Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A chemist explains the chemistry behind decaf coffee

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 180 posts

Re: A chemist explains the chemistry behind decaf coffee

#161

Post by DonaldPShimoda »

RamblingCTO wrote: post #63
tobias2014 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was interested and looked at the actual patent: https://patents.justia.com/patent/4348422 (there seem to be multiple patent documents, but this one adds some explanation), and he writes "I have now surprisingly discovered". https://tastydecafs.com/blogs/learn-about-decaf/co2-decaf further explains "The story of C02 decaffeination goes back to 1967. It was then when a chemist at Max Planck Institute named Kurt Zosel…

To add some clarification: decaffeination is as old as 1903 (also Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decaffeination )

But the parent comment is about CO2 decaffeination specifically, not decaffeination in general.

Re: A chemist explains the chemistry behind decaf coffee

#162

Post by basjacobs »

abcd_f wrote: post #159

It'd be interesting to compare these 3 methods side by side starting with same beans. I've tried, conservatively, a dozen and a half of different decafs available here in the EU, and some a markedly better than others. In fact, most are outright garbage with an exception of two that are virtually indistinguishable from each other even though they are from unrelated brands. So I wonder if the differences are due to th…

Can you share which you found the best?

Re: A chemist explains the chemistry behind decaf coffee

#163

Post by cryptonector »

Chris2048 wrote: post #149
cryptonector wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to greatly reduce my caffeine intake at one point, and I've kept it down since. I'm inclined to agree that it's a garbage drug, but in small amounts and strictly in the morning work -like you do- it seems to work for me. Rather than drink 5 cups of decaf I drink one cup of decaf made with 6 parts decaf beans to 1 part caf. Then maybe later in the day I might eat three tiny pieces of 100% chocolate mass, but lik…

> I might eat three tiny pieces of 100% chocolate mass Do you mean choco-nibs? love these, and they are great for adding crunch to things.

Chips, not nibs, but 100% cocoa mass.

Re: A chemist explains the chemistry behind decaf coffee

#164

Post by cryptonector »

Chris2048 wrote: post #147
cryptonector wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides that if the caffeine-free variants were to spread in the wild and cross-breed with regular coffee that would be disastrous.

Wouldn't the cross-bred wild coffee just fall prey to insects more often and diminish competitively?

Maybe. But with very high pesticide use nearby maybe not?

Re: A chemist explains the chemistry behind decaf coffee

#165

Post by abcd_f »

basjacobs wrote: post #162
abcd_f wrote: post #159

It'd be interesting to compare these 3 methods side by side starting with same beans. I've tried, conservatively, a dozen and a half of different decafs available here in the EU, and some a markedly better than others. In fact, most are outright garbage with an exception of two that are virtually indistinguishable from each other even though they are from unrelated brands. So I wonder if the differences are due to th…

Can you share which you found the best?

Lavazza and Kimbo.

Re: A chemist explains the chemistry behind decaf coffee

#166

Post by Teslazar »

hilbert42 wrote: post #125
Teslazar wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll add some more info to my post. Caffeine is a purine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine ). A Google Scholar search for "molybdenum purine" will come up with many studies discussing how molybdenum is involved in purine catabolism. For example, the following article states "[molybdenum] is considered essential because it is part of a complex called molybdenum cofactor that is required for the three mammalian…

I find discussion about caffeine sensitivity in humans rather fascinating given the very broad range of the amount required to induce an effect. If those above are to be believed (or not suffering a psychosomatic response) and are still affected by decaffeinated coffee then the dosage between different individuals for given psychotropic effects to occur could be as high as 100:1. As someone who can drink copious nubm…

There are stimulating compounds in coffee other than caffeine, so I've pondered that people who find decaf stimulating may be reacting to some of these other compounds.

Another consideration is that people seem to often report that coffee is more stimulating than caffeine pills, even if the amount of caffeine is similar.

Re: A chemist explains the chemistry behind decaf coffee

#167

Post by Teslazar »

pillefitz wrote: post #145
Teslazar wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll add some more info to my post. Caffeine is a purine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine ). A Google Scholar search for "molybdenum purine" will come up with many studies discussing how molybdenum is involved in purine catabolism. For example, the following article states "[molybdenum] is considered essential because it is part of a complex called molybdenum cofactor that is required for the three mammalian…

Did taking molybdenum improve metabolism of caffeine in your case? Did you have blood markers checked? For me, some values like GPT/GGT are in fact increased for unknown reasons. I recently and unsuccessfuly researched ways to participate in studies, as I'd like to understand why I can't eat chocolate or drink coffee anymore.. I'm slightly concerned other toxins wouldn't be metabolized as well either, leading to earl…

I took 1 mg of molybdenum daily for about 3 weeks and then tested out drinking coffee. By this point I had tried many other interventions that did not help. I wasn't expecting the molybdenum to help but figured it was worth a shot since it was about $6 for a bottle. After the fourth day of drinking coffee, it was clear that something had changed; the coffee was no longer the issue that it had been. I'm now able to enjoy a regular coffee in the morning without any negative issues. I didn't change my diet or supplements during this time or anything else I can think of that could possibly have contributed to this change.

When I was sensitive to coffee I felt just wrecked and exhausted by the coffee. I couldn't sleep well at night. Several days in a row of drinking one coffee in the morning and I'd get to the point where I would wake up feeling jittery the next day. Now, this is completely resolved.

My blood tests for commonly tested health markers such GPT and GGT have always been fine and tend to be tested about once a year. I had the coffee sensitivity for quite a few years until recently when I finally resolved it.

I do have some minor gut issues, so I'm guessing this is to blame for any nutritional deficiencies (I eat a healthy diet of "real" food).

Re: A chemist explains the chemistry behind decaf coffee

#168

Post by JamesSwift »

globular-toast wrote: post #154
cnity wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason is because whey protein has some huge advantages for modern consumers. It stores for long periods, can conveniently be added to smoothies, and has an incredibly high protein content. When people are for example weightlifting this is a massive boon for reaching macro targets.

People into bodybuilding have been using whey protein for decades. There's not that many extra people into bodybuilding now to account for the extra demand.

Theres definitely a much larger population who cares about 'macros' now vs just those specifically in the bodybuilding space. A very high percentage of people that workout regularly in any capacity supplement their protein. Whey protein is generally the most economical way of doing that.

Re: A chemist explains the chemistry behind decaf coffee

#169

Post by hilbert42 »

Teslazar wrote: post #166
hilbert42 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find discussion about caffeine sensitivity in humans rather fascinating given the very broad range of the amount required to induce an effect. If those above are to be believed (or not suffering a psychosomatic response) and are still affected by decaffeinated coffee then the dosage between different individuals for given psychotropic effects to occur could be as high as 100:1. As someone who can drink copious nubm…

There are stimulating compounds in coffee other than caffeine, so I've pondered that people who find decaf stimulating may be reacting to some of these other compounds. Another consideration is that people seem to often report that coffee is more stimulating than caffeine pills, even if the amount of caffeine is similar.

"There are stimulating compounds in coffee other than caffeine,…"

OK, that makes sense and I'm not surprised. I claim no expertise in coffee chemistry but I'd guess there'd likely be small amounts of other xanthines including xanthine, theophyline, theobromine [we ought to stop using that confusing name] and perhaps others. Are you referring to these or another class of drugs altogether?

You know, your mention that others report coffee more stimulating than caffeine pills got me thinking. As I said in my other comment, caffeine did little for me when I was studying, heaps of instant coffee made very little difference. I'd not mentioned it but I'd also tried OTC caffeine pills and they were pretty useless (and instant coffee was cheaper).

Now to an interesting connection you've just reminded me of. Some years after I'd finished studying (trying to stay awake with caffeine), we used to frequent a little French restaurant that served an unusual type of coffee that I enjoyed very much.

Being a frequent customer I asked the owner what type of coffee he was serving and he told me it was a special New Guinea blend that he'd specifically selected for the restaurant.

Now to the interesting part: as I said, many cups of caffeine-laden coffee have little effect on me but this coffee was something else altogether. Within a short time of consuming a cup or two I'd get a sudden urge to urinate, similarly my partner and the coffee had an even stronger effect on her than it did me. This wasn't an isolated case, it happened whenever we went to the restaurant, in fact we used to joke about it.

I need to add that I've always had a pretty good bladder, for example I've crossed the Pacific from Los Angeles to Sydney numbers of times without needing to use the restroom. So there was something rather unusual about that coffee. It's only a guess but I'd reckon it likely had much more than the usual trace of theophyline in it. Perhaps there were much higher levels other xanthines as well.

Hum, now I'm wondering whether these methylxanthines can act synergistically when in certain combinations/ratios. If it wasn't one or more of them in combination in that coffee then I wonder what other drug could have caused the strong diuretic effect.

Thanks for you point, it's made me think.

Re: A chemist explains the chemistry behind decaf coffee

#170

Post by hilbert42 »

RamblingCTO wrote: post #152
hilbert42 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. I don't drink decaffeinated coffee not because I don't get any effects but because of its tase, which I reckon is horrible. Caffeine is bitter (well slightly so) and I reckon removing it makes it unpalatable for me, it's likely why caffeine-free tastes bad. (I'd add I drink both coffee and tea without milk or sugar, that'd make the taste of the caffeine more noticeable I'd reckon). Incidentally, I was unaware…

It can have a bit of a taste yeah, but I found mine and I'm sticking with it. Have both with and sans and they are quite good (if anyone's from Germany and wanna try: Brazil mild decaf from Tchibo, actually really good)

"Have both with and sans…"

Not from Germany so it's not available where I am (or perhaps it's not common).

You say it can have a bit of a tase but was it notably different to the caffeinated one? Reason for asking, I've not compared the two types from the same company together to get an objective comparison.

Post reply on HN