AssafL wrote: These two different drinks (from both a chemical and physical property perspective) IMHO require a separate discussion.

That discussion has been had, tested & rejected. Hence why TDS is still the preferred measurement for espresso. If you have an alternative method that you can correlate to established datums & preference, then make it happen...back up your honest opinion with some robust, objective data. Suppose what you want but it doesn't help anyone, move anything along, or clarify anything.

One can certainly throw away what ever brewing device deemed not fit based on the lipid content and refractometer reading.

Paper filtered brew coffee contains about 7mg/150ml of lipid. For metal filter, about 50mg/150ml. The lipid content varies by the brewing method. Back then in 1993 there was no Clever dripper, and vigorous agitation of the coffee bed was not in vogue, therefore I suspect filtered coffee brewed HB style may have higher lipid content due to more contact time and agitation.

The article requires subscription for full access:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 159390076B

Similarly here on cafestol lipid in particular. The brewed coffee used Melitta paper filer:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf00056a039

chang00 wrote:One can certainly throw away what ever brewing device deemed not fit based on the lipid content and refractometer reading.

Paper filtered brew coffee contains about 7mg/150ml of lipid. For metal filter, about 50mg/150ml. The lipid content varies by the brewing method. Back then in 1993 there was no Clever dripper, and vigorous agitation of the coffee bed was not in vogue, therefore I suspect filtered coffee brewed HB style may have higher lipid content due to more contact time and agitation.

The article requires subscription for full access:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 159390076B

So what 47PPM and 333PPM respectively, or 0.0047% for paper filtration, or one sixth of the stated typical accuracy of the VST, 3% of the stated accuracy of the Atago. 276 times as much dissolved coffee solids to lipids at typical paper filtered brew strength. Go lipids!

Somehow the discussion usually goes from:

1. No it is not there.
2. It is there, but not important. To:
3. Finally, this product from this company is the best.

Go figure.

Not at all Henry...the figures you provided are insignificant for BOTH products under discussion, in fact compared to the Atago's stated (by that company) accuracy, they make about as much difference as a blade of grass on a football pitch (figurative exaggeration, but you get the drift).

Please provide proof there is no lipid in filtered coffee. There are numerous articles on this subject. The small amount of lipid apparently is biologically active enough to illict liver enzyme changes, not to mention the overall flavor.

What other data or experience are needed when there are published articles that can be verified?

MWJB wrote:Not at all Henry, the real basis of your activity in such threads is purely to create doubt & dissent based on your personal view, without basis in any data/experience, as you just tried to do with lipid content of paper filtered beverage coffee...the figures you provided are insignificant for BOTH products under discussion, in fact compared to the Atago's stated (by that company) accuracy, they make about as much difference as a blade of grass on a football pitch (figurative exaggeration, but you get the drift).

Careful Mark, you are getting personal.

Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself -- if lipid levels in brewed coffee are too low to be tasted, then they being within the error range of the Atago is not a drawback for that instrument; moreover, there would be no need to filter brews to get consistent readings with the VST.

Finally,

-- if you concede that different grinders (along with different roast levels and processing methods) lead to different preferences in extraction levels, then extraction measures become a quality control method for use after the best extraction for a particular set up has been established.
-- If the preferred TDS and extraction ranges for any particular setup are wide enough so that the error range of the Atago is smaller then preference range, its superior ease of use and freedom from operator error in actual quality control settings (i.e. a busy cafe) may make it a better choice.

You seem to be arguing yourself off a cliff here.

chang00 wrote:Please provide proof there is no lipid in filtered coffee. There are numerous articles on this subject. The small amount of lipid apparently is biologically active enough to illict liver enzyme changes, not to mention the overall flavor.

What other data or experience are needed when there are published articles that can be verified?

You just provided it Henry. You previously claimed that lipids were an important part of coffee flavour, trumping or calling into question the validity of coffee %TDS, the data you provided suggests that the lipid content of paper filtered coffee is typically considerably less (as a mass fraction) than the total dry residue of the water you are using to brew it & insignificant as regards TDS measurement with any hand held refractometer/hydrometer/conductive TDS meter.

Google "mg/l", Google "parts per million", Google "%TDS". I'm done with this thread. I don't see what else there is to be said, but you can have the last word on me...

another_jim wrote:Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself -- if lipid levels in brewed coffee are too low to be tasted, then they being within the error range of the Atago is not a drawback for that instrument; moreover, there would be no need to filter brews to get consistent readings with the VST.

You seem to be arguing yourself off a cliff here.

I don't doubt the low levels of lipids in filter brewed coffee do impact on the taste to some degree, you don't need to filter paper brews with either the VST or the Atago if the lipid content is as Henry's contribution describes (VST recommend syringe filtering paper drip only where very fine/espresso grounds are used). EY measurement is an objective measurement used as an indicator of flavour balance, it is not a tastemeter.

Where lipid content is high enough to skew readings, then this requires further filtration. The popularity of paper filtered coffee suggests that it still tastes recognisably like coffee & is still very much enjoyable despite the low lipid content.

chang00 wrote:Please provide proof there is no lipid in filtered coffee. There are numerous articles on this subject. The small amount of lipid apparently is biologically active enough to illict liver enzyme changes, not to mention the overall flavor.

What other data or experience are needed when there are published articles that can be verified?

I have no idea what you're getting at here. The presence of some lipid quantity has zero bearing on the dissolved solids. We can measure dissolved solids, and we do. You can come up with a way of quantifying lipids, and we'll use that too. There is very little lipid content in atmospheric pressure paper filter brew.