All About Coffee, William H. Ukers [short story to read .txt] 📗
- Author: William H. Ukers
- Performer: -
Book online «All About Coffee, William H. Ukers [short story to read .txt] 📗». Author William H. Ukers
The recounting of evidence, both pro and con, relevant to the general effects of coffee could continue almost ad infinitum, but the fairest unification of the various opinions is best quoted from Woods Hutchinson[206]:
Somewhere from 1 to 3 percent of the community are distinctly injured or poisoned by tea or coffee, even small amounts producing burning of the stomach, palpitation of the heart, headache, eruptions of the skin, sensations of extreme nervousness, and so on; though the remaining 97 percent are not injured by them in any appreciable way if consumed in moderation.
So, if one is personally satisfied that he belongs to the abnormal minority, and has not been argued by fallacious reasoning into his belief that coffee injures him, he should either reduce his consumption of coffee or let it alone. Even those most vitally interested in the commercial side of coffee will admit that this is the logical procedure.
Effects of Coffee on Children
The same sort of controversy has raged around the question of the advisability of giving coffee to children as has occurred regarding its general action. Dr. J. Hutchinson[207] advocates furnishing children with coffee, while Dr. Charlotte Abbey[208] is strongly against such a practise, claiming that use of caffein-containing beverages before the attainment of full growth will weaken nerve power. Nalpasse[209] observes that until fully developed the young are immoderately excited by coffee; and Hawk[210] is of the opinion that to give such a stimulant to an active school-child is both logically and dietetically incorrect. Dr. Vaughn[211] advances this scientific argument against the drinking of coffee by children under seven years of age:
In proportion to body weight the young contain more of the xanthin bases than adults. They are already laden with these physiological stimulants, and the additional dose given in tea or coffee may be harmful.
In a study of the effects of coffee drinking upon 464 school children, C.K. Taylor[212] found a slight difference in mental ability and behavior, unfavorable to coffee. About 29 percent of these children drank no coffee; 46 percent drank a cup a day; 12 percent, 2 cups; 8 percent, 3 cups; and the remainder, 4 or more cups a day. The measurements of height, weight, and hand strength also showed a slight advantage in favor of the non-coffee drinkers. If these results be taken as truly representative, their indication is obvious. However, it seems desirable to repeat these experiments upon other groups; at the same time noting carefully the factors of environment, and other diet, before any criterion is made.
As a refutation to this experimental evidence is the practical experience of the inhabitants of the Island of Groix, off the Brittany coast, whose annual consumption of coffee is nearly 30 pounds per capita, being ingested both as the roasted bean and as an infusion. It is reported that many of the children are nourished almost entirely on coffee soup up to ten years of age, yet the mentality and physique of the populace does not fall below that of others of the same stock and educational opportunities.[213]
Pertinent in this connection is Hawk's[214] statement that young mothers should refrain from the use of coffee, as caffein stimulates the action of the kidneys and tends to bring about a loss from the body of some of the salts necessary to the development of the unborn child as well as for the proper production of milk during the nursing period. The caffein of coffee also increases the flow of milk, but the milk produced is correspondingly dilute and a later decreased secretion may be expected. Furthermore, some of the caffein of the coffee may pass into the mother's milk, thus reaching the child, so that the use of coffee during the nursing period is undesirable on this ground also. Naturally, the question arises as to whether this arraignment is purely theoretical or based upon analytical and clinical data.
It is a difficult matter definitely to set an age below which coffee should not be drunk, as the time of reaching maturity varies with climate and ancestral origin. Yet, from a theoretical standpoint, children before or during the adolescent period should be limited to the use of a rather small amount of tea and coffee as beverages, as their poise and nerve control have not reached a stage of development sufficient to warrant the stimulation incident to the consumption of an appreciable quantity of caffein.
Coffee Drinking and Longevity
There are many who would have us believe that the use of coffee is only a means toward the end of quickly reaching the great beyond; but it is known that the habitual coffee drinker generally enjoys good health, and some of the longest-lived people have used it from their earliest youth without any apparent injury to their health. Nearly every one has an acquaintance who has lived to a ripe old age despite the use of coffee. Quoting Metchnikoff[215]:
In some cases centenarians have been much addicted to the drinking of coffee. The reader will recall Voltaire's reply when his doctor described the grave harm that comes from the abuse of coffee, which acts as a real poison. "Well", said Voltaire, "I have been poisoning myself for nearly eighty years." There are centenarians who have lived longer than Voltaire and have drunk still more coffee. Elizabeth Durieux, a native of Savoy, reached the age of 114. Her principal food was coffee, of which she took daily as many as forty small cups. She was jovial and a boon table companion, and used black coffee in quantities that would have surprised an Arab. Her coffee-pot was always on the fire, like the tea-pot in an English cottage (Lejoncourt, p. 84; Chemin, p. 147).
The entire matter resolves itself into one of individual tolerance, resistivity, and constitution. Numerous examples of young abstainers who have died and coffee drinkers who have still lived on can be found, and vice versa, the preponderance of instances being in neither direction. Bodies of persons killed by accident have been painstakingly examined for physiological changes attributable to coffee; but no difference between those of coffee and of non-coffee drinkers (ascertained by careful investigation of their life history) could be discerned.[216] In the long run, it is safe to say that the effect of coffee drinking upon the prolongation or shortening of life is neutral.
Coffee in the Alimentary Tract
When coffee is taken per os it passes directly to the stomach, where its sole immediate action is to dilute the previous contents, just as other ingested liquids do. Eventually the caffein content is absorbed by the system, and from thence on a stimulation is apparent. Considerable conjecture has occurred over the difference in the effects of tea and coffee, the most feasible explanation advanced being one appearing in the London Lancet.[217]
The caffein tannate of tea is precipitated by weak acids, and the presumption is that it is precipitated by the gastric juice and, therefore, the caffein is probably not absorbed until it reaches the alkaline alimentary tract. In the case of coffee, however, in whatever form the caffein may be present, it is soluble in both alkaline and acid fluids, and, therefore, the absorption of the alkaloid probably takes place in the stomach.
This theory, if true, goes far toward explaining the more rapid stimulation of coffee.
The statement has sometimes been made that milk or cream causes the coffee liquid to become coagulated when it comes into contact with the acids of the stomach. This is true, but does not carry with it the inference that indigestibility accompanies this coagulation. Milk and cream, upon reaching the stomach, are coagulated by the gastric juice; but the casein product formed is not indigestible. These liquids, when added to coffee, are partially acted upon by the small acid content of the brew, so that the gastric juice action is not so pronounced, for the coagulation was started before ingestion, and the coagulable constituent, casein, is more dilute in the cup as consumed than it is in milk. Accordingly, the particles formed by it in the stomach will be relatively smaller and more quickly and easily digested than milk per se. It has been observed that coffee containing milk or cream is not as stimulating as black coffee. The writer believes that this is probably due to mechanical inclusion of caffein in the casein and fat particles, and also to some adsorption of the alkaloid by them. This would materially retard the absorption of the caffein by the body, spread the action over a longer period of time, and hence decrease the maximum stimulation attained.
In a few instances, a small fraction of one percent of coffee users, there is a certain type of distress, localized chiefly in the alimentary tract, caused by coffee, which can not be blamed upon the much-maligned caffein. The irritating elements may be generally classified as compounds formed upon the addition of cream or milk to the coffee liquor, volatile constituents, and products formed by hydrolysis of the fibrous part of the grounds. It may be generally postulated that the main causation of this discomfort is due to substances formed in the incorrect brewing of coffee, the effect of which is accentuated by the addition of cream or milk, when the condition of individual idiosyncrasy is present.
Without enlarging upon his reason, Lorand[218] concludes that neither tea nor coffee is advisable for weak stomachs. Nalpasse,[219] however, believes that coffee taken after meals makes the digestion more perfect and more rapid, augmenting the secretions, and that it agrees equally well with people inclined to embonpoint and heavy eaters whose digestion is slow and difficult. Thompson[220] also observes that coffee drunk in moderation is a mild stimulant to gastric digestion.
Eder[221] reported, as the result of an inquiry into the action of coffee on the activity of the stomachs of ruminants, that coffee infusions produced a transitory increase in the number and intensity of the movements of the paunch, but that the influence exercised was very irregular.
An elaborate investigation of the action of tea and coffee on digestion in the stomach was made by Fraser,[222] in which he found that both retard peptic digestion, the former to a greater degree than the latter. The digestion of white of egg, ham, salt beef, and roast beef was much less affected than that of lamb, fowl, or bread. Coffee seemed actually to aid the digestion of egg and ham. He attributed the retarding effect to the tannic acid of the tea and the volatile constituents of the coffee—the caffein itself favoring digestion rather than otherwise. Tea increased the production of gas in all but salt foods, whereas coffee did not. Coffee is, therefore, to be preferred in cases of flatulent dyspepsia.
Hutchinson, in his Food and Dietetics, opines:
As regards the practical inferences to be drawn from experiences and observations, it may be said that in health the disturbance of digestion produced by the infused beverages (tea and coffee) is negligible. Roberts, indeed, goes so far as to suggest that the slight slowing of digestion which they produce may be favored rather than otherwise, as tending to compensate for too rapid digestibility which refinements of manufacture and preparation have made characteristic of modern foods.
Regarding increase in secretory activity, Moore and Allanston[223] report that in their experience meat extracts, tea, caffein solution, and coffee call forth a greater gastric secretion
Comments (0)