Talk:Caffeine

ICDM should be ICD

ICDM is mentioned three times: twice as ICDM-9 and once as ICDM 9. The first mention of ICDM links to [[1]], which has no ctrl-f instances of ICDM. A quick google search also redirects to ICD. Would like a second opinion on if this should be ICD in all cases. rex (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

“Darker roasts have more caffeine”

A quick search shows otherwise: A dark-roasted bean contains more caffeine than a light-roasted bean due to its stronger flavor. Not true. – Et0zl Talk☻ 13:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2022

Mis-spellings in the text. "Judgement" should be "Judgment". Peterdkukla (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Narcolepsy treatment

This revert was justified because the source did not evaluate caffeine effects on narcolepsy specifically, but rather only included it in the discussion. The one source used here is primary research, too preliminary to justify including it in the article. Best to wait for a WP:MEDRS review on possible use of caffeine for treating narcolepsy, which a PubMed search shows is not available as of 2015, here. Zefr (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, so I am trying to add the following sentence : "Caffeine has shown tentative evidence for narcolepsy" in the "Research" category of the article providing the following secondary and reliable reference: https://doi.org/10.2147%2Ftcrm.s244714 . User Zefr does not agree citing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) and the fact the evidence is weak and that a wikipedia article is not a news article. I would like to add that we can usually find the same type of claims being made in high ranked wikipedia bio-medical articles (cf https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=tentative+evidence&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1) What are your toughts on this disagreement ? Thanks to you all! Medhekp (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Zefr; this research, based on a pilot study with only sixteen participants, is not suitable for use in Wikipedia. That other such stuff may be included in other articles is not a relevant argument. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Contradiction (of sorts): Under Adverse Effects - Psychological and Adverse Effects - Risk of Other Diseases

In the Adverse Effects - Psychological section, the quote is "Increased consumption of coffee and caffeine is associated with a decreased risk of depression" In the Adverse Effects - Risk of Other Diseases section, the quote is "Caffeine consumption may be associated with reduced risk of depression, although conflicting results have been reported." Both quotes cite references 99 and 100. I myself have not looked into the sources. These two sentences are contradictory. Migy007 (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed the comment on depression from the "Risk of other diseases" section, as the topic is adequately covered under the Psychology section with this edit. Hope that helps. Zefr (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Why its so detrimental to kids.

It actually stunts there growth. 72.201.35.99 (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a verifiably false statement, as discussed with references in our article. DMacks (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Caffeine in jet lag etc. reference point 55

The article referenced, in the first paragraph, says that it is “unclear” whether error or injury is effected by caffeine intake for those with jet lag or work shift disorder (or whatever it was called) whereas the Wiki article states that error is lessened by use of a caffeine. The facts between the two pages are not in agreement.

Thank you Wikipedia 2601:98A:4200:5BED:4135:2C64:ABAC:A208 (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2023

Caffeine isn't a "mild cognitive nootropic" the wikipedia nootropic page classifieds it as a nootropic wrong information saying that it's a "mild one" James.Pater (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. HouseBlaster^talk 01:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2023

Hello Wikipedia Community,

I am writing to propose an update to the "Caffeine" article. Specifically, the current citation number 243 ("Some Common Questions". Eagle Energy. Retrieved 22 May 2017), which is permanently dead and no longer provides valuable information to the article's readers, with my own recently published article titled "Caffeine Inhalers: An In-Depth Look at Use, Effects, and Regulation," which can be found at the following URL: https://thegoldenlamb.com/coffee-science/caffeine-inhalers/.

This report not only provides a high level of detail on caffeine inhalers but also has been structured and written to meet the standards of reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines.

Therefore, I propose that this article can be a suitable replacement for the dead link, thus improving the quality of the information provided on the "Caffeine" Wikipedia page.

I kindly request that a member of the Wikipedia community who has the ability to edit the page reviews this proposal and, if found suitable, replaces the current citation number 243 with the following:

"Caffeine Inhalers: An In-Depth Look at Use, Effects, and Regulation". The Golden Lamb. Retrieved 29 July 2023.

Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions or further clarifications needed regarding this request. Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards,

Kelsey HappyFhantum (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - your blog would not qualify as a WP:RS source; WP:PROMO violation and WP:NOTBLOG. Also, misuse of bold in your message. Zefr (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2023

Error in table under Products, last line 'Coffee-flavored milk drink': the value in the mg/L column reads 660-3290, should read 66-354 according to the cited source. Also, although the caffeine per serving values agree with the cited reference, the stated serving size of 250 ml does not match the citation. 80.216.216.86 (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Cited material states The mean (±SD) caffeine concentration was 1930 ± 90 mg/L, the median was 1745 mg/L and values ranged from 660 to 3290 mg/L. --WikiLinuz {talk} 21:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The sentence above from the body of the cited material is likely a typo. Refer to Table 3 of the same publication, where the stated values range from 6.6 to 35.4 mg/100 ml, i.e. 66 to 354 mg/l. 213.65.212.191 (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Or the values in the table are a typo. Given the situation, I'd take the text from the article body as more convincing, without some other RS saying otherwise. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I see several good reasons to believe that the values in Table 3 of the paper, rater than the Results, are more likely to be correct:

1) the 'Caffeine per serving' values reported in the paper (and also in this Wikipedia article) are consistent with the values per 100 mL given in Table 3 of the paper, but not with those in the paper Results

2) since the Results sumarise the information in Table 3, it is more likely that the text was composed after the table. It is unlikely that an error was first introduced in the table but then disappeared again in the Results

3) the information in the table is more detailed; the liklihood of getting 20 numbers (or 40, including the consistent 'mg per serving' column) wrong is much smaller than getting just two numbers wrong

4) the values in the Results are about an order of magnitude higher than for comparable beverages indicating an error

If this is not convincing I would suggest contacting the author for a clarification, or just delete this row from the table in the Caffeine page.

Regardless of the above, the serving size listed in the Wikipedia article table (250 ml) does not match the serving size of the paper (300-600 ml) from which the 'Caffeine per serving' of the Wikipedia article are derived. So either the serving size stated in the table should be changed, or the caffeine per serving in the same table recalculated. Joakim da Silva (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done - the values as they were are very obviously wrong. It appears the reason for the issue was likely that while converting from mg/100mL to mg/L, they multiplied by 100 instead of 10. Tollens (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2023

In the last paragraph of the introduction it says "A cup of coffee contains 80–175 mg of caffeine, depending on what "bean" (seed) is used, how it is roasted (darker roasts have less caffeine), and how it is prepared (e.g., drip, percolation, or espresso)." and cites here .

The claim that darker roasts have less caffeine isn't supported by the article, which agrees that the numbers are not statistically significant.

I suggest that this should either be reworded to reflect this, use a different citation, or be removed altogether.

Additionally, and I know this isn't a source, but I was a barista and learned a lot about coffee, I know that this isn't true - the type of bean matters way more than the roast for caffeine content. Padrillium (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

in the article it cites, it says, "it showed a positive correlation between the caffeine levels with the degree of roasting till a certain point where the levels dropped in the dark roasted coffee." so maybe just removing the darker roast part but still keeping the rest of it; like, "...on what "bean" (seed) is used, how it is roasted, and how it is prepared...". Frost.xyz | (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)