Paper-Filtered Espresso and Cholesterol - Page 5

#41: Post by **Benjammer** » April 14th, 2012, 2:24 am

I'm not a fan of Mercola but I think he's got the right idea with allot of his health tips. I was just reading studies on how allot of things are backwards, coconut oil/saturated fat isn't bad for you as some people have been trained to believe, and most grains aren't really that good for you.
FDA is all about $$$ (although I'm sure mercola is too, at least one's trying to get rich and help people improve their health, rather than sell not so well tested pharmaceutical drugs).

On the coffee topic:
I've done some taste tests with filtered and unfiltered espresso (and cappuccino) now with 2 friends, and everyone seems to like the filtered better. I tried with two different coffees but both were darker roasts, which I think benefits the most from being filtered (I haven't tried a lighter roast yet).

Filtered espresso / cappuccinos tend to give a less bitter /ashy flavour, and brings out more of the beans fruity characteristics, it's almost like I'm making a cheap over roasted bean, into a nice specialty espresso

#42: Post by **the_trystero** » April 14th, 2012, 2:41 am

DJR wrote: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

One can be against big pharma and still be a quack. The only he has going for him is his stance against high-fructose corn syrup.

#43: Post by **Marshall** » April 14th, 2012, 10:53 am

Benjammer wrote: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 don't know why you are trying to revive an argument that died a natural death a year ago, but you should consider:

1. It's always a good idea to check the posting date before responding.
2. Ken left H-B many months ago.
3. Ken is a doctor with more than a passing interest in cholesterol.

#44: Post by **Benjammer** » April 14th, 2012, 2:37 pm

I believe the date is irrelevant.

That's unfortunate Ken left.

No offence to Ken, but personally, I don't trust most Doctors, I find most Dr's are too closely knit to the pharmaceutical industry, they're NOT trained to be open to independent thinking and they usually don't question what people in the medical industry are trained to believe as truth, when really it might only be a 'theory'.
They only believe in and trust the expensive tests drug companies fund themselves, to get the results they desire.
Cholesterol lowering drugs are proven to lower cholesterol levels in tests; yet, it doesn't decrease rates of death as one would imagine. To me, that's an example of the medical industry and what they believe in, as long as it looks good on paper, it's all good. No need to question whether it's the cholesterol that's actually causing disease / death since it's long been known as a 'truth'.

Ben

#45: Post by **drgary** » April 15th, 2012, 12:45 am

Benjammer,

Not a medical doctor here but a holistic psychologist who has worked with and known a number of physicians, including some who have been my patients.

It's my impression most physicians are trying to do their best to help their people with heart health issues, and I'm one of those people. To disrust most physicians and imply many are corrupt or oblivious to the cautioning implications of their research comes across as very one-sided. There are good efforts to further understand this complex area where individuals have different risk factors.

Solving difficult problems is hard by definition. Funding such research is expensive and this is the realm of pharmaceutical companies operating in the larger context of a capitalist, market economy. I wouldn't claim this is the best possible system or deny that some researchers are looking for lost keys under the street lamp. Human beings by nature are biased because the mind surmises where it does not know. But I have yet to personally meet a medical researcher or physician who isn't honorable and trying hard to help. Maybe I'm lucky but I've met many over the years including in my prior career as a technology writer.

Also I agree with what Marshall wrote. People can have arguments in these forums. Others including me already responded to Ken about the concerns you addressed. No need to poke at old wounds because we'd already moved on.