Talk:Health effects of tea/Archive 1

1111:

Hydroxycut became popular first as a version of the bodybuilder's infamous trio: caffeine, ephedra, and Asprin: in this case guarana extract, ephedra extract, and white willow bark for the natural ASA. After ephedra was banned they switched to a blend of other popular ingredients: Garcinia cambogia, Gymnema sylvestre, chromium polynicotinate, caffeine, green tea- and Citrus Aurantium, which is inexplicably not mentioned in the Knowledge (XXG) article on Hydroxycut. The studies cited only attribute a causal association between liver failure and Hydroxycut as a whole: there is no reason to single out Camellia sinensis as the culprit- and given that tea is exponentially the most widely-used ingredient that happens to appear in that formula (excepting caffeine), the likelihood of the tea (a minor ingredient in the capsules)being the problem is almost nil. The Citrus Aurantium (Bitter Orange) peel, used as a source of synephrine to replace ephedrine, is the most likely culprit, coupled with excessive caffeine. Add in the new Hydroxycut Advanced, and you're talking about at least three different formulations of the product- and given the timeline, it's entirely possible that the liver failure cases were in customers who had NO tea in their capsules. Specifications per dose of Hydroxycut (2000mg):

555:. 'Preventing HIV' is relative, and anything that reduces the likelihood of binding to T-cells will in theory both reduce the spread rate and increase the watershed virus count before full infection. Certainly it is possible for the immune system to completely defeat a very small number of HIV in your system. If, hypothetically, two identical people were going to be infected with two identical very small amounts of identical HIV virus which was marginally above the level that would infect that person, the paper conjectures that if one took megadoses of EGCG prior to infection, it's possible (according to the study) that he might not contract HIV while his counterpart would. Dicey claims, yes, but it's cited, and debates over plausibility are original research.-₪- 1705:, I think you are reading it too literally, and it is impacting your ability to allow this article to be improved. Indeed, that is the intention of the editors here, and I do assume good faith. As such, I will continue to try to improve this article here. One issue that stands out: a statement by the FDA, which you claim is the only thing right now that is satisfactory about tea and cancer (which, as others have pointed out, considering the relaible resources available on this topic, is nonsense) from 2005 that mentions only two studies (primary studies) and includes a general note on research they have skimmed. Dated and general. But apparently that satisfies your criteria. Doesn't add much to the article or heading, though. 1561:. Basically, for health-related content we only report the findings and conclusions of expert reviews. That way we are most likely to be presenting the current expert opinion. When Knowledge (XXG) articles are based on a collection of primary sources (epidemiological studies, randomised control trials, in vitro studies, animal models, etc.) they are acting like a review, but a review written by anonymous authors, with no expert oversight, and quite likely no rigor. The down side of the guideline is we have to wait, sometimes quite a long time, before someone publishes an authoritative review. But it's the most responsible method anyone's come up with, so far, of ensuring we don't mislead. -- 2067:"Weight loss" is an ill-defined term for a very complex subject encompassing not only absolute loss of weight, but also fat oxidation, fat composition (white vs brown adipose tissue), total energy expenditure, modulation of energy expenditure or fat oxidation during exercise, etc. To state that tea has no meaningful effect on weight loss is to state tea has no impact on any of these on the scales humans would find relevant. Yet numerous other studies implicate tea (and tea extract) in exactly these, which along with being aligned with the effects acknowledged in Johnson, Bryant, Huntley (2012), brings it at odds with the current presentation. 2757:

than the tea most likely). GTE is not solely in weight loss supplements and no matter where they are, they pose a risk to a small portion of the population. If people want more papers cited, I am happy to do a lit review. I am unfortunately very familiar with this as eight years ago, I almost died from exposure to green tea extract. I do not recommend liver failure, it's no fun. Most importantly, if you have had the reaction once, it should be treated like an anaphylaxis allergy, because it is known that with every exposure, the reaction will be worse.

2551:

can contradict, yet the Cochrane review is narrower in scope (dealing mainly with studies with obese individuals) and cannot on its own serve to contradict the use of tea in weight loss in general. For this reason, it sounds weaselish and superfluous. Plainly stating that a review did not find a significant benefit for weight loss in obese individuals would be much more neutral and accurate. After all, the rest of the article is filled with plain claims such as "A review found " and it is quite common on Knowledge (XXG), so why is it a problem here?

767:

text is written on this page is inherently misleading; the text currently reads: "The possible beneficial health effects of tea consumption have been suggested and supported by some studies, but others have found no beneficial effects". This is misleading--it is true that some studies have not found/confirmed any beneficial effects of tea...however, many other studies have. And, I haven't read a single study where the authors have strongly questioned whether tea has any beneficial properties. For example, this abstract:

1011:

than non-tea drinkers. Coffee consumption did not show any effect except at the very highest level of consumption, where it was associated with significantly decreased decline of 20 percent. The study used data on more than 4,800 men and women aged 65 and older from the Cardiovascular Health Study to examine change in cognitive function over time. Study participants were followed for up to 14 years for naturally-occurring cognitive decline. (AAICAD 2010; Lenore Arab, PhD; UCLA

386:

of the effects of tea on cancer risks and other potential benefits, or the very complex positive and negative effects of tannins and their interactions with other substances), or totally unknown (as with the effects of many of the more specialized compounds only occuring in certain types of tea, and many interactions of more basic substances, even caffeine). Calling it "Potential" seems to introduce POV (and I would say is outright wrong--because Tea obviously has

1523:

don't have the skill required to properly assess the quality of the above studies. For these and other compelling reasons, and per WP:MEDRS, we should wait until an authoritative review contextualises all the recent research. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC) He removed almost all of the health effects content and highlighted the FDA (saying NO VALUE) assuming they really studied the issues based on their title. The NIH or Medline

2600:

previously and one that is easily available offers new hope. Weight loss products made from natural sources, such as green tea, are being used by increasing numbers of overweight adults who hope that because the product is 'natural' it will be safer than prescription drugs and will be effective in helping them lose weight. " If anything we should be expanding on this consumber/SCAM aspect of green tea as a weight-loss aid.

304: 2654:, warning that "the abstract necessarily presents a stripped-down version of the conclusions and omits the background that can be crucial for understanding exactly what the source says.", which is exactly the case here. In any case, the second quote is from a subsection "Implications for practice" in a section titled "AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS", so even if this objection was valid, it is not applicable. 1297:

bought. Another really clean one (peer referred to as "gold standard") finding strong correlation between consumption of green tea and reduced breast cancer reoccurrence and metastasis. Random, prospective, high end institution stuff. Another editor showed me how to get research for free, so I'll pull together the paragraph unless you say it’s a waste of my time.

2236: 2237:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD008650.pub2/abstract;jsessionid=86B65F09BA96B906F74744FC8F08CB7B.f03t02?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+unavailable+on+Saturday+26th+November+2016+from+07:00-11:00+GMT+/+02:00-06:00+EST+/+15:00-19:00+SGT+for+essential+maintenance.++Apologies+for+the+inconvenience

1748:

under "anti-cancer effects" now are no different, besides being quite dated. And I say NPOV because this "However there is some positive evidence for risk reduction of breast, prostate, ovarian and endometrial cancers with green tea." seems to be missing from footnote 13, though apparently what you included is okay. Hmm.

2760:

Again, with GTE being added to so many products, it is important for people to be aware. I do not use or ingest anything that has green tea or GTE, because my initial liver failure was very severe, despite low exposure, and there are a shocking number of things that contain it, from foods, to gum, to

2425:

You also haven't responded to several of my points, specifically: 1) The source explicitly concludes that the mentioned adverse effects were not related to the intervention. 2) What is the reason for preferring only a single source among two similarly old secondary sources when one does not logically

462:

I'm sure you know that no cure for HIV exists. Once you have it, you'll die with it. But 'having HIV' is defined by having a certain count of the virus in your system (or more precisely, by T cell count, which is a proxy for virus count). 'Prevent' HIV infection is what the source claims, which by

1010:

In 2010 researchers found that people who consumed tea had significantly less cognitive decline than non-tea drinkers. Study participants who drank tea 5-10 times/year, 1-3 times/month, 1-4 times/week, and 5+ times/week had average annual rates of decline 17%, 32%, 37%, and 26% lower, respectively,

766:

It is my understanding from reading a pretty broad variety of articles on this topic that there's a scientific consensus that tea is generally beneficial. The debate in the scientific literature seems to center around which ways in which tea is beneficial--not whether it is beneficial. The way the

606:

I'm raging right now, lol, on the article page I pressed Ctrl+F and tried searching the word "testosterone" and there's not a single mention of it. (Google test or whatever you call it gives 419 000 results for "green tea testosterone"). I'm determined to write about it but I remember that some time

467:

making an HIV-positive(i.e. thoroughly infected) person healthy again. Our immune system is capable of destroying small amounts of the HIV virus, by the normal mechanism that it defeats e.g. the common cold. A stronger immune system will be able to fight off higher counts of the virus before being

385:

The page is about health effects. Virtually everything humans consume have health effects and the effects are there, whether or not they're known. In the case of tea, some of the effects are relatively better-known (as with the effects of caffeine), whereas many are poorly-understood (as with many

286:

Milk was mentioned because it is a very complex substance that has been found to interact with components of tea due to certain chemicals such as casein which are present. Sugar has not been shown to chemically alter the contents of tea, as it does not engage in a significant chemical reaction with

2756:

I see it has been discussed on the talk page before, but I included a section on catechins and their association with idiosyncratic drug reactions which then cause drug induced liver injury. Green tea is included in livertox.gov and there are more papers that show this risk (moreso with the extract

2575:." Furthermore, in the "Implications for practice" section, the review authors state "Adverse effects were minimal, with hypertension and constipation being most commonly reported.", clearly implying benignity, not risk, which makes the mention of risk in such a small section seem very out of place. 2283:

is not a primary source, it is a meta-analysis. According to the resource you linked, meta-analyses are classified as secondary sources. In what way is the source not MEDRS? The article is also not that old. Though it is older than five years (a requirement which is not hard, according to the MEDRS

1296:

I'm not qualified to do anything but reference. But isn't it good to write a paragraph after the FDA one simply noting that research in 2006 - 2012 finds this and that. There are many more than those three I provided, and for other cancers, but those are the three that seemed strongest and that I

1242:

How about leaving the old FDA statement, but then qualifying it with the new research? Something like While the FDA in 2005 finds XYZ, these later rigorous (prospective double blind etc) studies found LMN. Did you read the research?, which looks like gold standard stuff. There's also a new study

2550:

The Cochrane summary is mainly talking about findings of previous studies which showed metabolic activity of various compounds in tea and serves as a motivation for the meta-analysis. The beginning of your sentence sounds primarily like it is setting the stage that the latter part of your sentence

1747:

It seems we have an issue of NPOV here. I've tried to find some balance here but you appear, as it has been mentioned by others here, to want to list only the drawbacks and mention nothing about potential benefits re: cancer. There is no reason why my citations did not satisfy MEDRS. The citations

1604:

to keep citation of these studies, but just take the limited nature of the evidence into account in the material we write in the article. Isolated studies cannot establish something as truth, but they can establish interesting facts like "A single study found X.", which I think enriches Knowledge

1118:

In short, the Hydroxycut observations are misleading, have nothing to do with tea, and should be removed from the article. In fact, I'm doing it now, and until someone provides a shred of reputable evidence linking TEA (as a singular ingredient) with any cases of liver failure, it should stay out.

1110:

The connection of Hydroxycut's reported side effects to the tea extract compound is irresponsible, and makes a claim that has no foundation or evidence: "liver damage, caused in part or completely by the presence of green tea extract in these supplements; the most notable cases include Hydroxycut"

2714:

Why no single mention of, for example, the positive psychological effects of drinking tea? And for example theanine has been studied extensively for its relaxing and nootropic properties but it gets almost no mention at all. I feel like whoever wrote this page specifically wanted to make tea seem

2449:

The Cochrane review says "Preparations of green tea are used as aids in weight loss and weight maintenance. Catechins and caffeine, both contained in green tea, are each believed to have a role in increasing energy metabolism, which may lead to weight loss". In other words, green tea is popularly

2169:

In light of your recent edit, why does my previously cited article (which finds a dose-dependent effect of the caffeine-catechin combination on 24h energy expenditure and fat oxidation) or, for instance, this study (specifically dealing with weight loss and maintenance, finding a small but rather

359:

Why I think the page should be moved: #1. Many effects are still being researched, evidence is not yet conclusive, so we should emphasis that the effects are not yet certain. Secondly, there seem to be a few drawbacks associated with drinking tea, such as a reduced iron intake (which can be quite

2554:

Again, you are overstating what is claimed in the review. On a closer reading of the full review, several claims make this obvious. For instance, on page 23, the review discusses a subset of studies which attempted to intervene without caffeine and which found a statistically significant effect,

1647:

The article barely has any mention of Tea's potential health effect. Tea has been associated with many health benefits, why aren't they mentioned in the article ? I'm sure there are plenty of reliable governmental or peer reviewed scientific sources that cover them, we just have to find them. As

1522:

Some think primary research doesn't belong look above "I can't support us synthesising the results of primary sources. Although some of those results look promising, we don't know how many other studies show a positive or non-existent correlation between tea consumption and cancer, and I for one

1314:

I'd like to see what you come up with. I don't think it would be waste of time even if it were later taken out completely. What I'd like to do is get some editors with more experience handling such situations - where the most current research findings suggest that medical consensus may change...

736:

The line "there is a substantial body of evidence that excessive aluminum intake may lead to Alzheimer's Disease" is wrong in the sense that there is just as much evidence that aluminum intake is unrelated to Alzheimers. The Alzheimer's Association website calls it a myth. A 2002 review of the

664:

It's a list of claims from some scientific and some not articles that are not accepted as valid in the scientific community. Most of these reports that are cited in here are inaccurate, unverified, or outright false. Very disappointing that people are amassing any trash they find on the web into

173:

I agree with that. It seem like an inapt bias. Fluoride is deemed so important for teeth and bone health that some countries like the US even introduced it into their public water supply. Green tea may be an important and beneficial source of fluoride especially in those countries who don't have

2682:

It is not right to hide and/or cherry pick from conflicting, respectable contemporary sources, no matter how respectable, particularly in an area of fast-moving research. Even more so when the gold standard itself acknowledges a small positive effect and the possibility for its implications for

2599:

You present an ingenous reinterpretation of the source which is at odds with it. To quote the fuller background: "The promise of taking something 'natural' to help lose weight is appealing to consumers. For consumers who have tried many treatments, a natural alternative that they have not tried

768: 990:

Overbrewing tea makes it healthier. The bitterness is actually caused by increases in antioxidant capacity and total phenolic and catechin contents as well as caffeine. The so called tannins which some claim occur in overbrewed tea is in fact simply the concentrated tastes of these flavonoids.

2638:

I now understand better where you are coming from. I missed this position as green tea scams are not very widespread in my part of the world (so this may be a bit of a bias on both our parts). However, I respectfully disagree and maintain that Knowledge (XXG) should not specialize to become a

813:

Please back up your remarks with sources. I do read a lot, and I've found no scientific evidence that tea is bad to drink if you have high blood pressure. Don't believe everything you hear on television...we need to rely on high-quality scientific research here, preferably that published in

774:

reads: "Among the health-promoting effects of tea and tea polyphenols, the cancer-chemopreventive effects in various animal model systems have been intensively investigated". Yes, there are plenty of studies that come back inconclusive, finding no strong evidence, or finding that it "may be

157:

The fluoride and caffeine entries in the "Potential Health Drawbacks" could also be placed in the potential health benefits category, since both of these compounds have both positive and negative effects. It might be best to just combine both the benefits and the drawbacks sections into one,

2504:, I'll remind you to adhere to the same. The idiom of the pot calling the kettle black comes to mind when I see such a remark. That's based on what seems like a pattern of a proneness to use unnecessarily inflammatory language in edit summaries when interacting with other Wikieditors (e.g., 2063:

The current "Weight loss" section cites a single meta-analysis (Johnson, Bryant, Huntley) from 2012 and significantly alters its claim from acknowledging effects but characterizing them as "unlikely to have clinical significance" to a very strong, universal, positive claim of there being no

2460:

You're not right about the adverse events. While Cochrane is equivocal about whether the AEs led to hospitalisation, there is no such equivocation over the milder AEs - so we now reflect that. The Cochrane review considers this aspect important enough for its conclusions, so we should

1114:

Guarana Extract....................910mg (containing caffeine) Citrus Aurantium....................300mg (containing synephrine) L-Carnitine.............................100mg (amino compound/quat) Salicin Complex.......................15mg (salicylate phytohormones) Chromium

943:

Since Fluorine is an element, it seems unlikely that the processing differences for green, white, or black teas could result in changed fluoride levels. It will depend on the fluoride content of the original plant, which is largely determined by the soil in which it was grown.

622:

I just did a search of the scholarly literature and was unable to find a single article backing up this claim that Green tea lowers testosterone. The only hits I find in google are on internet forums and even then, they seem to be discussing this as a myth or misconception.

2578:"Best" in what way? If there are multiple conflicting reviews and one does not obviously supersede the other (for instance, by taking into account new evidence), how is it decided which one is "best"? It seems obvious an unbiased report should take both sources into account. 390:

on health, it's just that these effects are not fully understood). Some of the theorized effects of tea on health fall solidly into the "potential" realm...and I think it's better to use the word "potential" in these cases (i.e. when the use of the word is backed up by

2422:), "no good evidence" (Why not just state plainly what the review concludes? You did previously say plain is better.) and the implication that the review talks about weight maintenance in general when it specifically looked at studies on overweight/obese people. 586:

causes vivid dreams and psychological side effects — it readily penetrates brain and spinal fluid. So this statement needs to be qualified, e.g., "most antiretroviral drugs cannot cross the blood-brain barrier, except NNRTIs, which easily penetrate the barrier".

2557:

Analysis of these ’caffeine-less’ studies showed small, statistically significant reductions in weight, BMI and waist circumference, indicating that the catechins in green tea and not caffeine were likely to be responsible for the modest effect on weight

607:

ago there was info in Knowledge (XXG) about testosterone-lowering effects of green tea, perhaps someone has just removed the info and it should just be recovered because quite frankly I'm not sure I could write anything by the standards of an article...

332:

The milk section is filled with unverified claims, and desperately needs the attention of an expert. I personally thought that the casein was thought to bind with the tannins, and did not have an effect on the EGCG, but I do not have a source on hand.

770:

reads "Experimental studies have demonstrated the significant antimutagenic and anticlastogenic effects of both green and black tea and its polyphenols in multiple mutational assays." This is a pretty strong and clear-cut statement. This abstract:

2177:"In the eight studies that recorded adverse events, four reported adverse events that were mild to moderate, with the exception of two (green tea preparations group) that required hospitalisation (reported as not associated with the intervention)." 1446:

I agree that using the NCI wouldn't work, mostly because they review so few studies. My original thought was to show both + and - research, then by citing peer reviews hint + is better. Too hard, and for most to understand. What's there now is

546:

see the thread above this. The study is cited (it was cited via a news article, going to add the cite to the actual study) and its claims are more or less accurately described, though the study is less about strengthening the immune system than

714:

One of non-English Knowledge (XXG) articles on tea states that aluminium and fluorine in tea may cause cancer. It also says that coffeine in tea dries the skin and makes it look older if consumed often. Could anyone competent refer to this?

117:

references to the original authors work are put rather than to Green Tea Lovers, because journal references do not move with time. It would be better if someone with knowledge on the subject did this to select the best that suit the article?

775:

beneficial". But I'm not finding anything strongly establishing that tea does not have beneficial properties. It seems to be pretty strongly established that it does--but that the exact extent of these properties is uncertain. Thoughts?

1045:

websites. I replaced from actual, much-less-definite claims from the BDA. I haven't found actual research studies on the diuretic effects of caffeine, however, and humbly request the aid of fellow editors who are not up past their bedtime.

2081:

I am inclined to revert Alexbrn's revert since I feel strongly the current section grossly misrepresents the current research on this, but since I do not want to start an edit war, I request new opinions. From the edit history, I see that

98:

greentealovers.com/greenteahealthotherconditions.htm Research on the effects of green tea on a variety of health issues: heart, pancrease, brain, kidney, circulation, strokes, anti-oxidant/inflammatory/bacterial/viral properties of green

1678:

and the discussions above. The only expansion I can see possible is to try to find reliable, independent sources on the marketing and promotion of health claims, and carefully qualifying those claims against the actual medical consensus.

1547:

Yes. That is a great link. Thank you. Wow. I'm going to be living on cooked tomatoes, tea and aspirin from now on. (Actually I'm already on one aspirin a day.) Li reports the effect of tea on angiogenisis, not tumor growth, in a test

131:

I think the links to Greentealovers should be removed. How is a tea dealer's website an acceptable reference source about the health benefits of tea? Even if they accurately summarized some scientific studies, how do we know aren't

224:

to avoid copyright problems. Would anyone like to double-check me on that before I make such a major change? I don't think it's such a big loss since large portions of this article as it stands now read like advertisements.

2417:

Alexbrn, since you are simply reverting my edits under false pretenses, I am considering asking for a third opinion. There was no information loss; the only things deleted were unsupported attributions ("is commonly believed",

925:

The article says that fluoride varies inversely to EGCG, yet, it says that green tea has higher EGCG than white or black, which would suggest lower fluoride. But it says green and black tea have higher fluoride than white! And

577:

On the effects of tea and antiretrovirals on HIV, the article states ART (antiretroviral therapy) drugs cannot cross the blood-brain barrier. Many indeed cannot, but the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs)

2324:

Contradict? No. I am trying to avoid overemphasizing a single review. Are you suggesting a Cochrane review defeats all other reviews, even when they are of similar age (such as this one), simply on the account of it being a

439:

How do you prevent HIV through a strong immune system? I mean, if you have the virus, you've got it. The tea won't come and delete the virus. Does the sentence actually mean it can prevent Aids? Or how does it then prevent

194:

I copied and pasted a few paragraphs from this article into google, and it seems that large portion of this article is pretty much an exact copy of an article from the June 1999 Life Extension magazine, which was reprinted

1411:

I can see no merit whatever in adding mentions of primary studies that contributed to that report's conclusions. And cherry-picking encouraging primary studies will only serve to undermine that report's main conclusion.

1264:

I skimmed the new research. Did I miss something, or are they all just primary studies? I didn't see anything more authoritative, nor did I see a definite conflict between the FDA statement and the research findings.

1590:

In cases where specific individual studies are cited, rather than systematic reviews, I think it would be more constructive to actually locate and cite reviews and clean up the section, rather than just blanking the

1456:

Instead I'll draw from Asian FDA equivalent authorities. Most of the research finding medical uses for green tea come from abroad, especially Japan and China. I remember reading somewhere that green tea might work

966:

papers, and if I understand them correctly, they say that EGCG inhibits the conversion of L-Dopa into Dopamin, among other things. So I imagine if EGCG would cross the BBB, it would have a rather depressing effect.

528:"A recent study appearing in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology stated that epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) found in Green Tea can help to boost one's immune system, therefore helping to prevent HIV" 1350:

or non-existent correlation between tea consumption and cancer, and I for one don't have the skill required to properly assess the quality of the above studies. For these and other compelling reasons, and per

2329:

review? It should also be noted that with your latest edit, you are implying ramifications regarding weight maintenance in general, when the Cochrane review is specifically about overweight and obese people.

1395:

I'll draw only from the NCI report (which cites some of the same primary studies) but conclude with "the evidence regarding the potential benefits of tea consumption in relation to cancer is inconclusive at

2581:

I try very hard to avoid personalization, but it is very hard to focus on content when the points made are being ignored and misrepresented. You're right for reminding me, however, and I concede your point.

61:

The reference 37 on the Tripod server is not available anymore (BBC News | Health | Cuppa a day is a lifesaver). I did a research since it comes from BBC News and found the page directly from the source:

1461:

than US prescription meds for type 2 diabetes ect from some Chinese authority. So far, I've found Europe only calling for papers. I'll search for an Authority overseas, and be back here with anything

2571:

The plain language summary of the Cochrane article states "Most adverse effects, such as nausea, constipation, abdominal discomfort and increased blood pressure, were judged to be mild to moderate and

2263:(very far from being MEDRS). With regard to adverse effects we should align with the Cochrane conclusion, rather than try to re-conclude in a different direction based on the evidence they considered. 2182:"Most adverse effects, such as nausea, constipation, abdominal discomfort and increased blood pressure, were judged to be mild to moderate and to be unrelated to the green tea or control intervention." 986:

Although most tea drinkers want to ignore the evidence, (because they don't like bitter tea) the longer tea is brewed the more healthful properties it has. Numerous studies indicate this. For example:

2074:

have an active role on human metabolism. Moreover, the word "meaningful" is somewhat weaselish. It is also very likely there are numerous confounding and/or moderating factors which could explain the

1162:

FDA finding is out of date and wrong, given these three studies that found consumption of green tea cuts the risk of getting ovarian and endometrial cancers, and advanced prostate cancer by 50%.

1065:

Many of the individual tea articles have claims of beneficial health effects and sometimes contradictory; it would be great to centralize them here instead of riddled throughout the articles.

2718: 1311:

If we can't find anything but primary studies, we need to be careful. Eventually there will be reviews that will indicate any change in medical consensus, which we should then incorporate.

255:

I agree. I've kind of given up with the article, until Knowledge (XXG) has some strong "stable version" feature. It's such a magnet for spam and misinformation. Thanks for the revert. --

287:

tea in the way that milk does. A small amount of milk added to regular tea exhibits visible coagulation and alteration of the physical appearance of the tea, whereas sugar does not.

2566:

However, even though the changes may be small, any small loss combined with minimal adverse effects may have an overall positive impact on an individual attempting to lose weight.

2603:

We reflect what the Cochrane review concludes on effectiveness and (rare) AEs. We are not at liberty to dig around in the evidence considered to arrive at a different conclusion.

2310:

It is more than five years old when we have a newer source (Cochrane), so is not really usable. You want to contradict a Cochrane systematic review with an older meta-analysis?

1783: 468:

overwhelmed and infected. Not that I actually believe that tea is effective in preventing HIV, I'm just explaining why the section accurately describes the source's claim.-₪-

1279:

They are all primary studies. I wouldn't qualify the 2005 FDA statement, though it's easy to question the FDA's focus. Health effects isn't the place for that dissertation.

2516:). Everyone makes mistakes. I encourage you both to try to resolve your disagreement with community consensus and to refrain from using insulting or inflammatory language. 2426:

supersede the other? Insisting on a particular information which only adds coloured language but conveys the same information just makes this seem like an ulterior agenda.

2173:

Regarding the adverse effects and hospitalization remark you added, I would like to point out that the resource you cited in support of it specifically state the following:

1338:

I've reformatted 32cllou's references above so they appear as readable references, rather than footnote markers. Please revert if that's inappropriate. I can't support us

1586:

recently blanked a huge section of this article. Many of the sections blanked contained citations to peer-reviewed journal articles. In particular, I'm concerned that:

102:

greentealovers.com/greenteahealthwhitetea.htm Research on the effects of white tea on a variety of health issues: Colon, Skin and its Antiviral/Antibacterial properties.

1196:"Higher regular coffee and tea consumption is associated with reduced endometrial cancer risk - McCann - 2008 - International Journal of Cancer - Wiley Online Library" 2090:. Even if my reverted edit is also deemed an inappropriate assessment, I think it would still be better to state nothing at all than to state a simplified falsehood. 1596:

In cases where there is some specialized topic on which there are only a handful of studies, I think it would be more in keeping with Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines on

2568:" In light of this, the reduction of "small, but not statistically significant effects" to "no good evidence ... any meaningful benefit" and seems even more wrong. 2070:

While it may turn out that is it indeed hard to extract "meaningful" benefits from it, the issue is far from settled and it is fairly obvious that compounds in tea

1492:

as was demonstrated by Dr. William Li's research group- several types of tea have been highly effective in significantly reducing size of tumors. link to ted talk:

827:

found that tea caused acute increases in blood pressure, but the results were not statistically significant, and also, they did not translate into any effects on

1084:

The article needs to be written from better sources than just individual studies, preferably systematic reviews and statements from relevant expert bodies. See

209:

No, that's not okay. We need to revert the article to before the point where the copyrighted material was inserted, if anybody can figure out where that is. —

2457:"No good evidence" is a nice summary of the state of the evidence. We could go about it in a more long-winded way but the aim is to summarize in lay language. 277:

Since there's a section on the effect of milk on tea, shouldn't there be one on the effect of sugar on tea? or have there not been any studies done on that?--

2064:

meaningful role in "aiding weight loss". Alexbrn says "Plain is better", a notion I agree with, but not when it is plain to the point of being incorrect.

956:, which says that the flavonol metabolites of green tea do not cross the BBB, so I added a "citation needed" sign next to the last sentence of point 1.6. 2562:

Many of the trials included in this review had methodological deficiencies that should be taken into account when considering the results of this review.

1557:

The reason I stripped out the content based on primary sources was because, in simple terms, that's how Knowledge (XXG) works. The relevant guideline is

2736:

sourcing. What we have seems pretty good and so a fair representation of accepted knowledge on this topic. Tea's a nice drink but a medicine? ... nah.

1730:"Generally this means recent expert reviews in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, graduate-level text-books, national or international guidelines, etc." 105:

greentealovers.com/greenteahealthdietweightloss.htm Studies on green tea's effects on weight loss, cholesterol, body weight, increases in metabolism.]

821:

shows non-stastistically significant decrease in mortality related to heart disease, among tea drinkers (no increase in mortality!). This article:

900:, if the research on such a point is still so weak that any beneficial effects are seen as only potential, then Knowledge (XXG) shouldn't cite it. 825: 694:. No need to rely on junk web reports or even popular science magazines or web articles...plenty of really good scientific research out there. 2015:

I have reinstated the section since if reference is old does not mean wrong. If any one thinks if anything is wrong, please port your comment.

1948:

Is this claim of Iron Absorption reduction valid ? Can some one please provide a source that is acceptable ?... Apparently NIH source is not.

95:

greentealovers.com/greenteahealthcancer.htm Effects of green tea on cancer and the studies on Green Tea and their effect on various cancers.]

1786:

don't concretely support any benefits. I plan on, at some point, going through this article as well since it looks like there are still some

238:

Complete silence. Well either everyone agrees with me, or I'm the only person who reads this article. I'm going to proceed with reversion. —

2287:

Also, what about the other secondary source I mention that directly relates to weight loss and maintenance, and is not older than five years?

486:

I agree the statement is very poorly worded. It gives the reader the impression that tea can act to prevent HIV. Which is compeltely absurd.

1120: 1015: 865: 159: 500:

Agree, but as long as the article is worded "A 2007 Study by X found that..." and the study isn't total crackpot, it describes reality.-₪-

2715:

like a harmful beverage or at least with no health benefits at all. Cherry-picked all the studies that don't show any positive findings.

963: 819: 360:

harmful for people with an already low iron blood level. I think it isn't a good idea to create a separate page for these disadvantages.

799: 722: 672: 646: 175: 136:

them? The links in the article look suspiciously more like search engine optimization than references at the moment. And a glance at a

737:

evidence by Rondeau in the Review of Environmental Health said that the evidence was inconclusive. Aljo99 19:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

1660: 992: 340: 288: 72: 2722: 1033:

I removed the section under Drawbacks Related To Caffeine about 300mg of caffeine being necessary for diuretic effects and that the

551:

the immune system cells by competing for the same binding sites on cells that HIV uses. It may not be true, but it certainly meets

1901:

I have added the above section. Those who think it is poorly sourced, could you please explain ?... Source is a US govt website.

2031: 1964: 1917: 1890: 792:

You don't read much then. Even in the telly the warn not to drink to much of tea, especially if you have high blood pressure.

451: 415:

I added info and link to Sept. '07 announcement regarding latest findings on theanine and its influence on alpha brain-waves.

2078:

results attained in different studies. In this light, I do not see how cherrypicking one side of the argument is justified.

1697:" every time someone attempts to add a citation regarding the potential health effects of tea, why don't you cite where in 2646:

It is not digging around to take a conclusion in context, by reading more than just the abstract of the article. In fact,

2450:

used, and believed to be, a weight-loss aid. I'm open to re-wordings or our summary (though question the point), but this

316: 1852:

This comment hardly even qualifies as "talk." If you're going to assert something, you have to also provide a rationale.

2672: 1034: 753: 562: 507: 475: 140:, which also cites scientific studies, paints a considerably more ambiguous picture about the health benefits of tea. — 1605:(XXG)'s articles on these topics, it helps it to be cutting edge without giving undue weight to these fringe results. 1228:. Primary studies do not trump "position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." -- 17: 2284:

guidelines), it examines different primary sources than other cited meta-analyses so it is not superseded by them.

2521: 1810: 828: 612: 1794:

issues lingering. However, the resulting page will probably be quite short, to the poin that it might be worth

1168:"Coffee and Tea Consumption Are Associated With a Lower Incidence of Chronic Liver Disease in the United States" 2151:

According to our RS any effect is not clinically relevant (so in lay terms no meaningful). We reflect that RS.

2043:

there is a review from 2014 in the article now. we don't use old primary sources when we have recent reviews.

1798:

the page rather than leave a stub. The issue being there are two main types of tea. Possibly just redirec to

972: 311: 1124: 1019: 869: 163: 2609:

Cochrane is usually taken as the gold standard in EBM. We'd need a very strong source indeed to undermine it.

676: 650: 179: 2612:

Sure - I think we're getting a better article despite what might appear to be a little local difficulty ;-)

1840: 1753: 1710: 1653: 996: 803: 726: 692: 557: 502: 470: 76: 2772: 2660: 2651: 2475:

for a wider view, but this is an active article and I'm sure other editors will comment here if necessary.

2019: 1952: 1905: 1878: 960: 864:? "Potential effects" makes it sound like we are making predictions, which we don't do on Knowledge (XXG). 795: 741: 718: 668: 336: 68: 2766: 1664: 1566: 1433: 1417: 1360: 884: 536: 491: 344: 292: 1370:

I'll try to find overseas Authorities to use properly. Hopefully, they will cover a broad range of uses.

1836: 1148: 592: 278: 2472: 1795: 1070: 922:

I know fluoride levels vary according to soil, but, does green tea tend to have more or less fluoride?

1501: 749: 158:

detailing each category and its positive and negative effects for a total view of the health effects.

2517: 1857: 968: 608: 2023: 1956: 1909: 1882: 2027: 1960: 1913: 1886: 1627:

instead. Even without MEDRS, the selection of individual studies becomes a NPOV and SYN problem. --

1051: 934: 927: 447: 196: 2419: 1815: 1066: 1749: 1706: 1497: 745: 119: 2733: 2647: 2253: 1930: 1791: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1675: 1624: 1558: 1352: 1225: 1085: 2560:" Then, on page 24, in a section titled "Implications for practice", the following is stated: " 1733:

At this point, I'm still concerned that the material is being added without regard to MEDRS. --

1524: 1012: 2776: 2762: 2745: 2741: 2726: 2699: 2676: 2621: 2617: 2594: 2543: 2539: 2525: 2484: 2480: 2438: 2399: 2395: 2385: 2319: 2315: 2305: 2277: 2272: 2268: 2257: 2194: 2160: 2156: 2101: 2052: 2035: 2009: 2005: 1989: 1968: 1942: 1938: 1921: 1894: 1861: 1844: 1825: 1757: 1742: 1714: 1688: 1668: 1636: 1617: 1583: 1570: 1562: 1536: 1532: 1505: 1479: 1475: 1467: 1437: 1429: 1421: 1413: 1405: 1401: 1379: 1375: 1364: 1356: 1324: 1306: 1302: 1274: 1252: 1248: 1237: 1218: 1214: 1152: 1128: 1097: 1074: 1055: 1023: 1000: 976: 938: 909: 888: 880: 873: 861: 840: 807: 784: 730: 703: 680: 654: 632: 616: 596: 566: 540: 532: 511: 495: 487: 479: 456: 433: 419: 404: 377: 364: 348: 321: 296: 281: 259: 242: 229: 213: 203: 183: 167: 144: 122: 80: 2639:

consumer guide for scam prevention. The best way to counter scams is by informing about what

2355: 2225: 2214: 2140: 1787: 1656: 1346:. Although some of those results look promising, we don't know how many other studies show a 987: 531:

Surely they're not suggesting tea can prevent HIV, but rather slow down progress toward AIDS.

2695: 2668: 2590: 2464:

Cochrane is by far our best source. We should reflect it. Why would we want to do otherwise?

2434: 2381: 2301: 2190: 2097: 2048: 1613: 1195: 1144: 836: 780: 699: 628: 588: 416: 400: 2501: 2468: 2170:

significant effect, P<0.001) not count as good evidence? Both studies are meta-analyses.

1818: 1720: 1343: 1339: 108:

greentealovers.com/greenteahealthantioxidants.htm The Antioxidant properties of Green Tea.

2294:

the conclusion. I pasted from both the authors' conclusion and the plain language summary.

1853: 905: 822: 1597: 1355:, we should wait until an authoritative review contextualises all the recent research. -- 1258: 815: 392: 1167: 1738: 1684: 1632: 1320: 1270: 1233: 1093: 1047: 930: 857: 638: 443: 429: 361: 239: 226: 210: 141: 133: 50: 1601: 1181: 137: 2118: 1807: 1182:"Green Tea Consumption and Prostate Cancer Risk in Japanese Men: A Prospective Study" 2737: 2613: 2535: 2495: 2476: 2391: 2311: 2264: 2152: 2001: 1980:

Wierzejska R (2014). "Tea and health--a review of the current state of knowledge".

1934: 1528: 1527:

may meet his standards, but they mostly say "possibly" to such things except warts.

1471: 1463: 1397: 1371: 1298: 1244: 1210: 1140: 1037:

endorses tea drinking for hydration, as this is all cited nearly verbatim from the

374: 256: 200: 2691: 2664: 2586: 2430: 2377: 2297: 2186: 2093: 2044: 1609: 832: 824:

finds some evidence that tea lowers blood pressure in older women. This study:

776: 695: 624: 396: 47:

The source for my recent addition regarding metabolism is Scienceagogo.com 1999

2129: 63: 953: 901: 772: 2429:

I would like to ask one more time to discuss first instead of simply revert.

92:

greentealovers.com/greenteahealthcatechin.htm The Ingredients In Green Tea.

1779: 1734: 1680: 1628: 1316: 1266: 1229: 1089: 425: 36: 32: 2390:

In this instance the Cochrane systematic review is easily our best source.

2280: 2260: 1992: 1493: 1874:

As per NYtimes article. Can some one verify and put it in the article ?

1803: 1143:- but aren't the antioxidants in tea known as "flavonoid antioxidants"? 1115:

Picolinate..............300mg (niacin-bound chromium, a trace mineral).

1042: 1038: 583: 35:

article. For history of the original text see the green tea history. --

665:

wiki. So tea is great, it prevents cancer, reduces stress, oh my...

424:== Preventing HIV == This section could be seen as an overstatement. 2454:

information you deleted - it sets the scene nicely for this section.

1701:

the editor needs to look. Moreover, as someone who is familiar with

2643:

the case, not by oversimplifying to the point of misrepresentation.

463:

definition means stopping a healthy system from becoming infected,

856:

Instead of "Potential effects of tea on health," how about simply

1933:. Sources for health information must be of the highest quality. 952:

So, does EGCG (or other catechins) really cross the BBB? I found

2683:

practice, which is what created the conflict in the first place.

2086:

already came up about a year ago, but it was similarly reverted

2059:

Conclusion on the relationship of tea and weight loss overstated

1257:

Qualifying the FDA statement with subsequent research would be

1799: 1649: 688: 441: 1525:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/960.html

552: 2356:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21366839?dopt=Abstract

2226:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19597519?dopt=Abstract

2215:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21366839?dopt=Abstract

2141:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21366839?dopt=Abstract

1243:

finds breast cancer recurrence is suppressed by green tea.

988:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/jf070351y?cookieSet=1

831:, which is ultimately what matters most in the long run. 2752:

Catechins and liver risks for green tea/green tea extract

1655:. I even wonder if the article should be considered as a 220:

As far as I can tell we would have to revert it to about

2573:

to be unrelated to the green tea or control intervention

929:

website says green tea has the highest fluoride levels.

2514: 2511: 2508: 2505: 2087: 2083: 1831:

Potential benefits and Potential Drawbacks are mixed up

1775: 1727: 221: 879:

Good point. Making the title NPOV is a good idea. --

31:

The original text of this article was cut out of the

639:

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/138/11/2156

582:cross the blood-brain barrier. In fact, that's why 2119:http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/129.full 1107:To repeat what I said on the Tea discussion page: 1835:Fluoride should be listed as a Potential Benefit. 2467:More generally, cut out the personalisation and 982:The stronger the brew, the more healthier it is 355:Move page to "Potential health effects of tea" 8: 2130:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26184298 1648:stated earlier you can find those easily on 1139:This article does mention that tea contains 64:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/208097.stm 1976:I have adding something using this source: 2770: 2658: 918:Does green tea have more or less fluoride? 2530:"bad style" etc are comments focussed on 2290:Regarding adverse effects, what I pasted 1802:? Which has its own, similar problems. 1080:Needs rewrite following MEDRS much closer 1782:regarding health effects since the best 1494:http://www.ted.com/talks/william_li.html 814:reputable peer-reviewed journals. (See 2348: 2207: 2111: 1513:Thank you for the link. Great content. 660:This article is not encyclopedic at all 153:Health Effects Tilted Towards Drawbacks 2761:candies, to mattresses to cosmetics. 2500:, if you're going to remind others of 1643:The article seems empty and incomplete 573:This statement is not completely true 269:Does anyone find the vandalism here? 7: 2719:2001:14BB:40:72E9:59A6:61D:2DBF:A8EC 1870:Iron Absorption reduction by 65% ? 1006:Few times a week optimal for brain 24: 1428:End of copy from my talk page. -- 87:Detailed Greentealovers reference 948:EGCG and the blood-brain barrier 710:Negative effects on human health 302: 1209:So I'm removing that paragraph. 1488:what about Angiogenic Virtues? 655:03:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC) 420:21:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC) 1: 2700:21:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC) 2677:11:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC) 2622:20:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC) 2595:20:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC) 2544:20:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC) 2526:20:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC) 2485:18:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC) 2439:17:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC) 2400:16:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC) 2386:16:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC) 2320:15:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC) 2306:15:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC) 2273:15:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC) 2195:15:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC) 2161:14:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC) 2102:14:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC) 1845:07:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC) 1826:15:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC) 1098:17:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 1001:00:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC) 910:21:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC) 785:01:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 762:Overall tone of article: POV? 731:17:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 681:23:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC) 633:00:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 602:Green tea lowers testosterone 567:17:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 541:04:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 512:17:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 496:04:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 405:21:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC) 168:22:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC) 2088:without too much explanation 1693:Instead of just saying "see 1470:) 17:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 1153:22:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC) 1129:12:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC) 1035:British Dietetic Association 977:10:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC) 480:11:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC) 457:10:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC) 378:18:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 365:14:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 322:14:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 282:03:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 81:08:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC) 2444:To take the points in order 1689:17:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 1669:01:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 841:19:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 704:19:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 411:Latest findings on theanine 204:05:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 2793: 2746:06:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 2727:20:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 1862:13:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 1571:21:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 1537:18:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 1506:13:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 1480:17:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 1438:03:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 1422:03:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 1406:03:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 1380:17:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 1365:01:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 1325:18:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 1307:10:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 1275:01:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 1253:23:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC) 1238:03:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC) 1219:02:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC) 1075:14:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC) 1056:05:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 889:02:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC) 874:08:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 524:Statement seems abit false 434:21:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC) 260:08:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 243:01:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 230:08:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 214:06:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 145:09:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 57:Sources change a reference 39:01:21, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC) 18:Talk:Health effects of tea 2777:11:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 2010:09:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC) 1969:08:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC) 1943:07:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC) 1922:07:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC) 1895:05:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC) 1637:19:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 1623:I'm for simply following 1618:16:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 1391:Copied from my talk page. 1024:21:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC) 939:03:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 829:ambulatory blood pressure 808:03:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC) 637:There is this rat study: 617:15:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC) 597:00:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC) 123:17:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC) 2555:stating the following: " 2053:15:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC) 2036:14:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC) 1813:Knowledge (XXG)'s rules: 1758:15:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC) 1743:15:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC) 1715:12:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC) 1224:Sorry, not according to 349:01:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 297:00:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 184:09:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC) 113:I think it is better if 53:19:44, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) 2732:Any health claims need 2710:What a negative page... 2256:, not old papers like 1135:About the antioxidants 1103:25 Liver Damage idiocy 1386:Green tea as medicine 1158:FDA statement in 2005 1029:Diuretic and caffeine 313:(Heroeswithmetaphors) 2471:. Maybe check by at 1652:. See this search: 1579:Blanking of sections 1043:Tea Advisory Council 691:. See this search: 310:Excellent response. 2650:recommends this in 1988:(3): 501–6, 595–9. 1039:British Tea Council 174:fluoridated water. 138:non-commercial site 818:) Some articles: 558:Hemidemisemiquaver 503:Hemidemisemiquaver 471:Hemidemisemiquaver 2779: 2679: 2663:comment added by 2039: 2022:comment added by 1972: 1955:comment added by 1925: 1908:comment added by 1898: 1881:comment added by 1814: 1792:original research 1584:User:Anthonyhcole 1440: 1392: 862:Coffee and health 798:comment added by 758: 744:comment added by 721:comment added by 683: 671:comment added by 351: 339:comment added by 71:comment added by 2784: 2499: 2358: 2353: 2240: 2234: 2228: 2223: 2217: 2212: 2143: 2138: 2132: 2127: 2121: 2116: 2084:this exact issue 2038: 2016: 1996: 1982:Przegl Epidemiol 1971: 1949: 1924: 1902: 1897: 1875: 1822: 1806: 1427: 1390: 1205: 1203: 1202: 1191: 1189: 1188: 1177: 1175: 1174: 902:Martin Rundkvist 810: 757: 738: 733: 666: 455: 393:reliable sources 334: 319: 314: 306: 305: 199:Is this okay? -- 83: 2792: 2791: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2754: 2712: 2518:TylerDurden8823 2493: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2354: 2350: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2235: 2231: 2224: 2220: 2213: 2209: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2139: 2135: 2128: 2124: 2117: 2113: 2061: 2017: 1979: 1950: 1903: 1876: 1872: 1833: 1823: 1820: 1778:the section on 1772: 1645: 1581: 1490: 1388: 1344:primary sources 1342:the results of 1200: 1198: 1194: 1186: 1184: 1180: 1172: 1170: 1166: 1160: 1137: 1116: 1105: 1088:for details. -- 1082: 1063: 1031: 1008: 984: 969:Purposelessness 950: 920: 854: 793: 764: 739: 716: 712: 662: 609:Lysis rationale 604: 575: 526: 413: 357: 330: 317: 312: 303: 275: 192: 155: 89: 66: 59: 45: 29: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2790: 2788: 2775:comment added 2753: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2711: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2684: 2680: 2655: 2644: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2610: 2607: 2604: 2601: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2579: 2576: 2569: 2552: 2547: 2546: 2488: 2487: 2465: 2462: 2458: 2455: 2446: 2445: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2360: 2359: 2347: 2346: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2295: 2288: 2285: 2242: 2241: 2229: 2218: 2206: 2205: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2184: 2179: 2174: 2171: 2164: 2163: 2145: 2144: 2133: 2122: 2110: 2109: 2105: 2060: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2013: 2012: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1946: 1945: 1871: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1832: 1829: 1819: 1788:primary source 1771: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1731: 1724: 1650:google scholar 1644: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1607: 1606: 1593: 1592: 1580: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1489: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1425: 1424: 1387: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1312: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1262: 1207: 1206: 1192: 1178: 1159: 1156: 1136: 1133: 1121:69.165.149.221 1113: 1104: 1101: 1081: 1078: 1062: 1059: 1030: 1027: 1016:71.174.187.200 1007: 1004: 983: 980: 949: 946: 919: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 892: 891: 866:125.69.111.144 858:Tea and health 853: 852:New page title 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 844: 763: 760: 711: 708: 707: 706: 689:google scholar 661: 658: 644: 643: 642: 641: 603: 600: 574: 571: 570: 569: 525: 522: 521: 520: 519: 518: 517: 516: 515: 514: 412: 409: 408: 407: 380: 356: 353: 329: 326: 325: 324: 274: 271: 267: 266: 265: 264: 263: 262: 248: 247: 246: 245: 233: 232: 217: 216: 191: 188: 187: 186: 160:72.219.189.102 154: 151: 150: 149: 148: 147: 134:cherry picking 126: 125: 110: 109: 106: 103: 100: 96: 93: 88: 85: 58: 55: 44: 41: 28: 27:Article origin 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2789: 2780: 2778: 2774: 2768: 2764: 2758: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2709: 2701: 2697: 2693: 2690: 2685: 2681: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2656: 2653: 2652:WP:NOABSTRACT 2649: 2645: 2642: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2608: 2605: 2602: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2592: 2588: 2585: 2580: 2577: 2574: 2570: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2553: 2549: 2548: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2534:, of course. 2533: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2512: 2509: 2507:"bad style", 2506: 2503: 2497: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2486: 2482: 2478: 2474: 2470: 2466: 2463: 2459: 2456: 2453: 2448: 2447: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2436: 2432: 2427: 2423: 2421: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2357: 2352: 2349: 2345: 2328: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2296: 2293: 2289: 2286: 2282: 2279: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2238: 2233: 2230: 2227: 2222: 2219: 2216: 2211: 2208: 2204: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2185: 2183: 2180: 2178: 2175: 2172: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2149: 2142: 2137: 2134: 2131: 2126: 2123: 2120: 2115: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2091: 2089: 2085: 2079: 2077: 2073: 2068: 2065: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2011: 2007: 2003: 2000: 1994: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1978: 1977: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1899: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1869: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1837:Stubborn Myth 1830: 1828: 1827: 1824: 1816: 1812: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1769: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1750:Jimsteele9999 1746: 1745: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1729: 1725: 1722: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1707:Jimsteele9999 1704: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1677: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1651: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1603: 1599: 1595: 1594: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1585: 1578: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1487: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1460: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1393: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1313: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1263: 1260: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1197: 1193: 1183: 1179: 1169: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1157: 1155: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1134: 1132: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1112: 1108: 1102: 1100: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1079: 1077: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1061:Health claims 1060: 1058: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1028: 1026: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1005: 1003: 1002: 998: 994: 989: 981: 979: 978: 974: 970: 965: 962: 959:I also found 957: 955: 947: 945: 941: 940: 936: 932: 928: 923: 917: 911: 907: 903: 899: 896: 895: 894: 893: 890: 886: 882: 878: 877: 876: 875: 871: 867: 863: 859: 851: 842: 838: 834: 830: 826: 823: 820: 817: 812: 811: 809: 805: 801: 800:78.131.137.50 797: 791: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 782: 778: 773: 769: 761: 759: 755: 751: 747: 743: 734: 732: 728: 724: 723:78.131.137.50 720: 709: 705: 701: 697: 693: 690: 686: 685: 684: 682: 678: 674: 673:128.12.172.11 670: 659: 657: 656: 652: 648: 647:84.39.105.143 640: 636: 635: 634: 630: 626: 621: 620: 619: 618: 614: 610: 601: 599: 598: 594: 590: 585: 581: 572: 568: 564: 560: 559: 554: 550: 545: 544: 543: 542: 538: 534: 529: 523: 513: 509: 505: 504: 499: 498: 497: 493: 489: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 477: 473: 472: 466: 461: 460: 459: 458: 453: 449: 445: 437: 435: 431: 427: 422: 421: 418: 410: 406: 402: 398: 394: 389: 384: 381: 379: 376: 373: 369: 368: 367: 366: 363: 354: 352: 350: 346: 342: 338: 327: 323: 320: 315: 309: 301: 300: 299: 298: 294: 290: 284: 283: 280: 279:69.120.63.248 272: 270: 261: 258: 254: 253: 252: 251: 250: 249: 244: 241: 237: 236: 235: 234: 231: 228: 223: 219: 218: 215: 212: 208: 207: 206: 205: 202: 198: 189: 185: 181: 177: 176:92.229.176.79 172: 171: 170: 169: 165: 161: 152: 146: 143: 139: 135: 130: 129: 128: 127: 124: 121: 120:Iateasquirrel 116: 112: 111: 107: 104: 101: 97: 94: 91: 90: 86: 84: 82: 78: 74: 70: 65: 56: 54: 52: 48: 42: 40: 38: 34: 26: 19: 2763:Sapphiremind 2759: 2755: 2717: 2713: 2686:Fair enough. 2659:— Preceding 2640: 2572: 2565: 2561: 2556: 2531: 2451: 2428: 2424: 2416: 2351: 2343: 2326: 2291: 2232: 2221: 2210: 2202: 2181: 2176: 2136: 2125: 2114: 2106: 2092: 2080: 2075: 2071: 2069: 2066: 2062: 2018:— Preceding 2014: 1985: 1981: 1951:— Preceding 1947: 1904:— Preceding 1900: 1877:— Preceding 1873: 1834: 1773: 1661:75.152.29.81 1646: 1608: 1582: 1563:Anthonyhcole 1491: 1458: 1430:Anthonyhcole 1426: 1414:Anthonyhcole 1394: 1389: 1357:Anthonyhcole 1347: 1340:synthesising 1337: 1208: 1199:. Retrieved 1185:. Retrieved 1171:. Retrieved 1161: 1141:antioxidants 1138: 1117: 1109: 1106: 1083: 1064: 1032: 1009: 993:201.230.1.89 985: 958: 951: 942: 924: 921: 897: 881:BullRangifer 855: 765: 740:— Preceding 735: 713: 663: 645: 605: 579: 576: 556: 548: 533:JHJPDJKDKHI! 530: 527: 501: 488:JHJPDJKDKHI! 469: 464: 438: 423: 414: 387: 382: 371: 358: 341:24.65.42.159 331: 307: 289:24.65.42.159 285: 276: 268: 222:this version 193: 156: 114: 73:74.59.225.35 60: 49: 46: 30: 2771:—Preceding 2692:Denis Kasak 2657:As above. 2587:Denis Kasak 2431:Denis Kasak 2378:Denis Kasak 2298:Denis Kasak 2252:We draw on 2187:Denis Kasak 2094:Denis Kasak 2076:conflicting 1929:Please see 1796:redirecting 1728:pointed out 1462:worthwhile. 1447:sufficient. 1145:ACEOREVIVED 794:—Preceding 717:—Preceding 667:—Preceding 589:Kinkyturnip 417:Balance2214 335:—Preceding 190:Plaguarism? 67:—Preceding 2344:References 2203:References 2107:References 1984:(Review). 1854:tripbeetle 1201:2012-03-11 1187:2012-03-11 1173:2012-03-11 954:this paper 860:just like 549:protecting 2606:As above. 2513:"silly", 2420:WP:WEASEL 2024:Vwalvekar 1957:Vwalvekar 1910:Vwalvekar 1883:Vwalvekar 1780:green tea 1396:present." 1048:SamuelRiv 931:Dranorter 362:Sijo Ripa 240:Veyklevar 227:Veyklevar 211:Veyklevar 142:Veyklevar 33:green tea 2734:WP:MEDRS 2673:contribs 2661:unsigned 2648:WP:MEDRS 2327:Cochrane 2281:19597519 2261:19597519 2254:WP:MEDRS 2032:contribs 2020:unsigned 1993:25391016 1965:contribs 1953:unsigned 1931:WP:MEDRS 1918:contribs 1906:unsigned 1891:contribs 1879:unsigned 1770:Redirect 1703:WP:MEDRS 1699:WP:MEDRS 1695:WP:MEDRS 1676:WP:MEDRS 1625:WP:MEDRS 1591:section. 1559:WP:MEDRS 1353:WP:MEDRS 1348:positive 1226:WP:MEDRS 1086:WP:MEDRS 1041:and the 796:unsigned 754:contribs 742:unsigned 719:unsigned 669:unsigned 383:Disagree 337:unsigned 69:unsigned 2773:undated 2738:Alexbrn 2614:Alexbrn 2564:" and " 2536:Alexbrn 2532:content 2496:Alexbrn 2477:Alexbrn 2392:Alexbrn 2312:Alexbrn 2265:Alexbrn 2153:Alexbrn 2002:Alexbrn 1935:Alexbrn 1821:complex 1774:I just 1719:Please 1529:32cllou 1472:32cllou 1464:32cllou 1398:32cllou 1372:32cllou 1299:32cllou 1245:32cllou 1211:32cllou 1067:icetea8 687:Get on 584:Sustiva 444:Adriaan 388:effects 375:Abtract 257:Wikimol 201:Cabazon 2665:Dkasak 2502:WP:FOC 2473:WT:MED 2469:WP:FOC 2045:Jytdog 1776:gutted 1721:WP:FOC 1610:Cazort 1498:Elads0 1459:better 833:Cazort 777:Cazort 746:Aljo99 696:Cazort 625:Cazort 397:Cazort 273:Sugar? 115:direct 43:Source 2558:loss. 1784:MEDRS 1598:WP:RS 1548:tube. 1259:WP:OR 964:other 816:WP:RS 553:WP:RS 436:OKA6 372:agree 99:tea.] 16:< 2767:talk 2742:talk 2723:talk 2696:talk 2669:talk 2618:talk 2591:talk 2540:talk 2522:talk 2481:talk 2461:too. 2435:talk 2396:talk 2382:talk 2316:talk 2302:talk 2278:PMID 2269:talk 2258:PMID 2191:talk 2157:talk 2098:talk 2049:talk 2028:talk 2006:talk 1990:PMID 1961:talk 1939:talk 1914:talk 1887:talk 1858:talk 1841:talk 1790:and 1754:talk 1739:talk 1735:Ronz 1711:talk 1685:talk 1681:Ronz 1674:See 1665:talk 1659:. -- 1657:Stub 1633:talk 1629:Ronz 1614:talk 1602:WP:V 1600:And 1567:talk 1533:talk 1502:talk 1476:talk 1468:talk 1434:talk 1418:talk 1402:talk 1376:talk 1361:talk 1321:talk 1317:Ronz 1303:talk 1271:talk 1267:Ronz 1249:talk 1234:talk 1230:Ronz 1215:talk 1149:talk 1125:talk 1094:talk 1090:Ronz 1071:talk 1052:talk 1020:talk 997:talk 973:talk 935:talk 906:talk 885:talk 870:talk 837:talk 804:talk 781:talk 750:talk 727:talk 700:talk 677:talk 651:talk 629:talk 613:talk 593:talk 563:talk 537:talk 508:talk 492:talk 476:talk 440:HIV? 430:talk 426:Oka6 401:talk 345:talk 328:Milk 318:talk 308:Like 293:talk 197:here 180:talk 164:talk 77:talk 37:Oska 2769:) 1811:(c) 1808:(t) 1804:WLU 1800:tea 1726:As 961:two 898:Yes 465:not 395:. 51:Sam 2744:) 2725:) 2698:) 2675:) 2671:• 2641:is 2620:) 2593:) 2542:) 2524:) 2510:, 2483:) 2452:is 2437:) 2398:) 2384:) 2376:-- 2318:) 2304:) 2292:is 2271:) 2193:) 2159:) 2100:) 2072:do 2051:) 2034:) 2030:• 2008:) 1986:68 1967:) 1963:• 1941:) 1920:) 1916:• 1893:) 1889:• 1860:) 1843:) 1756:) 1741:) 1713:) 1687:) 1679:-- 1667:) 1635:) 1616:) 1569:) 1535:) 1504:) 1496:-- 1478:) 1436:) 1420:) 1412:-- 1404:) 1378:) 1363:) 1323:) 1315:-- 1305:) 1273:) 1265:-- 1251:) 1236:) 1217:) 1151:) 1131:] 1127:) 1096:) 1073:) 1054:) 1022:) 1014:)- 999:) 975:) 937:) 908:) 887:) 872:) 839:) 806:) 783:) 756:) 752:• 729:) 702:) 679:) 653:) 631:) 615:) 595:) 580:do 565:) 539:) 510:) 494:) 478:) 442:— 432:) 403:) 370:I 347:) 295:) 182:) 166:) 118:-- 79:) 2765:( 2740:( 2721:( 2694:( 2667:( 2616:( 2589:( 2538:( 2520:( 2498:: 2494:@ 2479:( 2433:( 2394:( 2380:( 2314:( 2300:( 2267:( 2239:. 2189:( 2155:( 2096:( 2047:( 2026:( 2004:( 1995:. 1959:( 1937:( 1912:( 1885:( 1856:( 1839:( 1817:/ 1752:( 1737:( 1723:. 1709:( 1683:( 1663:( 1631:( 1612:( 1565:( 1531:( 1500:( 1474:( 1466:( 1432:( 1416:( 1400:( 1374:( 1359:( 1319:( 1301:( 1269:( 1261:. 1247:( 1232:( 1213:( 1204:. 1190:. 1176:. 1147:( 1123:( 1092:( 1069:( 1050:( 1018:( 995:( 971:( 933:( 904:( 883:( 868:( 843:ʔ 835:( 802:( 779:( 748:( 725:( 698:( 675:( 649:( 627:( 611:( 591:( 561:( 535:( 506:( 490:( 474:( 454:) 452:C 450:★ 448:T 446:( 428:( 399:( 343:( 291:( 225:— 178:( 162:( 75:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index