Talk:Health effects of tea

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Gracellawson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent umbrella reviews

There have been 3 recent umbrella reviews published on the health effects of tea [1], [2], [3]. However, they are not really telling us anything new other than what is already cited on the Wikipedia article so I just leave them here for now. Based on what I have seen there are few clinical trials on this topic, most of the data is coming from observational studies. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

China study: tea drinking delays biological ageing

I'm not an expert, so don't know what to make of it.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6065(23)00273-0/fulltext

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a summary of results from two cohort studies, a low quality of evidence per WP:MEDASSESS, left pyramid. Unusable. Zefr (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Chinese research researching Chinese thing == woo. But since it's primary research in a backwater journal and not WP:MEDRS it needn't trouble Wikipedia editors. Bon courage (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Claims about health benefits

We have a multi-sourced section on clinical research under the subhead By condition where peer-assessed reviews, including Cochrane reports, are used, with the section leading to the conclusion that there are no health effects of drinking tea (other than a possible caffeine effect). By MOS:LEAD, we should state such absence of effect in the lead.

At best it is reported as "Possibly Effective" for some conditions on the Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database scale.(ref: Medline). Temporary note (28Jul24) while this is under discussion, delete later: the Medline Black Tea source cited says "[Black tea] is also used for headache, both low and high blood pressure, preventing Parkinson disease, depression, dementia, stroke, and many other conditions, but there is no good scientific evidence to support many of these uses. ... Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database rates effectiveness based on scientific evidence according to the following scale: Effective, Likely Effective, Possibly Effective, Possibly Ineffective, Likely Ineffective, Ineffective, and Insufficient Evidence to Rate", and lists a number of conditions it is Possibly Effective for.

The highlighted section above was written by Pol098. Although MedlinePlus comes from a reliable source (NLM/NIH), it is not sufficient by itself to emphasize in the lead. Zefr (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm coming at this with no opinion (I came to the article for information, a user of Wikipedia, not an expert). I found in the introduction that a source was being cited inaccurately, and edited the text to reflect the source more accurately - this is what Wikipedia does, it uses sources, not people's information or knowledge. I have noted that there are quite a lot of articles coming up in Medscape reporting possible benefits from tea and coffee. It would seem appropriate for the lead to acknowledge that there is some evidence from sane sources suggesting health effects, very much a work in progress - it is quite wrong to cite a source such as the Medline Black Tea article, then misquote what it says to support a viewpoint. Disclosure: my take on this so far? From multiple Medscape emails, and what I have looked up, I try to drink both coffee and tea; either moderately helpful, or just a harmless form of hydration.

"Although MedlinePlus comes from a reliable source (NLM/NIH), it is not sufficient by itself to emphasize in the lead." It's arguably sufficient to mention in the lead, emphasise is a bit loaded.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Trying wording "evidence [for benefit] has been classified at best as "Possibly Effective"; there is no good scientific evidence of it being "Likely Effective" to support any therapeutic uses.[1]" This summarises source more accurately. Opinions? Pol098 (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Use the stronger peer-reviewed sources in the 'By conditions' section to make a conclusion, which collectively lead to: "there is no good scientific evidence to support any therapeutic uses."

Trying to explain the "possibly" or "likely" effects is futile because those terms imply clinical research to date is inconclusive - see WP:MEDASSESS. Wait for other editors to assess and comment on how the lead section should be stated, if different from this version. Zefr (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• In general the right approach is to get the body text right, and then see about what needs to appear in the lede. We don't want to bomb it. Bon courage (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The one undeniable health benefit of tea is that it's not unhealthy

It's not alcohol. It's not a sugar drink.

That's it. I'm dubious about most health claims. I drink tea because I like it and a good cup of tea is satisfying. If you're going to be addicted to something, better that than booze, tobacco or soft drinks and fruit juices.Vincent (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Ha! Very true! Ok, so this should be in just a comparative study on hydration -- what we're looking for is something perhaps like the substitution effect. A source that at least looks at what people drink and why, or if choice/availability of beverage gets them to hydrate more (and/or to choose healthy hydration). I'm having trouble finding any such study at the moment using Google Scholar (several surely exist -- it's an easier question than that being investigated in studies that I am turning up), but maybe someone else can help.

Depending on what can be pulled up, there are very limited things that can be said.

At the very least, there are plenty of top tier reviews using something like the BGS tier classification that state pretty clearly that sweetened and high-calorie drinks (including fruit juice) are really bad as primary hydration, that unsweetened drinks, milk, and water are considerably neutral by comparison, and they may also note that water, tea, and coffee are the number 1, 2, and 3 most-consumed beverages in the world, yet calories from sweetened beverages are some 20% of Western diets. All this could be set up in a high-quality wp:medrs article (as opposed to the mdpi article intro I just read), hopefully. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

As much as I like tea, unfortunately I don't think "not unhealthy" is a health benefit... NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Should this article be moved since the lede mostly denies that there are health benefits? NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm opting to make it more balanced instead. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)