Dean Pomerleau Posted February 21 Report Share Posted February 21 9 hours ago, kpfleger said: Cronometer tells me that 30 calories of Navitas, Organic Cacao Powder would be 7.5g. Are you consuming that little? Yes, in my coffee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomBAvoider Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 Yes, Dean, I too consume the Navitas cacao in my coffee, by having it go through the same paper filter (I assume you are not putting the powder directly into your coffee cup, bypassing the filter?). However, as always, I am interested in dosing and timing protocols. Cocoa Polyphenols and Their Potential Benefits for Human Health doi: 10.1155/2012/906252 PMCID: PMC3488419 PMID: 23150750 And so, I wonder how effective this method is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Pomerleau Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 14 minutes ago, TomBAvoider said: (I assume you are not putting the powder directly into your coffee cup, bypassing the filter?) Yes, I do add the cocoa powder directly to my coffee. I used to brew it and pass it through a paper filter, but the fine powder clogs the paper filter on my Aeropress, making it really hard to get the liquid to pass through the filter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sibiriak Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 Cocoa powder directly to coffee--I need to try that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomBAvoider Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 3 hours ago, Dean Pomerleau said: Yes, I do add the cocoa powder directly to my coffee. I used to brew it and pass it through a paper filter, but the fine powder clogs the paper filter on my Aeropress, making it really hard to get the liquid to pass through the filter. Huh. Yes, the powder does tend to clog the filter, but I find that if you distribute the powder very evenly, it’ll pass through but will simply take longer - instead of being ready after the beep, it’s still slowly seeping, so I let it sit some 10 minutes or so longer. I have a Zajirushi coffee maker. Years ago I did experiment with cacao directly in coffee, but it had trouble dissolving properly. As a result it would often precipitate to the bottom of the cup and was hard to consume fully (lots of swirling as you drank). Ultimately, I gave up as I was worried about metals or other undesirable chemicals in the cacao. Of course, that was before I came across the seemingly reliable Navitas, and with this current news about the pollution problem having been solved perhaps it is time to revisit the methodology. On the one hand, I have always been uneasy whether the cacao polyphenols really do pass completely through the filter, but on the other I am uneasy about fully trusting either that the pollution problem has been truly solved or more importantly that it’s been solved permanently (I can imagine that with time nasties might make their way back as happens so frequently in the world of business). I suppose one would have to continue to trust Navitas. For now, I think I’ll continue with my current method, though it would be good to find some way to measure the amount of polyphenols that make it through the filter. After all it makes a kind of intuitive sense that you’re not getting 100%, and some portion remains in the unconsumed sludge. That incidentally, is part of the reasoning wrt consuming matcha tea vs regularly brewed tea. In the end, I suppose one could be guided by the idea that to replicate the benefits as described by the various studies one should replicate the methods of consumption used by most of the papers: which means cacao powder dissolved directly in liquid and tea brewed rather than consumed as matcha. Endless fiddling, it will never stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Pomerleau Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 21 minutes ago, TomBAvoider said: After all it makes a kind of intuitive sense that you’re not getting 100% [of the polyphenols], and some portion remains in the unconsumed sludge. I'm sure that's true and there sometimes is sludge at the bottom. But then again, that might be a good thing if you're troubled by the possibility of heavy metals. If the cocoa powder stays at the bottom of the cup, its like an extra long brewing followed by filtering, without having to wait an extra 10 minutes for the liquid to filter through the paper. Just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mechanism Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 (edited) On 2/9/2024 at 5:35 PM, Dean Pomerleau said: Consumer Reports just did an update on their testing of chocolates for heavy metals including lead and cadmium. I get CR for free with my Kindle Unlimited subscription. It looks like the cadmium issue has been addressed by virtually all brands of cocoa powder and other chocolate products. Lead was still found in some of them. I was happy to see the cocoa powder I've been buying for years (Navitas Organics) is one they recommend. Stay away from Hersheys. Here is one page of their review (other chocolate products are on subsequent pages): There are more chocolate products on subsequent pages, but I figure cake mixes, hot chocolate and chocolate chips aren't very relevant for folks here. Better yet, if Cadmium is the major concern (for powder), Ghiradelli (2022 source, Consumer Labs, since AFAIK neither [consumer reports nor consumer labs] incriminated this brand as a higher cadmium source in relative terms vs. the competition. Edited February 27 by Mechanism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mccoy Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 On 2/23/2024 at 4:08 PM, Dean Pomerleau said: Yes, I do add the cocoa powder directly to my coffee. I used to brew it and pass it through a paper filter, but the fine powder clogs the paper filter on my Aeropress, making it really hard to get the liquid to pass through the filter. OT and I'm reading that now, but Dean, is there some specific health-related reason you are using the aeropress other than different filtration techniques? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Pomerleau Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 1 hour ago, mccoy said: OT and I'm reading that now, but Dean, is there some specific health-related reason you are using the aeropress other than different filtration techniques? No health reason. The Aeropress makes some of the best coffee in the world, in single cup size, in two minutes. It's cheap, easy, and trivial to clean up. I used to use one of those little Italian Moka pots. But they are a pain in the ass comparatively, and the coffee doesn't taste as good, at least to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mccoy Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 AH, OK, I understand your choice, I too needed a quick single cup method and opted for the Hario switch. Maybe I'm going to try the aeropress as well. The Italian Moka is terrible, maybe the most difficult method to brew coffee, I myself as an Italian grew up with mokas all around but wasn't able to make decent coffee with those, rules and optimal parameters were (and still are mostly) unknown, and the coffee will often taste burnt or too bitter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Pomerleau Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 Yeah - I often got burnt or bitter taste from the moka pot. That Hario switch looks cool, but it seems coffee geeks think the Aeropress is faster, more foolproof and makes better tasting coffee: You should try it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mccoy Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 Dean, I don't know if 'outperforming' is the right concept here, first of all we should define what is performance in coffee, but the reddit discussion did not include measurements like Ph of coffee to determine its sourness, refractometry to determine the content in solid particles (strength), caffeine content if that's an issue, and all the chemicals like diterpenes, chlorogenic acid and so on and so forth. James Hoffman, the renowned expert and coffee influencer, sometimes does those measurements, but I don't remember that he compared the two methods. Conceptually, the AP is an infusion+filter pressing method, the Hario switch is infusion + percolation, so we should expect something different (all other things being equal) but what exactly? This discussion has made me even more curious to try the Aeropress, but presently I'll just wait and become accustomed to this kind of coffee which is so far from the espresso usually drunk in Italy, very concentrated (probably too much). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mccoy Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 (edited) Dean, I don't know if you already saw this, at about 3:50, James Hofman explains the probable causes if the result is not a great cup of coffee; grinding size, and water temperature are parameters which can alter substantially the final taste, in the AP (as well as in other methods). Edited March 15 by mccoy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Pomerleau Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 It's pretty crazy how precise some of the coffee geeks are with their Aeropress formula. I actually brew upside down and flip it over to plunge. I really like how strong you can make the coffee with relatively little ground beans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mccoy Posted March 16 Report Share Posted March 16 Your technique is called something like inverted Aeropress and it is a recognized one, I'm becoming a little of a geek myself, but I surely don't reach the levels seen in some videos. Also, getting back IT, I usually drink cacao after coffee, and I pose no limits to its consumption, after having ascertained that urinary cadmium is not at all elevated. My average is about 30 grams per day of undutched, lowfat cacao powder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpfleger Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 I worry about heated water & the plastic of the aeropress & I'm clearly not the only one judging by the number of threads about it. With the new quantification of microplastics found in BPA-free water containers I think the worry is justified until proven otherwise by specifically quantifying the amount of microplastic in a cup brewed in it vs all-metal/glass/porcelain options. I got my wife pour-over equipment that is all porcelain & metal. I myself favor cold brewed coffee which is then heated to taste. I absolutely love to drink mine in an Ember mug at the perfect temperature each sip. If you think the aerpress is quick, my regular 2.7-3oz mini-cup of cold-brewed coffee is ready at 130F in about 45sec (fridge to lips) each morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mccoy Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 (edited) kpfleger, I get it that the new Aeropress has improved mechanical (and possibly thermal ) resilience, and BPAs are considered to be absent or negligible. This since 2014. I don't know if you have read different, less optimistic reports on the material. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7615643#:~:text=Even though the FDA and,Absolutely none was detected. Given the execution of the Aeropress (pressing it manually above a cup or other container) I would have strong safety concerns if it were glass of ceramic. It slips, it breaks in many shards. I eventually ruled it out mainly because of such safety concerns (slipping tool, unstable underlying cup, hot liquid spilling around). Last, thanks for the cold-brewed suggestion, I think I'm going to experiment it, especially so now that temperatures are on the rise. Edited March 22 by mccoy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomBAvoider Posted March 23 Report Share Posted March 23 BPA? Why just that? The concern is with ALL plastics and compounds derived from them. Given the microplastics issues, I personally try to avoid all plastics in contact with my food. Mind you, plastics are impossible to avoid 100%, not just because they're in the food we eat (especially seafood), but because we breathe them in, and not just the volatiles they exude, but micro and nano-particles we breathe in. Anyone living anywhere else than possibly some remote jungle, is breathing in plastics. And we know that these settle in the body with deleterious results. Recently, there was a study out of Italy which showed that microplastics are incorporated into plaque and those with a lot of those plastics are 400%-500% more prone to fatal CV events. That's just the CVD effects. Not only do we absorb plastics, but they have documented negative health effects. So while plastics are impossible to avoid, it still makes sense to minimize exposure. Plastics in contact with food are an obvious target. I try not to eat or drink from plastic containers. However, not all alternatives are safe - glass and ceramics can be a source of heavy metal exposure, particularly lead; that wooden bowl/cutting board/spoon/spatula etc. - what was that wood treated with? And so on - plastics are not the only material of concern in contact with our food and beverages. Plastics are recent, but the problems are ancient - see the Romans and their lead lined vessels, or even prehistoric humans with meat burned over a fire - for that matter the smoke from cooking stoves, wood and also gas are a well known negative from ancient to modern humans. As a funny side note, I was suspicious of plastics all my life, based on nothing more than the fact that plastics often have a smell, sometimes a very strong, foul smell. I figured that something that exudes such strong smell, the volatile compounds cannot possibly be good for you in the context of historical exposure - we evolved alongside strong smelling food fruits vegetables and so on, but plastics are a very recent invention, especially as proliferated everywhere in recent decades. And there have never been long term exposure studies conducted. All that has always left me quite worried about plastics and other relatively (evolutionarily) recent substances that we put in contact with our food. So I've tended to avoid plastics in this context since I was a teenager. The recent concerns therefore do not seem to me to come as any great shock. I think many of us have had similar worries for a long time. YMMV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mccoy Posted March 24 Report Share Posted March 24 On 3/23/2024 at 3:12 PM, TomBAvoider said: Recently, there was a study out of Italy which showed that microplastics are incorporated into plaque and those with a lot of those plastics are 400%-500% more prone to fatal CV events. That's just the CVD effects. Not only do we absorb plastics, but they have documented negative health effects. The study has been cited by Dr. Gil Carvalho, according to him the results are apparently negative but there might be some confounding factors not examined. All in all, his conclusions are that there is not much study material yet to issue an unfavourable verdict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgorF Posted April 17 Report Share Posted April 17 Since I consume a negligible amount of cacao and chocolate last year (up to 15g/day) and this is less then previous years I expected to move my test data to the lower side but instead of it I now have borderline 0.2 ug/l instead of 0.13 almost 2 years ago. Maybe because I switched to cheaper noname sources due to my believe that it makes no sense to pay 2.5 prices for better ones. Or maybe the reason is in something different (I ate 1.5kg of unknown quality stuff like spices/curcuma/ginger/cynamon last months also). In any case, I was curious to find that japanese people (and probably other far east populations with rice as a staple food) do have very high cadmium (often ~40% of nephrotoxic values!) levels in the kidneys, here are a few pages on it (I hope google will allow them to be viewed): https://books.google.pl/books?id=sSoUDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=It+is+widely+known+that+an+outbreak+of+itai-itai+disease,+a+human+disease+caused+by+local+Cd+poisoning+fromintensive+mining+operations,+occurred+in+Japan+more+than+50+years+ago&source=bl&ots=adM4kCU5R-&sig=ACfU3U0STYIwmiAGLMW16Q0gr617544_RQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9g-virMmFAxXJHxAIHUmNClMQ6AF6BAgmEAM (or doi of the chapter 10.1016/B978-0-12-805378-2.00013-9 is also possible to be fetched via sh) Given the fact that japanese are among the leader top for longevity the fact could be peculiar I would say.. Br, Igor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.