Dr Mathew Togolani Mndeme
JF-Expert Member
- Aug 2, 2010
- 201
- 809
Wapo wanaosema kahawa Inamadhara, Wengine Kahawa ni safi.
Research zinazopingana na hayo unazungumziaje
1500's headline: Coffee leads to illegal sexSwali zuri kaka na ni kweli wengi wetu tumekua tukiamini au kuaminishwa kuwa unywaji wa kahawa una madhara. Hata hivyo kauli hizi zimekua za kukaririshwa zaidi kama imani bila scientific explanations. Binafsi sijakutana na utafiti mzuri unaoelezea madhara hivyo sitaweza kutoa maoni kama unavyonitaka. Kama unafahamu utafiti wa kisayansi unaoongelea madhara ya unywaji kahawa tafadhali nishirikishe
Kwa dunia kuwa flat,Sphere sawa. Sasa hii kitu ambayo inamadhara (chanya au hasi kulingana na Utafiti husika) tunazungumzia mwili wa mwanadamu ambao Unazaliwa mara Moja na Kufa Mara Moja. Huoni ni bora kuachana na vitu ambavyo ni controversial kuliko kuwa na vitu ambayo leo au kesho utafiti unaweza kuibuka juu ya advancement of Technology Tukagundua tena Inamadhara au ni Bora zaidi. Tunapataje ujasiri wa kuingiza kwenye miili yetu vitu ambavyo kumbe hata tusingevitumia kutokana na utata wake bado tusingepoteza kitu maana kuna vitu mbadala maelfu visivyo na utata na vikitumiwa kama vyakula/vinywaji vinaweza visilete utata.Swali zuri kaka. Ni kweli tumekua tukiamiambiwa hivyo na kuaminishwa kuhusu madhara ya kahawa ingawa hatukua tunapata maelezo ya kisayansi ya kutosha (katika mazingira yetu ya kitanzania) na hivyo kuonekana kama ni jambo la kuaminishwa zaidi kuliko kuwa ni fact.
Ila ukisoma hii makala tuliyoandika utaona kwamba ulikuwepo ushahidi wa kisayansi ulioonesha kuna madhara kwenye unywaji wa kahawa tena uliofanywa na watu wengi. Lakini kama kawaida ya tafiti za kisayansi, huwa haziweki nukta zinapopata majibu fulani bali utafiti mmoja hushawishi tafiti nyingine zaidi kufanywa na ndio mana utaona tumesema kwamba kulikua na mknganyiko miongoni mwa wanasayansi. Tafiti za kisayansi sio static bali hukua na hubadilika kutokana na sababu nyingi kubwa ukiwa ni kuongezeaka kwa maarifa, kugunduliwa kwa methodolojia mpya na vifaa vya kufanyia utafiti, na mabadiliko mengine. Hivyoo ni sahihi kabisa kupata matokeo yanayokinzana kadiri muda unavyoendelea. Mwisho wa siku utafiti utaonesha kipi ni cha kweli zaidi kati ya majibu tofautitofauti yaliyotolewa an hicho huo ndio huwa ushahidi mpya wa kisayansi.
Kama utakumbuka, kwa kareni nyingi sana watu waliamini dunia ina umbo flat na baadaye wengine wakaja kuamini ina umbo la duara. Ila kadiri tafiti zilivyoendelea ilijulikana kwamba dunia ina umbo la tufe na ushahidi huo umedumu hadi sasa maana ulipata evidence ya kutosha.
Samahani mwalimu Mdeme, Usichoke ukiona maswali mengi ujue nataka kujifunza vitu, maana sisi walalahoi mtaani tunawaamini nyie wataalamu zaidi ya wanasiasa.MImi nadhani kuwa addictive sio issue ya kahawa tu. Addictive ni tatizo kwa kitu chochote kile na ndio mana ni muhim sana kuwa na KIASI. Kuna watu ni addictive hata wa cvyakula vya kawaida tu (kula ovyo, kula kila saa, kula chakula kingi sana, nk) hapata madhara. Hata Sukari tunayoipenda sana kwenye kila kitu ikiwa addictive ina madhara ya kiafya tena makubwa sana.
Mkuu nakupata hata mimi sio mtu wa mambo hayo na nimewahi kuwa mwanafunzi wako baadhi ya courses (IS) nadhani.Kaka nashukuru sana kwa maswali haya ya msingi. Hapa niwe mkweli na muwazi kwamba hata mimi unanisaidia kuongeza ufahamu. Pili niweke sawa tu kwamba mimi sio mtaalamu wa lishe, afya, wala medicine hiyo ufahamu wangu wa hii mada uko limited kisayansi kwa kuwa sio maeneo yangu ya ubobezi. Afya ninakutana nayo katika hybridization ya TEHAMA na afya ambazo ndiko nilipo..tena afya kwa upande wa public health zaidi. Kwa kusema hivyo sina ujasiri wa kujibu kila hoja nisije nikapotosha. Ukitazama utafiti huu tuliocomment nature yake ni evidence zaidi kuliko utaalamu wa afya na ndio mana nimeshiriki kuuongelea.
Ila ulichokiongea kuhusu caffeine na cocaine kuwa addictive booster kina ukweli. Ukichunguza vema hata mtoto akinywa kiasi fulani cha sodaya coke utaona kabisa anabadilika na kuwa more active na agressive pia.. na anataka kuendelea kunywa tu bila kujali tumbo linajaa...hahahaa. Nadhani hamu inachochewa na contents.
Lakini labda nikuulize swali, hivi ukiwa hujalamba kabisa asali na ukiwa unelamba, ni wakati gani ushaiwishi wa kulamba unakua nao? Je, ni kabala ya kulamba kabisa au ni baada ya kulamba kwa mara ya kwanza?
Swali langu ni je, addictive booster haiwezi kuwepo pia kwenye aina nyingine ya vyakula kwa mtindo mwingine?
NB: Ngoja nimuombe Dr Ndosi niliyeandika naye ajibu swali lako kitalaamu zaidi maana yeye afya ni uwanja wa nyumbani.
Asante kwa mwangaza mkuu.Kaka, haya ndio majibu ya Dr. Mwidimi Ndossi kwa ulichouliza:
" Sayansi haina majibu ya ujumla ujumla kihivyo. (Naendelea kiingereza maana Kiswahili kinanishinda. ) the research process addresses a specific question and after collecting relvant data and analysing them, they suggest an explanation for the observation, which will answer the specific question asked.
In our article above, we have described the benefits of coffee in prevention of cardiac diseases – in fact the consensus is 3-4 cups a day and this has been shown in other chronic diseases and some cancers. The observations give the highest level of evidence available and with that amount of data, one can be confident that all the small variations shown in other small studies are now accounted for in these large meta-analyses. This is the power of meta-analyses as opposed to single primary studies.
You should remember that coffee is a normal human beverage but not a normal food for rats. So whereas in humans we are explaining the benefits of coffee, for rats, a cup of coffee or tea may be a strong drug. Rats don’t drink coffee for breakfast! Therefore those small studies conducted in rats in highly artificial conditions do not have any power to explain or being extrapolated to what happens to human beings living in the real world.
We have explained the relationship between coffee and cardiovascular diseases, meaning that habitual drinking of coffee is cardio-protective. Coffee drinking that is excessive i.e. over and above normal drinking do not carry those benefits. Actually benefits gained start to be lost between 5-10 cups per day. The evidence shows to have cardiac problems with coffee you have to start drinking over 10 cups per day! That could happen in case of addiction or just for someone who has just had many meetings in the day J. Addiction is a disease and one can be addicted to many things even reading sms on your phone and I think an addiction is another huge subject needing a discussion thread of its own.
Despite the benefits explained above, we did not mean that coffee is good for everything. For example, coffee may not be good for drinking in the evening when you want to have a good night sleep (most people are affected, though not all).
The mistake that many people do when they talk about coffee, they think coffee=caffeine. Coffee is food and it has more ingredients than just caffeine and if you speak to food scientists they will tell you all that is contained in coffee. All we are saying and educating the public here is that coffee is not bad for your health, especially when it comes to your cardiovascular health, coffee is cardio-protective.
"
Kwa nini utegemee kusikia utafiti niliofanya mimi mwenye kwenye hili? Ndio ingekufanya ukubali kilichosemwa au unamaanisha nini? Jua tu kwamba, any academic/scientific enterprise is subjected to and finds its ways within " a body of knowledge": which is a some sort of scientific understanding universally agreed within a given field of specialization. Scientists have one thing in common which might be different from politics or something else: they respect any scientific work as long as it proves to remain objective, systematic, and specific to its subject matter. Kama kila mwanasayansi anatakiwa arudie utafiti yeye mwenyewe ndio awe na "voice" ya kuongelea matokeo yake, huoni kama hiyo itageuka kua chaos?
BTW: In academic world, the best practice is to present your knowledge and/or arguments by dialogistically engaging in a conversation that involves the suggestions/views of others. Kama una uelewa wa kutosha kuhusu tafiti, utaelewa kwamba, as of per the existing knowledge, there is no a sound and scientifically convincing evidence than a meta-analysis study. One should have a very strong and rational counterargument to question its finding, hence the need of an alternative scientific undertaking. Na hiki ndicho kilichoko kwenye study ya kina Choi
MM