Coffee and Long Youth: Women Who Drink Coffee in Middle Age Age ‘Healthier’

A study of nearly 50,000 women was published in Current Developments in Nutrition: those who regularly drank caffeinated coffee between the ages of 45 and 60 had a higher chance of “healthy” aging — living to 70+ without major chronic diseases and with preserved mental, psychological, and physical functions. The effect was modest but consistent: each additional cup was associated with a ≈2–5% higher probability of “healthy aging” (up to a certain limit). Tea, coffee, and other sources of caffeine did not show such a signal, and cola was associated with worse outcomes.

Background

• What the authors call “healthy ageing”. In the Nurses’ Health Study lines, this outcome is traditionally defined by a multi-domain composite: to live to at least 70 years and not have 11 major chronic diseases, and not have significant impairments in cognitive, mental and physical functions. This approach grew out of the classic Rowe & Kahn concept (low morbidity + high function + social inclusion) and is now widely used in NHS cohorts.
• Why study coffee (and not just caffeine). Coffee is not only a stimulant: it contains polyphenols (chlorogenic acids), diterpenes and other bioactives that affect inflammation, carbohydrate and lipid metabolism, vascular function and microbiota. Therefore, it is logical to test the “coffee matrix” rather than total caffeine. The press materials for the new work emphasize that coffee with caffeine was associated with “healthy aging”, while tea/decaf was not, and cola, on the contrary, was less likely to cause “healthy aging”.
• What the big reviews of coffee and “hard” outcomes have already shown. ABMJ umbrella review of dozens of meta-analyses of observational studies linked moderate consumption (≈3 cups/day) to a lower risk of all-cause and CV mortality and a lower risk of type 2 diabetes; a non-linear curve is often observed, with a “ceiling” of benefit at 2–4 cups. This creates a biologically plausible backdrop for the “healthy ageing” hypothesis.
• Why the “midlife” horizon matters. Dietary effects are stronger when exposures span decades; that’s why large cohort projects of women traditionally look at diets in their 40s–60s and then assess “healthy aging” in their 70s. This is the design used in the new study (nearly 50,000 women, ≈30 years of follow-up; reported at NUTRITION 2025 by the American Society of Nutrition).
• Methodological subtleties: how coffee is measured. In NHS cohorts, consumption is collected using validated food frequency questionnaires, with data regularly updated (allowing for changes in habits). However, this remains self-reporting, which means measurement errors and residual confounding are possible (coffee drinkers may have different lifestyles from non-drinkers). So the authors are cautious: these are associations, not causation.
• Safe doses of caffeine - context for practice. The European EFSA considers up to 400 mg of caffeine/day safe for healthy adults (for pregnant women - up to 200 mg/day). In terms of recalculation, this is approximately 2-4 regular cups per day, taking into account the variability in strength. This is consistent with the range where new data and reviews often see a ceiling of benefit.
• Why “tea/decaf didn’t work” while cola was in the red. The press releases for the study emphasize that the effect was not repeated for tea and decaf — an indirect argument for the role of the material and roasting/extraction methods of coffee beans. The association of cola with worse outcomes could reflect sugars/sweeteners and related habits — a known source of negative metabolic effects.
• Comparable results in the same NHS platform. Recent analyses of the same cohort have shown that the quality of carbohydrates and protein in midlife are differentially associated with the chances of “healthy ageing” – further evidence that long-term diet in the 40s and 60s “sets up” health in the 70s.

Coffee is one of the few common beverages that is consistently associated with better cardiometabolic and longevity outcomes in large data sets when consumed in moderation. Testing its association specifically with multidomain “healthy aging” in midlife women is a logical step that relies on both coffee’s bioactives and previous epidemiological signals. But this remains observational epidemiology: clinical guidelines still prioritize non-smoking, exercise, weight control, sleep, and diet quality, and coffee is a “tuning detail” in the 1–3 cups/day zone in people without contraindications.

What exactly did they do?

The researchers analyzed women from a large, longitudinal cohort (a “nursing” study format), tracking their diets for about 30 years. At baseline and thereafter, they assessed their overall coffee, tea, cola, and caffeine consumption. In later life, they counted who had achieved “healthy aging”: without 11 major chronic conditions (cancer, coronary heart disease, diabetes, etc.) and without significant decline in cognitive, mental, and physical function. They then compared the odds of “healthy aging” depending on caffeine levels and beverage types.

Results

• Caffeinated coffee in midlife ↔ more “healthy” 70s. Associations were modest but consistent across all domains (cognition, mental well-being, physical function). The “beneficial” range was about 1–3 cups per day (about 315 mg caffeine); above that, the effect ceiling.
• Not all caffeinated drinks are equal. Tea, decaf, and just “general caffeine” without any connection to coffee were not associated with benefits. Cola, on the contrary, was associated with a negative effect on the likelihood of “healthy aging.”
• The order of numbers. Media reports estimate a +13% chance of “healthy aging” for women in the top coffee consumption categories compared to the bottom ones — after adjusting for lifestyle and other factors. And for each cup — ≈2–5% increase in probability (up to 4–5 cups/day).

Why Coffee Can "Work"

Coffee is not just caffeine. It is a rich “cocktail” of polyphenols (including chlorogenic acids), diterpenes, and other bioactive compounds that affect inflammation, glucose and lipid metabolism, vascular function, and microbiota. The data suggest that it is the coffee matrix, not the caffeine itself, that explains the difference from tea/decaffeination. (The authors emphasize that this is an observational association, not proven causation.)

What does it mean "for life"

• If you already drink and tolerate coffee well, 1-3 cups a day (without going overboard with sugar/cream) is a normal part of a healthy lifestyle and may add to your chances of “healthy aging.”
• If you don’t drink, you don’t have to “train” yourself: the effect is moderate, and coffee has contraindications (insomnia, anxiety, GERD, pregnancy, some arrhythmias).
• Drinks aren’t everything. The “healthy aging” strategy still revolves around movement, diet (more whole plant foods, less ultra-processed foods), sleep, not smoking, and weight control. Coffee is just one cog in the puzzle.

Restrictions

This is an observational study: food questionnaires, although repeatedly validated, are not perfect; there is always a risk of residual confounding (those who drink coffee may be different in some other healthy way). Also, "coffee" is different ways of preparation; the results cannot be mechanically generalized to everyone (for example, in case of caffeine intolerance or pregnancy). Nevertheless, the signal is consistent across many analyses and reports.

Conclusion

Caffeinated coffee in midlife is modestly but consistently linked to healthier aging in women. It’s not magic, but careful epidemiology on a large scale: A cup or two in the morning can add up — along with the usual pillars of a long, active life.

Source: Mahdavi S. et al. Caffeine Intake and Healthy Aging in Women. Current Developments in Nutrition, 2025 (May issue; open access).