Or is it the Robusta? In an article in the British publication, The New Scientist it is stated that researchers found decaf drinkers more at risk than regular coffee drinkers. As I was reading I was wondering what kind of decaffeination process they were studying, but the difference was later attributed to higher fat content in the Robusta bean!http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8328"The decaffeination process extracts the compounds that give coffee flavour, so it is often made from a stronger flavoured bean, called Robusta. Caffeinated coffees are usually made from a bean called Arabica. "The chemical composition of the two beans is very different. Robusta contains a much higher content of fats, called diptenes, which stimulate fatty acid production in the body," Superko told New Scientist. "The coffee industry is selling more and more decaffeinated coffee because people think it's healthier, but if you have high cholesterol, it may not be." David Y drinking the high Octane stuff, in Atlanta |
--Apple-Mail-45--709853077 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset NDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed So we need to inform the authors of the study that only crappy commercial preground decaf produces the results they observe: that specialty decaf beans are 100% arabica and thus have no more diptenes = than caffeinated. We also need to inform New Scientist and MSNBC.com = (who reported the story on the web here in the US) that the story is inaccurate because the study was flawed: it did not test caf vs. decaf but rather arabica v. robusta. A study testing caffeinated commodity coffee vs. decaf specialty beans would probably have the inverse results; only one that tested caf against decaf arabicas would be accurate and reliable. On Nov 17, 2005, at 2:12 AM, David Yeager wrote: <Snip> <Snip> Sandy www.sandyandina.com --Apple-Mail-45--709853077 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset NDOWS-1252 So we need to inform the authors = of the study that only crappy commercial preground decaf produces the = results they observe: that specialty decaf beans are 100% arabica and = thus have no more diptenes than caffeinated. We also need to inform = New Scientist and MSNBC.com (who reported the story on the web here in = the US) that the story is inaccurate because the study was flawed: it = did not test caf vs. decaf but rather arabica v. robusta. A study = testing caffeinated commodity coffee vs. decaf specialty beans would = probably have the inverse results; only one that tested caf against = decaf arabicas would be accurate and reliable. On Nov 17, = 2005, at 2:12 AM, David Yeager wrote: |
At 03:29 AM 11/17/2005, you wrote: <Snip> Think we could get a class action suit against crappy coffee of all caffeination levels? Would you lead it? Or at least write our rallying song? And sing it at coffee houses around the Windy city?? ;^) |
--Apple-Mail-46--706791704 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset -ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Class action suit? Nah--I'm semi-retired and don't have the resources to pursue a class action. Besides, nobody ever accused me of having any class whatsoever. But a song? Hmmmm..... Anyway, I wrote a scathing note to "New Scientist" magazine suggesting that it is scientifically disingenuous to report on and thus grant legitimacy to studies that in effect compare apples not to oranges but to basketballs. (Sadly, it wasn't till just now that I thought to posit that analogy in those particular words. Dang!) On Nov 17, 2005, at 3:10 AM, David Yeager wrote: <Snip> Sandy www.sandyandina.com --Apple-Mail-46--706791704 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset O-8859-1 Class action suit? Nah--I'm = semi-retired and don't have the resources to pursue a class action. = Besides, nobody ever accused me of having any class whatsoever. |
At 04:20 AM 11/17/2005, you wrote: <Snip> I'm not totally against going after the messenger, but my fear is that this study maybe representative of the level of medical research going on these days. Scary. |
They did the research using the coffees that the majority of users would drink. That's reasonable, especially for the first pass. The fact that it may not be completely applicable to most members of this list is true, but we're not the general coffee drinking population. They did find a correlation, to decaf, and then took it further. The bad research out there never attempts to find the underlying causality. Here they did, they found that the difference was due to the difference in bean types rather than the decaf process. That's how the scientific process works. Posit, develop a test/gather data, verify/analyze, and then start over. Somewhere in the process you might jus= t learn something, though it may not be what you originally theorized. On 11/17/05, David Yeager wrote: <Snip> -- "I never learned from a man who agreed with me" -- Robert A. Heinlein |
Sandy and others, While everything you say is true, I think you may be missing one important point. Those of us that home roast specialty coffee are a tiny percentage of the coffee drinking population. Add the people that are knowledgeable and drink premium pre-roasted coffee and you still have a small percentage. 95% of the people don't know the difference between Robusta and Arabica and care even less. To them, coffee is something you get in a can in the grocery store. The part of the study that you printed, explained about the use of the two types of beans, so those of us who care, can make an educated decision about premium decaffeinated coffees. For the Maxwell-Folgers crowd, the bottom line is that what is sold as decaf does contain more harmful fat. To most people, the reason does not matter. Another Mike <Snip> |
--Apple-Mail-51--640479906 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset -ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Yes, but the M-F crowd is the one that picks up on the story and then tries to tell us--and their own crowd--that we're endangering our own health and encouraging them to endanger theirs. There needs to be a disclaimer that the study did NOT test drinkers of whole-bean coffee, caffeinated or decaffeinated, and that the data is thus inapplicable to them. And more and more folks I know who do not drink instant are buying and grinding whole-bean, albeit supermarket-shelf Starbucks in a whirly-blade grinder. Even my octogenarian mom in a S. FL retirement village and her friends drink whole-bean, as do most of my friends, even the budget-challenged ones up North. Remember the John Stossel story on ABC "20/20" last year "debunking the myth of gourmet coffee beans?" They did a blind tasting in NYC in which Starbucks barely beat out Foal Turds, which in turn beat Dean & DeLuca. Of course, they did not say how old the beans were, how long ago they were ground or even the method of brewing. And of course, they did not test beans from any independent shop or roastery--had they done so, all the other coffees would've been blown out of the water, which was the point: Stossel's hypothesis would have been shot to hell and so would the story. I suspect the authors of the study here may also have had an axe to grind, even one as innocent as proving caffeine innocuous, rather than having purely investigational motives. On Nov 17, 2005, at 10:24 AM, Mike Chester wrote: <Snip> Sandy www.sandyandina.com --Apple-Mail-51--640479906 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset O-8859-1 Yes, but the M-F crowd is the = one that picks up on the story and then tries to tell us--and their own = crowd--that we're endangering our own health and encouraging them to = endanger theirs. There needs to be a disclaimer that the study did = NOT test drinkers of whole-bean coffee, caffeinated or decaffeinated, = and that the data is thus inapplicable to them. And more and more = folks I know who do not drink instant are buying and grinding = whole-bean, albeit supermarket-shelf Starbucks in a whirly-blade = grinder. Even my octogenarian mom in a S. FL retirement village and her = friends drink whole-bean, as do most of my friends, even the = budget-challenged ones up North. |
<Snip> Well, I finally got around to reading this article in New Scientist and both it and the research, as described, seem fairly reasonable. It probably would have been more appropriate to title the article "Robusta Considered Harmful" but the point that the research suggests that it is robusta, and not decaf per se, that is linked to a health risk is made fairly prominently in the text of the article. The one major problem with the NS article as written is that robusta may be used in non-decaffeinated blends as well. Tom uses it in at least a couple of blends (CIEB & LA) and my understanding is that it is used in a number of non-decaffeinated "supermarket" blends. Therefore, just as drinking decaf doesn't necessarily mean drinking robusta, not drinking decaf doesn't necessarily mean avoiding it. Of course, we can't know without reading the original paper whether the researchers made the same error (of omission or ignorance?). Of course, there is also the question of whether the removal of caffeine (and possibly other compounds) in the decaffeination process somehow increases susceptibility to the effects of diptenes, which, based on the NS report, the study did not seem to address. If so, then it may actually be the decaf that is a problem. Perhaps, as they say, more work needs to be done. One other interesting thing about this research is that I first heard about a decaf-made-with-robusta and heart disease link about 15 years ago. One can't help wondering why researchers seem to be "reinventing the wheel" on this issue; although it may be the case that this particular result wasn't what they were "looking for" and that the finding was merely serendipitous. John Blumel |
--Apple-Mail-4--592958135 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset -ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed The various media outlets that have jumped all over the story and blasted the half-truth that "decaf is bad for the heart" (even the Journal of the American College of Cardiology!) need to be made aware that neither decaf Arabica nor caffeinated Robusta were tested and that decaf drinkers might be well advised to switch not to caffeinated coffee but to specialty whole-bean decaf, which is all- Arabica. On Nov 18, 2005, at 10:16 AM, John Blumel wrote: <Snip> Sandy www.sandyandina.com --Apple-Mail-4--592958135 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset O-8859-1 The various media outlets that = have jumped all over the story and blasted the half-truth that "decaf is = bad for the heart" (even the Journal of the American College of = Cardiology!) need to be made aware that neither decaf Arabica nor = caffeinated Robusta were tested and that decaf drinkers might be well = advised to switch not to caffeinated coffee but to specialty whole-bean = decaf, which is all-Arabica. On Nov 18, 2005, at = 10:16 AM, John Blumel wrote: |
This study has the problems that most of these do (or at least as reported do) and that is a sort of grand plan orientation. The basic assumption is that coffee falls into two definable camps. This is a totally false assumption. On the picky side the differences in the way coffee tastes is because of the different chemical composition of the beans. So to have any meaning at all you have to first address What beans, what roast, what brew. At least as described they had no controls in place so what you have is an interesting conversation piece that you can draw no real conclusions from. Now it is possible that the study was conducted in a more controlled way and was just generalized by the press but it didn't sound like it. This tendency of "studies" being mutated into "hard facts" used to be irritating but since politicians keep latching on to them and legislating based on them it has become a somewhat serious matter. A study to have any significance needs to look at a significant portion of the target population. They also need to be very specific in what they are looking at so that you are not basing conclusions on apples and oranges. And you have to take a fair amount of time. Most studies fail in at least one of those and a lot of the "big news" ones fail in all categories. SK On Nov 18, 2005, at 8:16 AM, John Blumel wrote: <Snip> |
They used controlled portions of canned preground Maxwell House regular and decaf. Thus the study is inapplicable to specialty coffee and whole-bean drinkers. On Nov 18, 2005, at 11:17 AM, Scott Koue wrote: <Snip> Sandy www.sandyandina.com |
On Nov 18, 2005, at 11:57 am, Sandy Andina wrote: <Snip> Well, media outlets do usually blow these health stories out of proportion and context. However, it does seem a bit irresponsible for JACC in particular to be jumping on a bandwagon based on this study alone. But, I also don't think that, based on the information in the NS article, one can justifiably promote all-arabica decaf as a way to avoid the problem identified. As I noted previously, the findings don't strongly support any definite conclusion but merely suggest avenues for further research. It could still turn out that the decaffeination process, or particular decaffeination processes, contribute to the effects noted in the study -- i.e., that the removal of caffeine and/or other compounds make one more susceptible to the effects of diptenes. John Blumel |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. I agree. That is part of what I was trying to say yesterday. The = problem is not so much that the study itself was flawed, but that the = reporting of the study was flawed. We have all seen this many times = where the media jumps on a small part of a study and reports it as the = primary result, often missing the point entirely. Another Mike |
On Nov 18, 2005, at 12:17 pm, Scott Koue wrote: <Snip> I don't think it's fair to say they had no controls in place. They were comparing no coffee to caffeinated coffee to decaffeinated coffee. The problem is that, since there are many uncontrolled and/or unknown variables within the controls, you can't draw any grand conclusions but have to restrict yourself to what the study actually supports. This isn't really any different than most studies where your results will suggest that you may need to look at some part of the phenomenon in more detail. But you have to start somewhere to be able to gradually zero in on what's really happening. John Blumel |
Ah see the article never mentions that. So it's a study about the health effects of Maxwell House coffee. So maybe the title should have been "Heart dangers from Maxwell House Decaf", Good till the last one drops. SK On Nov 18, 2005, at 9:21 AM, Sandy Andina wrote: <Snip> |
Now it is possible that <Snip> Another problem with applying this study to the general population is that the "problem" only applies to the relatively small part of the population that have elevated cholesterol that can be controlled by diet. The way that the media is reporting this implies that drinking decaf will give you heart disease. No where does it say this. A person with normal cholesterol levels could guzzle this swill continually with no ill effect. As Scott said, the big problem is when legislators armed with half truths or less put rules into law that affect all of us. Anyway, we are probably making too much of this story which has already been dropped from the news as they go on to their next "big story." Another Mike |
I think you are giving too much credit. If I do a "study" of the dangers of drinking water and pick a population that is drinking well water in close proximity to leaking underground gas tanks and then claim water is a health hazard, that is not a valid study or conclusion. I can't truthfully say "it's a controlled study" because I only looked at people who drank water, because the control didn't cover the most significant factor. There could have been significant chemical residue in the decaf, that could account for the differences. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the coffee was processed with MEK. Of course that may have no effect but since the method in which the coffee got into the cup (bean to brew) was not part of the "control" we really have no idea what either group was drinking, other than the label on the can. Sorry if I'm ranting but I spent a number of years in science and the "bad science" and poorly designed "studies" that get passed off as hard fact just really pisses me off. And it's a study that produced statistics. So in the long run even if it was a valid study with good controls and a big group for a long time you are still left with a statistical probability. So for instance the 50% increase, what's the range of error? what's the spread? Did some peoples go down and other go up? You can come to valid trends in the population as a whole but you can never come up with conclusions that apply to a specific person. Here in California we have sticker on just about everything saying that the product contains chemicals "known to the state of California to cause cancer". Sounds really scary, but it is almost all BS. In the first place there are very few things that are "known to cause cancer". There are a ton of things that have "risk factors for cancer". Even for the biggies like cigarets the risk factor is something like 11%. That translates to 11% of the people who would not otherwise get cancer will likely get cancer if they smoke. Now take out all those who will die from other things first. I don't want to minimize the issue, it is still a significant risk. However the studies are mostly based on American cigarets but make claims about Tobacco. American cigarets contain in the neighborhood of 599 chemical additives many of which are VERY toxic. So again the studies end up making conclusions about one thing (Tobacco) when it is very likely that the results are because of something else (additives). Something that shows this a bit is the discrepancy with results from European studies not so heavily based on American cigarets (most european countries don't allow additives in any tobacco products) and in studies that include pipe smokers (pipe smoker mortality rates vary between +.02% to -.05% - compared to non smokers,,,). The coffee study hints at what should be studied (the coffee) but doesn't go there. SK On Nov 18, 2005, at 9:43 AM, John Blumel wrote: <Snip> |
On Nov 18, 2005, at 1:53 pm, Scott Koue wrote: <Snip> Well, yes, and I'd actually be surprised if the actual paper claims much more than this. It seems as if they are hypothesizing that higher level of diptenes in robusta may be responsible for the differences they observed but I doubt very much that the paper claims they are. Obviously, it also isn't claiming that it's simply a function of decaffeination. I still think it's an interesting result and hypothesis. John Blumel |