coffee bubbles

(Credit: andy0man on Shutterstock)

Swallowable Capsule Finds Regular Coffee Drinkers’ Small Intestines More Acidic

In A Nutshell

  • Regular coffee drinkers had more types of gut bacteria than rare drinkers in a study of 61 adults.
  • A swallowable capsule found more acidic small intestines in frequent drinkers.
  • Three bacterial groups were higher in frequent drinkers, but those differences faded after statistical correction.
  • Results show links, not cause, and only 13 people were rare drinkers.

People who drink coffee regularly may carry a wider range of gut bacteria than people who rarely touch the stuff, and their small intestines measured more acidic, according to a small Danish study of 61 healthy adults. A swallowable capsule that travels through the digestive tract supplied the second finding.

Scientists at the University of Copenhagen and partner institutions compared food diaries, urine tests, stool samples, and capsule readings from the same volunteers, so coffee habits could be matched against conditions measured inside the gut. Results appeared in the journal Gut Microbiology.

Coffee ranks among the most consumed drinks worldwide, and earlier research has tied it to lower risks of conditions such as type 2 diabetes. Its knack for sending some people straight to the bathroom is well known, too. Yet how a daily cup interacts with the digestive system is poorly understood, and this project takes a close-up look.

Frequent Coffee Drinkers Averaged About 12 Ounces Daily in Food Diaries

Participants, 43 women and 18 men averaging about 39 years old, took part in a nine-day observational study in 2021. Observational means nobody was assigned to drink or skip coffee. For eight days, each person logged everything eaten and drunk in an online diary. Those who had coffee on fewer than three of the days were labeled rare drinkers (13 people), and those who had it on four or more days were labeled frequent drinkers (48 people). Rare drinkers averaged under an ounce daily, while frequent drinkers averaged about 12 ounces, close to a standard mug.

To check whether the diaries were accurate, the team tested urine for caffeine and the chemicals the body makes while breaking it down. Higher reported coffee intake matched higher levels, which supported the diaries.

Fifty participants also swallowed a SmartPill, a wireless capsule about an inch long that records acidity, temperature, and pressure from gut muscle contractions on its way through, then exits naturally. Everyone gave daily stool and urine samples, and genetic sequencing of the stool identified which bacteria were present and in what amounts.

Coffee and Your Gut
A swallowable capsule tracked acidity inside 61 adults’ guts. Regular coffee drinkers had more acidic small intestines. (Image by StudyFinds)

Coffee and Gut Bacteria: More Types Detected, but Only Some Tests Back It Up

Frequent drinkers had more types of bacteria detected in their stool than rare drinkers, a measure called richness that works like a simple head count of the kinds present. A second diversity measure, which also weighs how evenly the bacteria are spread, showed no clear gap, and the full mix of bacteria was not significantly tied to coffee intake.

Three bacterial groups, Lawsonibacter, Slackia, and an unnamed member of the Eggerthellaceae family, appeared in larger amounts among frequent drinkers. Those differences did not hold up once the researchers adjusted for the many comparisons they ran, a safeguard against chance results. Other analyses fared better. Lawsonibacter levels tended to rise with coffee intake, matching earlier studies of other populations that connected it to coffee, and all three groups were more likely to be detectable in frequent drinkers.

Frequent Coffee Drinkers Showed More Acidic Small Intestines on Capsule Readings

Acidity was the capsule’s main result. Small intestine pH, the scale on which a lower number means more acid, tracked with coffee. People who drank more of it, and those with more caffeine and one of its breakdown chemicals in their urine, had lower readings. Frequent drinkers had measurably lower small intestine pH than rare drinkers. The capsule correlations were not corrected for chance results, and why coffee would shift acidity is unknown. Coffee has been tied to stomach acid release in other research, yet the capsule found no link between coffee and stomach pH.

Acidity and gut movement are thought to help decide which microbes do well in the digestive tract, so the authors float the idea that coffee affects bacteria indirectly by changing conditions in the gut. The study did not test it.

Muscle activity told a murkier story. Caffeine byproducts in urine were linked to more contractions in the colon, and caffeine itself to more contractions in the stomach, but frequent and rare drinkers did not differ significantly in either, and food moved through the colon at a similar pace in both groups.

A handful of limits cap how much can be read into the results. The study was not designed to examine coffee, only 13 people made up the rare-drinker group, and participants were not asked to record whether coffee was caffeinated, decaf, espresso, or drip, though preparation changes what ends up in the cup. Rare drinkers were also younger on average, about 33 versus 41 years. Tea and other caffeinated drinks may have blurred the urine measurements, and the authors say the study “remains exploratory.”

More kinds of gut bacteria and a more acidic small intestine give researchers reason to keep studying regular coffee drinkers‘ insides, but this small snapshot is an early clue, not a reason to rethink anyone’s morning cup. Larger studies that record coffee type and test short-term effects could show whether coffee is the cause or just travels with other habits of people who drink a lot of it.


Paper Notes

Limitations

Authors noted that the study was not originally intended to investigate the effects of coffee consumption. Only 13 participants fell in the rare-drinker group, compared with 48 frequent drinkers, and rare drinkers were younger on average (32.8 versus 40.9 years, a borderline difference). Participants were not instructed to report coffee type, including caffeinated versus decaffeinated, even though coffee’s bioactive compounds vary with bean origin, roasting, and brewing. Both coffee drinkers and non-drinkers may have consumed other caffeinated drinks, such as tea or energy drinks, which could affect the caffeine measurements. None of the group differences in bacterial abundance remained statistically significant after adjustment for multiple testing, and the gut physiology correlations, including those for small intestine pH, were explored without that adjustment. Capsule data came from 50 participants who swallowed the device after a standardized breakfast during the first study visit. The study examined habitual intake rather than the immediate effects of a single cup, so how quickly any gut changes occur is unknown. Authors recommended larger studies and a closer look at possible differences between men and women, since coffee habits and caffeine processing may vary by sex.

Funding and Disclosures

Support came from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, through the PRIMA project, and from the European Union under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie action program, as part of the NUTRIOME doctoral training network. According to the paper, funders played no role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing. Author Henrik M. Roager reported a consulting or advisory relationship with Nestlé. Author Martin F. Laursen is an editorial board member of Gut Microbiology but had no involvement in the peer review of this article, which another journal editor handled.

Publication Details

Titled “Habitual coffee consumption is linked to differences in gut microbiota and gut physiology,” the paper was written by Francesca Bucci, Marie-Luise Puhlmann, Paula Rodriguez-Garcia, Xu Yujing, Jan Stanstrup, Jeroen Raes, Giorgia La Barbera, Nicola Procházková, Lars O. Dragsted, Martin F. Laursen, and Henrik M. Roager, who is the corresponding author. Affiliations include the University of Copenhagen, the National University of Singapore, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, VIB Center for Microbiology, and the Technical University of Denmark. It was published in Gut Microbiology (Elsevier), volume 3, article 100018, and became available online on September 15, 2026, as part of the special issue “3rd Gut Microbiome Symposium.” The article is open access under a CC BY-NC-ND license. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gutmic.2026.100018. The PRIMA study that supplied the data is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT04804319.

About StudyFinds Analysis

Called "brilliant," "fantastic," and "spot on" by scientists and researchers, our acclaimed StudyFinds Analysis articles are created using an exclusive AI-based model with complete human oversight by the StudyFinds Editorial Team. For these articles, we use an unparalleled LLM process across multiple systems to analyze entire journal papers, extract data, and create accurate, accessible content. Our writing and editing team proofreads and polishes each and every article before publishing. With recent studies showing that artificial intelligence can interpret scientific research as well as (or even better) than field experts and specialists, StudyFinds was among the earliest to adopt and test this technology before approving its widespread use on our site. We stand by our practice and continuously update our processes to ensure the very highest level of accuracy. Read our AI Policy (link below) for more information.

Our Editorial Process

StudyFinds publishes digestible, agenda-free, transparent research summaries that are intended to inform the reader as well as stir civil, educated debate. We do not agree nor disagree with any of the studies we post, rather, we encourage our readers to debate the veracity of the findings themselves. All articles published on StudyFinds are vetted by our editors prior to publication and include links back to the source or corresponding journal article, if possible.

Our Editorial Team

Steve Fink

Editor-in-Chief

John Anderer

Associate Editor