cup of coffee—can acquire a physical dependence that would trigger withdrawal symptoms.

"Although most regular caffeine users know that caffeine is a mild stimulant, many are not aware that abrupt cessation can sometimes produce unpleasant withdrawal symptoms," Griffiths said.

The studies suggested five clusters of common withdrawal symptoms:
• Headache
• Fatigue or drowsiness
• Depression or irritability
• Difficulty in concentrating
• Flulike symptoms including nausea, muscle pain, and stiffness

Griffiths said that the studies consistently indicated that at least half of regular caffeine consumers would experience withdrawal symptoms if they abstained. And, he added, that the research showed that symptoms could flare up regardless of what type of caffeine product was used.

"With regard to severity, 13 percent of people had clinically significant distress or functional impairment," Griffiths added. "At its worst, caffeine withdrawal involved missing work, canceling social functions, and going to bed with the belief that they had the flu."

The onset of symptoms, research indicated, occurred within 12 to 24 hours after stopping caffeine intake. Peak unpleasantness occurred within the first two days, but other symptoms could continue for as long as nine days.

An interesting finding of the research, Griffiths said, is that regular caffeine consumers may use it more to stave off withdrawal symptoms than to simply enjoy the product.

Cheers - Hope your cup runneth over!

T

 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 6th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:

Some info for coffee junkies to check out...

Coffee May Cause Hallucinations

Brian Handwerk for National Geographic News January 14, 2009
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/01/090114-caffeine-hallucinations.html
Caffeine—What's the Buzz?http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/health-and-human-body/human-body/caffeine-buzz/#page=1


U.S. Racking Up Huge "Sleep Debt"

Stefan Lovgren for National Geographic News February 24, 2005 Sleep is a biological need, much like food and water. If totally deprived of shut-eye, humans ultimately perish. Yet millions of Americans are increasingly skimping on their sleep. Today, Americans on average sleep one hour less per night than they did 20 to 30 years go. "The dependency on caffeine and the whole Starbucks culture is certainly one proof that our society is sleepier than ever before," said William Dement, a pioneering sleep researcher at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0224_050224_sleep.html


Coffee Buzz: Drink Is Top Antioxidant Source in U.S.

Victoria Gilman National Geographic News August 31, 2005

But don't get too juiced up about the health benefits of coffee just yet. Study authors and other experts warn that people get the most disease protection when they consume a wide variety of antioxidants, and coffee only carries a few specific types. Also, health risks associated with caffeine, such as high blood pressure, mean the beverage should still be drunk in moderation, experts say. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_coffee.html


Caffeine -
Common Caffeine products:
soda, energy drinks, energy shots, food
Usage method: drank or eaten
Uses: increase energy, reduce fatigue
How it works: binds to the adenosine receptors of brain, causing cell activity to increase and the blood vessels in the brain to constrict, causing heart rate to increase and the liver to release more sugar into the blood
Effects: increased energy, jitteriness, abnormally rapid heartbeat, convulsions, increased urination, delirium, headache, insomnia
Possible long-tem effects: increased body level of cortisol, which can lead to rapid weight gain, irritability, heart disease, diabetes
Physically addictive: yes

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/explorer/4094/druginfo

Cheers - Hope your cup runneth over!

T


 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 6th, 2011 Tom says:

I don't drink coffee. I don't even like the stuff. But I' m not commenting here to pick on coffee drinkers. It will probably come as a shock to some of the guardians of EGW as prophetic pen facto, but while she roundly condemned coffee drinking as a sin, she was still indulging in an occasional oyster, some twenty years after she was "shown" the health message.

My mother-in-law died of abvanced COPD. She hadn't smoked in over 25 years when she died, b ut the damage from the prior years had taken it's toll and shortened her life. She said coffee and a smoke for her went together. She basically gave up drinking coffee on a regular basis when she quit smoking. However she found that toward the end of her life, when she would cough for what seemed like an eternity trying to clear her lungs when she first got up, a good stout cup of Jo in the morning helped considerably. There are some therapeutic benefits in some cases for a limited use of caffeine. On the very rare occasions I have felt it necessary to drink a cup of coffee, I can count on one hand the times in the last 30 years, the consequences of not drinking it on those occassions, fall asleep at the wheel, far outweighed the benefits of total abstinence.

Not passing judgment on anyone here, but to me the tragedy of frequenting Starbucks, is the money wasted when it would be better spent donating it to ADRA or some other relief agency trying to feed the hungry masses of the world who are starving for some scraps from our well furnished dinner tables.

 


Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 6th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Much ado about nothing. The urge to control other's behaviors never cease.

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Because the judgments you give you will get, and the amount you measure out is the amount you will be given. Why do you observe the splinter in yout brother's eyes and never notice the plank in your own? How dare you say to your brother, 'Let me take the splinter out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own. Hypocrite! Take the plank our of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly enough to take the splint out of your brother's eye."
 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 6th, 2011 Cindy Tutsch says:

WOW! While I have been in Uganda, it appears that my blog has brought on the vitriol typical of many of the respondents to AT blogs. Let me just make a couple of comments to Elaine:


If you have the opportunity to again review my reference list, you will note that, contrary to your allegation, every citation contains a date. The citations from the last ten years include eight from 2007, twelve from 2006, nine from 2005, six from 2004, three from 2003, and three from 2002. If I have opportunity, perhaps I will list even more recent research germane to the discussion.

You also assert that this blog contains citations from Ellen White. Again, if you have the opportunity to review my blog, you will note that there are no citations whatsoever from Ellen White.

I am somewhat bemused that you complain that my reference list contains works that list benefits as well as liabilities of caffeine consumption, wihile another blog respondent insists the reference list is one-sided!

Grace and peace to all!

Cindy Tutsch
Adventist Today blogger

 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 6th, 2011 TruthWave says:

@Elaine: The preaching of the Gospel includes the good news of the divinely inspired health message! What you call judging is good news to those who are seaching for a clear mind and sound body. I live in near a large SDA college campus in the USA, and I can tell you in no uncertain terms from close observation that we have now a whole generation of young people who are slept deprived caffiene addicts! In addition we have a huge problem with drinking of alcoholic beverages. How can any Christian of any denomination not raise his voice in rebuke of this issue?!

 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 6th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Cindy, my apologies if I wrongly stated your essay cited EGW, althoug given mention in your first paragraph. Your position with the White Estates is well known, so perhaps it was a hasty conclusion.

Your essay did begin with this caveat:

"Obviously, not everyone who drinks a cup of joe is going to have all of these symptoms, or even any of them." (emphasis added)

This was overlooked by most readers, and was most pertinent to the rest of the essay that followed, although almost completely ignored. There is nothing that humans cannot become addicted to and to cite one almost universal U.S. beverage as producing such a list of behaviors is only an example of one who really has a burden, even an obssession (demonstrated by some comments) that it is one of the possible sources of all bad behaviors; again overlooking your remarks that not any such symptoms may be induced by coffee.

Personally, I find the self-righteous attitude of those who would not dare touch such a "harmful" substance as producing more "irritable and bad behavior" than those who only drink one cup of coffee daily. What excuse is there that causes this sort of bad behavior?

I've been a vegetarian for 86 years, yet I do not castigate, humiliate, nor list all the terrible results from meat-eating. Let people choose what they eat or drink and as Paul says: religion does not consist of eating and drinking. We would do well to remember that.

 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 6th, 2011 Pickle says:

"Today, many Adventist churches serve fully caffeinated coffee in their lobbies and fellowship halls, and for thousands more Adventists, caffeine has become the drug of choice."

That's a very serious allegation.

"Tea and coffee drinking is a sin, an injurious indulgence, which, like other evils, injures the soul" (CD 425).

Churches are supposed to be encouraging people not to sin, not encouraging them to sin as soon as they step into the church lobby. A church that serves "fully caffeinated coffee" in its lobby is thus undermining the very essence of the gospel.


 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 6th, 2011 David Neal says:

Thanks Cindy

Your longevity on this site is guaranteed as you certainly know how to get us to talk! Hands up - I love a cup of tea, and it is part of my culture. It is a symbol of welcome and acceptance - and perhaps the following comments need to be in taken in that context. I agree that the science about the risks of caffeine and it's potential to be addictive is clear.

However, I have always regarded the tea and coffee story as majoring on minors (as I can say with a fair degree of certainty that most indigenous European Adventists do too). Surely - it is a a lifestyle issue, not a moral issue - and when it comes down to it the matter is a personal one between me and the Lord I serve.

The idea that my vows to my Lord and church include such "prescriptive" behaviour seem inappropriate. It is not a moral issue - it is not a salvific issue. The Lord accepts me on my relationship with Christ - and Him alone. Many genuine folk use Ellen White to lay upon others "lifestyle" issues that go far beyond biblical teaching. Can this be right? And the pain and fragmentation it brings to the churches I serve is real. Quoting "Drinking Tea is a Sin" - makes more enemies than friends. The plank in the eye of the person saying it is seen in high definition!

Did Ellen White ever intend this? It seems more than unbalanced. Follow on this the soya milk culture. It is almost "a given" that this should now be the norm amongst our members. We would not of course suggest that abstinence from dairy products be included in any vow. You would surely agree - how crazy and unbalanced!

Would we not be wise to focus the lifestyle issues to areas that really matter? The one I would raise is that of alcohol. No question about it - a moral issue, because it has the ability to change moral behaviour. It's that drug that destroys lives dramatically. Isn't that the great relevant reform society needs (and perhaps in some cases the church too)? Surely, that's the real health issue of our time.

There are clear guidlines from the writings of EGW about health and temperance and I am with you that if we follow those principles we will be blessed - no doubt about it. But application of those principles should be personal between me and the Lord and nobody else.

At the same time, while I've reacted to your blog, perhaps it's a way of the Lord speaking to me... who knows but Him alone?

Thanks for your grace.

David


 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 6th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

While promoting extra-biblical advice, this Bible text is completely ignored:

"From now onwards, NEVER let anyone else decide what you should eat or drink...." (Col. 2:14).


 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 6th, 2011 jdavidnewman says:

I post the Church Manual baptismal requirements that appeared in 1932 (the first church manual). Then i post the ones from 1951 after the 1950 General Conference. You will notice that the 21 questions in the first manual have been reduced to thirteen which is the number today. Notice number 16 and the note that comes with it. Then notice number 7 in the revised questions and see what is omitted.

1932, 1934, Church Manuals Questions for Baptismal Candidates

1. Do you believe in the existence of God as a personal being, who is our heavenly Father?
2. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus as the eternal Son of God, and as the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind? Have you fully accepted Him as your personal Saviour, and the salvation He offers through grace?
3. Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and in His work in leading to repentance and obedience to all God’s requirements?
4. Do you accept the Bible as the inspired word of God, and will you study faithfully its teachings and by the grace of God practice them in your life?
5. Do you believe in conversion as an experience spoken of by Christ as the new birth?
6. Have you confessed your sins to God, as far as they have been made known to you; and have you on your part, as far as in you lies, tried to make wrongs right with your fellow man?
7. Do you claim by faith in Christ that God for Christ’s sake has forgiven your past sins, and that He is yours and your are His?
8. So far as you have studied and investigated the doctrines as taught by the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, do you believe in and accept them?
9. Do you believe in the second coming of Jesus, which is taught in the Scriptures as the blessed hope, and that this event is soon to take place, and that you should prepare for His coming by being purified from sin and evil?
10. Recognizing obedience as the fruit of faithful love, do you believe that all ten of the commandments as spoken by the Lord as still binding, and by God’s grace will you keep those commandments, the fourth with the rest, observing as sacred the seventh-day Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday?
11. Do you recognize the fact that God claims one tenth of all our substance as His for the support of His work in advancing the gospel of Christ; and will you faithfully render to Him His own—the tithe and offerings in the support of the world-wide work of the church?
12. Do you believe that man by nature is mortal, and that immortality and eternal life come only through the gospel and are bestowed as the free gift of God through Christ at His second coming?
13. Do you believe that we are living in the time of the investigative judgment, which began in 1844, and that Christ, as our High Priest, is closing His ministry in the most holy apartment of the heavenly sanctuary in preparation for His coming?
14. Do you believe that the closing gospel message is now going to the world and will be finished in this generation; and will you use your means, as God impresses you, your time, and your talents, that others may be blessed with the light of truth that has brought blessing and light to you?
15. Will you seek to build up the interests of the church by attendance at its meetings and ordinances, and by adding your influence to extend its work while the church , on their part, exercise their watch-care over you?
16. Do you understand the principles of Christian temperance as taught by Seventh-day Adventists, and will you carry out those principles in your life, abstaining from the use of intoxicating liquors, tobacco in all its form, swine’s flesh, and all other unclean foods and habit-forming drugs? [ In preparing candidates for baptism , instruction should be given as to the harmful effects of such condiments as tea, coffee, and other harmful beverages.]
17. In matters of dress will you follow the Bible rule of plainness and simplicity, abstaining from the wearing of gold as ornaments and costly array, observing the principles of modesty and Christian dignity?
18. Do you believe the Bible doctrine of ‘spiritual gifts’ in the church, and do you believe in the gift of the Spirit of prophecy which has been manifested in the remnant church through the ministry and wrings of Mrs. E. G. White?
19. Do you believe in baptism by immersion, and is it your desire, by going forward in this ordinance, to manifest your faith in the saving grace of the Lord Jesus Christ?
20. Do you, by going forward in baptism, thus declare that from henceforth you will have no part in such soul-destroying amusements as card playing, theater going, dancing, and all other entertainments and amusements which tend to deaden and destroy the spiritual life and perceptions?
21. Will you submit to the decisions of the body of the church in matters of church discipline?

1951 Baptismal Questions Church Manual

1. Do you believe in God the Father, in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit?
2. Do you accept the death of Jesus Christ, on Calvary, as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of men, and believe that through faith in His shed blood men are saved from sin and its penalty?
3. Renouncing the world and its sinful ways, have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour, and do you believe that God, for Christ’s sake, has forgiven your sins, and given you a new heart?
4. Do you accept by faith the righteousness of Christ, recognizing Him as your Intercessor in the heavenly sanctuary, and do you claim His promise to strengthen you by His indwelling Spirit, so that you may receive power to do His will?
5. Do you believe that the Bible is God’s inspired word, and that is constitutes the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian?
6. Do you accept the ten commandments as still binding upon Christians, and is it your purpose, by the power of the indwelling Christ, to keep this law, including the fourth commandment, which requires the observance of the seventh-day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord?
7. Do you believe that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and that you are to honour God by caring for your body in abstaining from such things as alcoholic beverages, tobacco in all its forms, and from unclean foods?
8. Do you accept the doctrine of spiritual gifts, and do you believe that the Spirit of prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church?
9. Is the soon coming of Jesus the blessed hope in your heart, and is it your settled determination to prepare to meet Him in peace, as well as to help others to get ready for His glorious appearing?
10. Do you believe in church organization, and is it your purpose to support the church by your tithes and offerings, your personal effort, and influence?
11. Do you accept the New Testament teaching of baptism by immersion, and do you desire to be so baptized as a public expression of your faith in Christ and in the forgiveness of your sins?
12. Knowing and understanding the fundamental Bible principles as taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, is it your purpose, by God’s grace, to order your life in harmony with these principles?
13. Do you believe that the Seventh-day Adventist Church constitutes the remnant church, and do you desire to be accepted into its membership?

David Newman

Editor, Adventist Today 

 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 6th, 2011 CONTROLFREAK111 says:

Interestingly when the Bible deals with the issue of the body being the 'Temple of the holy Spirit' it requires abstaining from fornication, in particular with prostitutes, but I see no mention of this in the Baptisimal vows.

When Jesus attended the wedding at Cana there seems to have been a whole lot of drinking going on and not a word said in condemnation, yet the woman at the well for example, was told to go and sin no more in regard to adultery and fornication.

 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 6th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Truthwave wrote:

"The preaching of the Gospel includes the good news of the divinely inspired health message!

Too bad Paul, the First Gospel preacher was not informed of that! Should we ignore hiw instrucion to the Galatians:

"I am astonished at the promptness with which you have turned away from the one who called you and have decided to follow a different version of the Good News. Not that there can be more than one Good News; it is merely that some troublemakers among you want to change the Good News of Christ; and let me warn you that IF ANYONE PREACHES A VERSION OF THE GOOD NEWS DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE WE HAVE ALREADY PREACHED TO YOU, WHETHER IT BE OURSELVES OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN, HE IS TO BE CONDEMNED."


 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 6th, 2011 Cindy Tutsch says:

David,

I'll join you for a cup of tea anytime! Some of my favorites include the host of Celestial Seasonings' herbal tea varieties, Bigelow caffeine-free teas. The best IMHO is the South African rooibos tea--with a little Vanilla Silk Soy Creamer and a teaspoon of honey--mmmmmmm yum! Rooibos tea, incidentally, has all the antioxidants of green tea, but without the caffeine.

Cindy Tutsch

Adventist Today blogger


 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 6th, 2011 amed soliz says:

The Husband of my secretary went for an Assembly of God men retreat. One the themes was “You are the Temple” he look around to see the appearance of the “temples” (all the men including himself). He realized that this was an embarrassing situation, the great majority of men including him were overweight, and there was a plethora of “beer bellies” some of them they look like pregnant woman. He told his wife “I had a strong impression that something was not only funny but wrong. He decided to be and look healthy. I wonder who impressed this sincere man.

 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 6th, 2011 Hansen says:

David, Thanks for posting those two lists.

# i6 is good because it mentions the principles of temperance as taught by SDAs. Nothing is said about the Bible forbidding coffe, alcohol, tobacco. "The principles of temperance as taught by SDA."

Why doesn't the church just say? "We want people who interpret the Bible as follows: Literal 6 day creation, Antitypical DoA begining in 1844 at the termination of 2300 days/years, which started in 457."

"We want people who are drug and tobacco and alcohol free. "The priests were not allowed to drink alcohol, so the idea from Scripture is not without precedent

This way, the option is open that the Bible actually doesn't say that; however, THIS church, the SDA church, interprets it that way.

In America, as the churches fill with immigrants from other countries, the face of Adventism is going to change radically. Some of the people from other countries, for example, have two wives, one in the USA and one back home.

Temperance principles are hardly undersood. An ethnic church pastor, who has since left the ministry, told me his entire congregation were hypocrites [his word] regarding the health message. "They are vegetarians one meal a week, Sabbath potluck."

I'm a lot more concerned about the statement which says that the Decalogue is binding upon Christians. That's featured in both lists. The administrators are probably glad that the members are fighting about caffeine usage, instead of declarations that, on their face, should disgust any Protestant Christian. The Decalogue is "binding"? Sorry, I'll pass on membership in a church that interprets Scripture that way.

 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 6th, 2011 TruthWave says:

Elaine Nelson said:
"Too bad Paul, the First Gospel preacher was not informed of that! Should we ignore his instrucion to the Galatians:

" For I am astonished at the promptness with which you have turned away from the one who called you and have decided to follow a different version of the Good News. Not that there can be more than one Good News; it is merely that some troublemakers among you want to change the Good News of Christ; and let me warn you that IF ANYONE PREACHES A VERSION OF THE GOOD NEWS DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE WE HAVE ALREADY PREACHED TO YOU, WHETHER IT BE OURSELVES OR AN ANGELROM HEAVEN, HE IS TO BE CONDEMNED."

TruthWave says:

"The Greeks and Romans of Paul's day were involved in all kinds of debauchery, drunkeness, and orgies. What do see in 2011 that is creeping even into the SDA church? The same kinds of things that Paul would have rebuked in the 1st century! When Paul preached to the pagans and heathens of the first century, he told them that they had sinned and will be lost forever if they don't repent and give your lives to Jesus who change you into a pure person, instead of person addicted to sin. The Gospel that you are preaching is a watered down Evangelical Gospel that doesn't change people, it leaves them in their sins, and even encourages it! Paul viewed his body as the Temple of the Holy Spirit, and would not have gotten drunk or smoked, or drink Red Bull or any other thing that would impair his moral judgement."

 

Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 6th, 2011 TruthWave says:

Hansen says:

"I'm a lot more concerned about the statement which says that the Decalogue is binding upon Christians. That's featured in both lists. The administrators are probably glad that the members are fighting about caffeine usage, instead of declarations that, on their face, should disgust any Protestant Christian. The Decalogue is "binding"? Sorry, I'll pass on membership in a church that interprets Scripture that way."

TruthWave says:

What church do you plan on joining? Those out in Babylon? What health message does Babylon have? Most mainline Protestant church have experienced a massive bloodletting of membership over the last 30 years because they really don't stand for anything anymore, they are more like social clubs, on fire Christians. Worldliness is creeping into the NAD SDA church as well, but thank God prophesy tells us that it will not die and disapear into obscurity like some many other denominations which preceeded us. Physical health is snyergistic with spiritual health, that is why not drinking caffiene, alcohol, and smoking cigarettes matters.

 


Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 7th, 2011 Aaron says:

I've watched, listened and researched for almost 40 years now, and one thing that I've clearly seen is that when taken as they are written (excluding the apocrypha and made up stuff) the prophetic writings that were left to us are the most accurate information we currently have--just as the Bible writings have been proven to be the best historical information extant, etc.

We can take it or leave it, God doesn't force anyone--but at the end of the day, we are the ones who suffer or are blessed.

Another thing I have noted with unfailing consistency--when caffeine and other drugs are clung to as a substitute for the filling of the Holy Spirit the spiritual tone in the life and church is low. We experience an illusion, but not the reality.

So maybe the question for all of us to consider is what really fuels our fire? God cares, do we?



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 7th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

"What church do you plan on joining"?
It may come as a surprise, but the fastest growing segment in the U.S. are those who belong to no church. It is allowed NOT to be a member of a religious organization and for some of us, it is both healthier and freeing to find out own spiritual way unencumbered by a multitude of rules and regulations established by others. Spirituality does not require formal religion.


Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 7th, 2011 Cindy Tutsch says:

C'mon, folks, let's be fair! This blog says nothing against socializing in a coffee shop--meeting friends, getting out of the rain, using the free WiFi, even discussing spiritual issues or studying the Bible. In the U.S., most coffee shops are smoke-free, most have great herbal-infusion teas like Tazo, as well as other healthy choices like apples, bananas, and nuts (don't forget the soy milk!)

My blog suggests that Adventists have a great health message that when practiced, extends our lives and increases our joy of living. Why would we not want to share this good news by the example of our choices?

Cindy Tutsch
Adventist Today blogger


Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 7th, 2011 pat travis says:

Cindy,

>> Why would we not want to share this good news by the example of our choices? <<

Because, simply put, these "prescribed choices" are not always the best, required, or "good news" for all unless one chooses them. Those who don't are not to be judged by those who do...and visa versa.

The kingdom of God is not about "food and drink."

regards,

pat



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 7th, 2011 CONTROLFREAK111 says:

Cindy what on earth in the soy bean is related to milk unless it has been through an animal to reach that point?

The weirdness of SDA just keeps on growing, I mean there are real milks as provided through God's creations and then we have 'SDA Soy Milk' in a 'we don't know what it truly is but it's better that real milk' package.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 7th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

God gave us soy beans, coffee beans, tea leaves, cocoa beans, all given at creation: "I give you all the seed-bearing plants that are upon the whole earth, and all the trees with seed-bearing fruit; this shall be your food."

It was afer the flood that God said "every living and crawling thing shall provide food for you, no less than the foliage of plants. I give you EVERYTHING, with this exception: you must not eat flesh with flife, that is to say blood, in it."

Rather odd that Adventism has promotoed that only certain seeds and plants should be prohibited, second-guessing what God had given for man. And that after the flood, clean and unclean meats were differentiated for food. Where is that found in the many centuries after the flood?




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 7th, 2011 Leigh Fowler says:

Cindy,

If it is okay to go to a coffee shop and partake of the things that you mentioned, why did the General Conference close down the Starbucks at the meetings in Atlanta?



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 7th, 2011 Cindy Tutsch says:

ControlFreak111

I recommend The China Study, by one of the world's foremost nutritionists, T. Colin Campbell, PhD (He's not an Adventist, btw).

Leigh

I dunno. Wasn't on that committee! Sabbath issues, maybe?


Cindy Tutsch
Adventist Today blogger



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 7th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:

Elaine Nelson

Are you like a secret follower of the Seventh-day Adventist Church health message - what with been a vegetarian and all: albeit with a tipple of 'the bean' on the side?

Cheers - Hope your cup runneth over!

T



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 7th, 2011 pat travis says:

Cindy,

My understanding of the "China Study" was that there was not the presence of "vegans" or "TOTAL non-meat eating vegetarians" in the study. I have never seen Chinese not eat anything that was not "nailed down." :>)

That is at least some of the skeptical reviews of the extent of "non-meat" eating in the study.

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html

However, for all those who choose to eat only vegetables...God bless you...but I will continue to point out 1 Tim.4:1-6 as "sound doctrine."

regards,

pat



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 7th, 2011 amed soliz says:

This blog was posted a week ago, the commentaries were flying like tomahawks, with all kinds of content. I wonder if any person even considered looking with honesty somebody also opinion's. Is possible that a commentary really helped anybody? , that will be nice, but i seriously have my reservations. Also i wonder if anybody invested equal amount of time and/or energy visiting a person in need, praying for presence of the Holy Spirit or sharing the amazing love of the Lord with another human been. If the majority our religion or spiritual life is just write in AT, and shutting tomahawks... maybe something very important is missing.


Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 7th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Trevor, yes, I was raised an SDA for the first 50+ years of my life, and appreciate the diet I learned to enjoy: whole grains, vegetables, and meatless. The coffee was added only a few years ago with the resultant benefits that I experienced, enforced by numerous medical studies, especially for senior citizens. Had I experienced the fatigue, irritability, and all the horrible effects listed, I would have immediately been a non-coffee drinker. It has enriched my life and no harmful effects whatsoever, with 6 personal physicians never telling me of any harm to my health. My judgment, plus theirs, is valued much more than the scare tactics here or from a 19th century individual without any medical or scientific training, plus, nothing in the Bible condemns it.

'From now onwarrds, never let anyone else decide what you should eat or drink."



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 7th, 2011 Nathan Schilt says:

Why do those who believe they are called by God to particular faith practices feel compelled to rationally justify the call as some sort of universal duty or moral norm? And why do those who do not hear the same call feel that they can invalidate the call by undermining the rational basis for the faith practice? It seems to me that this dead-end dialectic leads to propositional impotence and spiritual entropy in the Church.

From the injunction against eating fruit from the forbidden tree to the triumph of The Lamb, Scripture is permeated with reckless disregard for human logic and experience as a trustworthy validator of God's call. When the Word becomes flesh - when God calls people into covenant relationship, the vows and commitments that inevitably flow from the covenant are seldom rationally compelled. In fact they usually fly in the face of reason. Building an ark, circumcising your household, leading millions of people into the desert to find freedom - these actions could not exactly be explained or validated by the best minds of Mesopotamia.

The vows and promises that create a subculture of faith, and bind it to God in each generation, will not attract converts, and will not be renewed from one generation to the next, unless that subculture is producing transformed lives. Abraham didn't circumcise his household or take Isaac up Mount Moriah because they seemed like healthful or wise practices. And early Christians didn't abandon circumcision because it no longer made sense. Abraham made a transformative covenant with God, but the early Christians, seeing the transforming power of Christ in the lives of uncircumcised gentiles, realized that the vow of circumcision was no longer part of God's call to covenant relationship.

Cindy, if you and your faith community (the SDA Church, qua institution, is too big to be considered a faith community) are convinced that God is calling you to abstain from caffeine - or refined sugar for that matter - by all means you must obey, even if all scientific studies, plus the writings of EGW, conclusively demonstrate that coffee beans are healthier than soy beans. Personally, I have no sense that God is calling me or my SDA community of faith to abstain from caffeinated beverages, and so I probably won't be joining any community called to be decaffeinated Christians. But that's okay. I'll tell you what - if I see your sugar free, decaffeinated community full of joy, transforming lives in a way that eludes my high fructose, caffeinated faith community, you may well get me to give up my morning cup o' joe, and even inspire me to persuade my Sabbath School class to stop offering Starbucks on Sabbath morning. But you surely won't do it by trying to bolster the credibility of Ellen White with scientific studies.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 7th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:

Mrs Nelson

RE your comment: I was raised an SDA for the first 50+ years of my life, and appreciate the diet I learned to enjoy: whole grains, vegetables, and meatless. The coffee was added only a few years ago with the resultant benefits that I experienced, enforced by numerous medical studies, especially for senior citizens.

Well, neither do I condemn you ma'am. At your age you are definitely blessed to drink anything at all ; ) ... May God continue to bless you with good health and strength!

Your usage of coffee is clearly a different reason from what many have raised here on this blog which is the 'beverage' usage of it for all and sundry, including children, youth and young adults. You seem to be a very good example of the benefits of a healthy lifestyle and diet.

Most of the warnngs used against caffeine drinks as a beverage are based on using it long term. In the Health and Temperance arena though, all forms of addictive stimulants have to be considered and decisions have to be made. No one is forced or coerced to subscribe to this. Everyone has a choice and the Seventh-day Adventist Church has to be responsible for it's actions and advice too. The Church just wants to share the same message of good healthy living which you have also embraced and been blessed with. I'm sure you would encourage others to the same healthy sensible lifestyle you subscribe to, especially those of us 'youngsters' searching for good advice with regards to health matters.

Cheers - Hope your cup runneth over!

P.S. Just one small question without been a tad nosey. Why did you leave the SDA Church?

T



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 8th, 2011 Leigh Fowler says:

Cindy,

I don't see how Sabbath issues could be the problem. The meetings were from June 23-July 3 I think. Do you know who might know why that decision was made? It just seems really weird to do that.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 8th, 2011 Stephen Foster says:

For those who are enamored with science, why has the scientific community concluded that Seventh-day Adventists, on average, live longer than others? In other words, if SDA’s live, on average, 6-10 years longer than others on the same continent, what are the scientific reasons?

Another question: what difference would it make if many Adventists are as mean as snakes; if I want a better chance at living a long life, wouldn’t it make sense to emulate the practices of those who science has proven tend to live significantly longer than others?

Stephen Foster

Adventist Today blogger




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 8th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Stephen, to answer your questions "why do Seventh-day Adventists live longer than others? There is no one answer, but there is much evidence that the better educated live longer than thei less educated. Adventists average higher education levels, so that could mean that they seek more medical advice, and are more cognizant of avoiding bad health practices. Many factors, not just one, in longevity.

I've been a participant in the SDA health studies since its beginning, and don't recall a question of coffee ever being addressed. Meat-eating is, however. Coffee, only in excess (and that depends on an individual, not a norm), is like every item, excessive avoidance of even good things should be practiced.

To answer a previous question: Why did I leave Adventism? In a few words, I could no longer agree with all its beliefs as stated in their 28 FBs. To do so would be hypocritical, and as I studied the Bible, I concluded that many of the doctrines conflicted with my understanding, and so, had no other choice. While others may not agree with all of them, that is a choice each person must make. My integrity is far more important than membership in any organization. To claim to be something I cannot agree with is too contradictory, IMO.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 8th, 2011 Frank Allen says:

Not because of science but faith:

Let’s be truthful with our church history. Abstaining from coffee for early Adventists was based on moral reasons more than longevity (science), loss of vitality.

To early SDA’s avoiding coffee was listening to the voice of God’s prophet, thus pleasing God. This is the sole reason why we as a church promised before God in the 1907 baptismal vow, to refrain from coffee and tea.

To EGW avoiding coffee and tea was part of the temperance pledge with alcohol called “a sinful indulgence” (Te 82). Drinking coffee Ellen believed could blunt the conscience so “sin does not appear very sinful” (CD 425). It effected the “mental and physical, but moral, as a result we see nervous men and women, of unsound judgment and unbalanced mind” CTBH 35, 1890).

Ellen wrote that habitual coffee users “cannot worship God…divine grace would be powerless to animate, enliven, or spiritualize their prayers” (CD 426, 1881).

From a Google search at best science is mixed on the risks or benefits of coffee, even web searches associated with longevity. We refrain from coffee, not because of conclusive evidence of science, but the long standing respect for Ellen White. If she had never condemned it, we would use coffee as do nearly all Christian communities.

The same can be said for Latter Day Saints which are prohibited from coffee and tea because it is written in the Book of Wisdom, “Hot drinks are not for the body or belly” (D&C 89:9). Likewise Muslims are restricted only during the month of Ramadan, a time of spiritual fasting. For these congregations coffee is refrained from spiritual reasons, not science.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 8th, 2011 CONTROLFREAK111 says:

The so called 'health industry' was the money machine that powered Battle Creek and in turn drove S. D. Adventism and that is the reason why these cult like doctrines came into being.

The truth is people are more fanatical about these 'health' claims now than they were in the 1800's, when inner circle people such as George Amaddon did not ever become convinced to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle and Ellen White herself continued to eat oysters and drink fortified wine (the 'vinegar' addiction). Why is it that people never want to see the forest for the trees?

As for soy concoction, just do some google searching on the many dangers related to soy, they are numerous, and then take the blinders off in regard to SDA branded foods, If the SDA dumped the 'health' message way back in Battle Creek it would be a vastly different organisation today.

Kellog may have failed in his bid to have the 'Sanitarium' take over the ownership of the Battle Creek Church but ultimately it was the Sanitarium that took over Adventism.




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 8th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Why was Postum invented if not as a substitute for coffee, made by Post, a competitor of Kellogg cereals? The subsidization of the SDA food industry was long an important branch of Adventism with an another source of revenue. Many years ago, Madison made meat substitutes, long before Worthington and Morningstar became well known. Worthington employees were also considered "church" employees with pension benefits in line with other denominational employees. Possible conflict of interest to promote non-meat eating while selling substitute meat? WDYT?


Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 8th, 2011 amed soliz says:

I noticed that some commentators in AT that will oppose to whatever the SDA church stands. It does not matter how evident is the point.

Stephen, you are write the conservatives of LL are the only “blue zone” in USA thanks to their live stile.

“Evidence-based studies indicate that longevity is based on two major factors, genetics and lifestyle choices. Twin studies have estimated that approximately 20-30% of an individual’s lifespan is related to genetics, the rest is due to individual behaviors and environmental factors which can be modified.
Study of the regions of the world known as blue zones, where people commonly live active lives past 100 years of age, have shown that longevity is related to a healthy social and family life, not smoking, eating a plant-based diet, frequent consumption of legumes and nuts, and engaging in regular physical activity".


Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 8th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

No mention of coffee? A healthy social life in all cultures consists of eating or drinking together with family and friends. In most cultures they drink tea, coffee or wine or beer. when socializing.


Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 8th, 2011 TXalchemist says:

Maybe the longevity at LL is related to their beliefs on evolution? They know it takes time...


Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 8th, 2011 TXalchemist says:

David Read,

Many plants contain insecticides; it is a natural defense mechanism. Thus, you eat insecticides all the time, not just in coffee. It is a question of dose-response. Too much may kill you but that doesn't mean a little is harmful (not saying coffee isn't; just disputing your argument). For example, garlic has insecticide properties... http://planetgreen.discovery.com/food-health/natural-pesticide-garlic.html

Now, a really interesting question for YOU is why did God put insecticides in plants 6000 years ago? Were insects killing plants back then? Did God want the plants to fight back and hurt or kill the insects? Or wouldn't it make more sense to conclude that this balance between plants and insects evolved?




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 8th, 2011 CONTROLFREAK111 says:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hUQ_I5k2Ec

Sums up some of the self righteousness fairly well don't you think?



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 8th, 2011 Tom says:

Frank Allen

Not drinking coffee solely because EGW told Adventists not to, is one of the poorest reasons I can see for abstaining from it. As I said before here, I do not drink coffee by my own choice, and not from any prodding by something EGW said against it. I do like black sun tea as a beverage in the hot summer, but found that while it was a refreshing drink on a hot sweaty day, it tended to cause more insomnia at night so I quit it, except on a few occassions, but never in the evening.

We had a minister, early in my return to Adventism, who thought it his duty to come down hard on health reform. This guy let it be known that no one who drank tea or coffee or ate meat was fit to be a deacon or elder. He even banned hot chocolate after a cold evening when we had been out in the cold singing Christmas carols and Ingathering.

Here I was just having quit drinking alcohol , eating unclean foods (I loved scallops and ham) and living like a heathen and was getting heavy does of health reform. I tried vegetarianism for the second time in my life, having been told at 13 that I was going to hell if I continued to eat meat so I quit for about 2 years then, only to find that such "counsel" I'd been given was a crock.

Here I was a young bachelor working like a piece of machinery in the woods and I was trying to survive on vegetables and canned meat substitutes. I lost so much weight, I wasn't even heavy at the time, that I looked terrible. I remember one Sabbath I brought a chocolate pie that I had made for potluck. Big mistake. I didn't get it by Pastor food inspector's wife. Now lemon merange was another story and was considered okay because it had received the EGW seal of approval. He even called it SOP pie and could he put it away.

After about a year of this, I finally had enough and went down to a restaurant and ordered the biggest T-bone steak they had, and not one but 2 pieces of pie, one chocolate and the other custard, all three on the EGW hit list. It's a wonder I didn't order scallops and a pitcher of beer! But I didn't.

Was it ever a shocker to me to read in Arthur Whites 6 volume series on his grandmother, that she did indeed eat oysters once inawhile some 20 years after she began writing on health reform. I am not going to use that as an excuse to go and dine on scallops, because I don't see her as my example or reference point. I have enough hangups of my own, to go digging around looking for something she did that appeared inconsistant, and use that as an excuse, like some Adventists do, to rationalize all kinds of things they want to get around.




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 8th, 2011 Stephen Foster says:

Elaine,

With all respect, c’mon man, you’re better than that! Adventists live so much longer perhaps because they go to college in greater numbers, “so that could mean that they seek more medical advice, and are more cognizant of avoiding bad health practices”?

This is supposition upon supposition so as to avoid the most obvious reality; that the lifestyle choices of Adventism are, and have been, superior from a health maintenance perspective than that of other Americans.

This, of course, is an inconvenient truth; because the source of much of our lifestyle counsel, as a community, is EGW.

As for your answer to Trevor, as you know I respect and admire your integrity in deciding to cease membership in a church whose beliefs you don’t share.

Stephen Foster

Adventist Today blogger



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 10th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:

Mrs Nelson and others

Regarding your comment: Stephen, to answer your questions "why do Seventh-day Adventists live longer than others? There is no one answer, but there is much evidence that the better educated live longer than thei less educated.

I disagree with your inference that SDA's enjoy a longer lifespan because of 'much evidence' that the better educated live longer than less educated. Firstly, I could use your usual style of argument and say that that "God must be so unfair to only bless 'better educated' people" and more specifically SDA's with longevity and good health based on education only. I find that it is very truncated way of looking at this issue which also demeans our Health Message as a whole.

Secondly, this is not the case! The 'unique' Seventh-day Adventist Health Message in purpose, aim and significance, is just the opposite. It is to empower, advise and call people from ALL walks of life to Healthy Living based on lifestyle and 'good' choices. Even the poorest of the poor in some 'shack' in the Third World who are severely disadvantaged with regards to access to education or healthcare, let alone private healthcare, have the same opportunity as those in the First World to enjoying better health and quality of life by making the right choices.

Thirdly, the wealthy of course, benefit by virtue of been able to 'afford' more specialist care, health products and treatment plan which gives them an advantage over others however, our health message puts 'Preventative Medicine' for even the poor, at the forefront. That is the big difference and that is what is the real 'benefit' of our Health Message. It reaches all peoples and makes a significant difference in their quality of health and living. Longevity thus is a resultant 'cherry on top' for many.

So to all those who don't have good health insurance or no health insurance at all, the Seventh-day Adventist Church Health Message offers you an opportunity to 'prevent' illness and disease as far as possible without leaving a hole in your pocket and thereby making healthy living accessible you and your family through God's gift of health, peace and happiness in Christ the Master Physician. It's just a matter of choice and by God's Grace you CAN do it! [Phillipians 4:13] "For I can do everything through Christ, who gives me strength."

Hope your cup runneth over!

T




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 10th, 2011 CherryAshlock says:
Find your wings and soar!

elaine, i think the socializing of family and friends is what is healthy not what they are drinking. you list coffee, tea, wine, beer......i think even drinking water would work just as well.

leigh, the decision at the gc to close starbucks had to do with the original legal usage contract for the building. the contract was signed with the provision that starbucks would not be open in that building....starbucks went against the legal contract.....the other building connected with the gc had a starbucks that was open cuz that building was not under the same contract. nothing sinister was going on! the rumors were rampant but wrong. i know this from someone who was at gc involved in that aspect of the details.


Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 10th, 2011 Leigh Fowler says:

CherryAshlock,

Thanks for your response. But the fact remains (or so it seems) that the GC didn't want the Starbucks in their section of the building open during their meetings, which of course is their right to do so. But, it still seems very controlling and heavy-handed, because as Cindy said, people have other choices besides coffee. I think the church officials didn't want folks walking around with Starbucks cups in their hands, because who knows what people would think?????




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 10th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Stephen, this item from the Congressional Budget Office:

"In 1980, life expectancy at birth was 2.8 years more for the highest socioeconomic group than for the lowest.6 By 2000, that gap had risen to 4.5 years. The 1.7-year increase in the gap amounts to more than half of the increase in overall average life expectancy at birth between 1980 and 2000."

Another, a Harvard study:"

"Want to live a long life? Stay in school.

At least that's the implication of a new study from Harvard University. The study found a "stunning" correlation between the longer lifespan of people with at least one year of college compared to people with a high school education or less, according to David Cutler, dean of social sciences at Harvard. And the gap is growin"




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 10th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Trevor, you wrote:

"Even the poorest of the poor in some 'shack' in the Third World who are severely disadvantaged with regards to access to education or healthcare, let alone private healthcare, have the same opportunity as those in the First World to enjoying better health and quality of life by making the right choices."

Information and access are not the same world-wide. If one lives miles away from the nearest medical care, and cannot walk the distance, all the information in the world may not be able to diagnose or ttreat an illness. Haven't you seen the inaccesability in so many areas of the world where there are few nurses and doctors? Have you not seen the terrible infant mortality figures because of the lack of trained midwives, resulting in both infant and maternal mortality or the many vaginal-fistula problems complicated by poor childbirth care? The lack of medical care in many parts of the world is abysmal and all the "Adventist" health messge does not, in itself, bring medical care to all the world's needy. Simply compare infant mortality statistics for many of the Asian and Indian countries, and middle estern with America to instantly notice the difference.




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 10th, 2011 Cindy Tutsch says:

Interestingly, according to Adventist Health studies, vegetarian Adventists live longer than non-vegetarian Adventists, and vegan Adventists live longer than lacto-ovo Adventists.

Cindy Tutsch
Adventist Today blogger



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 10th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:

Mrs Nelson

I wasn't talking about mortality rates in my previous post. My point is that the Seventh-day Adventist Church Health Message offers the 'under-dogs' of this world a fighting chance to better health and quality of life in spite of the lack of education and proper healthcare facilities. It's called Preventative Medicine.

Many on our planet live in dire circumstances and can't afford to place themselves at risk with even something like caffeine addiction. Our Health Message is a real blessing to the millions of poor who without formal education still have this fighting chance to survive longer in this sinsick world.

Yeah, many not live as long as you but they still can enjoy a better quality of life and health, and that's important too.

T



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 10th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

As this thread is about coffee, quoting the SDA health studies about vegetarianism says nothing about the coffee drinkers among us. Whether such a study would show increased longevity, or merely better quality, it certainly has been shown to improve longevity in the general public which as studied.

The long lists of bad effects of coffee drinking could be comparable to the bad effects of many substances, but the point that should not be dismissed is that for those who experience such unwanted effects why should they abstain? Has anyone, realizing this information, decided to abstain from coffee? Or, is it preaching to the choir? Those of us who have no ill effects and enjoy it in moderation, should not be castigated simply because we do not have any of the bad effects that some might have. It is majoring in minors and a non-biblical doctrine.




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 10th, 2011 Stephen Foster says:

Elaine my friend,

Regarding the CBO and Harvard study, you now of course have to prove that those Adventists who live longest are the same Adventists who have been college educated; and that the other benefits of a higher socio-economic standing have not contributed more to healthful living or longevity probability than has the enrollment in college (of those of that higher socio-economic standing)—among other things.

In other words, perhaps we should just admit that the Adventist lifestyle has by and large proven to be healthier; no matter the implications.

Stephen Foster
Adventist Today blogger




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 10th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

I never challenged the studies showing Adventists live longer, in fact I am convinced that they do. I only wrote that Adventists are known to have a higher education and socio-economic status than the average U.S. citizen and those factors show longer lifespans. There is a correlation, but not necessarilya a causative factor. Just as college educated people have a higher income expectancy as a given, so those who have a higher education also have longer life expectancy for many reasons: more informed about health and better access to prompt medical care and affordability, and better eating habits, lesser smoking, all contribute to health.


Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 10th, 2011 CONTROLFREAK111 says:

I am not really sure how the stats can be shown to prove anything other than some lifestyle choice differences, and the fact that the membership may well be stacked with an elderly age group which will give a false ratio also.

So really besides tea and coffee sending worldly people to an early grave (although stats also tell us that people in western culture are all living longer than they did decades ago) what other reasons may well be influencing the results?

What high risk activities are Adventists not engaging in because I don't believe that the tea and coffee argument is a credible one?




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 11th, 2011 Stephen Foster says:

I am not arguing a case against tea and coffee per se. The point is that the lifestyle of Adventism—the general health and dietary recommendations of the church and EGW—has had a direct causal effect on the well-documented fact that Adventists live longer.

The supposition that Adventists are known to have higher levels of education and to be of higher socio-economic status on average than the general population is anecdotal conjecture; and the speculation derived from this assumption is, after all, speculation.

Abstaining from caffeine is but one of a group of various recommendations that have quite simply proven to lead to better health and longer life. It is not, in and of itself, a Biblical test of faith, obedience, or loyalty to God.

Stephen Foster
Adventist Today blogger




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 11th, 2011 pat travis says:

How do meat eating Mormans and their longer longevity fit into the mix?



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 11th, 2011 CONTROLFREAK111 says:

different prophet, different rules.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 11th, 2011 Stephen Foster says:

Here is an interesting article that I have just come across having to do with conscientiousness and longevity. Think about its implications.

Stephen Foster
Adventist Today blogger



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 11th, 2011 rludders says:

RLudders

Cindy, I may be wrong, but I believe the Adventist Health Study shows that lacto-ovo vegetarians live longer than vegans. Can you supply the documentation?




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 11th, 2011 rludders says:

RLudders

The early, and still very preliminary returns from the health study suggest that a vegan diet is not as beneficial as a lacto-ovo-vegetarian one — vegans die earlier — in fact, they die at a rate that is only slightly less rapid that omnivore Adventists (who eat meat and seafood, etc).[1] Now I must stress that the data are not yet statistically valid — there are only about 4,000 vegans registered in the study so it will be a while yet before the data set is large enough for statistical validity — but these early returns at least raise the possibility that the full set of data may not confirm the confidently expected (by vegans) superiority of a vegan diet. What then? Will those who have adopted this dietary pattern at considerable expense and bother (and who may have followed it for a lifetime) abandon this diet? I would guess not. I would expect that Quine is right and that too many other firmly held beliefs would have to be abandoned in order for that to occur.

From Spectrum Blog, June 13, 2010 by Brian Bull.




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 11th, 2011 pat travis says:

CF111,

I am simply asking for "longevity studies." How much relies also on "community spiritual belonging" for the nervous aspect and also the socio-economic support of the Morman commnity.

What are the similarities with SDA and discontinuities. A similarity is they both "profess a prophet."

regards,

pat




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 11th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

In their 2011 book, Drs. Frieman and Martin The Longevity Project, covering subjects from the early Terman studies beginning in the early 20th century, show that the greatest predictors of longevity is conscientiousness and dependability.

"Conscientious and dependable people stay healtier and live longer."

"Catastrophizers, who see impending doom everywhere, die young."

The better-educated tended to be healthier and live a little longer and were more productive as they aged."

"The sense of being satisifed with one's life and achievement as very relevant to resilience, which is important to longevity."


Just a few excerpts from this provocative and stimulating study.




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 14th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:

Greek enthusiasts and others should check this short discourse on Colossians 2:16 regarding the 'food and drink' issue raised by Apostle Paul and referenced to by some on this blog. It seems some use these verses out of context to justify their refusal to acknowledge our Health Message.

This bible study explains that 'meat' and 'drink' in Colossians 2:16 refer to offerings made under the law.

http://www.logosapostolic.org/bible_study/RP208-4MeatDrink.htm

Here's an excerpt:

COLOSSIANS 2:14-17 (Paul)
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holyday, or of a new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of the things to come; and the body of Christ.

Note 1: This scripture is used by some to say that when Jesus died on the cross he nailed the ordinances, such as keeping the Sabbath day, to the cross, so that we do not have to keep it any more. The key verse in this scripture is verse 16, where 5 things are mentioned: meat, drink, a holyday, a new moon, and a Sabbath. Whenever we get things mentioned together like these, and we wish to know what Paul is talking about, it is wise to consider where he gets them from. Remember that the bible for the early church was the Old Testament scriptures, so this is the obvious place to look, especially as Paul said:

(Romans 15:4) "For whatever things were written before were written for our learning,"



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 14th, 2011 pat travis says:

Trevor,

What was nailed to the cross was the guilt of violation to covenant and removed the death sentance or curse of the law having been fulfilled by Christ so that it can now be said "by the deeds of law shall no flesh be justified."

The law has not been abrogated but it can not justify. Neither can the keeping of yearly,monthly and weekly sabbaths and "foods" justify one before God.

Meaning? Do as you will in these matters but do not condemn another for those things another does regarding days,food and drink.

Rom.14:1-6.

But then I am not unique and can not control another...geez!

regards,

pat



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 15th, 2011 Doctorf says:

Frank your laundry list of ills associated with coffee are almost impressive as the list put up by Cindy herself. There are benefits to coffee also. The key as with so many things is, moderation. I had coffee this morning and that did not prevent me from meditating on God and his blessings to me in any way. In fact coffee before church helps me stay awake through some painful sermons.

Your laundry list posted here reminds me of the time my son read some of what you posted here in EGW writings. His comment was, "this woman had some major issues." Indeed.

I am reminded why I come and read this blog. It is for the laughs, certainly not the content.




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 15th, 2011 Doctorf says:

Rludders,

Vegan's who strictly adhere to that diet suffer from pernicious anemia due to a lack of B-vitamins. However, in todays world Vegans can get away with this because they can take B-vitamin supplements.

A varied diet in fruits, nuts, meat, grains is just as healthy as the vegetarian diet espoused by Adventists. If one wants to stay away from meat fine but a little dairy and some eggs once in awhile are OK.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 15th, 2011 Doctorf says:

Elaine,

None of these people have been to LLU lately. When I go in at 0800 to teach a class to the medical students the coffee aroma in the amphitheater is pleasant and an eye opener. I think the younger generation has long since thrown off the yoke of the tripe in this blog. In addition, without caffeine as a research drug we would not understand intracellular calcium signaling in excitable cells to the degree that we do. I use it all the time in our studies. Very natural substance and has enhanced our biophysical knowledge to a great degree.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 15th, 2011 Doctorf says:

Control,

Well said and thanks for the smile. This blog reminds me of my early days being brought up in the psychosis called Adventism and the "health message." In my day I held the purveyors of this nonsense under great suspicion. Looking back over that history, my skepticism was justified. Elaine brings up a good point. Natural plants were all given by God. Boy do I enjoy a brew from the coffee bean. The aroma is heavenly, the taste wonderful and it helps me get through some seminars presented by some rather dull characters.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 15th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Listed are just a few of the benefits of cofee from this month's reports:

Coffee – An Overlooked Health and Anti Aging Food
In the past, coffee (like wine) has been overlooked as a healthy food. There has always been some level of suspicion around coffee and its long-term impact on health. For some reason, coffee has this association of being unhealthy. Well, (thank goodness) it looks like that link between coffee and unhealthiness is wrong. In fact, there is a good bit of evidence that coffee is good for you and it may even be good for you. This is important, considering more than half of the people in the U.S. drink coffee every day.

Why Coffee Is A Superfood?
It looks like coffee has two main ways of improving the health of your body: antioxidants and caffeine. Both these substances have health and anti aging benefits. Antioxidants, for example, help your body repair damage to cells caused by free radicals (which are produced as a byproduct of cells just doing their daily thing). Caffeine has been shown to help improve a range of symptoms and may even be important in fighting of Parkinson’s Disease and other age-related brain problems. Coffee is loaded with both antioxidants and caffeine, and each has different potential benefits for improving health and reducing the risk of chronic illnesses.

Health Benefits of Coffee

I scoured the internet to find reliable sources of the health benefits of coffee. Type "coffee" into pubmed (the database of medical research) and your get almost 7,000 results back. Below are some of the major findings about health, life expectancy and coffee.

Heart Disease (up to 25% reduction in mortality risk (for women))

Diabetes (up to 60% reduced risk)

Dementia (up to 65% reduced risk)

Colon Cancer (up to 25% reduced risk)

Cirrhosis (up to 80% reduced risk)

Gallstones (almost 50% reduced risk)

Parkinson’s Disease (up to 80% reduced risk – probably because of caffeine)

Headache Relief (because of the caffeine)

Asthma Relief (caffeine again)

Cavity Protection (because of anti-bacterial and anti-adhesive properties of compounds within coffee)


Of 34,670 women aged 49 to 83, women who drank more than a cup of coffee each day had a 22% to 25% lower risk for stroke than women who drank less coffee.

Women who reported drinking anywhere from one to five or more cups of coffee a day showed similar benefits in stroke reduction. Drinking more coffee did not reduce stroke risk any further, the study showed.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 16th, 2011 Doctorf says:

Elaine,

You hit the point nicely. Indeed the methyxanthines in coffee and tea have their toxicity point in terms of cardiac arrhythmias but the combination of antioxidants along with the stimulant effects of caffeine make coffee and tea very nice beverages. I am thankful for the powerful research tool that caffeine has become because it is one of the few ryanodine agonists for studying calcium signaling in excitable cells.

I get a kick out of this blog with Cindy trying to polish EGW's legacy and I am reminded that the Mormons have to deal with Joseph Smith and when one reads the unvarnished history of J. Smith it becomes comedic much like EGWs. Whatever they are paying Cindy at the White Estate it's most likely not enough.


I just had a cup of Hazel nut coffee and now ready to go to church. At least I will be awake!




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 16th, 2011 Doctorf says:

Pat,

Good point. The Mormons on my wifes side of the family eat a wide variety of foods including meat. They stay away from drugs and over indulgence in alcohol. They either do not drink or if they do (Jack Mormons) they do so in moderation. Moderation and a good diet work every time. But, in the end death comes for us all.




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 16th, 2011 Doctorf says:

Elaine,

Like you I was raised an SDA. My mom never gave up coffee but we were not allowed to drink it. When I hit 16 I started drinking it in secret, hehehehe! During my advanced training at Univ Calif when I was up to 0300 doing single cell imaging studies I got to drinking a bit to much coffee. So I backed off and returned to a cup or two per day. 54, still work out 5 days a week and no ill effects. Indeed coffee is also a social drink as when faculty meet to discuss teaching or their research, coffee or tea is the beverage of choice. If caffine is the big issue here one can just drink decaffeinated coffee or tea. Same benefits minus the fun.




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 16th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

We should sympathize with Cindy's position: she is paid to praise, and it's getting more difficult all the time as so much good medical science cannot back up those 19th century ideas. The selective use of studies can easily be done, as we know, but when taken as a whole, the benefits of coffee cannot be dismissed.

Like you, I had my favorite iced capuccino before heading out to SS class, and might have even kep quiet without it, but not had nearly as much fun bringing up alternate views on subject of Sabbath! Every class should have such a heretic to challenge the status quo when they are really all saying "Amen."



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 16th, 2011 Tom says:

I don't really have a dog in this fight over coffee. As i said before on this blog I don't even like the stuff. There are pros and cons and evidence to support both sides of the argument. My guess is that if EGW had endorsed it's use rather than stigmatized it by saying coffee drinking is a sin, there probably wouldn't even be an argument about it in the SDA Church. So much ado about nothing! Enjoy your java or Pero or just plain water, take your pick.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 16th, 2011 Mustang Molly says:

Elaine,

I would love to have a Bible study with you, if your interested in searching to see how God views the subject of coffee and other harmful products. You see, that's all that counts, in the end; is pleasing God. We were bought with a price, we are not our own. (I don't recall a coffee shop on the north end of the garden of Eden.) The comments of EGW still applies for today . God knew this, that's why there is reference made to coffee and other evils of the day. http://www.hopeint.org/pdf-ourfirmfoundation/OFF2302w.pdf ... you'll find here a nice article about mind control and caffeine...interesting thought...and you think, HA! that's not true ; but what if it is!! Are you willing to take a chance on your eternal salvation? Those are some pretty high stakes...




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 16th, 2011 Stephen Foster says:

Here’s a question about caffeine: is it, or can it be, physically addictive? If the answer is yes, then, is that a good thing or a not-so-good thing?

Can most that have caffeine every day, go a few days without it—that is, without any side effects or withdrawal symptoms? Yes or no; and if not, is that a good thing or not?

Stephen Foster

Adventist Today blogger



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 16th, 2011 Mustang Molly says:

Doctorf,

I will pray for you. I don't believe you're an SDA by the comments that you make. IF you are......You have obviously fallen into one of Satan's sly traps that have been tailor - made for you and hundreds of other that justify the use of caffeine. Check out this article on caffeine and mind control... http://www.hopeint.org/pdf-ourfirmfoundation/OFF2302w.pdf ... and consider the fact...WHAT IF IT'S TRUE!..Are you willing to stake your eternal salvation on this? Hmm...




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 16th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Not only coffee shops in heaven, there won't be any nurses, doctors, health-food or clothing stores--a much larger list could be made, including preachers.

We will never need medicine there, but I don't believe anyone who needs medicine today is willing to forego in hopes of reaching heavien sooner--oh, he might!

Please tell me how drinking a cup of coffee a day affects eternal salvation?



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 16th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Humans are addicted to water, they cannot go, nor even live very many days without it. There are many more things ingested that are also addictive and shouldn't need to be listed.

Personally, and I can only speak about my own use: one cup a day is all I ever use; and no, I can easily go without it, but just like the prescription meds I take, it improves my well-being both physicall yand mentally and there are overwhelming studies showing its benefits, so why not enjoy it in moderation? Most folks enjoy sugary desserts (ice cream, anyone?) in moderation. Tor use either the Bible of EGW to try to show that coffee is not to be used at all, is to abuse scripture, EGW did not always adhere to the BIble but adopted many of her prohibitions from other contemporary writers who were as woefully ignorant as she was at those times.




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 16th, 2011 amed soliz says:

WOW so many benefits of caffeine? who will belief ? this is the drug of the 21 century!!! give a break were are the clinical prospective randomized control studies to support such statements? This sound like the "magic juices" sold by the charlatans in the plazas of the third word countries. In reality is just tinted water with significant side effects


Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 16th, 2011 Stephen Foster says:

Elaine,

Although I am certainly not a scientist, my understanding is that “humans are addicted to water” only because we are primarily composed of water. Since we know that humans are not largely comprised of caffeine, your point (about humans being addicted to water) is totally lost on me.

Stephen Foster

Adventist Today blogger



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 16th, 2011 Doctorf says:

Molly,

I appreciate your prayers. But, my salvation or damnation is outside of your purview. I am in Gods hands. That said, I suspect my salvation is not dependent on whether or not I drink coffee. It has its benefits and I had no idea that caffeine was one of Satans traps. If what you say is true then I stand corrected. But, in the meantime I will remain appropriately skeptical until I have given this "trap" business more thought. I and many others in the biomedical community have published quite a few scientific articles using caffeine as a molecular tool to understand ion flux in excitable cells. It is a natural substance and not the boogeyman that Adventism and Mormonism has made it out to be. I am also very skeptical that I have fallen into any trap set by Satan. It seems to me that Satan has more important things to do than to be concerned with someone so insignificant as myself.

And by the way I was raised SDA. I just have thrown of the nonsense as purveyed in this blog and have walked away with the good parts.




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 16th, 2011 Doctorf says:

Stephen,

Actually in a pharmacological sense Elaine is right. By definition addiction occurs when negative physiological symptoms present themselves upon withdrawal of a substance. Withdrawal of water will produce such negative symptoms. In that sense we are addicted to water as we cannot live very long without it. You are right we can live without caffeine but the drug is not dangerous and does not produce the effects listed here unless taken in very high quantities.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 16th, 2011 Doctorf says:

Amed,

Caffeine is a research tool that has produced profound and quantum leaps in our study of a process called calcium induced calcium release in excitable cells such as neurons and cardiac cells. I use it all the time in our confocal studies measuring small events known as calcium sparks. That said it is a mild stimulant and not dangerous unless taken in high gram quantities.

On this blog some fundamentalists seem to have their knickers in a twist because coffee and tea use among SDA's has greatly increased.




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 16th, 2011 markham says:

Seminary Student-

Age does not necesarily confer wisdom. In some cases it is just the opposite. Don't be misled by an octogenarian. Check the Bible and EGW carefully before accepting what anyone states.

Truth Seeker



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 16th, 2011 Doctorf says:

Stephen,

The answer is yes. One can have 1-2 cups of coffee per day depending on the caffeine content, then not have any with no physiological symptoms. People drinking 8-12 cups per day will experience withdrawal symptoms such as fatigue and pounding headache but only for a few days.

Narcotic pain medications are all addictive but rarely do people get addicted if they follow their prescriptions. If one has to take narcotics chronically such as those afflicted with cancer then yes they become addicted. However, its immoral to with hold pain medication just because one will become addicted in cases such as those with terminal cancer.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 16th, 2011 Doctorf says:

Truth,

The bible condemns being drunk but not drinking wine. The bible is silent on caffeine. Many do not care what EGW says on the subject and seem to get along just fine and does not make them bad people. The octogenarian quip was transparent and unnecessary. Apparently decency is not part of your academic training? Stick to the subject and steer away from the personal jibes.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 16th, 2011 Stephen Foster says:

Doctorf,

OK, water is addictive to humans. I don’t actually recall challenging that but, so as to avoid impending silliness; I will gladly concede that “point.” The last time I checked, water is good for you. To be addicted to something that is good for you sounds like a plan to me.

Other than for the understandable and humanitarian relief of pain of terminal and/or suffering patients, is it good, in your scientific opinion, to be physically addicted to something that you do not need to survive; since this is indeed, according to you, occasionally possible with caffeine?

Since you didn’t cite any studies, perhaps it would not be unfair of me to state that years of anecdotal observation in a corporate environment suggest to me that it takes a whole lot less Mountain Dew, Coca Cola, and java than you think to develop a caffeine Jones.

Stephen Foster

Adventist Today blogger




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 16th, 2011 amed soliz says:

Doctorf

Were are RCT in humans? I do research too... for more than 20 years. Given credit to caffeine to decrease Cancer and other serious diseases? come on we have to get serious...do you have any references? (again RCT or meta analysis in humans). Caffeine is effective to treat apnea of prematurity and certain type of headaches ( although also produces headaches.

Somebody also mention addiction to water... now that is just a revelation!!! also are we going to say that we are addict to oxygen? this is ridiculous.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 16th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

"we going to say that we are addict to oxygen? this is ridiculous."

As a matter of fact, we are addicted to oxygen, from our first breath, emerging from the womb, we become addicted to it--just try to withdraw it and watch the withdrawal effects!

My husband when an intern or resident, had a patient with a premature delivery. All efforts to establish lung breathing had been unsuccessful. Caffeine was injected with no results. Finally, in a desperate attempt to save the infant's life he injected a far larger dose of caffeine than would have been appropriate. Miraculously (some would say), the infant responded and began breathing normally and was discharged later. Maybe he grew up addicted to caffeine?




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 16th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

We have all realized by now that Cindy has served us up quite a brew of a tempest in a coffee pot.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 17th, 2011 amed soliz says:

WOW! Now we are addictive to water and oxygen, that is just rubbish! Oxygen and water are "universal" nutrients and we depend on them since conception long before we were born.

Here is the definition of addiction Addiction: A chronic relapsing condition characterized by compulsive drug-seeking and abuse and by long-lasting chemical changes in the brain. Addiction is the same irrespective of whether the drug is alcohol, amphetamines, cocaine, heroin, marijuana, or nicotine. Every addictive substance induces pleasant states or relieves distress. Continued use of the addictive substance induces adaptive changes in the brain that lead to tolerance, physical dependence, uncontrollable craving and, all too often, relapse. Dependence is at such a point that stopping is very difficult and causes severe physical and mental reactions from withdrawal



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 17th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Conclusion: there can be an addiction to coffee and many substances, but a substance that one enjoys--be it ice cream, vegeburger, or whatever, does not make it an addicition. An addiction causes unwanted side effects, seen with alcoholics in withdrawal. Those of us who drink coffee simply because we enjoy it, and do not require it anymore than one "must have" a certain food item, should not be concerned about addiction.

I simply enjoy one iced capuccino daily. No more, and when I don't have it, I function fine. Coffee CAN be an addiction, but like those who enjoy wine, an addiction depends on each individual, not on the substance. Nor do the bad effects listed in the first article bother the majority of users. It should have been clear (evidently the writer chose not to disclose that) that only a very few of very heavy users MAY, not WILL, have those effects. A message attempting to convey a position was heavy on hyperbole and lacking in actual facts.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 17th, 2011 Doctorf says:

Amed,

You are not reading what I say carefully. I am not an epidemiologist. That discipline finds many correlations but cause and effect are much harder to discern. I did not say caffeine reduces cancer. However, there are epidemiological studies that show that coffee use, not caffeine reduces incidence of cancer. It is the phytochemicals which are antioxidants that may be the agents of benefit in the coffee. But, please keep in mind that rates for any particular cancer are low to begin with so an additional 25% reduction may not add much.

Go on pubmed and do your own search. Bottom line is SDA demonization of coffee is ridiculous and is a classical aspect of a religion that has many arcane rules that define what it is to be an SDA. Catholicism suffers from similar issues. I do not adhere to these rules and I am in good keeping with a lot of Catholics who maintain the spiritual aspects of their religion while dispensing of some of the stupid rules.

In my studies I use caffeine in carefully controlled conditions to understand ion signaling. That is far different from an RCT.




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 17th, 2011 Doctorf says:

Ahmed,

What is being said is that one cannot be without oxygen or water. Adverse physiological effects will be manifest with deprivation of these universal substances.

Water to quench thirst is very pleasurable. We satisfy our thirst cravings with water. Indeed craving for nicotine, opiates or alcohol involve different receptors.

On another point coffee use is of benefit in asthmatics because coffea arabica and coffea canephora species not only contain caffeine, which is a bronchodilator but theophylline which is a more efficacious bronchodilator. The latter is packaged by pharmaceuticals for asthmatics.

On the headache issue do you know why caffeine can ablate severe headaches? When an ischemia occurs in a particular region of the brain, glial cells and astrocytes will release adenosine which causes vasodilation. Run away vasodilation causes the headache pressure and caffeine is an adenosine antagonist. That is why caffeine is used in some headache medications. The RCT studies for these medications are legion. We just had a basic science seminar on adenosine and modulation of cerebral blood flow and once again, caffeine is the molecular tool that has allowed us to decipher how adenosine works in terms of modulating local cerebral blood flow.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 17th, 2011 Doctorf says:

Stephen,

Loved your quip about the corporate world. I do enjoy reading your comments. In the pain world, yes you do not need the morphine to survive but in cases of terminal illness it is unethical to hold back medication because chronic use will produce addiction. With intermittent pain, of course one uses the drug for as long as necessary then abstains.

I get an endorphin high out of running or jump roping or high repetition resistance exercise. I NEED it and crave that sense of well being and that is why I do it 5 days per week. That in my view is a good dependence. Now if I exercise to the point of recurring injury just to get the endorphin rush, I have a problem.

I am in the academic science world and coffee etc flows freely. I am one who has 1-2 cups and walks away. Some are addicted to caffeine and that is not good. Caffeine addicts in some cases have underlying depression issues and withdrawal for them is more complex.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 17th, 2011 Doctorf says:

Elaine,

You make a good point on EGW's railings against spices such as mustard and pepper. To her these spices all stimulated the "senses or passions." I remember forced readings of her rantings on spice use. I knew at the age of 16 that this person was really disturbed. I cook a lot and I think of all the wonderful spices I use to turn vegetables from mundane tasteless plants to delectable delights. I even get my neighbors to eat more vegetables when I can help them with these preparations.

I just tried a saute for mushrooms. Green grape mash, minced garlic, chopped basil, pepper and 1/4 bottle of pinot grigio and sea salt. Mix ingredients bring to boil to reduce the wine and concentrate the grapes. Put in sliced mushrooms, saute for 2 minutes, serve and you will be taken into a raptuous world of oral sensory delight. I am sure the salt, wine and pepper would have produced howls of consternation from the EGW crowd of the times. I am sure there are many here that will be happy to tell me of the all the evils I will suffer from my saute mix.




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 17th, 2011 pat travis says:

Just a thought for consideration.

With the onset of “addictionology” and multiple types of 12 step treatment programs in the “treatment industry” the distinctions between drugs/chemicals causing extreme withdrawal begin to be blurred with what had previously been labeled “habituations.”


Thus now you have “addiction” to things such as sex, food, caffeine, exercise etc., etc. which formally would more properly be labeled “habituations” without the more severe consequences of withdrawal previously associated with powerful chemical “addictions.”

It seems to me that this article seems to me to add to the “blurring" of degree and severity as relates to habits and true addictions in order to add credibility and enforce previously held traditions.

regards,

pat



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 17th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Any psyocologist can attest to the varieties of OCD which blur into addiction. What is the difference between an obsessive compulsive need to wash one's hands hundreds of times daily (Howard Hughes) for fear of germs, and one who is excessive about most any substance ingested or actions?

From comments here there is no evidence that any are addicted to caffeine: they simply enjoy it, just as we should enjoy the abundance of God-given plants. I don't recall the Bible's writers warning man to avoid plants--in fact, all were given for man. It is man, not God, who has presumed to play God in condemning.

As for herbs and spices, I use them freely and enjoy the taste-enhancer that they are. What's a burger (veggie, of course) without mustard, pickle, maybe ketchup, cheese and all the fixings? What a bland world some would dictate for others.




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 17th, 2011 Con says:

@DoctorF, have you ever stopped to consider whether of not Mushrooms fit into the clean food categories?

I love eating mushrooms but cannot see how they can be a part of the clean foods of the O.T.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 17th, 2011 Con says:

I find it ironic that substances such as tea, coffee and alchohol are taboo and will in fact keep us out of heaven according to E G White, yet is seems to be acceptable to be 'addicted' to medically prescribed mind altering medications.

For instance it was considered acceptable 40 years ago for devout SDA women who were strict vegetarians and who did not partake of the evil alchohol or caffeines (well with the exception of chocolate in either food or beverage) but to spend every day in the clutches of Valium or it's equivilents.




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 17th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

" Every living and crawling thing shall provide food for you, no less than the foliage of plants. I give you everything, with this exception: you may not eat flesh with life, that is to say blood in it" (Gen. 9:4-5).

After the flood Noah and his descendants were given EVERYTHING for food, and all sorts of flesh food. It was not until Sinai that there was a separation between "clean and unclean," something that is "written into" the the flood story, but the story of the flood was written much later, and if Moses was the writer, he knew of this food distinctions, as the separation between clean and unclean meats was never given to man prior to the flood. Lots of assumptions are "read into" the Bible as occuring retroactively: simply because if there is a later rule, it is assumed, wrongly, that it has always been a rule.




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 17th, 2011 Con says:

@Molly, I don't know whether that link you posted up was supposed to be some sort of attempt at dry humour but it was just plain Kooky!


Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 17th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

After checking out the link provided by Molly, I believe you're right, Con. And evidently Cindy used many of the same "inspired" counsel indicting caffeine. Why rely on modern science and simply read EGW's medical advice.


Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 17th, 2011 Doctorf says:

Con,

Interesting point! Never thought of it. But, whether or not they are "clean" foods try my saute! You will love it. The alcohol will be boiled out of the wine keeping you within the SDA guidelines and allow the mix to cook until the volume is reduced by about 1/2. This "reduction" concentrates the grape, wine, pepper, salt, garlic and basil mix. Then add the mushrooms and enjoy. My wife and I found this at a restaurant in Redlands and asked the chef for the ingredients. My first attempt was a big hit. I have a sister who graduated from the Culinary Institute at Hyde Park NY. She has often said "SDA cooking is nauseating and half of the recipes she would not use even to patch tires." In the end I do not rely to much on what was labeled clean and unclean of the OT. I used to have lunch with a Rabbi while in college. He told me the OT laws on meat were not "health" laws. They were religious laws because the pagans surrounding the Jews ate such meats that were offered up to pagan Gods. Made sense to me, but what do I know.

I get a bit discouraged by this blog when people suggest that coffee may be a one way ticket to hell. I hope I do not serve such a stupid and capricious God.

Sincerely

John (aka Doctorf)



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 17th, 2011 Doctorf says:

Con,

Your comment on "medicine" (benzodiazepines) which substitute for alcohol, are acceptable among the faithful but alcohol is not, is a salient an insightful comment. During my drug abuse lectures I discuss such issues to the Sophomore Med students as there is an eclectic mix of SDA's, Mormons, Catholics and other Christians. Over dinner I had a Mormon mother tell me that "diet coke" was OK but coffee was not because in the former the caffeine is "cold." I had a hard time holding my teeth in my head. I pointed out that methylxanthines are stable in coffee or diet coke and have the same stimulant effects. The woman was a mother of a good friend so after that comment I just prayed for grace and bit my tongue. I pray that I never become addicted to any drug. So far, so good.




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 17th, 2011 Doctorf says:

Elaine,

I really enjoyed your story where your husband injected caffeine to dilate the lung vasculature on the premature infant. Yes, works every time. We use surfactants in premature lambs which is our model for premature infants but if they still do not respond theophylline works fine but caffeine also works.




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 17th, 2011 Stephen Foster says:

Doctorf,

If indeed God can, under any set of conceivable circumstances, be considered “stupid and capricious” if and when any of us happens not to agree with Him in principle—whatever that may be—then we do not “serve” Him; He serves us.

Instead we should hope that we are not stupid enough to have our opinions and preferences conflict with His principles.

Stephen Foster

Adventist Today blogger



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 18th, 2011 Doctorf says:

Steve,

First of all within this thread it is clear to me that God has not spoken on the coffee issue. What is apparent is that self absorbed people such as EGW have spoken on the subject and claim to reflect Gods views. I stand on my previous comment. If God is that worried about my coffee use he needs to get a job.

I never understood all this "serving God" theology anyway. Seems to me it should be the other way around. After all sentient beings suffer all manner of ills but God being who he is does not. Maybe he can shoot some "service" this way once in awhile. Personally when I look at history God has not done much to be considered worthy of "service" by anyone.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 18th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

"If indeed God can, under any set of conceivable circumstances, be considered “stupid and capricious"
Would it be considered capricious for your neighbor to kill his son who was rebellious? Would it be considered capricious, even murder, if he killed all his children without warning?

Was God capricious when he told Abraham to offer his son as a sacrifice?

Capricious: impulsivness, unpredictability, irrationality.

Is God our example?



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 18th, 2011 Doctorf says:

Elaine,

Answer to 1 and 2, yes.

If the capricious God of the bible is our example then I would not want anything to do with said being.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 18th, 2011 Stephen Foster says:

Obviously we are getting into silly season. Here’s the deal as far as God is concerned, if you do not believe that God is the all good, all wise, all loving Creator and Sustainer of all, there is no telling what conclusions you will come to concerning Him—clearly.

As for the “service” thing Doctorf, I used this only because you did. Having said that, I applaud your candor; but submit that God just might be worthy of service because we have Him to thank for our every breath, and that our hearts beat at His pleasure, and because He gives us the prerogative to discount all of this and question/disregard Him.

The God of the Bible is the only God there is; but you are fully within your God-given rights to choose to have nothing to do with Him.

Stephen Foster

Adventist Today blogger



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 18th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:

Elaine you say: Humans are addicted to water, they cannot go, nor even live very many days without it.

...and then you say: As a matter of fact, we are addicted to oxygen, from our first breath, emerging from the womb, we become addicted to it--just try to withdraw it and watch the withdrawal effects!

SAY WHAT???????????????

Are these substances that you claim to be 'addictive' contra-indicated with coffee? Are they more harmful than caffeine? What are some of the side effects of these substances ie. oxygen and water? Please enlighten us more on this new scientific discovery...

Are there any papers that reveal an objective study linking oxygen and water to any addictive disorders?

Come on Elaine! Is it the extra 'cuppa' you had today that inflated your imagination? Please don't blame those 30's and 50's teachers for this like you and Tom usually do...

T



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 18th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:

Sorry for my previous comment been somewhat 'tongue in cheek'.

I have to blame it on the 'oxygen and water' I had this morning!

; )

T



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 18th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Trevor,

We all use TIC to lighten things up a little. If my one cup of java had any, any, of the terrible effects that have been enumerated here, I certainly would not be so dumb or foolish to use coffee. And, for those who suffer ill effets, we would hope that they have the good sense to refrain. Because almost anything we eat or drink CAN be a problem for some, should not excllude it from everyone. Common sense in what one eats and drinks should always apply. Some like chocolate as a flavor--chocolate ice cream. I prefer coffee flavor. Simply because a very few may become "addicts" is no reaon to have rules for everyone. That is the sensible decision, isn't it?

That applies to wine: I can't stand even the smell; but most of my friends and family enjoy a glass of wine with meals. Addiction is not a problem with any of them.




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 18th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:

What's the big deal Elaine and others? SDA's have traditionally stayed away from coffee, tea, tobacco and alcohol, etc., which have been a part of our Traditional Health Message which I might add focuses on the 'Preventative' rather than curative as a general rule. Although, even changing bad 'habits' that may affect physical and spiritual health can be remedied by making the necessary changes which are for the better and not the worse.

I met an 81 year old family friend at my late brother's funeral the other day. The 81 year old is a smoker, drinker and uses coffee and tea and eats meat. While longevity may be an indicator that someone is in good health it does not make bad habits good. Those who abuse their bodies with unhealthful practices and yet still live longer in spite of these bad habits only prove one thing important to me; that our Creator has so wonderfully made us that even though so many abuse their bodies with these said bad habits, the human body is still resilient and lasts remarkably during this time.

I'm still talking beverages here - not medicinal use. Caffeine is addictive in the truest sense of addiction and is therefore NOT a healthful habit. Period. Just because some SDA homes introduced these 'vices' to their children and churches doesn't make it 'good' because they all enjoy having it and get a a kick out of it. 'Be sober' is God's counsel and we should strive to keep it this way - I don't think God had synthesized caffeine high's in mind when admonishing us to be sober and vigilant!

Is caffeine the only thing that will keep some progressives awake in church?

P.S. - Elaine and other 'Pre/Ex Adventists' that hover on SDA-bashing blogs; I wonder why you would pick on a message that in essence has the Health and Wellness of others at heart - even the poorest of the poor benifit from our SDA Health Reform Message. Many of you benefit largely from it but just because you seek to find excuse for leaving or comfortiing your disgruntled whims you 'diss' our Heath Message too...Why?


T


Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 18th, 2011 Con says:

Trevor, Jesus and his friends ate meat, Jesus also ate fish flesh after His ressurection why are SDA so arrogent about this, are you calling Jesus and the 12 fools?

Guess what EG White was also wrong about John the Baptist, he wasn't a vegetarian, he ate bugs. It clearly states that he ate locusts while in the wilderness and locusts are not vegetables or carob beans for that matter otherwise you better be on the alert for those same carob beans mentioned by John the Revelator!

John the Baptist was also a Kohen, his father Zechariah was the High Priest was he not? Hey guess what they ate meat.

We are not in the Garden of Eden any more than Noah, Abraham or even Paul were for that matter, there is no health message in the Bible except for the power of the saving grace of Jesus Christ, haleluyah amen!




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 19th, 2011 justew says:

Where's the "like" button? I almost spit my ... oh my, what can I claim to have in my glass that won't get me stoned by this crowd...Postum!!?!?!!?! ... yeah, that's it ALL over my keyboard!

Good morning, better conversation. More entertaining than television!

--Stew.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 19th, 2011 pat travis says:

T,

Here is the "problem",

"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit," Rom.14:17.

and...many have made "eating and drinking" a major focus.

The proper path is "temperance in all things."

pat



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 19th, 2011 Vastergotland says:

Trevor wrote:

"What are some of the side effects of these substances ie. oxygen and water?"

FYI:

"Fluxes of 02-, generated enzymatically or photochemically, have been shown to inactivate virus (32), induce lipid peroxidation (33), damage membranes (34, 35), and kill cells (36)."

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/201/4359/875.full.pdf

O2- is a product of normal cellular respiration, the process which transforms food and oxygen into an energy form the cell can use.

"As can be seen, although there is not enough evidence to establish total responsibility of oxygen free radicals for different human diseases, they are involved in the toxicity of a great number of pathologies."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRJ-4031CNX-T&_user=646099&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1995&_alid=1723747539&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_zone=rslt_list_item&_cdi=6236&_sort=r&_st=13&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=1&_acct=C000034699&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=646099&md5=68c61c33c4b15662af272de1306b8da3&searchtype=a

"CONCLUSIONS

1. In man and other mammals (dog, cat, rabbit, guinea pig, and rat), water ingested in excess of the ability of the organism to excrete it leads to water intoxication.

2. Water intoxication is manifested by restlessness, asthenia, polyuria, pollakiuria, diarrhea, salivation, frothing at the mouth, nausea, retching, vomiting, tremor and twitching of the muscles, ataxia, tonic and clonic convulsions, collapse, stupor and coma, and at times by oliguria.

3. The convulsions are general, of extreme violence, and in the main resemble those of strychnin poisoning. They may recur at intervals of a few minutes, a state of ataxia, asthenia, or collapse supervening in the interim.

4. Water intoxication terminates in death unless the excessive intake is discontinued."

http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/29/1/135.short




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 20th, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:

hey, Vastergotland

I'm sure you're aware that I wasn't talking about 'drowning' or 'hyperventilating' for that matter. Thanks for the chemistry lesson though!

Maybe your deliberation should have included the side effects and dangers of caffeine addiction/intoxication...

may your cup runneth over

T



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 21st, 2011 Vastergotland says:

Trevor

Neither drowning nor hyperventilating are involved in the issues discussed by the above mentioned articles. In the case of water, it is true that excessive amounts of water is involved with water intoxication, but none of it need enter the lungs for these side effects to occur. The oxygen derivates which are mentioned in the other article are produced with normal breathing, and are the main reason why you would buy anti-oxidants in your local health food store.

A newspiece on water intoxication:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16614865/ns/us_news-life/

Per your request, I did a search on caffeine, looking for recently published review articles.

"Coffee and Health: A Review of Recent Human Research"

"The results of epidemiological research suggest that coffee consumption may help prevent several chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, Parkinson's disease and liver disease (cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma). Most prospective cohort studies have not found coffee consumption to be associated with significantly increased cardiovascular disease risk. However, coffee consumption is associated with increases in several cardiovascular disease risk factors, including blood pressure and plasma homocysteine. At present, there is little evidence that coffee consumption increases the risk of cancer. For adults consuming moderate amounts of coffee (3-4 cups/d providing 300-400 mg/d of caffeine), there is little evidence of health risks and some evidence of health benefits. However, some groups, including people with hypertension, children, adolescents, and the elderly, may be more vulnerable to the adverse effects of caffeine. In addition, currently available evidence suggests that it may be prudent for pregnant women to limit coffee consumption to 3 cups/d providing no more than 300 mg/d of caffeine to exclude any increased probability of spontaneous abortion or impaired fetal growth."

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a742127085

Effects of caffeine on human health

"The possibility that caffeine ingestion adversely affects human health was investigated based on reviews of (primarily) published human studies obtained through a comprehensive literature search. Based on the data reviewed, it is concluded that for the healthy adult population, moderate daily caffeine intake at a dose level up to 400 mg day-1 (equivalent to 6 mg kg-1 body weight day-1 in a 65-kg person) is not associated with adverse effects such as general toxicity, cardiovascular effects, effects on bone status and calcium balance (with consumption of adequate calcium), changes in adult behaviour, increased incidence of cancer and effects on male fertility."

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a713811152

I realise that this is not what you wished to hear, but it is non the less what it is.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 21st, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

It would be quite amusing if this were a satiric thread, but to realize that those writers who castigate coffee are truly serious is unbelievable. With so many health problems in our world today: obesity, diabetes, malnutrition, illegal use of prescription drugs, to spend such inordinate time on an innocuous subject merely reflects the occupation of some SDAs who are shrilly preaching EGW's 19th century health ideas.

Come on, folks. If this is the most serious problem to be found either in the world or the Adventist church, there is far too much time on the hands of those who seek to ferret out the harmful effects of a substance that has recently shown multiple advantages in halting and reducing many diseases. One has to close his eyes to all the many medical studies showing coffee's benefits and turn back the clock more than 100 years to find dangers, but of course no studies, only personal opinions were represented then. We have the benefit today of medical science and knowledge undreamed of 100 years ago. Why ignore them?




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 21st, 2011 Doctorf says:

Con,

On another matter when I look at the Revelation visions I wonder if John was sampling some of the local hallucinogens growing on Patmos.




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 21st, 2011 Doctorf says:

One issue with the citations listed is that they are mostly epidemiological studies which are fraught with the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Epidemiological studies find many correlation risk factors. These may or may not be cause and effect. This is why epidemiological studies are also contradictory because conclusions based on correlation data are subject to error. Hence, studies saying coffee is bad, no wait coffee is good. Same is true with wine and beer. There are health benefits to beer and wine but there is also the downside of over consumption.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 21st, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:

hey, Vastergotland

This is what I asked Elaine Nelson: What are some of the side effects of these substances ie. oxygen and water, after her comments about 'addiction to water and oxygen? (which I thought was rather comical)

Elaine said: 1] Humans are addicted to water, they cannot go, nor even live very many days without it.

2] As a matter of fact, we are addicted to oxygen, from our first breath, emerging from the womb, we become addicted to it--just try to withdraw it and watch the withdrawal effects!

I said: SAY WHAT???????????????

...What are some of the side effects of these substances ie. oxygen and water?...

I asked this in terms of the many side effects and risks of using caffeine laced beverages and the risk of addiction as well as the risk of moving on to stronger substances. Moreover the dangers posed to spiritual health when addicted to stimulants.

Also, the 'Starbucks Anyone' topic on this blog denotes the coffee shop environment, among others, as a conducive place for hospitality, friendliness and socializing to take place. This isn't been questioned or discredited. It's about whether we serve beverages that are healthful.

Our Health Message as a Church is based on a wholistic approach which again, among others, includes our position to promote staying away from stimulants which are addictive and as a result pose a health risk to both physical and even moreso, our spiritual well being.


By the way - caffeinated beverages are so 19th century! Are traditionalists more 'progressive' in this regard...?

may your cup runneth over!

T

P.S. You then posted the info on water intoxication and the benefits of caffeine. I don't get your point...




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 21st, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:

Hey All!

Check out the link below whilst having your 'cuppa' .....(Rooibos?). An excerpt from this website is below. http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/articles/coffee.htm


"Coffee: The Great Energy Sapper"
by Frederic Patenaude

The effects of caffeine on the body are well researched, but you never hear about them in your newspaper. You never hear about them anywhere because the whole nation, if not the whole world, is addicted to caffeine. Doctors, journalists, scientists, writers — everyone drinks coffee. Those whose job is to inform us are usually heavy coffee drinkers. And few of them ever rise up to speak against this popular drug.

But one did. His name is Stephen Cherniske, a scientist who spent 10 years of his life researching the effects of caffeine on the body and compiling them in a shocking document, “Caffeine Blues.” On the first page of this book we can read:

- Caffeine can't provide energy, only chemical stimulation and induced emergency state that can lead to irritability, mood swings, and panic attacks.

- Caffeine's ultimate mood effect can be letdown, which can lead to depression and chronic fatigue.

- Caffeine gives the illusion of heightened alertness by dilating pupils, quickening heart rate, and raising blood pressure. In fact, caffeine does not increase overall mental activity.


I have read “Caffeine Blues” and selected the most relevant information and quotes out of it for this article.

The Great Caffeine Hoax

You may have read somewhere or have been told in school that as long as caffeine was consumed in “moderate” quantities, it could not cause any problems. You were reassured. Once in a while, you may even read somewhere in the newspaper about the “benefits” of drinking coffee. So far, so good. Who could ever say anything against coffee? Mr. Cherniske responds:

“I had been told only that caffeine was a mild stimulant and its association with health disorders was unproven. I was also told that caffeine is not addictive. Since I knew from my own painful experience that the opposite was true, I reasoned that perhaps I had been snowed on the whole topic.

“What I quickly learned was that everyone has been snowed — researchers, doctors, journalists, and especially the public. The deception has been well coordinated by an industry whose goal is quite simple: to get as much caffeine into our bodies as possible. The caffeine industry knows caffeine saps your natural sense of vitality, leaving you dependent on their products to get through the day. They know that you actually crave their products and, more importantly, that you suffer when you don't consume them.

“It's a marketing dream, and it's legal. No wonder more and more companies are jumping on the caffeine bandwagon, churning out products from specialized coffees and teas to 'herbal' caffeinated energy pills, caffeinelaced fruit beverages, 'supercharged' soft drinks, caffeinated beer, and even caffeinated bottled water.” (Caffeine Blues, page 4)



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 22nd, 2011 whoiaminstead says:

I understand and can appreciate what has been said in this article, however, I think that in general, much of what we claim to believe or base our opinions off of, stems more from "Sister White Says", rather than "the bible says."


I agree with much of whats been said, moderation is key, and so is being accepting and welcoming to those of other faiths. I can't even tell you how many times i've been a fly on the wall in Adventist Churches and gatherings and heard people making the worst comments about how so and so was dressing, eating, etc. I grew up in the Church and can take this all with a grain of salt, however, what message are we really sending? Are we a group who loves unconditionally, as Christ does, and who seeks to be accepting of every person, even if that means offering coffee or caffienated teas, or even entering a Starbucks or Caribou to engage in conversation with a friend? Or are we this weird group who not only refuses to serve or have caffiene, but who also criticizes it openly, but then turns around and serves loads of sugary cakes, pies, and sodium laden veggy foods at our potlucks.....


I think that every person is at a very different place in their spiritual life and walk and therefore needs to make some of these types of decisions for themselves. Is drinking coffee or caffiene in moderation really a "salvation issue?"



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 22nd, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

What will be the next evil addressed now that coffee has been found not only to be hazardous to one's health, but violating a "thus saith Eggwhite"?

Jewelry--defined? (Excessive) makeup? Hair coloring? Short or long skirts? Attending the theater (that should be a busy topic), reading fiction? Ingesting cheese, pickles, mustards, and the most-dreadful cause of all diseases known to mankind--"secret vice."



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 22nd, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:

Mrs Nelson,

RE your comment: What will be the next evil addressed now that coffee has been found not only to be hazardous to one's health, but violating a "thus saith Eggwhite"?

If your comment above "thus saith Eggwhite" is a typo when you say 'Eggwhite' by mistake instead of EG White, then ignore the rest of what I say below.

I know that you aren't an SDA and I have tried to think of reasons to excuse your distasteful name-calling of Sister White. The 'Eggwhite' reference to Ellen White is derogatory and used in a malicious mocking way. It is indeed sad to see insults such as these from so-called educated, progressive, rational, logical, thinking, senior persons who stoop to this level.

This may be the reason why so many traditional (normal) SDA's don't frequent these anti-SDA sites and leaders of our Church don't take you seriously.

I take offense to someone who insults a pioneer of our Church and a messenger of God with the intent of belittling her and her ministry. Ellen White is a part of our Church history and has been an exemplary example of a true Christian throughout her life and her ministry. Millions have been blessed all around the world as a result of her writings. She was called by God to be His messenger for this time. Deal with it! There's no need to 'diss' her!

In Christ the Desire of Ages

T




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 22nd, 2011 Vastergotland says:

Trevor said:

"...What are some of the side effects of these substances ie. oxygen and water?...

P.S. You then posted the info on water intoxication and the benefits of caffeine. I don't get your point..."


That water intoxication and oxygen radical caused sickness are side effects of our dependency on water and oxygen perhaps? Are you saying that you do not think that cell damage caused by oxygen qualifies as a side effect of having to breath oxygen for your survival?

Also, you asked me about scientific studies on caffeine, I provided a few of these and you now say you fail to see the point of me doing so. I guess the real question is why I bother to provide evidence in a case of obvious "I made up my mind, dont try to confuse me with evidence"..



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 22nd, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:

hey, Vastergotland

This is what I suggested to you a previous post: Maybe your deliberation should have included the side effects and dangers of caffeine addiction/intoxication...

You came up with some rare water and oxygen phenomena and cited studies showing the dangers they pose in certain conditions yet conveniently come up with a study in favour of caffeine usage whilst again, conveniently ignoring the addiction and intoxication aspects I was talking about.

Water and oxygen are needed for survival hence whatever threat they may pose in certain conditions is acceptable; but this is not so with caffeine addiction and intoxication. We don't need caffeine beverages for survival (although caffeine junkies think they do). Your selective biased benefits of caffeine studies are not conclusive as they are rebutted by many other credible scientific ones as well.

What they all mostly do say is that 1] caffeine is addictive 2] there are harmful side effects 3] It is intoxicating 4] Caffeine is a Psychoactive drug which is a chemical substance that crosses the blood–brain barrier and acts primarily upon the central nervous system where it affects brain function, resulting in changes in perception, mood, consciousness, cognition, and behavior. These substances may be used recreationally, to purposefully alter one's consciousness, as entheogens, for ritual, spiritual, and/or shamanic purposes, as a tool for studying or augmenting the mind, or therapeutically as medication.

Anyway, this was originally my response to Elaine's silly season comment about addiction to water and oxygen which you clearly have missed.

'ope your cup runneth over!

T




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 22nd, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

This entire thread started, based on the evils of coffee with the gospel according to EGW, since there was not one text in scripture that could be used, she is always a backup to elaborate and furnish a much larger list of evils from which to avoid.

In truth, much of Adventisms unique message comes straight from the collection of "Sr. White Says" and for those who equate her writings as important as the Bible, it is similar, in fact, almost exactly the same method that Roman Catholics use tradition as equal to the Bible and that Mormons use the Book of Mormon as their guide. This is completely contrary to the Protestant motto of Sola Scriptura, but millions have made an exception with the profit's writing. So be it.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 22nd, 2011 Tom says:

Elaine

Amazing isn't it how some folks here couldn't see your tongue in cheek remark about addiction to oxogen and water. This blog has really been a tempest in a coffee pot! Some folks are so serious all the time they don't know a light hearted jab if they were tickled in the ribs with a peacock feather. You have scored again in ruffling feathers and going against the grain of the status quo, a trait I believe you wear as a badge of honor. At least it appears that way, you, you, trouble maker. Please consider this a compliment from your blog friend,

Tom




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 23rd, 2011 Vastergotland says:

Trevor

That oxygen produces dangerous by-products is not some "rare phenomena" but part of cell biology 101.

One of the studies requires a subscription, so I understand that you have not been able to read it. The other, however, is free to read. Had you done so, you would have known that it is a review study, which looks at what other researchers have found concerning coffee, and that it brings up both positive and negative results. No one is of course forcing you to read anything linked through a blog discussion, but it would seem prudent if you did read such links which you are making comments about.

Tom

Is it a bad thing to point out that there is substance behind the joke?




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 23rd, 2011 FredShoey says:

Thanks for the offer. Make mine a tall drip with room. Right now I need an eye-opener more than I need an institutional parent.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 23rd, 2011 amed soliz says:

Water and oxygen are universal nutrients and both are essential for life! This molecules they don't produce addiction.

Addiction is a specific definition applied to substances that are not essential for life and produce dependence, tolerance and withdrawal.

In its natural state oxygen (21% of the atmospheric pressure) is not a drug! 99% is used at the level of respiratory chain in the mitochondria were is jointed with hydrogen to produce water. Doing that also is produced ATP (the energy for whatever we do). The other 1% will produce free radicals and if we don't have all the antioxidant system working will have consequences. Most of us have a good system to live for many years!

Oxygen in its natural state does not produce tolerance or withdrawal, if oxygen is lacking the consequence is death within minutes. There is no time for withdrawal. Now is well known when oxygen is supplied in higher concentration (more than 21%) toxicity will occur because is used as a drug.

Water usually doest not produce toxicity, is only seen is persons who really exaggerated its consumption like in "Polydipsia psychogenica", or by some fanatics, anyway that persons have a metal disorders to drink such quantity.

Now it was very surpassing to read of such wonderful and almost miracle works given to caffeine (decreasing cancer and other serious diseases). This is not supported by serious research.

In NICU were i work we give caffeine to babies that have apnea (stop of breathing) of prematurity. This was study properly and has approved for this condition. To this date caffeine is a drug not a nutrient.




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 25th, 2011 Tom says:

Trevor says, "hope your cup runneth over". Buddy, spilling hot coffee, or any hot liquid on oneself, can really be hazardous to ones health. Best to hope there is a saucer under that cup! We wouldn't want anyone here to get burned, now would we?

Tom



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 28th, 2011 Doctorf says:

Pat,

Great pithy statement summarizing a reasonable path.




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 28th, 2011 Doctorf says:

Trevor,

I don't know your age but the "eggwhite" quip made me smile. It goes back more than 40 yrs. Elaine was really stating a bit of history regarding people skeptical of the "truth" in terms of what some of EG White wrote.

You say " She was called by God to be His messenger for this time."

That is your belief. But, if EG White has claims to being Gods messenger so does Joseph Smith to many faithful Mormons. After much reading on the massaged EG White and Joseph Smith histories along with reading William James, The Variety of Religious Experience, I reject both claims.



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On April 28th, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

Many have claimed to be prophets, but only if there are suffiicient numbers of people who also claim he or she is a prophet, is there a following. This has happened many times throughout this world's history.

Those who choose to follow every word a prophet utters or writes, is what is required to be recognized as a prophet with followers. Making claims, such a person may be ignored or shown to be a charlatan. Those who revere a prophet often wrongly assume that everyone else holds this individual in the same high esteem; just as there are some who are eager to look to such a person for answers, there are others who may be doubtful about such claims.




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On May 1st, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:

Hey Doctorf – RE your comment: You say " She was called by God to be His messenger for this time." That is your belief.

Eh? Doctorf! That is the belief of not just me; but of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as a whole (except for those quacky liberals on caffeine highs of course). Ellen White is God’s Messenger to the Last Day Church. Period.

Caffeine consumers are no different than Rastafarians of whom the latter even use Bible references to 'justify' their 'high' - much, so much, like caffeine junkies. There is so much different with regards to SDA's and Mormon's, etc., however, you and others compare these two groups to clearly to insult conservative SDA's and Mormon's who both share common ground at least in terms of promoting healthy living. Also, there are many non-SDA's and non-Christians who subscribe to staying away from caffeine who may have not even heard of Ellen White but have made an intelligent decision to avoid its use.

The Gift of Prophecy:
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)

Just because some ‘fly by nights’ come with some cultural liberalities that are swayed by the social and political arena and make some noise, won’t change the fact that God has led us as a Church and that His Teaching in our past History is still Biblically sound. They are Scripturally based and by God’s Providence for ‘these times’ (19th century and beyond) has equipped a people to complete the work of preaching the last day message before Jesus comes. Whether these messages are critical or not in our opinion is not what matters; but that God has seen fit for these messages to be preached and taught for our benefit and blessing. Seventh-day Adventists are Conservative in their Religious Beliefs for a number of good reasons and the Spirit of Prophecy Gift in the Ministry of Sister White is a remarkable blessing to the Church in these times, including the ‘caffeine’ warnings, et al.

Here are a few ‘Messages’:

The stimulating diet and drink of this day are not conducive to the best state of health. Tea, coffee, and tobacco are all stimulating, and contain poisons. They are not only unnecessary, but harmful, and should be discarded if we would add to knowledge, temperance.—The Review and Herald, February 21, 1888.

Stimulants—Not Foods—Tea and coffee do not nourish the system. The relief obtained from them is sudden, before the stomach has time to digest them. This shows that what the users of these stimulants call strength is only received by exciting the nerves of the stomach, which convey the irritation to the brain, and this in turn is aroused to impart increased action to the heart and short-lived energy to the entire system. All this is false strength that we are the worse for having. They do not give a particle of natural strength.—Testimonies for the Church 2:65.

The health is in no way improved by the use of those things which stimulate for a time, but afterward cause a reaction which leaves the system lower than before. Tea and coffee whip up the flagging energies for the time being; but when their immediate influence has gone, a feeling of depression is the result. These beverages have no nourishment whatever in themselves. The milk and sugar it contains constitute all the nourishment afforded by a cup of tea or coffee.—Counsels on Diet and Foods, 425.

Because these stimulants produce for the time being such agreeable results, many conclude that they really need them and continue their use. But there is always a reaction. The nervous system, having been unduly excited, borrowed power for present use from its future resources of strength.—Testimonies for the Church 3:487.

Tea and coffee drinkers carry the marks upon their faces.... The glow of health is not seen upon the countenance.—Testimonies for the Church 2:64, 65.

Coffee is a hurtful indulgence. It temporarily excites the mind, ... but the aftereffect is exhaustion, prostration, paralysis of the mental, moral, and physical powers. The mind becomes enervated, and unless through determined effort the habit is overcome, the activity of the brain is permanently lessened.—Christian Temperance and Bible Hygiene, 34.

Hope your cup runneth over...

T




Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On May 2nd, 2011 Trevor Hammond says:

Hey, Tom - RE: 'cup runneth over'

I make reference to --> Psalm 23:5 with regards to my ‘hope your cup runneth over’ line. The words are used in the context of The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want ...[Psalm 23:1]

Caffeine usage, in the context of it been used as a frequent daily beverage is, in my opinion, is an alternative source of WANT. When God is the Shepherd He provides our needs and there is no need for synthesized wants. Consuming something that is addictive and a fake source of energy isn’t on the ‘table’ He prepares for us. So I wish that His blessings still be abundant and manifest in the lives of those who read these pages. It’s just a well wish – that’s all!

Well, While I'm at it... The crux of the matter on this blog however, is NOT about the Social Spin-Off’s that a Coffeehouse atmosphere provides, but rather calls to question whether SDA’s should serve caffeinated beverages on a regular basis in their Local Churches yet promote healthy living which includes staying away from addictive ‘stimulants’. The ‘Potluck’ argument may hold water to a certain extent but is not exactly the same 'cuppa tea' we're talking. Yeah, there may be some junk food or even meat and some 'potluckers' may be overweight, but that doesn’t negate the fact that Caffeinated beverages are what they are: synthesized central nervous stimulants which are addictive, ‘mind altering’ and which use energy not provided for, thereby taxing the system of the caffeine 'junkie'/user.

Tired nerves need rest to recuperate the natural way. Caffeine usage taxes the nervous system further. That is a no-brainer! I’ll even go as far as to say (in my opinion of course) that those who DON’T appreciate the Sabbath rest of the Fourth Commandment will be the mainline candidates for Caffeine-as-a-stimulant-beverage-instead-of-natural-rest-to-recover kinda people: even from within the SDA Church. I have found that Caffeine users are a rather cranky lot, who, without their 'fix' are totally wrecked.

Caffeine is the liberal SDA fix...which gives new meaning to “Lord plant my feet on ‘higher’ ground”!!! No wonder ‘liberals’ feel so ‘high’ and mighty’!!! ... I just couldn’t resist! : )

(I have chosen not to use the pompous ‘progressive’ name as some so eagerly like to refer to themselves)

... Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over ... [Psalm 23:5]. This suggests to me that I don’t need to have stimulants to enhance my disposition when God provides all the ‘highs’ that are necessary for the Abundant Overflowing Christian Life full of the Overflowing Blessings He provides.

I just convey best wishes hoping that those reading will be blessed by the Lord, our Good Shepherd. God offers so much more than just Coffee House ‘highs’. Let me put it this way: I'm on a 'high' in Jesus Christ even before I hit the Coffee House, or rather 'pass' the Coffee House en route to the Lord's House.

Moreover, the Apostle Paul admonishes us not to engage in indulgences that may cause a weak brother or sister to stumble in their faith because of what we may consume as something ‘normal’, like those who have been addicted to drugs, who, when visiting the House of God, are tempted with other ‘addictive stimulants’. [1Cor 8:9] Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.

By the way, marijuana users use a similar line to argue the benefits of using mind enhancing stimulants and even quote from the Bible for its use. I’ve seen a news Headline when Peter (not the Apostle) Tosh said that “grass was made for the animals but ‘herbs’ was given to man” which they quote from Psalm 104:14 (Sorry for my brief Rastafarian deliberation). I find that addicts will make any excuse to get high: period.

Hope your cup runneth over! [the way God intended it, that is!]

T

PS. – I’m sure my comments will stir a few ‘cups’ out there! So Cheers!
: )



Re: Starbucks, anyone?
On May 2nd, 2011 Elaine Nelson says:

BNw that we've nearly emptied that coffee cup, why not take up vegetariansm?

The SDA church I attend will be having a barbecue following next week's church service and the community is invited. Nothing is more appetitzing than the smell of barbecue! Y'all come.





Anonymous
2011-05-06 7:07 PM

Trevor,

Looking at your retort makes me smile. When you tell me that most other SDA's accept EGW as some prophet suggests that you subscribe to "truth" in numbers. Then you throw a bunch of proof texts at me. All the horrible things you describe with regards to caffeine, I suffer from none. The claim of EGW of overstimulation of the nerves is funny as this language comes at a time when nerve function was not known. The suggestion by EGW that stimulants lead to accentuation of lower passions was typical of the phrenology of her day. She even suggested that spices did the same things.

What a dull bland world SDA's live in. I have thrown of the yoke of SDA tyranny without losing some of the spiritual aspects. I use lots of spices and yes, once again love coffee in the morning.

Anonymous


You do not have sufficient permissions to post a comment.


Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register

Adventist Today Magazine is published quarterly by Adventist Today Foundation

Phone: 503-826-8600   |   Email: atoday@atoday.org   |   Web: atoday.org