After reading three different articles, it is clear that there are mixed opinions of the effects of coffee. One article from the New York Times focuses on its positive effects when it comes to reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, as well as type 2 diabetes. The second article came from baristaguide.com and discussed health benefits and risks, but focused largely on the risks. This article points out that perhaps coffee drinking may help reduce risk of heart disease, but also may contribute to heart disease. The 3rd article was a more sweeping overview of coffee effects and describes former faulty research on coffee. The first article stance on coffee consumption is that drinking between 1 and 3 cups can help reduce your risk or cardiovascular disease. This article is more convincing because it sites specific studies and gives numbers. It also states that there was a control put on alcohol use and smoking, which accounts for 3rd variables that may change the outcome of the study. For the examination of heart disease the 2nd article did a good job of discussing controls and studies but lacked in other areas.
When the second article (baristaguide.com) said simply "some people suffer from heartburn after drinking coffee". This statement demonstrates the correlation vs. causation principle. Just because heartburn is experienced after drinking coffee does not mean it causes heartburn. Perhaps the coffee drinkers also suffered from acid reflux, or commonly get heartburn, regardless of coffee consumption. This sweeping claim makes the article less credible. The problem with the 3rd article is a lot like the 2nd, it lacks enough evidence to back up its claims, but does briefly cite studies.