Paper-Filtered Espresso and Cholesterol - Page 2

Want to talk espresso but not sure which forum? If so, this is the right one.
User avatar
yakster
Supporter ♡

#11: Post by yakster »

I did a brief web search on testing for Cafestol and Kahweol and found that the most common way seems to be chromatography. Interestingly, one site stated that Robusta contains mostly Cafestol and that you can test for adulterated Robusta by detecting Kahweol, but not vice versa. :lol:

However, the stains Sudan III and Oil Red O indicate fats, especially in alcohols. Not sure of their suitability in use in espresso or even if they can indicate amount of fat or just simple presence, but the Sudan III chemical didn't seem too outrageously expensive and might be worth further study.

It seems like if you dried the paper filters that you'd also be able to see or feel the presence of fats and oils and maybe be able to see an oily smear wiping the dried filter across something.
-Chris

LMWDP # 272

User avatar
drgary
Team HB

#12: Post by drgary »

Thanks, Ken. That's one way to go about following up on this for those who want to do it. It does bring to mind the difficulty of knowing what's exactly right for any individual. It's telling when you share your family history that may include being blessed with big, fluffy HDL particles that may clean out and more than counterbalance any harmful LDL and other detrimental substances. So you could lower your cholesterol readings and it may not matter.

Another approach would be to do similar testing as was done to show the efficacy of AeroPress filters in filtering out cafestol and kahweol. I believe there are studies (see the other thread on that) which show that in a general population filtering coffee reduces its negative impact on cholesterol and triglyceride by filtering out these two chemicals.

So does anyone know how the studies were done on AeroPress filters? If not, I'll take it on myself to write to Aerobie and find out how they did their testing and will report back to this thread.

Edit: Seeing Chris's post, it seems to me self-evident that the filter paper will take out some of these substances in espresso. The question is how much, so that any chemical test may need to test the espresso itself, not the paper used to block them. I'm thinking through this and don't mean it as an authoritative statement, so will again look into it. What has me leaning toward the chemical testing approach is that for a given individual, doing the tests Ken suggests, although definitive, would be arduous and expensive (although I'm tempted to do so, given my history).
Gary
LMWDP#308

What I WOULD do for a good cup of coffee!

ECM Manufacture: @ecmespresso #weliveespresso
Sponsored by ECM Manufacture
User avatar
drgary
Team HB

#13: Post by drgary »

I contacted Aerobie last night and got a helpful response this evening from Alan Adler, himself. He pointed me to his 2005 post on CoffeeGeek here, the same one cited by Yakster on the first page of this thread:
https://www.coffeegeek.com/forums/coffee/mac ... 130#268130

and says his company paid for the testing per that thread:

"I also sent two AeroPresses to The Department of Agrotechnology and Food Science, Wageningen University in the Netherlands. They conducted the same tests on the AeroPress brew which they had conducted on all of the other brewing methods in their prior study ...."

So if we're interested, we could follow up with that lab and could get actual measures of cafestol and kahweol that make it through one or two layers of filter paper. In the same post, Alan emphasized the quality of the bleached filtration paper he uses.
Gary
LMWDP#308

What I WOULD do for a good cup of coffee!

User avatar
coffee.me

#14: Post by coffee.me »

Thank you Gary for following up on this, getting an actual measurement done would be great. But I'm assuming there's a cost involved and I doubt we're as motivated as Alder to pay for it. But if there was a member with access to the test equipment... :D

On the other hand, I wonder if this method would improve some people's espresso? The paper filter enhanced the crema quality somewhat. This happened on my setup (Versalab, pressure-profiling rotary) which is quit good. I'm not suggesting everybody switches to this paper filter method, but do encourage the experiment as it's easy & almost free -- especially for people having issues with their espresso.
"Beans before machines" --coffee.me ;-)

Aaron

#15: Post by Aaron »

Do you know what type of methodology they used? Or a list of the equipment? I couldn't find too much information on Google about testing for these two compounds.
“The powers of a man's mind are proportionate to the quantity of coffee he drinks” - James McKintosh

User avatar
drgary
Team HB

#16: Post by drgary »

Max and Aaron,

I'm going to write to the lab and see what such a test would cost and/or whether they would do it as a no-cost study to add to some of their earlier research. Maybe it doesn't cost them much with equipment they already have and student time. If it is something expensive, I can find out the methodology and equipment needed and we can ask if anyone else here has access to the equipment. I doubt they would hold back on that.

Max, it looks like you may have stumbled on an alternative to the standard shower screen if your results are that good. OTOH you won't find a lot of fans here for a "crema enhancer" like you find on cheap espresso gear! :P Seriously, though, if you get better espresso, or it's at least as good, why not?
Gary
LMWDP#308

What I WOULD do for a good cup of coffee!

User avatar
coffee.me

#17: Post by coffee.me »

Great contributions, Gary!

RE: taste, I doubt this method would make better espresso for a person already having consistently good shots. So far, I'm just saying the espresso is good and the crema is denser. What I meant earlier is that if someone is having trouble preparing a decent basket, they could use this method "off topic" as a "pro" version of the crema enhancers found on cheap machines. I'm not promoting filtering as a way to get better espresso. If I had a choice, which I still do ;-) , I'd not filter my espresso.
"Beans before machines" --coffee.me ;-)

Flair Espresso: handcrafted espresso. cafe-quality shots, anytime, anywhere
Sponsored by Flair Espresso
cai42

#18: Post by cai42 »

Greetings,

A positive article on coffee and your heart.

http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/c ... 50753.html


Cliff

User avatar
drgary
Team HB

#19: Post by drgary »

I just wrote to a researcher at the university that did the diterpene filtering study that Alan Adler references. None of the previous authors is still there. See:

Levels of the Cholesterol-Elevating Diterpenes Cafestol and Kahweol in Various Coffee Brews Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry; 1995; 43(8) pp 2167 - 2172

by Rob Urgert, Guido van der Weg, Truus G. Kosmeijer-Schuil, Peter van de Bovenkamp, Robert Hovenier, and Martijn B. Katan - Department of Human Nutrition, Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

I'll keep you all posted on the response. And yes, there are apparent health benefits to drinking coffee. I'm not going to stop, because I can already filter out the bad stuff! But Max has a good thing started here. I'd rather fully drink the shots I can pull with crema and mouthfeel than filter out those goodies.
Gary
LMWDP#308

What I WOULD do for a good cup of coffee!

Ken Fox (original poster)

#20: Post by Ken Fox (original poster) »

Anyone inclined to do personal lipid level testing on themselves, as it relates to coffee or espresso consumption, should first have a look over their previous test results. In my own case, my lipid panels are so variable from test to test that it would be difficult for me to imagine that changes of enough magnitude would surface based on the presence or absence of espresso consumption.

Another thing to keep in mind is that blood lipid measurements are merely a risk factor that correlates to some extent with an undesirable outcome -- in this case heart attack and stroke, or the need for medical procedures to try to avoid them (e.g. angioplasty, CABG, etc.) As such, the lipid panel numbers could change but in reality a given person's risk might not be significantly effected. This is because measuring serum lipid levels is not a 100% valid predictor of adverse cardiovascular events.

I knew a physician (married to an acquaintance) who in his 50s had already had 3 heart attacks, was on all sorts of medications for his lipid levels (statins, niacin, and more), who had respectable looking lipid blood tests but still was at very high risk of subsequent "events." Your body unfortunately does not read the medical literature or the textbooks, so there is only so far that this sort of information can take you.

ken
What, me worry?

Alfred E. Neuman, 1955