Discussion about this post

User's avatar
TheLastBattleStation's avatar

It’s amazing how much smarter I am because of you, Stephen. If I had a nickel for every time a health professional said coffee contained polyphenols, I would have enough money to pay for your subscription. I may anyway , but I’m now wary because of what Substack is doing in Australia.

Back to the subject at hand, I think I mentioned in a comment to a previous post that I have been drinking coffees for 70 years, having gone through the “it’s good/it’s bad” cycle countless times. I’ve tried to quit and now reduced my intake to 8oz/day. I don’t know how much acrylamide is in that cup, but I suspect it’s far less than what I get from bacon, steak or other grilled meat that I consume and certainly far less that what I have consumed over a lifetime experience with Maillard reactions. So, I’m not concerned with the carcinogenic aspect, but I don’t know if after removing virtually everything else in my diet that is inflammatory, is coffee problematic?

Purity coffee claims to have reduced acrylamide content in their coffee to almost zero, through their roasting process. I may give it a try.

Anyway, I do appreciate this post. You’re about the only person I’ve come across who doesn’t cite surveys, studies, meta-analyses for justification for this or that, but use real science.

Thanks again.

Expand full comment
Health for All's avatar

Coffee contains kahweol and cafestol, diterpenes that can raise cholesterol by inhibiting bile acid synthesis. Using paper filters removes these, unlike French presses. My view: coffee is a complex chemical cocktail; while it feeds beneficial bacteria, its metabolic trade-offs depend entirely on your brewing method.

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts

Ready for more?