I am also struggling with high LDL despite strict diet and read articles about the impact of Cafesol on LDL (somehow older articles). Therefore, I tried cutting paper filters similar to the video and it allows me to use much finer grind, resulting in real good coffee. I can not tell much of a difference and somehow the coffee even taste better now. I place a larger (#4) drip filter on a soft cloth and press the porterfilter (upsaide down) against it resulting in light marking on the paper filter then cut it out with cissors , two at the time resulting in 4 cutouts per filter.
I expect another blood test in three month or so and will share results.

I did an experiment at a friend's coffee lab, and we found that only one filter (Hario?) didn't add nasty chemical taste to the cup. We basically did A/B comparisons between hot water from the brew head and the same water source through various filters. The difference was immediately noticed by every participant.

That in mind, and other factors aside, I'd try running a flush through the filter before the actual shot. Any thoughts on this?

Eric,

Thanks for running the taste test. What other filter papers did you test, so I can know whether to rule out some that I already have?

BTW, I've heard nothing back from the lab about testing this and will follow up again.

It was last December, so my memory is shaky, but I think there were the Melitta unbleached, Hario bleached, some store brand, and Bunns from the big drip machine. I was surprised, but the bleached white Hario seemed very neutral, and the unbleached (anything else) gave off a distinct cardboard-y, chemical smell and taste. We didn't have any Hario unbleached to try, but I'd hope they would be at least as good as the bleached.

At work I use a Krups MokaBrew F468, which is my favorite drip brewer as long as I baby-sit it (it tends to blast water through too fast, so I pulse the switch). Anyway, the paper filters that come with it are AWFUL, so I run 3-4 cups of 200 degree water through before brewing. I don't know if 1 cup is enough or if half a pot is needed, but better safe than sorry. Everyone notices the improvement -- sweeter coffee, and an aroma that has a lot more fruit/melon, and a lot less mystery.

drgary wrote:Eric,

Thanks for running the taste test. What other filter papers did you test, so I can know whether to rule out some that I already have?
...

Gary, we ran a series of taste tests for pourovers -- Melitta whites won. Hario browns fell to the bottom. We were also using a lot of golds, KONE, etc.

http://www.greencoffeebuyingclub.com/in ... #msg169360

B|Java

Not sure if anyone has referenced this already, but I came across a link to a patent for a device that essentially uses paper filters in the PF similar to the previous post. Interestingly, the write up mentions that they used standard "Mr Coffee" filters and did tests using a single layer and another test with two layers. They used a Rancilio machine to brew the shots.


..."Copious quantities of lipids were found on the unfiltered coffee. On the other hand, approximately 80% less lipids were found on the coffee which was filtered by one layer of the paper filter 30, while approximately 95% of the lipids were removed from the coffee when two layers of the paper filter 30 were used. Negligible quantities of fine particulate coffee grounds were noted at the bottom of the cup when either one or two layers of filter paper were used compared to none. These observations are in agreement with other studies performed, such as those referred to above in the articles of Urgert, et aL and Van Desseldorp, et al."

Here is the link to the patent documentation.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/46178414/Fi ... nt-6016740

Nice find. [Correction: John Weiss points out below the data isn't sufficient in the patent claim. Back to square 2 anyway.]

cafeina wrote:Not sure if anyone has referenced this already, but I came across a link to a patent for a device that essentially uses paper filters in the PF similar to the previous post.
...
Here is the link to the patent documentation.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/46178414/Fi ... nt-6016740

Please note that the tests described in this Jan 2000 patent are hardly scientific. Mr. Hilbrich placed coffee samples in the refrigerator for several hours, and then "observed" the quantities of lipids that rose to the surface. His observations of "approximately" 80-95% removal of lipids should be taken with a large grain of salt, and clearly do not represent measurements of cafestol and kahweol (the diterpenes that elevate cholesterol). BTW, Hilbrich also claims his invention improves coffee flavor, by removing rancid and bitter oils from the beverage. Hmmm...

Thanks for posting this amusing link.

Thank you for clarifying, John. I obviously didn't take time to read the "scientific data" behind his patent. Incredible! So this concept of trying to filter espresso to remove the diterpenes is still untested.

To be fair, it's likely that his invention does filter out most diterpenes. Ditto for cutting your own paper filter. If it works for drip and aeropress, why shouldn't it work for espresso?

Be nice if someone actually measured it, though.