• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Coffee - do you and how do you consume it?

georgeT

Member
Joined
May 9, 2019
Messages
94
Likes
101
Location
Romania
Threre's more than BPA. They have a spectrometric analys of water pre and post boiling?.

I had the same worries before I bought my Aeropress but looks like it's safe "Polypropylene is a nonpolar, chemically inert material"
 

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,383
Likes
24,749
Location
Alfred, NY
I had the same worries before I bought my Aeropress but looks like it's safe "Polypropylene is a nonpolar, chemically inert material"

Except... BPA is a relatively wimpy endocrine mimic. The binding affinity to the estrogen receptor is rather low. Materials which have been used as a substitute are often worse endocrine disruptors than BPA, but don't have that recognizable three letter acronym. In the case of polypropylene, it's the antioxidants and process aids used which can be strong xenoestrogens. So changing out plastic types will generally not change the exposure, it will merely change the specific estrogen mimic. Sorry to break the bad news.:cool:

Here's a chart of estrogenic activity in some plastic beverage products, baby bottles and water bottles (polycarbonate being the principal plastic that uses BPA).

1605357453642.png


The good news is that unless you're a baby or small child or a pregnant woman, there's no good evidence that the effects of estrogen mimics are particularly significant.

Back to coffee.
 

Helicopter

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
2,693
Likes
3,941
Location
Michigan
Except... BPA is a relatively wimpy endocrine mimic. The binding affinity to the estrogen receptor is rather low. Materials which have been used as a substitute are often worse endocrine disruptors than BPA, but don't have that recognizable three letter acronym. In the case of polypropylene, it's the antioxidants and process aids used which can be strong xenoestrogens. So changing out plastic types will generally not change the exposure, it will merely change the specific estrogen mimic. Sorry to break the bad news.:cool:

Here's a chart of estrogenic activity in some plastic beverage products, baby bottles and water bottles (polycarbonate being the principal plastic that uses BPA).

View attachment 93485

The good news is that unless you're a baby or small child or a pregnant woman, there's no good evidence that the effects of estrogen mimics are particularly significant.

Back to coffee.
I am more concerned about paper filters removing good stuff from the coffee, but my primitive DIY cold brew setup is all glass and steel unless I grind in my plastic blender jar.
 

wasnotwasnotwas

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2020
Messages
329
Likes
372
Nespresso for espresso /cappuccino (usually the arpeggio purple cap). Did have "proper" espresso machine and grinder but too faffy and inconsistent and time consuming for daily use (needs 5 to 10 mins before you can brew) so Nespresso ftw.

Aeropress using Pact coffee mail order ground (great in the UK) for everything after the Nespresso or if in the office.
 

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,499
Likes
5,417
Location
UK
I didn't know this. I'll have to look into it.
All paper filters remove some of the oils, which is personal preference for taste. The aeropress filters being very small, and the water forced through it when you push probably remove the least. You can get permanent metal disks, if you want to try that out.
 

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,499
Likes
5,417
Location
UK
Looks like there are two distinct schools, the expressos and the long coffees (is there a better name?), quite surprised. I am in the former but quite interested the Aeropress..
The general term for long coffee is brewed coffee, same usage of the word as with tea.
 

wasnotwasnotwas

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2020
Messages
329
Likes
372
All paper filters remove some of the oils, which is personal preference for taste. The aeropress filters being very small, and the water forced through it when you push probably remove the least. You can get permanent metal disks, if you want to try that out.

I find the metal discs work well and easier (and hopefully greener) than the paper filters.
 

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,499
Likes
5,417
Location
UK
this is even worse than an audio hobby.
It's very similar, lots of sighted subjective opinions, some blind testing, a million gadgets, not enough real science on preference, a surprising amount to learn. On the plus side lots of coffee gadgets are cheap, and do make a difference, plus coffee and music are a good combination.
 

Duckeenie

Active Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2018
Messages
103
Likes
112
I see a lot of fancy gadgets these days that make expensive lousy tasting coffee. My preferred tool is still a stove top espresso maker.
 

Cortes

Active Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2019
Messages
291
Likes
354
It's very similar, lots of sighted subjective opinions, some blind testing, a million gadgets, not enough real science on preference, a surprising amount to learn. On the plus side lots of coffee gadgets are cheap, and do make a difference, plus coffee and music are a good combination.

Cigars! is missing item here ;-)
 

Duckeenie

Active Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2018
Messages
103
Likes
112
Great thread.

I am what you would call an avid consumer of coffee. :cool:

I use a cheap generic Krupps coffee maker and fresh-ground beans of various types and brands. They don’t seem to make the exact model of coffee maker I use anymore but it’s the same design as the current Krupps coffee makers, just as stripped down in terms of features as you could possibly imagine. So I think it cost $25 or $30.

I drink 6 to 12 cups of fresh brewed coffee a day, black. I would be interested to know if anyone else drinks that much. :D

I used to pop into coffee shops for a kicker but coronavirus changed all that. :oops:

I drink around 6 cups a day but I stick to decaf, lest I need a trip to my nearest A&E dept.
 

Cortes

Active Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2019
Messages
291
Likes
354
It's very similar, lots of sighted subjective opinions, some blind testing, a million gadgets, not enough real science on preference, a surprising amount to learn. On the plus side lots of coffee gadgets are cheap, and do make a difference, plus coffee and music are a good combination.

Also, I guess this is common to all human activities lacking a mindset for scientific methodology. For instance, I take my kid to Suzuki classes of violin. I do that for a host of reasons, but not for the methodology. Suzuki method sounds all logic, all structured, all natural; I'm sure is pure garbage, there is nothing serious backing it.
 

A Surfer

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
1,125
Likes
1,230
Teflon (polytetrafluoroethylene) in its finished form is extremely stable (and non-toxic) at temperatures below about 250 °C, so it's perfectly safe in normal cooking. The manufacturing process may involve the use of perfluorooctanoic acid, which can be harmful to health, though its use has been phased out. If you already have teflon cookware, I wouldn't worry about continuing to use it.
Not so. The chemical compound that underpins Teflon is man-made and does not occur in nature. Now due to the release of it through industrial processes it is so ubiquitous that they find it in the blood of Polar Bears and in umbilical chord blood. The notion of stability ignores so many other routes of release. Research it, is scary. I once found a wonderful article about the workers exposures at a factory where Teflon was being made, it was very eye opening.

I know that they have recently come up with supposed safer alternatives, but safer according to who? Don't forget, much of the world uses hazard ratings in other words setting "safe" limits for toxin exposure which means limits written by industry deciding how much should be ok in our blood and organs. The EU has tended towards the precautionary principle where the onus is on companies to demonstrate that something is safe whereas in good old North America where only money matters, we don't ask companies to prove it is safe, our regulators work to set safe exposure limits which is so complex.

The real issues are bioaccumulation and interaction effects, those are not part of risk of hazard levels, they simply look at acute dosages and ignore chronic bioaccumulation. There was a wonderful graph that I found where a researcher used the time line starting with the chemical revolution in the 1950s and overlaid the change in cancer rates, the trend lines were almost a perfect match. Of course there would be confounding factors, but it was too close to be explained away so simply. Anyway, no, those crazy industrial anti-stick coatings are not benign and they do get into our bodies and the environment.
 
Last edited:

A Surfer

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
1,125
Likes
1,230
Except... BPA is a relatively wimpy endocrine mimic. The binding affinity to the estrogen receptor is rather low. Materials which have been used as a substitute are often worse endocrine disruptors than BPA, but don't have that recognizable three letter acronym. In the case of polypropylene, it's the antioxidants and process aids used which can be strong xenoestrogens. So changing out plastic types will generally not change the exposure, it will merely change the specific estrogen mimic. Sorry to break the bad news.:cool:

Here's a chart of estrogenic activity in some plastic beverage products, baby bottles and water bottles (polycarbonate being the principal plastic that uses BPA).

View attachment 93485

The good news is that unless you're a baby or small child or a pregnant woman, there's no good evidence that the effects of estrogen mimics are particularly significant.

Back to coffee.
Lots of babies, pregnant women and amphibians to be concerned about, but yes, back to coffee.
 

StevenEleven

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
581
Likes
1,188
Also, I guess this is common to all human activities lacking a mindset for scientific methodology. For instance, I take my kid to Suzuki classes of violin. I do that for a host of reasons, but not for the methodology. Suzuki method sounds all logic, all structured, all natural; I'm sure is pure garbage, there is nothing serious backing it.

After a brief look around the web it seems to me the Suzuki method got some things extremely right—treating music as a language and hitting it in the formative years for language, getting kids started early (can be crucial), progressing in non-intimidating increments, creating an immersive musical environment, accommodating younger minds and smaller bodies. :)

My son used some Suzuki books for the cello. It seems to me it is “a way“ to learn music. There are all sorts of tensions and trade-offs in exactly how one pursues learning music. For my kids my objective was always to make it fun and have in mind that it could be a lifelong pursuit, and it was for them rather than me, and they don’t have to be great at it. Two of the three are still playing and the third can sightread on the first go at a level that takes me at least two or three hours of practice (I am currently hell-bent on practicing sight-reading to catch up to him on this). The thing about learning how to play music is that it illustrates very tangibly the benefits of putting in the effort, which transfers over to so many other things in life, and it does alter how the mind processes information (fMRIs seem to confirm this).

But Suzuki theory seems to me to be a bit optimistic in terms of objectives of moral character, the beautiful life, improvement of society, etc.?

Back to my coffee and my daily piano practice (I’m not very good but will never give up until they put me in my grave). ;) The former must precede the latter.
 
Last edited:

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,700
Location
Hampshire
Also, I guess this is common to all human activities lacking a mindset for scientific methodology. For instance, I take my kid to Suzuki classes of violin. I do that for a host of reasons, but not for the methodology. Suzuki method sounds all logic, all structured, all natural; I'm sure is pure garbage, there is nothing serious backing it.
Playing the violin while riding a motorbike doesn't seem very safe.
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,700
Location
Hampshire
Not so. The chemical compound that underpins Teflon is man-made and does not occur in nature. Now due to the release of it through industrial processes it is so ubiquitous that they find it in the blood of Polar Bears and in umbilical chord blood. The notion of stability ignores so many other routes of release. Research it, is scary. I once found a wonderful article about the workers exposures at a factory where Teflon was being made, it was very eye opening.
That would be the perfluorooctanoic acid.
 

Count Arthur

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Messages
2,192
Likes
4,880
Not so. The chemical compound that underpins Teflon is man-made and does not occur in nature. Now due to the release of it through industrial processes it is so ubiquitous that they find it in the blood of Polar Bears and in umbilical chord blood. The notion of stability ignores so many other routes of release. Research it, is scary. I once found a wonderful article about the workers exposures at a factory where Teflon was being made, it was very eye opening.

I know that they have recently come up with supposed safer alternatives, but safer according to who? Don't forget, much of the world uses hazard ratings in other words setting "safe" limits for toxin exposure which means limits written by industry deciding how much should be ok in our blood and organs. The EU has tended towards the precautionary principle where the onus is on companies to demonstrate that something is safe whereas in good old North America where only money matters, we don't ask companies to prove it is safe, our regulators work to set safe exposure limits which is so complex.

The real issues are bioaccumulation and interaction effects, those are not part of risk of hazard levels, they simply look at acute dosages and ignore chronic bioaccumulation. There was a wonderful graph that I found where a researcher used the time line starting with the chemical revolution in the 1950s and overlaid the change in cancer rates, the trend lines were almost a perfect match. Of course there would be confounding factors, but it was too close to be explained away so simply. Anyway, no, those crazy industrial anti-stick coatings are not benign and they do get into our bodies and the environment.

Well worth a watch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film)

I now use a seasoned cast iron pan for cooking. :)

 
Top Bottom