Coffee is one of the most widely consumed beverages globally, with over 60% of Americans drinking it daily. This review examines coffee’s multifaceted impact on health and well-being, drawing on decades of research. Overall, the consensus is that moderate coffee intake is more beneficial than harmful across a wide range of health outcomes. Numerous large-scale, prospective cohort studies from around the world have consistently shown that moderate coffee consumption—typically three to five cups per day—is associated with reduced overall mortality and lower risk of major diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, stroke, respiratory conditions, cognitive decline, and potentially several types of cancer, including liver and uterine cancers. Both caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee have shown benefits. The addition of sugar and cream to coffee may attenuate coffee’s positive health effects. Despite historical concerns, coffee consumption is not linked to increased risks of cancer, hypertension, or arrhythmia. However, some concerns remain. For pregnant women, coffee consumption should be limited to lower amounts, such that the daily intake of caffeine does not exceed 200 mg/day. Also, excessive caffeinated coffee intake may cause anxiety or sleep disturbances. Coffee’s health-promoting mechanisms include improved glucose balancing, increased physical activity, increased fat oxidation, improved lung function, and reduced inflammation. Beyond mortality and chronic diseases, coffee consumption affects many aspects of well-being: it supports hydration, boosts mental acuity, enhances physical performance, and may aid bowel recovery after surgery. While the field is well-studied via long-term observational cohorts, future research should focus on randomized controlled trials, Mendelian randomization studies, and granular analyses of coffee types and additives.

Background: Traditional scalp electroencephalography (EEG), though clinically validated, presents significant limitations, including lengthy setup, patient discomfort, and limited mobility. These factors hinder its utility for long-term ambulatory monitoring. In-ear EEG offers a promising alternative by leveraging the ear canal’s anatomical proximity to the temporal lobes and natural mechanical stability. To address this, we developed SeizEAR, a standardized, three-size in-ear EEG system using paste-based electrodes with cross-ear referencing. Methods: This pilot study evaluated SeizEAR devices featuring small, medium, and large earpieces with superior and inferior paste-based electrodes in each ear, configured in a cross-ear reference scheme. It included five healthy adults who underwent recording sessions of approximately three hours (2.4 to 3.3 h). Electrode impedance was monitored against the acquisition system’s threshold indicator, with simultaneous scalp EEG from T7/T8 electrodes serving as the reference. Participants rated comfort on a 0–5 Likert scale every 30 min. Results: In-ear recordings showed moderate, band-dependent correspondence with ipsilateral temporal scalp electrodes, strongest in the delta and alpha bands and weakest in beta, and correspondence was consistently higher against a geometrically matched T7–T8 bipolar derivation than against a single referenced electrode. In-ear alpha reactivity to eye closure was present but attenuated relative to scalp. Comfort ratings remained high over the final two hours of wear, with no reported adverse events. Conclusions: SeizEAR acquired in-ear EEG that corresponded moderately with temporal scalp EEG and was well-tolerated over multi-hour wear in healthy adults. These preliminary findings support further development of a standardized in-ear EEG system and require confirmation in an adequately powered sample.