![\"New](\"https:\/\/images.newscientist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/08151054\/SEI_224886547.jpg\")
<\/div>Cat or dog person?<\/h2>\n
Leah Michelle Baines and Jessica Lee Oliva at James Cook University in Australia say they have discovered that people who own dogs tend to be more resilient than those who own cats. They also report discovering that people who own cats tend to be more neurotic than those who own dogs.<\/p>\n
Writing in Anthrozo\u00f6s<\/a>, they say: \u201cIn contrast to our expectations, no other personality differences were found between pet owners\u2026Findings suggest that personality factors might explain why people who choose to own dogs fare better than people who choose not to own dogs during challenging times of social isolation, which may be unrelated to the animal itself.\u201d<\/p>\n Much of science depends on the question \u201chow can I measure this thing (whatever this thing is) accurately, precisely and reliably enough to gain insight about it\u201d. That question almost screams \u2013 maybe in ecstasy, maybe in agony, maybe in puzzlement \u2013 from a research paper that reader Nicolas Clairis brought to Feedback\u2019s attention.<\/p>\n \u201cDo sex toys make me satisfied? The use of sex toys in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, and the UK<\/a>\u201d was published by Gert Martin Hald, Silvia Pavan and Camilla S. \u00d8verup in The Journal of Sex Research<\/i>.<\/p>\n How, Feedback has stayed up nights wondering, could one measure that kind of satisfaction in someone other than oneself? Measure it in a way that would make one feel confident that the answer is accurate and true?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Apparently unafraid of the problem, Hald, Pavan and \u00d8verup went at it. They went at it more than a thousandfold. More than 10 times a thousandfold. They sought measurements of a sort from \u201c11,944 respondents from six European countries\u201d.<\/p>\n Feedback hesitates to go into detail here about how the team got and interpreted the 11,944 answers. If the temptation is too much for you to resist, go read the paper. Tell us whether you find its climactic conclusion to be satisfying.<\/p>\n Nothing gets kidneys pumping quite the way coffee does \u2014 and nothing gets the hearts and minds of kidney researchers pumping quite the way the kidneys\/coffee question does. Kidney International Reports<\/i> sometimes treats its readers to boluses of opinion and fact about this, from researchers who seem emotionally primed and pumped.<\/p>\n A two-part question drives this action: exactly how, and exactly how much, does coffee get kidneys pumping? A back-and-forth between two groups of US researchers began with the publication of \u201cCoffee consumption may mitigate the risk for acute kidney injury<\/a>\u201c. Its authors say that \u201chigher coffee intake was associated with a lower risk\u201d of kidney problems.<\/p>\n The team looked at data collected during a three-year span, in which 15,792 middle-aged people indicated how many cups of coffee they thought they had swallowed during the previous year \u2013 thus, 15,792 self-educated guesses. The study compares those guessed coffee-cup tallies with each person\u2019s record, in later life, of what it calls \u201cacute kidney injury events\u201d, or AKIs.<\/p>\n A second group responded by pumping out a letter called \u201cThe missing link between coffee consumption and AKI-water<\/a>\u201c. The drinks, or the failure to drink, can have overwhelming effects on the kidneys, the researchers suggest. They also suggest that the first group may not have fully considered that.<\/p>\n The first group disagreed, and pumped back a well-maybe-but-Killer response, citing a study about coffee and dehydration<\/a>. That British study\u2019s lead author: Sophie Killer.<\/p>\n Onward forth, and onward back, sloshes the discussion. More recently, a third group based in China, South Korea and the Czech Republic brought the flow of opinion again into its traditional middle-ground muddle. \u201cIn summary,\u201d says the team\u2019s report, \u201cseveral contradictory effects<\/a> of caffeine intake on kidney function have been reported\u201d.<\/p>\n Coffee-drinking can have almost any desired medical effect on a person, to some degree. In some cases, that degree is zero. In other cases, it\u2019s not.<\/p>\n Chen-Shiou Wu at China Medical University in Taiwan and colleagues ran experiments that led them to publish a study called \u201cCoffee as a dietary strategy to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection<\/a>\u201c.<\/p>\n Their first experiment asked if coffee could impede the SARS-CoV-2 virus from infecting human embryonic kidney cells nurtured in a lab. Then they drew and did experiments on blood from 64 coffee drinkers. The cell work and the drinker work, combined, led to some optimistic suggestions.<\/p>\n The team reports that the ideal timeline for coffee to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection is within 6 hours. \u201cTaken together,\u201d they say, \u201cdrinking 1\u20132 cups of coffee [or even] decaffeinated coffee daily can potently reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection including wild-type, Alpha, Delta, and Omicron variants.\u201d These likelihoods \u201ccan serve as a guideline for dietary health during coexistence with SARS-CoV-2\u201d.<\/p>\n At most, this could be the effective, simple treatment that everyone has been seeking. At least, coffee is as efficacious against covid-19 as it is against most other diseases.<\/p>\n Marc Abrahams created the Ig Nobel Prize ceremony and\u00a0co-founded\u00a0the magazine Annals of Improbable Research. Earlier, he worked on unusual ways to use computers. His website is\u00a0<\/em>improbable.com<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n Got a story for Feedback?<\/b><\/p>\n You can send stories to Feedback by email at feedback@newscientist.com<\/a>. Please include your home address. This week\u2019s and past Feedbacks can be seen on our website<\/a>.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\nSizing up satisfaction<\/h2>\n
Coffee controversy<\/h2>\n
Coffee to prevent covid-19<\/h2>\n