coffee.me wrote:Motivated by several high LDL results, reading that Cafestol is a possible LDL launcher in some people, and a deep-rooted need for tinkering, I gave this idea a go just to see how my espresso experience would change.

Snip:

So, this thread is about: 1. how to make decent paper-filtered espresso? and 2. whether it reduces Cafestol/Kahweol or not? While still wondering about the second question, I started with the answer for the first question.

Thanks again, Max, for starting a very interesting and potentially helpful thread. To get this thread back on track, getting an answer to your second question shouldn't be too hard. And it doesn't require debating over whether or not cafestol and kahweol are harmful to any particular individual.

Can anyone reading this suggest a good experimental design for inserting filter paper in the basket and pulling shots to try and reduce those two substances?

If this method does effectively remove those substances, then perhaps we could do blind taste-testing of espresso that is/isn't filtered in the basket. That would do more to objectively answer question number 1.

This would be very easy to do if you had measurement equipment that could analyze samples for what it is that you want to measure.

Since these substances are "fat soluble diterpenes," you could probably start by just measuring the total fat present in shots of espresso made with and without filter paper. Finding less fat in an espresso sample would be supportive of the idea that the filter paper absorbed some fat by its presence. You could also analyze the paper filter itself, to see whether there is a high level of fat in it, or more fat by weight than the simple percentage of fat present in an unadulterated espresso.

If the beverage that has passed through the filter paper has essentially the same amount or percentage of fat in it as an unfiltered espresso, then you could conclude that in all likelihood the filter did not absorb more fat than it absorbed of anything else.

If you found that the filtered beverage had significantly less fat in it by percentage than the unfiltered beverage has, then you could do more complicated and difficult testing specifically on the molecules in question. If there is no specific filtering of fat with the paper filter, then I would conclude that it probably is not worth the effort to proceed any further.

ken

Very helpful. Can you or anyone suggest a simple way of pre-testing this, similar to Richard Feynman's famous immersion of o-ring material in ice water when thinking about the Challenger disaster? In other words, might it be helpful to rinse a filter paper after use and pop it in the freezer to see if fat becomes congealed in it or something similar? Edit: Does anyone here know the temperature at which diterpenes solidify?

I'm not a chemist but I do think that trying to look for diterpenes is going to be very difficult and expensive, whereas simply looking for fat is fairly simple. I have no expertise in this, however I would guess that there are multichannel analyzers located in hospital labs or even some doctors' offices that could analyze a sample for "fat, not otherwise specified." There may also be some dip stick, or titration type tests using drops of a liquid that would enable one to come up with an estimate.

To whatever extent filter paper may preferentially absorb fat in filter coffee, the dynamic would be considerably altered when one considers that espresso is made at high pressure. In addition, the cross sectional area of a filter in relation to the amount of coffee used is almost certainly going to be less with espresso preparation than with filter coffee preparation, unless one wanted to use multiple layers of paper in the portafilter.

ken

I don't have access to lab equipment nor knowledge about how to test for this, but I think Max has a very interesting idea. He's even tried more than one layer of filter paper. If anyone reading this can suggest some ways to hone in on objective results, please chime in!

Does espresso elevate cholesterol levels? IMHO there is sufficient evidence for concern, but not enough for definitive health conclusions. Commonly quoted studies have used "boiled" coffee, French press that was brewed for 10 minutes, animal studies in mice... Nonetheless, it would be good to know whether paper filtering of espresso can be made to work. So I decided to try and replicate Max's experiment.

I cut paper filter disks from generic paper coffee filters (thinner than Aeropress filters). As noted, you can fold these over a couple of times, and cut 8 disks at once. After grinding two double doses of coffee beans, I dosed into two baskets. One had been prepped with a prewetted filter disk:

Prewetted paper disk in left basket.

I pulled the two doubles as follows:
Coffee: Vivace Dolce
Grinder: Robur
Espresso machine: Spaziale S1V1 (53mm double basket, bottomless PF)
Dose: 15g
Pour time: 25 seconds
Brew ratio: 65%

Normal basket prep (no paper filter):

Bubbly crema is typical of bottomless PF (and Dolce).

Paper filter in basket:

Crema is noticeably smoother.

In the cup:

Paper filtered espresso on left, unfiltered on right.

My preliminary results are similar to those posted by Max. It is indeed possible to get a good pour with the paper filter disk in place. Espresso flow characteristics are slightly different, but the paper does not appear to impede flow in any significant way. Tiger striping is diminished, and crema consistency is shifted towards finer bubbles.

Tastewise, I found the paper-filtered espresso to have muted flavors. The aromatics were reduced, and complexity decreased. I preferred the unfiltered shot, but the filtered espresso was quite decent - certainly far better than you would get in most espresso shops.

I have no idea how much cafestol is in espresso, nor how much gets filtered out by the paper disks. Standard methods for lipid measurement include GC/MS and HPLC, neither of which is available in my kitchen.

Anyway, I've been planning on trying this for some time. Thanks to Max for the reminder!

Finally someone else gives it a shot and shares the photos! Oh, and no one other than Mr. WDT himself.
Thanks John

John,

Thanks for joining us. I wouldn't mind trying this with a Robur myself!

RapidCoffee wrote:Does espresso elevate cholesterol levels? IMHO there is sufficient evidence for concern, but not enough for definitive health conclusions. Commonly quoted studies have used "boiled" coffee, French press that was brewed for 10 minutes, animal studies in mice...

snip

I have no idea how much cafestol is in espresso, nor how much gets filtered out by the paper disks. Standard methods for lipid measurement include GC/MS and HPLC, neither of which is available in my kitchen.

The study I cited above by Urgert, R. et al, 1995, did measure espresso and the results are summarized by Alan Adler in a document entitled Drinking Unfiltered Coffee Raises LDL Cholesterol and posted to CoffeeGeek here: https://www.coffeegeek.com/files/371/Cholesterol.doc Please forgive the loss of formatting of what was a table:

"This study listed the levels of these lipids in grams per cup of brew. A "cup" was defined as five ounces for the Scandinavian or French press brews or the average amount of a single espresso serving from a sample of ten different Italian espresso houses.

Brewing Method Cafestol Kahweol
Scandinavian boiled 3.0mg 3.9mg
French press 3.5mg 4.4mg
Italian espresso 1.5mg 1.8mg
Drip - Gold Filtered 2.5mg Not given
Drip - Paper filtered 0.1mg Not given

Note that French press coffee has even higher levels of cafestol and kahweol than Scandinavian boiled coffee.

A single Italian espresso has about half as much cafestol and kahweol as a cup of Scandinavian boiled coffee. Thus the common double espresso would have about the same levels as a cup of boiled coffee. The brew strength of espresso varies more widely than other coffee drinks. Most other studies found lower levels of these lipids than the figures listed above which were measured in espresso brewed by ten different Italian coffee houses."

In citing this research and favoring a method of measuring the quantity of diterpenes remaining after filtering at about 9 bars of pressure, I am not suggesting this would translate to risking elevated LDL in any given individual. Knowing this information could help those of us with concerns avoid a possible risk without putting ourselves through the time and expense of being tested after drinking filtered versus unfiltered espresso. For those who want to absolutely maximize the subtlety of the cup, Ken's suggestion of getting individually tested would be worthwhile. Even those who find the sacrifice less torturous can enjoy a "naked" shot now and then!

Aaron wrote:I thought the OP was trying to keep this to a filtered espresso, not health related thread

Thank you! Can a mod please move all the health discussions/opinions to a new thread?

Yes, I wanted this to be only about espresso because the coffee-health question doesn't have a good answer. No one answer is good, except maybe "it depends!"