I still dont get it. I am going to die some day anyway, I am not going to worry about a few points of cholesterol from drinking 4 espressos a day. That one pound ribeye steak and two cigars I had yesterday is much more detrimental than coffee. Interesting study but regardless of the outcome, I am not using paper filters in my espresso machine.

I thought the OP was trying to keep this to a filtered espresso, not health related thread, oh well just like our health, we don't always get what we want. Everybody makes their own decisions with their health so whether or not these decisions are important is really up to the individual. If the only negative effect on filtering is a slight taste loss, but the positive effect may be a slightly healthier beverage then it is an option for somebody with health issues. I am not going to start filtering, but I haven't noticed any health problems yet either. It's cheaper and healthier to change your lifestyle then it is to take some drugs and their negative side effects

The CDC and WHO have predicted uncountable deaths from H1N1.
Hasn't happened.

Millions of kids have been pumped full of ADHD drugs and now it's just a phase :
Hyper One Day, Calm the Next: Changes in ADHD. Oops

If no profit attached to the drugs, there'd be a lot less interest.

Not one of the drugs has zero side effects.

Over the years, several friends in perfect health have dropped dead for no apparent reason, starting back in 1968. We're all one chemical reaction away from a coma. Act accordingly.

The worry about the espresso affecting your health is probably more detrimental than the espresso.
Live. Love. Be happy.

Now the disclaimer... Don't listen to online "doctors", consult your local physician to make sure you are healthy enough for this activity.

Aaron wrote:Now the disclaimer... Don't listen to online "doctors", consult your local physician to make sure you are healthy enough for this activity.

My online consultations are worth every penny that they cost.

ken

cai42 wrote:Greetings,

I read that diet contributes 20% to cholesterol numbers and genetics contributes 80%. Next time pick healthier parents.

Cliff

BTW, where did you read that, Cliff? It seems to be a very strong and generalized claim.

drgary wrote:BTW, where did you read that, Cliff? It seems to be a very strong and generalized claim.

I think it is probably a "reasonable" estimate, depending on how you interpret it. If applied to the greater population, it would mean that, on average, 20% of the cardiovascular morbidity that one sees in the population, that can be attributed to elevated serum cholesterol, can be tied to what people have been eating in the recent past (and what that has done to their observed serum lipid numbers).

The weakness in such a statement is obvious on more than one count. There are going to be people who have almost no change in their serum cholesterol numbers in relationship to what they have been eating recently. There will be other people who have lots of reaction in their serum cholesterol in response to what they eat. Averaged, this could come to around 20%.

Missing also in such in a statement is the relationship of obesity and inactivity to serum cholesterol numbers and cardiovascular risk. Since we have a huge obesity problem in the developed world, and that is hugely and negatively correlated with cardiac health (and serum cholesterol) this becomes a second order effect of what one eats (e.g. too much in this case) and what one gets as a result. It is not related directly to what was consumed recently, rather it is spread over a much longer time span and not used in computing the relationship as being at 20% of "what you eat."

So, if you consider obesity in the mix, "what you eat" is responsible for much more than 20% of the morbidity, however if you look at it very narrowly, e.g. what you ate between a week ago and today, then the 20% is probably reasonable, when spread around to cover the whole population.

ken

Jeez Ken, I like your posts usually, but if someone wants to filter his/her espresso to remove the stuff which was shown to raise cholesterol in some studies, why not just let them, without trying to make it seem like what they're doing 'the wrong way' .

I tried a filtered cappuccino vs unfiltered today and the filtered one actually was nicer. It seemed like the fine over extracted bitter particles in the crema were filtered out it left a nicer aftertaste, less bitterness / ashiness. That could have been attributed to the type of coffee I was using but in my situation it helped, so I definitely will try it again.

I think cholesterol lowering drugs and most pharmaceutical drugs in general are unnecessary, and most doctors have been heavily influenced by the drug companies trying to push their products.
I've even read an article saying that cholesterol levels aren't actually proven to be a factor in poor cardiovascular health. They're just a suspect based on what they find in people that had heart attacks / strokes. It's like if a kid sees firemen every time they see a fire, they might think the firemen are the ones making the fires.
I think this was the article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercol...76817.html

It's an interesting article, but check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola

How is one to evaluate these claims? Mercola attacks big pharma and sells his own supplements. The FDA attacks him and supports big pharma.

For a layman it is incomprehensible. Every side seems to be both plausible and at the same time self-interested.

dan