My understanding (mirrored by this article) is that the primary concern is the additives such as sugar and cream and caffeine. So if you drink it black and don’t go overboard with the amount it looks neutral to slightly positive. The comment about using a paper filter is new to me and slightly unwelcome news as a French press user though. Though a quick peek elsewhere (here) suggests that as long as you have healthy cholesterol levels to not be *too *worried about it.
Parkinson’s runs in my family so I actually try to drink at least 3-4 servings a day. Totally black and at least two are espresso pulls so the caffeine per serving is less. It seems like every other week there are conflicting studies. This week, coffee is good. 😀 And not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I tend to be a little bit skeptical about how most of the studies regarding dietary cholesterol are designed anyway. It is famously difficult to accurately track and control nutritional studies. I’m fortunate to have low cholesterol anyway, but if it’s a concern, the compounds thought to raise cholesterol are in the extracted oils so a paper filter takes most of them out. Only about 10% of my coffee is paper filtered, so if I stop posting here, you know what happened…
It seems like every other week there are conflicting studies.
Quite a bit of science reporting is straight up bad and tends to muddy the waters in the search of digestibility and clickability. When you can get your hands on the actual studies you’ll often find something like, “Large doses of caffeine in mice increased the incidence of seizures by 3.2%.” was turned into “Coffee gives you seizures!” then the next year an observational study on coffee consumption doesn’t find a statistically significant correlation between it and seizures and it gets turned into, “Coffee won’t give you seizures!” This is not to say that you don’t encounter dueling studies, invalidated studies, or reversals in scientific understanding but how stuff gets reported is just prone to cause whiplash.
My understanding (mirrored by this article) is that the primary concern is the additives such as sugar and cream and caffeine. So if you drink it black and don’t go overboard with the amount it looks neutral to slightly positive. The comment about using a paper filter is new to me and slightly unwelcome news as a French press user though. Though a quick peek elsewhere (here) suggests that as long as you have healthy cholesterol levels to not be *too *worried about it.
Parkinson’s runs in my family so I actually try to drink at least 3-4 servings a day. Totally black and at least two are espresso pulls so the caffeine per serving is less. It seems like every other week there are conflicting studies. This week, coffee is good. 😀 And not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I tend to be a little bit skeptical about how most of the studies regarding dietary cholesterol are designed anyway. It is famously difficult to accurately track and control nutritional studies. I’m fortunate to have low cholesterol anyway, but if it’s a concern, the compounds thought to raise cholesterol are in the extracted oils so a paper filter takes most of them out. Only about 10% of my coffee is paper filtered, so if I stop posting here, you know what happened…
Quite a bit of science reporting is straight up bad and tends to muddy the waters in the search of digestibility and clickability. When you can get your hands on the actual studies you’ll often find something like, “Large doses of caffeine in mice increased the incidence of seizures by 3.2%.” was turned into “Coffee gives you seizures!” then the next year an observational study on coffee consumption doesn’t find a statistically significant correlation between it and seizures and it gets turned into, “Coffee won’t give you seizures!” This is not to say that you don’t encounter dueling studies, invalidated studies, or reversals in scientific understanding but how stuff gets reported is just prone to cause whiplash.