When Farin Kamangar was training as a physician in the 1980s, he asked patients about three lifestyle factors that could affect their health: alcohol, smoking and coffee. Though coffee didn’t have the same associations as smoking or drinking, Kamangar says, “the connotation was that this is not a good thing.”
Recently, though, coffee drinkers keep getting good news.
In 2026 alone, studies across disciplines have found that coffee could reduce dementia risk, protect your liver and improve your gut microbiome. Last year the U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeled black coffee as “healthy.” Kamangar, now an epidemiologist at Morgan State University, co-authored a 2025 literature review that drew on more than 100 studies and concluded “that moderate coffee intake is more beneficial than harmful across a wide range of health outcomes.”
On supporting science journalism
If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Just a few weeks ago the American Heart Association (AHA) confirmed the beverage’s lack of harm—and its potential benefit—to heart health. Drinking up to five cups of caffeinated coffee a day, its authors wrote, has been linked to a lower risk of heart attack, diabetes, stroke and irregular heartbeat.
Gregory Marcus, a cardiologist at University of California, San Francisco, and lead author of the AHA statement, says his team has been “shocked” by the number of apparently positive effects of caffeinated coffee that scientists have found over the years.
“It’s remarkable how protective it is,” he says.
Coffee is the most consumed beverage in the U.S., with about two thirds of adults drinking it daily. People have been drinking coffee for centuries, and scientists have been studying its health effects for nearly as long. (Persian physicians were discussing coffee’s medicinal properties in the 900s C.E.!) Systematic studies of the relationship started back in the late 1940s. So, why does the research keep changing?
According to geneticist Marilyn Cornelis, scientists are simply conducting research better. Cornelis, who studies the genetics of how we metabolize caffeine at Northwestern University, first became interested in the subject two decades ago because of how many “inconsistencies” the research had. In the 1970s and 1980s, several studies found negative relationships between coffee and health, including a popular 1981 paper that found an association between coffee drinking and pancreatic cancer. The study interviewed around 1,000 patients at a hospital and found that those with pancreatic cancer drank more coffee—but many members of the control group had other medical issues that prevented them from drinking coffee at all. Subsequent studies, including one by the same research team, failed to replicate the results.
Historically, confounding factors also made it harder to track coffee’s health effects. People who smoke or have higher stress levels, for example, tend to both drink more coffee and have worse health outcomes. But in recent years, Cornelis says, “we’ve advanced in our statistical methods to account for that confounding.” And coffee drinkers rejoice!
Most recent studies on coffee have primarily focused on prospective cohorts; such investigations have followed tens of thousands of people for decades to track their habits and health outcomes. This type of evidence-based research has led to a “pendulum swing on caffeine,” Marcus says, and more accurately reflects the link between health and everyday habits.
“There’s a growing recognition that these common exposures, these lifestyle factors… are all in some way influencing our health,” he says.
Prospective cohort studies are not without their own drawbacks, though. It’s difficult to draw conclusions about caffeine more broadly because significantly more people drink coffee than other caffeinated beverages in these long-term observational studies, so researchers have far more data about coffee specifically. After reviewing hundreds of papers, the International Agency for Research on Cancer downgraded its official ranking of caffeine in 2016 from “possibly carcinogenic” to having a carcinogenicity to humans that’s “evaluated as unclassifiable.” But when it comes to other forms of caffeine, such as energy drinks, gaining popularity, the scientific story has barely begun—and scientists say we need far more data to understand how these types of caffeine sources relate to health.
Marcus, Kamangar and Cornelis all emphasize that it’s still important not to confuse correlation with cause—although modern studies are built to minimize ambiguity, it’s always possible that rather than coffee actually causing health effects, it could simply be consumed more commonly by people with certain health traits. It’s also crucial to not write off every person’s relationship to coffee as the same. As Marcus puts it, “I do worry, as both a scientist and a clinician, that it’s a natural tendency for us humans to want to see things as all good or all bad.”
Most of the studies that find positive associations have caveats. The AHA statement, for example, concludes that adding sugar or milk can increase calorie intake and counteract coffee’s potential health benefits, and many studies had found that drinking more than five cups of coffee a day isn’t associated with the same benefits. Individual metabolism and health can also determine just how healthy coffee is for each person.
For future research, scientists such as Marcus, Cornelis and Kamangar are curious about which of coffee’s thousands of compounds cause different health outcomes and what happens when non-coffee drinkers introduce the beverage into their diet. “Science in general is not a speedboat,” Kamangar says. “It’s a large ship that changes direction slowly. And especially since we are very risk averse, if somebody said in the 1980s that this is bad, it takes a lot of information to reverse that. We have gotten to a point that we have so much data from good studies that we can.”

You can now hear Fox News stories!
Long Island health officials are alerting residents to a tick-borne disease that can be serious.
The Suffolk County Department of Health Services has confirmed three probable cases of “rabbit flu” (also known as tularemia).
In a press release sent to local media, the SCDHS said that it has “currently three probable cases” of tularemia in this year. The confirmation of a diagnosis of tularemia requires laboratory tests and the fulfillment of certain clinical or epidemiological criteria. Laboratory testing can take up to several weeks in order to confirm the tularemia.
Experts Warn of Rare Bourbon Virus After First NY Case
According to NBC4 New York, a nine-year-old boy was bitten while outside by a tick. He developed a high fever after the tick had been removed. Other symptoms included severe neck and head pain, swelling of lymph glands and nodes, and body aches.
A specialist in infectious diseases diagnosed the child with tularemia after multiple visits to doctors and a nearly month-long illness.
The mother of the patient said that despite the fact the yard was home to wild bunnies, he had never touched them. According to reports, doctors believe that infected ticks fed on rabbits and then bit the child, transferring the bacteria.
Learn about rabbit fever
The bacteria Francisella Tularensis is the cause of the infection. It commonly affects rodents, rabbits and hares. It is, however, a zoonotic disease, meaning it can be spread by animals to people.
According to the CDC, the bacteria is a tier-1 agent, a designation given to agents or toxins which “present significant risk of misuse, with the potential to cause mass casualties, devastating effects on the economy, infrastructure, or public trust, as well as pose a serious threat to health and safety.”
Doctors warn of a surge in disease outbreak, as Tick Bite ER visits reach their highest level for the season.
The disease is becoming more prevalent in recent years, even though tularemia still remains a rare condition. In 2023 there will be 196 cases in the United States. CDC surveillance identified 2,462 cases from 2011 to 2022, a 56% rise in incidence compared to the decade prior (2001-2010).
Daniel Ruderfer M.D. is chief of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, at Hackensack Meridian K. Hovnanian Children’s Hospital, New Jersey. He believes the rise in cases can be attributed to the improved methods of microbiology diagnosis.
He told Fox News Digital that the traditional way to confirm cases was through growth of culture and antibodies testing.
However, the use of newer methods for detection, like PCR tests, is likely to be a significant contributor to an increase in cases reported.
CLICK HERE FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER
The same source said that humans can get the disease from bites of deer flies and ticks, through contact with animals infected, or by exposure to water or aerosols contaminated with bacteria.
The symptoms of tularemia vary according to the type. Ruderfer says that general symptoms of tularemia include headaches, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea.
He said that depending on where the bit or scratch was infected, some people could develop localized lymphadenopathy. This is characterized by enlarged lymph nodes and a cutaneous infection.
Other manifestations can include conjunctivitis (in the eyes), pneumonia, and even possible bloodstream infection.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE HEALTH STORIES
Death rates from this disease are typically very low (less than 2%), but in severe, rare cases, they can reach as high as 24 %.
Tularemia is treatable with antibiotics but there is no vaccine available at this time.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD FOX NEWS APP
Ruderfer said, “The infection can be life-threatening and even fatal if it is not treated by antibiotics.”
The report states that children aged between 5-9 years, men over 50, American Indians and Alaskan Natives, as well as those who live in the central U.S. are at greatest risk.
The infection can be life-threatening and even fatal if it is not treated by antibiotics.
Experts noted that the general public isn’t at a “clear” risk of infection until they have physical contact with a rabbit infected by rabies, ticks or deer flies.
Test Yourself with Our Latest Lifestyle Quiz
He advised those who regularly hunt rabbits or have a close relationship with them to consult a physician if any symptoms arise.
The CDC stated that “Many factors may contribute to a higher risk of tularemia among this population including the concentrations of Native American Reservations in the central states, and sociocultural activities or occupations which might lead to increased contact with arthropods or wildlife infected by tularemia.”

You can now hear Fox News stories!
According to new research, sedentary people may live longer and healthier by eating less protein.
While studies show that people struggle to maintain strict low-calorie eating habits, previous research shows that calorie restriction is linked with improved longevity and a lower rate of age-related diseases.
Cell Press Blue published a review of over 350 scientific studies that suggests that limiting protein intake can provide similar metabolic benefits, without reducing calories.
Leading Oncologist Reveals 6 Habits That Could Promote Longevity and Reduce Your Risk of Chronic Illness
According to a published review, reducing protein intake is associated with improved metabolism, altered nutrition signaling, decreased cellular damage, and better cellular maintenance.
The main benefit comes from the metabolic hormone fibroblast-growth factor 21 (FGF21). Restriction of protein causes a spike in FGF21. Animal studies show that FGF21 can increase energy expenditure, decrease inflammation, control blood sugar and prolong lifespan.
Methionine isoleucine, and valine are three amino acids essential to protein building. They may be involved in biological pathways that are associated with ageing under certain circumstances.
FORGET THE GYM: A 30-SECOND TEST MAY BE ONE OF THE BEST INDICATORS OF LONGEVITY
High levels of amino acids can keep growth processes active in people who do not exercise regularly. This stimulation over time can cause cellular damage and systemic inflammation, as well as weight gain.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD FOX NEWS APP
Dudley Lamming is the corresponding author of the study and a research scientist at the University of Wisconsin Madison.
In a press release, he said that because people tend to be sedentary they consume more protein than necessary, and this can have negative effects on their health.
The study results had some limitations. The researchers acknowledge that because the study is not a clinical trial but a review of existing studies, there are some limitations.
CLICK HERE FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER
They noted that longer-term studies in humans are needed to confirm whether metabolic benefits translate ultimately into an increased lifespan.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE HEALTH STORIES
This review stresses that there is no one size fits all for protein requirements, nor should the results be taken as an endorsement to consume insufficient amounts.
The body processes protein in a different way for athletes and physically active individuals. Researchers noted that exercise helps direct amino acids towards building and repairing muscles instead of letting excess amino acids be processed by your body.
Test Yourself with Our Latest Lifestyle Quiz
It is important to consume enough protein for older people and pregnant women, as they may experience muscle loss due to age.
The findings indicate that for the larger, mostly inactive population of the United States, public health guidelines need to move away from blanket recommendations, and tailor their protein intakes according to the person’s activity and age.