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

The case for bad coffee (2015)

seriouseats.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 631 posts

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#581

Post by mrguyorama »

sizzle wrote: post #513
malaki01 wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Live in Portland. Can confirm there are places that lack a simple dark roast / house coffee option. Portland literally encourages a "keep it weird" ethos that imo just results in folks trying too hard, as in banana-rosemary-licorice blends ...

Portland is the first and only place in the world where I was able to order a “lemonade coffee” and it was super unique and the flavors worked well together. They really get my respect for creativity alone, I like trying new things and changing my perception of what coffee is!

My friend once asked the workers at ColdStone to mix some lasagna into an ice cream. It was disgusting.

Not directed at you, more at the zeitgeist of boutique places mixing seemingly absurd things: Putting random shit together doesn't make you "unique" or "special" or "creative", sometimes it just means you didn't put much thought into something.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#582

Post by mrguyorama »

stevage wrote: post #420
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd legitimately rather drink Starbucks than Stumptown for all of the reasons mentioned above. Starbucks is 'meh' but at least it doesn't have that sour, floral taste.

As a melburnian used to espresso, American Starbucks just tastes like milk to me. I try to order the smallest, strongest thing I can find and it's still just...milk.

I WISH Starbucks tasted like milk. Order just a normal iced or hot coffee from them, and put in as much cream or sugar as you want, it still tastes like you are licking the little hot plate under the carafe in a drip coffee maker.

At least it doesn't taste like battery acid though.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#583

Post by sakras »

dsr_ wrote: post #404
brunoqc wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Helped me lose a lot of weight too! How? I hope it's not like in Requiem for a Dream with the old lady.

It's a lot of caffeine. If you aren't reminded that you're supposed to be hungry, you may not feel hungry until it's almost time for dinner.

To elaborate, I usually end up mixing 3 cups of whole milk over the span of the day into it (usually done by 2pm), and then the combination of the fat and the caffeine keeps me full for a while after that, so I end up only having 450 calories until dinner, where even a large 1000 calorie dinner will keep me below my calorie goal.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#584

Post by mcronce »

bqmjjx0kac wrote: post #350
mcronce wrote: post #347

Honestly, as somebody who does pourovers that take like fifteen minutes between grinding the beans, heating the kettle, pouring, and finally drinking...sometimes I do yearn for just a Keurig-like fast-shitty-cup-of-coffee experience without all the plastic waste.

I'll meet you in the middle: French press! Actually, I like it just as much as pourover.

I was using a French press prior to switching to pourovers and while I don't care for it as much as I do a pourover, it is undeniably a very fast way to make a cup of coffee

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#585

Post by doublepg23 »

bee_rider wrote: post #478
doublepg23 wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find wine to have more of an elitist twinge vs whisk(e)y - bourbon especially. I don’t think a fifth of Wild Turkey 101 is particularly elitist.

All of the bourbons I've tried were too sweet, I didn't get into them. Although I guess it could be the case that, since I didn't like them at first, I never got to the good ones. So, I will be the likely ignorant gatekeeper and say, "yeah, I couldn't imagine being elitist about that weird syrup liquor."

That’s interesting. What kind of selection do you have? There’s a pretty big craze over the Buffalo Trace distillery lately. Their normal bottle - just called Buffalo Trace - is the most bourbon bourbon ever, and what I recommend as a benchmark (even if there are plenty of ‘better’ ones).

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#586

Post by lisper »

diffeomorphism wrote: post #499
lisper wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course there are differences. But, with a very few exceptions, none of those differences make one product objectively better than the others.

There are lots of "objectively better" cases, you just have to fix what you want to measure. If you dislike bitter, then some coffees will be "objectively less bitter". Or Kraft Mac and cheese vs pricy one: one uses "objectively better quality ingredients", one tastes "objectively closer to your childhood". Or dark roasted coffee that is basically burnt is "objectively worse" than non-burnt at being coffee, but might…

> If you dislike bitter

This is a disagreement over the meaning of "objectively better". To my way of thinking, "objectively better" is something that can be considered to be better without reference to anyone's personal preferences. Sugar is objectively better than arsenic. If you prefer arsenic to sugar there is really something wrong with you. Beyond that there are very few examples of things that are objectively better in the realm of things that humans consume.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#587

Post by eurasiantiger »

slothtrop wrote: post #562
eurasiantiger wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that is because the harsh taste is a proxy for how much psychoactive MAO-A-inhibiting beta-carbolines the brew contains. You like it because it gets you more high.

I like it because it tastes better. You don't get to decide why I like something.

We all prefer the concept of free will, but the science is consistent: we tend to grow neurons to like the taste of things that increase dopaminergic neurotransmission in the frontal cortex, even if our first taste experience of them is downright awful.

Many things affect that, though. Someone in a constant state of anxiety and stress is running on adrenergic circuits instead of dopaminergic, and thus will probably like the taste of poppy seeds, because the minuscule amounts of opiate alkaloids will make an ever so slight dent on that adrenergic activity and allow dopaminergic activity to dominate.

It’s a similar story for coffee, but there is a lot of variability both in coffee and drinker. Someone with a high activity MAO-A gene variant will clear dopamine and other neurotransmitters from the brain more quickly. Darker roasts contain more MAO-A inhibitors, and so they are more commonly preferred by people with such gene variants.

Same goes for MAO-B; inhibitors for it are more likely to be found in lighter roasts with floral overtones.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#588

Post by slothtrop »

eurasiantiger wrote: post #587
slothtrop wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like it because it tastes better. You don't get to decide why I like something.

We all prefer the concept of free will, but the science is consistent: we tend to grow neurons to like the taste of things that increase dopaminergic neurotransmission in the frontal cortex, even if our first taste experience of them is downright awful. Many things affect that, though. Someone in a constant state of anxiety and stress is running on adrenergic circuits instead of dopaminergic, and thus will probably l…

> we tend to grow neurons to like the taste of things that increase dopaminergic neurotransmission in the frontal cortex, even if our first taste experience of them is downright awful.

High caffeine intake (more represented in medium roast) increases dopamine response in the first place. Notwithstanding that a jolt doesn't make one incapable of judging taste. I've experienced different roasts consistently over different periods of time and ultimately favor dark (done right) all things remaining equal.

You can stop projecting now.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#589

Post by harpersealtako »

sgc wrote: post #369
staticautomatic wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t directed at you/OP, but the anti dark roast thing seems to me to be a distinctively American coffee snob hipster thing. Many places in the world have wonderful dark roast coffee. Honestly, are these people just wandering around Austria, Italy, Vietnam, Cuba, or Turkey complaining about bad the coffee is? Give me a break.

The darkest Italian roast has nothing at all to do with what goes as dark roast - and especially not Italian roast - in the US. The absolute darkest roast I ever saw in Italy was with just a hint of oil showing on the bean, and I only saw that once. They drink a medium roast most of the time, although there are light roasts readily available. I have seen documentaries with Italian roasters from Illy and on down to sm…

You have to understand though that Italians are predisposed to rip into all non-Italian food whenever they get the chance, even if it's better than the native Italian version.

Americans just have different tastes/cultures regarding coffee in general. Many of us (including myself) prefer a dark roast, it's nostalgic, consistent, and goes good with a generous amount of milk. I don't care if it's "hiding the flavor of the bad coffee" or whatever, I just like it. I've had coffee all over the world but I grew up with shitty burnt gas station coffee and instant coffee (or even cowboy coffee) made in a tin can over a campfire, and that's just as legitimate a culture as whatever the Italians are doing with their fancy espresso machines.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#590

Post by harpersealtako »

kortilla wrote: post #295
astrange wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australians I’ve met all seem to think they invented something they call “coffee culture” (or at least that Melbourne did). I don’t know why they think this because it seems to be exactly the same as Seattle in the 2000s.

Perhaps because it’s older? Coffee culture took off post WW2 in Australia with an influx in Italians but it didn’t start to catch on in the US until the 90s.

Coffee culture has existed in the US since the 1700s at least when Americans started drinking coffee instead of tea to spite the British, it's just a different coffee culture than the modern cafe espresso culture and it's not "better" or "worse".
Post reply on HN