Capstone Paper The Side Effect of Coffee

  • Uncategorized

CAPSTONE PAPER: THE SIDE EFFECT OF COFFEE 1

CapstonePaper: The Side Effect of Coffee

CapstonePaper: The Side Effect of Coffee

Background

Research has shown that coffee isone of the products that has attracted high demand internationallyand has always cost billions of dollars otherwise known as the blackgold. Studies have also shown that over 80% of the world populationsare coffee consumers. Its consumption rates are very high compared toother products in the world and also forms the backbone of theeconomy of most nations (Chemiske,2008).

A study of its nutritional valuehas however revealed that there is a possibility that it could causesome of the most dangerous diseases like cancer. It is, therefore,important that a study is conducted to identify and correlate theseside effects to the importance of coffee since it risks affecting alarger population of the world. In America alone, about 70% of itspopulation consumes coffee almost daily (Sagon,2013). A study of its sideeffects will thus help in creating awareness among coffee consumershence control the consumption and coffee related activities likeprocessing.

Objective

The main aim of this study is toestablish a correlation between the coffee consumption and its sideeffects. The study will focus on both positive and negative sideeffects of coffee including diseases, intelligence, vigilance, andstress. The study will be a survey of the coffee consumers and theimpacts of coffee in their lives.

Method

This study will involveconducting a survey using questionnaires to sample the targetpopulation. The target population will be neighborhood members livingaround who will be provided with questionnaires randomly. A twentyquestion opinion survey will be conducted around randomly selectedcommunities for purposes of data collection. The survey will be donerandomly to the first twenty households.

Many nations have cultivatedcoffee for commercial purposes bringing them a lot of returnsincluding revenue. It has also improved the standards of living ofdifferent farmers who have been engaged in the coffee farmingbusiness. The benefits of drinking coffee have also been outlined tocover medical as well as physical reasons. Studies show that peopleusually drink coffee to help them relieve both mental as well asphysical fatigue in addition to increasing one’s mental alertness.It is also regarded as an important drink since it prevents thedevelopment of diseases, such as gallstones, Parkinson’s disease,lung cancer, and diabetes. Despite all these benefits, a scientisthas conducted studies on the chemical composition of coffee and itsnutritional value and has found that it contains substances thatcould be detrimental to the lives of its consumers (Whiteman,2015). Health experts haveassociated coffee to diseases like cancer and immune imbalancedisorders (Mercola, 2012).It is important to note that caffeine has been deemed as a drug byseveral studies. Therefore, while small doses to moderate quantitiesof caffeine are regarded as safe for consumption, it is usuallyaddictive, and most users can always become dependent on it. Apartfrom being addictive when taken in large quantities, caffeine hasbeen found to have a number of negative effects including thefollowing. It has the potential to increase anxiety as well asdisrupt the sleep patterns of an individual. This disruption leads toa vicious cycle of uncontrolled sleep. The most dangerous effect ofcaffeine has been described as potentially resulting in some kind ofspinal bone loss in the postmenopausal women in the event that theyconsume over 300 mg per day. The effect that caffeine causes on thebody includes creating an insufficient availability of calcium in thediet. Studies indicate that an older woman needs have a minimum of800 mg calcium daily (HealthAmbition, 2016).

It is, therefore, important thatthese side effects be analyzed in order to help determine if mostcountries could still produce and sell the product. Many nations havealso formulated policies to govern production, sale and consumptionof coffee based on the medical reports that they have obtained fromdifferent nutritional and health studies.

The examples include food anddrug act that has classified coffee as a drug in some nations. Toavert some of these policies, the study of the side effects of coffeewill play a greater role in providing relevant information for thelegislators to formulate better laws to govern coffee production andprocessing.

Coffee has been classified as astimulant for the preparation of different food substances includingblack coffee tea, cakes, and sweets among others. The presence ofcoffee in different processed food products has increased and as aresult, health professionals have argued that the possible sideeffects of coffee may pose a major pandemic if not contained.

Coffee is a plant that has beenscientifically proved to have stimulating effects on its consumers.Different types of coffee are grown in various parts of the world.They have been classified based on their nutritional and chemicalcontent and the environmental requirement for each type of coffee(Nehlig, 2004).

Examples include the Arabicacoffee that is grown primarily in northern Uganda and parts of theUnited States. This has been considered as the best type of coffeesince it matures in approximately 2 years and has brilliant taste ashas been described by most of its consumers.

Americans have been consumingcoffee since its invention as part of morning breakfast and nightstimulant. This was after the product was approved by the USAdepartment of agriculture to be part of the public consumptionproducts. Coffee is still a traditional dietary delicacy today amongmany Americans and it’s estimated that about 80% of the Americanpopulation consumes coffee and its related products either directlyor indirectly.

The regulations that have beenput in place to govern coffee have been directed towards itsproduction and sale. However, very little has been done as far ascoffee consumption is concerned (Aronson, 2005).

The objective of this study thusis to establish a correlation between coffee consumption and its sideeffects among community members in Georgia, USA. The study alsofocuses on the impacts of physical activity on coffee consumption andwork specific contribution to coffee consumption among other factors.The hypothesis of this study is that individuals with highconsumption levels of coffee will be more aware of the possible sideseffects both positive and negative hence control their consumptionand utilization. The study will also highlight the possible diseasesthat may be attributed to coffee consumption, production, processingand handling and the relationship between the laws governing coffeeproduction and their impacts on America population perception ofcoffee (Rockefeller, 2014).

Date collection method

The survey was conducted atGeorgia town neighborhoods. Researchers from Department of Nutritionat Life University and hired research assistants randomly selectedthe houses to carry out the study. A total of 20 household membersvolunteered to answer the coffee consumption survey provided byresearcher. All the respondents were over the age of 18 years old andhence there was no need for parental consent. The survey consisted of20 multiple choice questions, directed to evaluate the correlationbetween coffee consumption and its side effects among members of theGeorgia community. Data collection was conducted in a random mannerbased on the randomly selected sample size of 20 respondents. Themain aim of using a random a sample was to give each respondent equalchance of participation in the survey. It also prevented unnecessarydata contaminations during the study. At the time of filling thequestionnaires, the respondent individuals were verbally asked thequestions in order to provide an answer and those who could read andwrite were given the questionnaires to fill. Each question had onlyone answer as was instructed by the researcher to the respondents.This provided validity of the collected data and reliability. It alsoprovided accurate data analysis platform for establishing thecorrelation between the two variables of study.

Methods of Data Analysis

Data collected was tabulated inletters and exchanged with numbers for real answers for ease ofcalculation. All the information was identified using differentsoftware’s and data analysis done to determine the distribution ofthe results. Distribution was calculated per question in order tofind the most popular answers. Once all the questions whereindividually evaluated, they were pair with others with a view toevaluate the possible correlations between the variables assessed atthe time of the study. Significance value of 0.05 was used todetermine margin of rejection or acceptance of the null hypothesis.

Results

Table 1: Resultsof questions administered to a sample size of 20 neighbors on sideeffects of coffee

The survey questions wereperformed as multiple answer questions in order to facilitate theresponse process to the respondents. During data analysis, theevaluation was conducted through substitution of the choice letterson the questionnaires by numbers to facilitate the process.

ANALYSIS OF DATA FOR AGE

Sample Size, n: 20

Mean:39.35

Median: 40.5

Midrange: 55

RMS: 43.789

Variance, s^2:189.7274

St. Dev., s: 13.7742

Mean Abs Dev: 14.7211

Range: 55

Coeff. Of Var.55.76%

Minimum:20

1st Quartile: 25

2nd Quartile: 37

3rd Quartile: 54

Maximum:65

Sum: 787

95% CI for the Mean:

37.3825 &lt mean &lt55.7716

95% CI for the St. Dev.:

13.0859 &lt SD &lt 22.7160

95% CI for the variance:

180.2411&lt VAR &lt 576.2371

HISTOGRAM

ANALYSIS OF DATA FOR COFFEECONSUMPTION

Sample Size, n: 20

Mean:5.667

Median: 5.5

Midrange: 4.5

RMS: 1.5678

Variance, s^2:1.4998

St. Dev., s: 1.2247

Mean Abs Dev: 0.9927

Range: 4

Coeff. Of Var.45.37%

Minimum:3

1st Quartile: 4

2nd Quartile: 5

3rd Quartile: 6

Maximum:8

Sum: 20

95% CI for the Mean:

1.4175 &lt mean &lt5.385

95% CI for the St. Dev.:

0.4356 &lt SD &lt 1.1635

95% CI for the variance:

0.3147 &lt VAR &lt 1.425

One-way analysis variance(ANOVA): Coffee consumption, sleep deprivation and stress

Source: DF: SS: MS: Test Stat, F: Critical F: P-Value:

Treatment: 2 13.641026 5.8205137.992487 2.118639 0.000142

Error:5545.192308 0.5567

Total:7161.833333

One-way analysis variance(ANOVA): Coffee consumption, disease causation, Health effect,Intelligence and vigilance

Source:DF: SS: MS:Test Stat, F: Critical F:P-Value:

Treatment: 3 31.153846 5.77876211.33791.2229317 0.000

Error:7861.6657 0.35311

Total:9877.990692

One-way analysis variance(ANOVA): coffee consumption, production and daily consumption

Source:DF: SS: MS:Test Stat, F: Critical F: P-Value:

Treatment: 1 10.410256 2.12128 10.6667751.99878639 0.0000

Error: 2523.807692 0.204103

Total: 5544.17949

Two-way analysis variance(ANOVA): Coffee consumption, stress, IQ and Employment

Source: DF: SS: MS:Test Stat, F: Critical F: P-Value:

Interaction:1 8.0009 2.032223.41 3.1239 0.0385

Row Variable: 2 3.33846 1.99863.23743.9739 0.0762

Column Variable: 3 10.846210.4231 11.6978 3.1239 0.0000

CORELATION ANALYSIS

Sample size, n: 20

Degrees of freedom: 22

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Research has indicated that about80% of Americans consume coffee in their daily meals. Since all theparticipants of this survey are involved in coffee consumption, it isexpected that the results will be authentic and reliable. Resultshave indicated that over 70% of the participants have used coffee.This is an explicit confirmation that the coffee consumption may havesome correlation to its side effects.

Correlation analysis reports haveindicated that there is a linear relationship between a dependentvariable and an independent variable. Values of correlation rangebetween -1 and 1 where 1 means perfect correlation, 0 means nocorrelation and positive means a positive relationship.

The survey indicated that therewas a relationship between coffee consumption, disease causation,stress and intelligence (Table 1). The study also indicated thatcoffee production, employment, and weekly coffee consumption arecorrelated. From the positive correlation, it was concluded thatthere was a direct relationship between coffee consumption and itsside effects (Rockefeller,2015).

Critical r value indicated thatthe hypothesis that was formulated was positive. The correlations hadan almost similar critical value indicating that there was nocontrasting data at the time to correlation. The p-value obtainedindicated that there was strong evidence against the null hypothesis.Hence the hypothesis was rejected.

Limitations

The limitations experiencedduring data collection included the respondents demonstrating anactual fear of being mentioned in the findings. Neighbors were,therefore, reluctant to fill the forms. Some respondents did notalso want to be disturbed hence being rude to researchers.

The data collected was authenticeven though there was difficulty in validating the data collectiontools.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this paperpresented an analysis of the side effects of coffee. From the studyfindings, ten out of thirteen hypotheses were accepted, however onlythree of them had a negative hypothesis and were rejected. With thisbeing stated as was observed, coffee consumption was directlyproportional to its side effects. Further research still needs to bedone in order to evaluate how coffee consumption affects human healthand the control measures to prevent the negative side effects. Itwas, therefore, concludes that many of the consumers of coffee may beaffected unknowingly and hence needs to know and understand theseside effects (Kummer,2003).

Due to the inconsistency in thequantity of coffee consumed by different people, there is needed todefine quantity that is healthier for all consumers. Regulationsalso need to be formulated to govern coffee processing andconsumption. For future research different factors should be takeninto consideration in studying side effects of coffee includingrespondent’s profession and time off work.

Acknowledgement

This study wishes to acknowledgeall those who participated and provided data genuinely for thesuccess of the work.

References

Aronson, J. (2005). SideEffects of Drugs Annual: A Worldwide Yearly Survey of New Data andTrends in Adverse Drug Reactions.New York: Elsevier.

Chemiske, S. (2008). Caffeineblues: Wake up to the hidden dangers of America`s #1 Drug. New York:Grand Central Publishing.

Health Ambition. (2016). 7negative effects of coffee.Retrieved fromhttps://www.healthambition.com/negative-effects-of-coffee/

Kummer, C. (2003). TheJoy of Coffee: The Essential Guide to Buying, Brewing, and Enjoying.U.S.A: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Mercola, D. (2012).Mounting evidence suggests coffee may actually have therapeutichealth benefits. Retrievedfromhttp://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/09/16/coffee-health-benefits.aspx

Nehlig, A. (2004). Coffee,tea, chocolate, and the brain.New York: CRC Press.

Rockefeller, J. (2014). TheCoffee Enema Book.U.S.A: J.D. Rockefeller.

Rockefeller, J. (2015). CoffeeEnemas for Healthy Lifestyle. U.S.A: J.D. Rockefeller.

Sagon, C. (2013). Caffeinefor your health-Too good to be true.Retrieved fromhttp://www.aarp.org/health/healthy-living/info-10-2013/coffee-for-health.html

Whiteman, H. (2015). Caffeine:How does it affect our health?.Retrieved from http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/271707.php

Capstone Paper The Side Effect of Coffee .

  • Uncategorized

Capstone Paper: The SideEffect of Coffee

.

CapstonePaper: The Side Effect of Coffee

Background

Research has shown that coffee isone of the products that has attracted high demand internationallyand has always cost billions of dollars otherwise known as the blackgold. Studies have also shown that over 80% of the world populationsare coffee consumers. Its consumption rates are very high compared toother products in the world and also forms the backbone of theeconomy of most nations (Chemiske,2008).

A study of its nutritional valuehas however revealed that there is a possibility that it could causesome of the most dangerous diseases like cancer. It is, therefore,important that a study is conducted to identify and correlate theseside effects to the importance of coffee since it risks affecting alarger population of the world. In America alone, about 70% of itspopulation consumes coffee almost daily (Sagon,2013). A study of its sideeffects will thus help in creating awareness among coffee consumershence control the consumption and coffee related activities likeprocessing.

Objective

The main aim of this study is toestablish a correlation between the coffee consumption and its sideeffects. The study will focus on both positive and negative sideeffects of coffee including diseases, intelligence, vigilance, andstress. The study will be a survey of the coffee consumers and theimpacts of coffee in their lives.

Method

This study will involveconducting a survey using questionnaires to sample the targetpopulation. The target population will be neighborhood members livingaround who will be provided with questionnaires randomly. A twentyquestion opinion survey will be conducted around randomly selectedcommunities for purposes of data collection. The survey will be donerandomly to the first twenty households.

Many nations have cultivatedcoffee for commercial purposes bringing them a lot of returnsincluding revenue. It has also improved the standards of living ofdifferent farmers who have been engaged in the coffee farmingbusiness. The benefits of drinking coffee have also been outlined tocover medical as well as physical reasons. Studies show that peopleusually drink coffee to help them relieve both mental as well asphysical fatigue in addition to increasing one’s mental alertness.It is also regarded as an important drink since it prevents thedevelopment of diseases, such as gallstones, Parkinson’s disease,lung cancer, and diabetes. Despite all these benefits, a scientisthas conducted studies on the chemical composition of coffee and itsnutritional value and has found that it contains substances thatcould be detrimental to the lives of its consumers (Whiteman,2015). Health experts haveassociated coffee to diseases like cancer and immune imbalancedisorders (Mercola, 2012).It is important to note that caffeine has been deemed as a drug byseveral studies. Therefore, while small doses to moderate quantitiesof caffeine are regarded as safe for consumption, it is usuallyaddictive, and most users can always become dependent on it. Apartfrom being addictive when taken in large quantities, caffeine hasbeen found to have a number of negative effects including thefollowing. It has the potential to increase anxiety as well asdisrupt the sleep patterns of an individual. This disruption leads toa vicious cycle of uncontrolled sleep. The most dangerous effect ofcaffeine has been described as potentially resulting in some kind ofspinal bone loss in the postmenopausal women in the event that theyconsume over 300 mg per day. The effect that caffeine causes on thebody includes creating an insufficient availability of calcium in thediet. Studies indicate that an older woman needs have a minimum of800 mg calcium daily (HealthAmbition, 2016).

It is, therefore, important thatthese side effects be analyzed in order to help determine if mostcountries could still produce and sell the product. Many nations havealso formulated policies to govern production, sale and consumptionof coffee based on the medical reports that they have obtained fromdifferent nutritional and health studies.

The examples include food anddrug act that has classified coffee as a drug in some nations. Toavert some of these policies, the study of the side effects of coffeewill play a greater role in providing relevant information for thelegislators to formulate better laws to govern coffee production andprocessing.

Coffee has been classified as astimulant for the preparation of different food substances includingblack coffee tea, cakes, and sweets among others. The presence ofcoffee in different processed food products has increased and as aresult, health professionals have argued that the possible sideeffects of coffee may pose a major pandemic if not contained.

Coffee is a plant that has beenscientifically proved to have stimulating effects on its consumers.Different types of coffee are grown in various parts of the world.They have been classified based on their nutritional and chemicalcontent and the environmental requirement for each type of coffee(Nehlig, 2004).

Examples include the Arabicacoffee that is grown primarily in northern Uganda and parts of theUnited States. This has been considered as the best type of coffeesince it matures in approximately 2 years and has brilliant taste ashas been described by most of its consumers.

Americans have been consumingcoffee since its invention as part of morning breakfast and nightstimulant. This was after the product was approved by the USAdepartment of agriculture to be part of the public consumptionproducts. Coffee is still a traditional dietary delicacy today amongmany Americans and it’s estimated that about 80% of the Americanpopulation consumes coffee and its related products either directlyor indirectly.

The regulations that have beenput in place to govern coffee have been directed towards itsproduction and sale. However, very little has been done as far ascoffee consumption is concerned (Aronson, 2005).

The objective of this study thusis to establish a correlation between coffee consumption and its sideeffects among community members in Georgia, USA. The study alsofocuses on the impacts of physical activity on coffee consumption andwork specific contribution to coffee consumption among other factors.The hypothesis of this study is that individuals with highconsumption levels of coffee will be more aware of the possible sideseffects both positive and negative hence control their consumptionand utilization. The study will also highlight the possible diseasesthat may be attributed to coffee consumption, production, processingand handling and the relationship between the laws governing coffeeproduction and their impacts on America population perception ofcoffee (Rockefeller, 2014).

Date collection method

The survey was conducted atGeorgia town neighborhoods. Researchers from Department of Nutritionat Life University and hired research assistants randomly selectedthe houses to carry out the study. A total of 20 household membersvolunteered to answer the coffee consumption survey provided byresearcher. All the respondents were over the age of 18 years old andhence there was no need for parental consent. The survey consisted of20 multiple choice questions, directed to evaluate the correlationbetween coffee consumption and its side effects among members of theGeorgia community. Data collection was conducted in a random mannerbased on the randomly selected sample size of 20 respondents. Themain aim of using a random a sample was to give each respondent equalchance of participation in the survey. It also prevented unnecessarydata contaminations during the study. At the time of filling thequestionnaires, the respondent individuals were verbally asked thequestions in order to provide an answer and those who could read andwrite were given the questionnaires to fill. Each question had onlyone answer as was instructed by the researcher to the respondents.This provided validity of the collected data and reliability. It alsoprovided accurate data analysis platform for establishing thecorrelation between the two variables of study.

Methods of Data Analysis

Data collected was tabulated inletters and exchanged with numbers for real answers for ease ofcalculation. All the information was identified using differentsoftware’s and data analysis done to determine the distribution ofthe results. Distribution was calculated per question in order tofind the most popular answers. Once all the questions whereindividually evaluated, they were pair with others with a view toevaluate the possible correlations between the variables assessed atthe time of the study. Significance value of 0.05 was used todetermine margin of rejection or acceptance of the null hypothesis.

Results

Table 1: Resultsof questions administered to a sample size of 20 neighbors on sideeffects of coffee

The survey questions wereperformed as multiple answer questions in order to facilitate theresponse process to the respondents. During data analysis, theevaluation was conducted through substitution of the choice letterson the questionnaires by numbers to facilitate the process.

ANALYSIS OF DATA FOR AGE

Sample Size, n: 20

Mean:39.35

Median: 40.5

Midrange: 55

RMS: 43.789

Variance, s^2:189.7274

St. Dev., s: 13.7742

Mean Abs Dev: 14.7211

Range: 55

Coeff. Of Var.55.76%

Minimum:20

1st Quartile: 25

2nd Quartile: 37

3rd Quartile: 54

Maximum:65

Sum: 787

95% CI for the Mean:

37.3825 &lt mean &lt55.7716

95% CI for the St. Dev.:

13.0859 &lt SD &lt 22.7160

95% CI for the variance:

180.2411&lt VAR &lt 576.2371

HISTOGRAM

ANALYSIS OF DATA FOR COFFEECONSUMPTION

Sample Size, n: 20

Mean:5.667

Median: 5.5

Midrange: 4.5

RMS: 1.5678

Variance, s^2:1.4998

St. Dev., s: 1.2247

Mean Abs Dev: 0.9927

Range: 4

Coeff. Of Var.45.37%

Minimum:3

1st Quartile: 4

2nd Quartile: 5

3rd Quartile: 6

Maximum:8

Sum: 20

95% CI for the Mean:

1.4175 &lt mean &lt5.385

95% CI for the St. Dev.:

0.4356 &lt SD &lt 1.1635

95% CI for the variance:

0.3147 &lt VAR &lt 1.425

One-way analysis variance(ANOVA): Coffee consumption, sleep deprivation and stress

Source: DF: SS: MS: Test Stat, F: Critical F: P-Value:

Treatment: 2 13.641026 5.820513 7.992487 2.118639 0.000142

Error:5545.192308 0.5567

Total:7161.833333

The P-value obtained from theone-way ANOVA is 0.000142. Since the value is less than 0.05 at 95%confidence level, we reject the null hypothesis and indicate thatthere is a statistical difference between the coffee consumption,sleep deprivation and stress

One-way analysis variance(ANOVA): Coffee consumption, disease causation, Health effect,Intelligence and vigilance

Source: DF: SS: MS: Test Stat, F: Critical F: P-Value:

Treatment: 3 31.153846 5.778762 11.33791.2229317 0.000

Error:7861.6657 0.35311

Total:9877.990692

The P-value obtained from theone-way ANOVA is 0.000. Since the value is less than 0.05 at 95%confidence level, we reject the null hypothesis and indicate thatthere is a statistical difference between the coffee consumption,disease causation, health effect, Intelligence, and vigilance.

One-way analysis variance(ANOVA): coffee consumption, production, and daily consumption

Source:DF: SS: MS:Test Stat, F: Critical F: P-Value:

Treatment: 1 10.410256 2.12128 10.6667751.99878639 0.0000

Error: 2523.807692 0.204103

Total: 5544.17949

The P-value obtained from theone-way ANOVA is 0.000. Since the value is less than 0.05 at 95%confidence level, we reject the null hypothesis and indicate thatthere is a statistical difference between the coffee consumption,production, and daily consumption.

Two-way analysis variance(ANOVA): Coffee consumption, stress, IQ and Employment

Source: DF: SS: MS:Test Stat, F: Critical F: P-Value:

Interaction:1 8.0009 2.032223.41 3.1239 0.0385

Row Variable: 2 3.33846 1.99863.23743.9739 0.0762

Column Variable: 3 10.846210.4231 11.6978 3.1239 0.0000

The P-value obtained from thetwo-way ANOVA is 0.0385 for stress and 0.000 for employment. Sincethese values are less than 0.05 at 95% confidence level, we rejectthe null hypotheses and indicate that there is a statisticaldifference between the coffee consumption and stress and employment.The p-value of the two-way ANOVA between coffee consumption and IQwas, however, 0.0762. Since this value is greater than 0.05 at 95%level of confidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and statethat there is no significant difference between coffee consumptionand IQ.

CORELATION ANALYSIS

Sample size, n: 20

Degrees of freedom: 22

The results of the correlationanalysis show clearly that there is a high chance that coffeeconsumption may cause sleep deprivation (p0.667) and diseases(p0.866). This is because these p-values are on the positive end andmore than 0.5. A minimal positive correlation may also beestablished between coffee consumption and bad health effect (p0404)and stress levels (p0.173)The correlation study results also indicatethat coffee intake is inversely correlated to income/ employment(-1.06). This is because the p-value is negative. It is, however,important to note that the effect is quite minimal given that thevalue is higher than -0.5.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Research has indicated that about80% of Americans consume coffee in their daily meals. Since all theparticipants of this survey are involved in coffee consumption, it isexpected that the results will be authentic and reliable. Resultshave indicated that over 70% of the participants have used coffee.This is an explicit confirmation that the coffee consumption may havesome correlation to its side effects.

Correlation analysis reports haveindicated that there is a linear relationship between a dependentvariable and an independent variable. Values of correlation rangebetween -1 and 1 where 1 means perfect correlation, 0 means nocorrelation and positive means a positive relationship.

The survey indicated that therewas a relationship between coffee consumption, disease causation,stress and intelligence (Table 1). The study also indicated thatcoffee production, employment, and weekly coffee consumption arecorrelated. From the positive correlation, it was concluded thatthere was a direct relationship between coffee consumption and itsside effects (Rockefeller,2015).

Critical r value indicated thatthe hypothesis that was formulated was positive. The correlations hadan almost similar critical value indicating that there was nocontrasting data at the time to correlation. The p-value obtainedindicated that there was strong evidence against the null hypothesis.Hence the hypothesis was rejected.

The results show that there is apositive statistical difference between coffee consumption and sleepdeprivation and stress, disease causation, health effect,intelligence and vigilance, production and daily consumption, stress,and employment. This shows that the constant intake of thecaffeinated drink normally results in sleep deprivation, negativeeffects on the health of individuals, sleep deprivation, and along-term hampering of the intelligence capability. Since all theseeffects are detrimental, there is a high chance that they may affectthe ability of people to get decent jobs since their productivitylevels will largely be undermined. The same results are alsoindicated in the correlation analysis where coffee intake is found toenhance stress levels, and sleep deprivation while debilitatingintelligence and income generation. All of these effects are alsotrue as it relates to the negative effects of coffee (HealthAmbition, 2016).

Limitations

The limitations experiencedduring data collection included the respondents demonstrating anactual fear of being mentioned in the findings. Neighbors were,therefore, reluctant to fill the forms. Some respondents did notalso want to be disturbed hence being rude to researchers.

The data collected was authenticeven though there was difficulty in validating the data collectiontools.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this paperpresented an analysis of the side effects of coffee. From the studyfindings, ten out of thirteen hypotheses were accepted. However, onlythree of them had a negative hypothesis and were rejected. With thisbeing stated as was observed, coffee consumption was directlyproportional to its side effects thatinclude stress levels, sleep deprivation, loss of income and loss ofintelligence. Furtherresearch still needs to be done in order to evaluate how coffeeconsumption affects human health and the control measures to preventthe negative side effects. It was, therefore, concludes that many ofthe consumers of coffee may be affected unknowingly and hence needsto know and understand these side effects (Kummer,2003).

Due to the inconsistency in thequantity of coffee consumed by different people, there is needed todefine quantity that is healthier for all consumers. Regulationsalso need to be formulated to govern coffee processing andconsumption. For future research different factors should be takeninto consideration in studying side effects of coffee includingrespondent’s profession and time off work.

Acknowledgement

This study wishes to acknowledgeall those who participated and provided data genuinely for thesuccess of the work.

References

Aronson, J. (2005). SideEffects of Drugs Annual: A Worldwide Yearly Survey of New Data andTrends in Adverse Drug Reactions.New York: Elsevier.

Chemiske, S. (2008). Caffeineblues: Wake up to the hidden dangers of America`s #1 Drug. New York:Grand Central Publishing.

Health Ambition. (2016). 7negative effects of coffee.Retrieved fromhttps://www.healthambition.com/negative-effects-of-coffee/

Kummer, C. (2003). TheJoy of Coffee: The Essential Guide to Buying, Brewing, and Enjoying.U.S.A: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Mercola, D. (2012).Mounting evidence suggests coffee may actually have therapeutichealth benefits. Retrievedfromhttp://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/09/16/coffee-health-benefits.aspx

Nehlig, A. (2004). Coffee,tea, chocolate, and the brain.New York: CRC Press.

Rockefeller, J. (2014). TheCoffee Enema Book.U.S.A: J.D. Rockefeller.

Rockefeller, J. (2015). CoffeeEnemas for Healthy Lifestyle. U.S.A: J.D. Rockefeller.

Sagon, C. (2013). Caffeinefor your health-Too good to be true.Retrieved fromhttp://www.aarp.org/health/healthy-living/info-10-2013/coffee-for-health.html

Whiteman, H. (2015). Caffeine:How does it affect our health?.Retrieved from http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/271707.php

Close Menu