HomeRoast Digest


Topic: So I am a drug addict... (29 msgs / 852 lines)
1) From: Sean Cary
http://news.ufl.edu/2006/10/10/decaf/
And I do it every day!  Good thing we don't get tested for caffeine.

2) From: Eddie Dove
Bad things happen when I allow too much blood in my caffeine stream.
Eddie
On 10/17/06, Sean Cary  wrote:
<Snip>

3) From: Barry Luterman
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
This stuff always reminds me of a line from "Guys and Dolls". the major =
of the mission is drinking a cup of coffee and he says, " This stuff is =
so good. I wonder how come it's not a sin?"

4) From: Aaron
Ok, after reading the article.  just another whiney assed alarmist 
scientist screaming to make a point to hopefully get more grant dollars 
to continue their worthless research....
in other words... mostly Bullshit.
You have to drink 5 to 10 cups of coffee to equal the caffeine in ONE 
cup of regular coffee... Oh please....
They go on to mention about people who are advised to 'cut'.... Ill add 
another word, hopefully it doesn't totally confuse the mental midgets 
who may be lurking... reduce.... their caffeine intake..
so....
If you drink ONE cup of decaf coffee, it might have 10 to20 percent of 
the caffeine of one cup of regular coffee... 
for those who were not educated in government schools.... it should be 
obvious. but for those who were....you can bring this out to as many 
cups as the person drinks... it's still, the same... 10 to 20 percent of 
the total caffeine intake....
Ok, so NOW we take starbucks, decaf espresso's... and measure the 
caffeine in them... the sample is just from ONE store... from a company 
that is basically in the marketing game... ie MASS quantities,  margin 
of error on specs is not very tight..
Low caffeine espresso... yeah right.. talk about oxymorons... just like 
millitary intellgence, political honesty, and other select phrases.... 
Let's not forget George Carlins Jumbo Shrimp.
why not some from many starbucks, and average them?... not that I am a 
starbucks fan but let's not slam them where it is not necessarily 
due...especially from a 'study' which as it seems,  has terrible quality 
control in it's variables... sadly this is the norm in many scientific 
topics today that hit the front page of any paper screaming...
If someone truly has a major caffeine problem, the doc is probably going 
to tell them, ELIMINATE it, not .. reduce it....and they will or at 
least should.... avoid it alltogether.
Then again, folks who are that messed up, tend to be a walking medicine 
cabinet anyways... and let's not even get into how much caffeine is in 
many medicines folks take.... it acts as a dispersant to get the real 
drug into the body faster.
Now to add some perverted 'credibility' to the story..lets throw in a 
good ole 'conspiracy theory'.. yep the government is right behind 
this... lets get everyone hooked on caffeine so we can control coffee 
prices (just like the government controls gas prices right) and get 
richer every second...  they put just enough in to hook people so they 
think they are safe but are turning into crack whores... oops my bad... 
that would be .. second crack whores...sorry St. Beanyface.....
Decaf has just enough to get people dependent on it...ok fine. whatever...
This reminds me of my brother who is a self proclaimed mormon...
He won't drink soda's or coffee because he is not allowed to have caffeine..
hey, ok, cool, I respect that..seriously,I do...
yet he will drink the hell out of nestle and hershey's cocoa....
Umm hey bro,, that cocoa has a lot of caffeine in it... cocoa HAS 
caffeine....
no it don't, you are wrong, quit maligning my religion
err. ok, whatever bro, have fun believing in your little causes...no 
matter how flawed they may be.
Moral of this story, don't believe a word of what you read or even hear 
anywhere anymore... sadly most every 'scientific' report, has some bias 
or spin behind it, generally towards the beliefs of the one who gave 
them the money.... read the ENTIRE thing, read between the lines, and 
look around... take a good look at BOTH sides, and try to make an 
educated decision from that..
Don't even believe what I just wrote here... god gave you a brain, use 
it....
Aaron

5) From: Eddie Dove
Beautiful, absolutely beautiful.
On 10/17/06, Aaron  wrote:
<Snip>

6) From: Dave Ehrenkranz
Actually it is my understanding the more coffee is roasted the less 
caffeine present. So if expresso is made from French Roast beans I 
would expect expresso to have less caffeine than the lighter roasts.
dave
On Oct 17, 2006, at 7:15 PM, Aaron wrote:
<Snip>

7) From: miKe mcKoffee
True darker roasts have less caffeine than lighter roasts. But in =
actuality
quality espresso is very very seldom French roasted. Be it a quality =
café or
home. Yes there are "less than stellar" espresso café chains that =
roast
extremely dark but no quality cafes that I know of. OTH the same FC bean
espresso extracted will yield less caffeine gram for gram than other =
brewing
methods same bean same roast because caffeine extracts slower than the
essence that is coffee. Espresso is not a roast, it is an extract =
method.
Kona Konnaisseur miKe mcKoffee
URL to Rosto mods, FrankenFormer, some recipes etc:http://mdmint.home.comcast.net/coffee/Rosto_mod.htmUltimately the quest for Koffee Nirvana is a solitary path. To know I =
must
first not know. And in knowing know I know not. Each Personal =
enlightenment
found exploring the many divergent foot steps of Those who have gone =
before.
<Snip>

8) From: raymanowen
From the University of Florida comes word from their Department of Forensic
Medicine. Hold on a minute- their Forensic Sooth Sayers say things re: Crime
and Criminals. The only crime related to coffee of which I'm aware is the
Terrible Thing that Fast Coffee does to their beans.
The resulting Sloppy Joe of Coffeedom. I think they reduce the caffeine in
their coffee stew by introducing cream, sugars (...room?) and syrups into
their unpalatable bilge water.
But Md's saying Coffee is a Drug?
If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a
nail. What do Doctors know? What Big Pharma tells 'em.
Cheers -RayO, aka Opa!
-- 
"When the theme hits the bass, I dance the Jig!" - -Virgil Fox at the Mighty
Wichita (ex- NYC Paramount) WurliTzer- 1976

9) From: Aaron
But don't you use more grounds to make espresso than you'd do for a 
regular glass of coffee, or don't you extract them harder to get the 
full flavor out of them?  I am in no way an espresso expert but do 
remember packing the heck out of my steam toy to make espresso's.  With 
this, while the beans might be a bit less caffinated, or the method 
extracts less per bean... per se, since you are using more beans 
wouldn't that counter act the process and throw more caffeine down in 
the drink?
Just out of curiosity, how many grams of coffee do you use per cup of 
cappucino you make,  doesn't have to be exact, a ball park figure.
thanks
aaron

10) From: Alchemist John
In general, you actually use about the same amount.  Most people seem 
to use a double shot in 12 to 16 oz of cappuccino.  A double shot is 
16-18 g.  I use about 21 g of coffee per 16 oz of drip coffee, so I 
am using both less coffee and getting less caffeine per gram of 
coffee if I espresso extract.
At 04:07 10/18/2006, you wrote:
<Snip>
John Nanci
AlChemist at large
Zen Roasting , Blending & Espresso pulling by Gestalthttp://www.chocolatealchemy.com/

11) From: miKe mcKoffee
As usual I tend to agree with Alchemist "except" a double shot 12 to =
16oz
milked beverage would be a latte not cappuccino. A cappuccino is a =
beverage
of ratios: equal parts espresso, steamed milk and foamed milk usually =
served
in 5 to 6oz cups. Someone serving the judges a 12 to 16oz cappuccino =
this
weekend at the SCAA Northwest Regional Barista Competition would get a =
goose
egg score for that beverage! OTH their signature drink beverage could be =
a
milked to death beverage but would likely get scored low since the =
espresso
would probably not make itself known enough.
There are lots of variables with caffeine content and lots of =
information
and misinformation out there (undocumented conjecture). Here's one study
with some facts that tends to support espresso having less caffeine than
filter/drip AND ristretto having less caffeine than lungo:
(begin cut & paste)
Caffeine Study
Dear cyber reader, I have always known that a well made espresso =
ristretto
contained less caffeine than a drip coffee or espresso lungo (the long
pull), using the same amount of ground coffee to prepare each one. Well =
now,
thanks to Lauck's Testing Laboratory, we know exactly how much each
contains. *David Schomer
Sample #1: Espresso Ristretto (the short pull):
Brewing Parameters
Quantity: 18.5 grams of freshly ground coffee
Brewing Time: 27 seconds
Brewing Water Temperature: 203 degrees Fahrenheit (+\- 1.5 degree)
ĘPump Pressure: 8.2 atmospheres
Volume of Espresso: 1 3/4 oz. total volume
Caffeine Content: 230 mg
Sample #2: Espresso Lungo (the long pull):
Brewing Parameters
Quantity: 18.5 grams of freshly ground coffee
Brewing Time: 28 seconds
Brewing Water Temperature: 203 degrees Fahrenheit (+\- 1.5 degree)
Pump Pressure: 8.2 atmospheres
Volume of Espresso: 3 oz. total volume
Caffeine Content: 280 mg
Sample #3: Paper Filter/Cone Drip Coffee
Brewing Parameters
Quantity: 18.5 grams of freshly ground coffee
Brewing Time: 5 minutes
Brewing Water Temperature: Water brought just to a boil and poured =
Volume of
Espresso: 500ml (close to a pint)
Caffeine Content: 340 mg
Samples were tested at Laucks Testing Laboratory of Seattle.
Laucks Testing Laboratory
Mike Owens, Marketing Rep
940 South Harney Street
Seattle, WA 98108
Telephone: 1 206-767-5060
Email: 75117.3702
(end cut & paste)http://www.lucidcafe.com/cafeforum/cafstudy.htmlNote: I believe including the link is kosher since Schomer's lucidcafe =
is
are a separate educational site from his Café Vivace site which would =
be
considered a competitor to Tom.
Kona Konnaisseur miKe mcKoffee
URL to Rosto mods, FrankenFormer, some recipes etc:http://mdmint.home.comcast.net/coffee/Rosto_mod.htmUltimately the quest for Koffee Nirvana is a solitary path. To know I =
must
first not know. And in knowing know I know not. Each Personal =
enlightenment
found exploring the many divergent foot steps of Those who have gone =
before.
<Snip>

12) From: Justin Marquez
On 10/18/06, miKe mcKoffee  wrote:
<Snip>
 of
<Snip>
MiKe -
Not being an espresso maker myself, the difference (and results)
between the "short" and "long" pulls seems strange.  There is just a 1
second difference in time (about 4% longer time), yet almost double
the volume of  product made, even though the temp and pressure are the
same.  The caffeine content is almost 22% greater, so that fits well
with your earlier comment that caffeine extracts slower.
What is the difference in the two techniques?
Safe Journeys and Sweet Music
Justin Marquez (CYPRESS, TX)

13) From: miKe mcKoffee
<Snip>
Primary difference ristretto grind is finer than a "standard shot" which is
finer than a lungo. All else being equal
beans/roast/rest/humidity/fill/distribution/tamp/shot pressure/shot
temperature/biorhythm/position of the stars (to name a few variables;-)
fineness of grind determines shot flow. The greater volume of water pushed
through the puck with the lungo in the ~same time resulted in the higher
caffeine content compared to ristretto.
Kona Konnaisseur miKe mcKoffee
URL to Rosto mods, FrankenFormer, some recipes etc:http://mdmint.home.comcast.net/coffee/Rosto_mod.htmUltimately the quest for Koffee Nirvana is a solitary path. To know I must
first not know. And in knowing know I know not. Each Personal enlightenment
found exploring the many divergent foot steps of Those who have gone before.

14) From: Justin Marquez
On 10/18/06, miKe mcKoffee  wrote:
<Snip>
Hmmm... I would have thought that all other things equal, a finer
grind would extract better, but the higher water flow obviously trumps
a finer grind in extraction efficiency.
Espresso making is pretty much an "art" isn't it?
Safe Journeys and Sweet Music
Justin Marquez (CYPRESS, TX)

15) From: miKe mcKoffee
<Snip>
<Snip>
Wouldn't necessarily call it extraction efficiency or better or worse.
Different cups ristretto versus lungo. Though as far a caffeince extraction
efficiency yes it seems volume trumps finer grind.
 
<Snip>
Art & science, similar to roasting is art & science and espresso just as
complex and nuanced as roasting! The basics of either relatively simple. The
ultimate expression of either elusive and ever moving targets;-)
Kona Konnaisseur miKe mcKoffee
URL to Rosto mods, FrankenFormer, some recipes etc:http://mdmint.home.comcast.net/coffee/Rosto_mod.htmUltimately the quest for Koffee Nirvana is a solitary path. To know I must
first not know. And in knowing know I know not. Each Personal enlightenment
found exploring the many divergent foot steps of Those who have gone before.

16) From: Tom Ulmer
Employ an occasional element of adventure and we become sweetmarianauts?

17) From: Brett Mason
Alas - my survey to learn if it is an art or a science (big leap based
on the questions I asked, but technique feeds into this....)
Brett
On 10/18/06, miKe mcKoffee  wrote:
<Snip>
-- 
Cheers,
Bretthttp://homeroast.freeservers.com

18) From: miKe mcKoffee
Sorry Brett, I saw no way a simple answer a or b for any of the questions
would be adequate. IMO for the most part any true Artist in any field or
craft first masters the basic science of the field then grows to
Artistically express the science of the field, even challenging current
accepted science or norms, but only after understanding current accepted
science.
miKe
<Snip>

19) From: Leo Zick
nice post, thanks. :)
i agree with you personally, as well as, um, technically, re: beverage  
size. i see no reason why people need to drink 16oz capps.  enjoy a  
nice small drink, savor the moment, dont big gulp 7-11 it. :/
Quoting miKe mcKoffee :
<Snip>
e
<Snip>
ed
<Snip>
se
<Snip>
o
<Snip>
w,
<Snip>
of
<Snip>
t
<Snip>
e.
<Snip>

20) From: miKe mcKoffee
While I agree with your personal preference of a cappuccino not a latte
(when I happen to have one which isn't daily), just to be clear I wasn't
saying those who enjoy a 12 to 16oz latte should not do so. People can and
will drink they coffee anyway they like I don't care. If someone is at my
house and asks me for a Milky-Way or Almond Joy Latte by George I'll make
them the best dang Milky-Way or Almond Joy Latte they've ever tasted! There
is a good chance I'll make it with a higher ratio espresso to milk than they
may be accustomed to yet they'll love it based on feedback many times doing
just that. For instance only using 5 to 6oz milk before steaming and
stretching with a double shot for about a 10 to 12oz foo-foo latte. And
likely not as much flavored syrup and or chocolate as often used either,
striving for a harmonious balance. (Have a half dozen or so partial Torani
bottles that have been in the cupboard maybe a couple decades since early
steam toy days:-)
I was saying by definition a 12 to 16oz milk espresso beverage is not a
cappuccino but rather a latte.
Kona Konnaisseur miKe mcKoffee
URL to Rosto mods, FrankenFormer, some recipes etc:http://mdmint.home.comcast.net/coffee/Rosto_mod.htmUltimately the quest for Koffee Nirvana is a solitary path. To know I must
first not know. And in knowing know I know not. Each Personal enlightenment
found exploring the many divergent foot steps of Those who have gone before.
<Snip>

21) From: Leo Zick
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
it is a drug.  well, not coffee, but caffeine.  in the most liberal sense,
of course,b/c its addictive.  man i hate those headaches.  i wouldnt be
surprised if caffeine owes claim to many a stroke or heart attack (ie,
forensics)
 
ps, sorry for the late reply, im sure there are 800 more replies on this
subject.  
From: raymanowen [mailto:raymanowen] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 1:07 AM
To: homeroast
Subject: Re: +So I am a drug addict...
From the University of Florida comes word from their Department of Forensic
Medicine. Hold on a minute- their Forensic Sooth Sayers say things re: Crime
and Criminals. The only crime related to coffee of which I'm aware is the
Terrible Thing that Fast Coffee does to their beans. 
The resulting Sloppy Joe of Coffeedom. I think they reduce the caffeine in
their coffee stew by introducing cream, sugars (...room?) and syrups into
their unpalatable bilge water.
But Md's saying Coffee is a Drug? 
If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a
nail. What do Doctors know? What Big Pharma tells 'em.
Cheers -RayO, aka Opa!
-- 
"When the theme hits the bass, I dance the Jig!" - -Virgil Fox at the Mighty
Wichita (ex- NYC Paramount) WurliTzer- 1976 

22) From: Thomas Pfau
Leo Zick wrote:
<Snip>
Hey, don't go starting rumors, there.  Coffee already gets a bad enough
rap in some circles...
-- 
tom_p
pfau --http://nbpfaus.net/~pfau/

23) From: Leo Zick
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
i never argued the benefits or sides of coffee as a drink, simply that
caffeine is essentially a drug in thr strict definition of the term.  lets
just change the word coffee to soda, and everyone is happy. :)
 
coffee can have positive benefits, but i think that applies to it being
consumed in moderation, and thats something that should not be discussed on
this list.. lol  
From: Kevin St. Pierre [mailto:hokies1999] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:21 PM
To: homeroast
Subject: Re: +So I am a drug addict...
A few articles have been published lately stating the positive health
effects of coffee. The following is from Harvard Health Publication. The
cholesterol and fat from milk/cream and sugar put in Starblahs are more
detrimental to health than coffee.http://www.health.harvard.edu/press_releases/coffee_health_benefits.htmKevin
On Oct 18, 2006, at 4:00 PM, Thomas Pfau wrote:
Leo Zick wrote:
it is a drug. well, not coffee, but caffeine. in the most liberal
sense, of course,b/c its addictive. man i hate those headaches. i
wouldnt be surprised if caffeine owes claim to many a stroke or heart
attack (ie, forensics)
Hey, don't go starting rumors, there. Coffee already gets a bad enough
rap in some circles...
-- 
tom_p
pfau --http://nbpfaus.net/~pfau/

24) From: Eddie Dove
"IMO for the most part any true Artist in any field or craft first masters
the basic science of the field then grows to Artistically express the
science of the field, even challenging current accepted science or norms,
but only after understanding current accepted science."  As you state, that
is your OPINION and you are entitled to it.
While I agree that one can use both art and science in complimentary
fashion, I disagree with the assertion that mastery of basic science is
requiste for being a TRUE artist.  That is my OPINION and I am entitled to
it.  That's what makes things so great!  Just like J. Paul Getty asserts in
his book How to Be Rich, dissent is essential to success!
Respectfully,
Eddie
On 10/18/06, miKe mcKoffee  wrote:
<Snip>

25) From: miKe mcKoffee
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Replace the my use of the  word "science" with "concepts" and see how it
stands. Granted there are instances of natural intuitive genius in many
fields where masterpieces are composed or painted with no basic training at
all, yet I believe them to be an exception not the rule which is why I said
"for the most part".
 
miKe  
From: homeroast-admin
[mailto:homeroast-admin] On Behalf Of Eddie Dove
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 4:38 PM
To: homeroast
Subject: Re: +So I am a drug addict...
"IMO for the most part any true Artist in any field or craft first masters
the basic science of the field then grows to Artistically express the
science of the field, even challenging current accepted science or norms,
but only after understanding current accepted science."  As you state, that
is your OPINION and you are entitled to it.  
While I agree that one can use both art and science in complimentary
fashion, I disagree with the assertion that mastery of basic science is
requiste for being a TRUE artist.  That is my OPINION and I am entitled to
it.  That's what makes things so great!  Just like J. Paul Getty asserts in
his book How to Be Rich, dissent is essential to success!
Respectfully,
Eddie

26) From: Tim Wat
miKe mcKoffee wrote:
<Snip>
Concur with Mike entirely.  In the world of music there are a few 
notable exceptions to the rule (the Vangelis and Errol Garners of the 
world), but generally speaking you wouldn't have Bach, Beethoven, Diz, 
Bird, Coltrane, Metheny (to name a few) without the foundation of the 
rules of technique and theory upon which to build (and, eventually, the 
development of the personal voice to break the aforementioned rules).
Vangelis proves an interesting example - without formal musical 
education, he can produce some interesting work within a narrow genre.  
But his art will never reach the staggering breath and depth of, say, 
Keith Jarrett, who was a prodigy grounded in classical before turning 
his attention to jazz.
Tim

27) From: Eddie Dove
Mike,
I believe that if I were invited to your home, so that YOU could make all of
the drinks (because they would be better than if I made them, I am sure), on
your Bric, you and I would be up all night debating finer points of all
sorts of things.  Concepts ... much better ... Conceptual artist ...
"science" was what bothered me and I did realize you stated "for the most
part" ... just wanted the recognition of the "naturals".
Science and art within one individual can be either a very powerful
combination (as Tim points out) or a very stifling one if the individial is
not prepared to receive the other.  I have seen, too many times, where
science was forced on an artist (or vice versa) when the individual, for
whatever myriad of reasons, wasn't prepared for such and it just paralyzed
them.
I love this list!
Respectfully,
Eddie
On 10/18/06, miKe mcKoffee  wrote:
<Snip>

28) From: Kevin St. Pierre
--Apple-Mail-4-381126136
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset-ASCII;
	delsp=yes;
	format=flowed
A few articles have been published lately stating the positive health  
effects of coffee.  The following is from Harvard Health  
Publication.  The cholesterol and fat from milk/cream and sugar put  
in Starblahs are more detrimental to health than coffee.http://www.health.harvard.edu/press_releases/coffee_health_benefits.htmKevin
On Oct 18, 2006, at 4:00 PM, Thomas Pfau wrote:
<Snip>
--Apple-Mail-4-381126136
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charsetO-8859-1
A few articles =
have been published lately stating the positive health effects of =
coffee.  The following is from Harvard Health Publication.  The =
cholesterol and fat from milk/cream and sugar put in Starblahs are more =
detrimental to health than coffee.
Kevin



">http://www.health.harvard.edu/press_releases/coffee_health_benefits=.htm
Kevin



On Oct = 18, 2006, at 4:00 PM, Thomas Pfau wrote:
Leo Zick wrote: it is a drug. = well, not coffee, but caffeine.  in the most liberalsense, of course,b/c its addictive.  man i hate those = headaches.  iwouldnt be surprised if caffeine owes claim to many = a stroke or heartattack (ie, forensics) = Hey, don't go starting rumors, = there.  Coffee already = gets a bad enoughrap in some circles... -- pfau -- http://nbpfaus.net/~pfau/homeroast mailing listhttp://li=sts.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroastTo change your personal list settings (digest = options, vacations, unsvbscribes) go to http://=sweetmarias.com/maillistinfo.html#personalsettings = = --Apple-Mail-4-381126136--

29) From: Alchemist John
Many thanks for the clarification.  Not being a milked based espresso 
drinker, I seem to always confuse the two.  Very good description of 
art and science.  That really nails it down IMO.
At 12:28 10/18/2006, you wrote:
<Snip>
John Nanci
AlChemist at large
Zen Roasting , Blending & Espresso pulling by Gestalthttp://www.chocolatealchemy.com/


HomeRoast Digest