Slashdot Mirror


Drink Decaf and Die

jose parinas writes "Decaffeinated -- not caffeinated -- coffee may cause an increase in harmful LDL cholesterol by increasing a specific type of blood fat linked to the metabolic syndrome, hints a new study presented at the American Heart Association's Scientific Sessions 2005."

467 comments

  1. As usual, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    One minute its a cure for cancer, world hunger and hemmoroids, the next it'll kill you...

    1. Re:As usual, by alnapp · · Score: 1, Informative

      Surely decaffeination is a potential cause of cancer?

      If you don't want the caffeine, why not drink water?

    2. Re:As usual, by Kaptain+Kruton · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't you know how dangerous that is? http://www.dhmo.org/

    3. Re:As usual, by Toutatis · · Score: 2, Funny

      It all can be true. I don't know any dead people suffering from cancer, hunger or hemorrhoids.

    4. Re:As usual, by shrewd · · Score: 2, Funny

      *clicks link*
      PFFFFFT!!! (spits out water)

    5. Re:As usual, by grrrl · · Score: 1

      best... site... ever.

    6. Re:As usual, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trouble is, that info is out of date, they all use a high pressure soda water process now to remove the caffeine, and not a carcinogen in sight...

    7. Re:As usual, by Daytona955i · · Score: 1

      HAHAHAHAHAHA.... I was reading it and I was like WTF?!?! Then I stopped and thought Dihydrogen Monoxide... that would be... and suddenly everything made sense.

      Thank you, I had a good laugh, even though it took me a minute or two to figure out what I was reading.

    8. Re:As usual, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of Palpitation? I would take cancer anyday over palpitation - I am not in hurry to die.

    9. Re:As usual, by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Surely decaffeination is a potential cause of cancer?

      Indeed. Which is why when I drink decaf coffee I drink "swiss water" decaf. I'm still unsure what exactly this study was measuring - where they comparing chemically decaf coffee, or swiss water decaf coffee? If the former obviously you have to suspect the chemicals might have played a part.

    10. Re:As usual, by masklinn · · Score: 1

      Some cancers are actually extremely fast killers. Down to 1 or 2 months (with extreme pains requiring more or less permanent morphine injections for 75% of that time) between the first symptoms and death. Pancreas cancers (even though they're not caused by these decafeinating agents), for example, are in that range.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    11. Re:As usual, by dario · · Score: 1

      You new people crack me up.

    12. Re:As usual, by Teogue · · Score: 1

      Oh, thankfully, 1/3 down the first page and people are finally starting to talk about coffee instead of coke.

      I also found it weird that they said Decaf was made from robusta beans. Robusta beans are more cafinated than Arabica.... not to mention that they only have the flavor of crap. I've yet to find a decaf coffe that was made with the 'swiss water' treatment AND from robusta beans.... This study just reaks of pseudo science .... 187 people and we've figured out what will kill you eh?

      --
      Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
  2. I've always known... by citizenklaw · · Score: 0

    Caffeine is good for you! :-P FP (or almost)

    --
    the future is but past forgotten
    1. Re:I've always known... by ooze · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, there is actually only once rule for food. The more it is processed the more likely it is that it is useless or even harmful for your metabolism. Our metablosism is just best adapted to that. Soylent Green is probably better for you than anything packaged from a supermarket. Eat the fattest meat, eat all fried, revel in carbs whatever. But don't eat it once a food corporation had it's chemistry fingers on it.

      Just a reminder...the only plant fat that is solid in room temperature is coco fat. Can you imagine what chemicals are needed to turn plant fats into something you can put on your bread? Just eat butter instead.

      --
      Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
    2. Re:I've always known... by CortoMaltese · · Score: 1
      Caffeine is good for you!

      Definitely. Remember the Dilbert strip:

      Doctor to Secretary: "Switch to decaf for a while. That should help."

      Secratary: "I'll change all the office coffee to decaf for my convenience."

      (Everyone collapsed on the floor, holding mugs.) Wally: "Must... find... antidote."

    3. Re:I've always known... by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Can you imagine what chemicals are needed to turn plant fats into something you can put on your bread?



      Yep, some really nasty stuff, like, um, hydrogen.

    4. Re:I've always known... by RocketRainbow · · Score: 5, Informative
      Grandparent:Can you imagine what chemicals are needed to turn plant fats into something you can put on your bread?

      Parent replied:hydrogen

      Problem is, once you bind the hydrogen it's trans fat and no longer vegetable oil - it's gone from super yummy and healthy to ugly grey goo that happens to be one of the unhealthiest things you can eat.

      Personally, I prefer to make my sandwiches with hommus and dip my bread roll in fresh olive oil.

      --
      *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
    5. Re:I've always known... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hydrogen, jackass.

    6. Re:I've always known... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can you imagine what chemicals are needed to turn plant fats into something you can put on your bread?

      Water. Or some sort of gloopy liquid protein, like oh, maybe, egg. Then you'd need some kind of acid, like vinegar perhaps, and something to help nucleate the emulsion - maybe a tiny drop of mustard powder.

      Congratulations, we've just invented mayonnaise

    7. Re:I've always known... by nurmr · · Score: 1

      Hmm, this cartoon sits on the wall besides me. Rather strange....

    8. Re:I've always known... by ooze · · Score: 1

      Well, the only mayonnaise I eat is the one I made myself. Preferably from more exotic oils and vinegars. But more importantly, much more egg yellows than any industry mayonnaise. My own has maybe 40% fat. Industry mayonnaise around 80%.

      --
      Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
    9. Re:I've always known... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the egg yolk is the bad part, it is high in cholesterol sorry! the egg white is the pure protein that is healthy.

    10. Re:I've always known... by timster · · Score: 1

      Do you have a scientific cite for your wide-ranging theory of nutritional health or is this just another New Age superstition?

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    11. Re:I've always known... by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      http://www.yafla.com/dforbes/2005/09/17.html#a59

      (transfats)

      Of course that covers just one thing, but the evidence is obvious that the more processed food is, the less healthy it usually is.

    12. Re:I've always known... by timster · · Score: 1

      The health risks of trans fats do not prove that "processed" food is bad, unless you narrowly define "processed" to mean "partially hydrogenated".

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    13. Re:I've always known... by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The health risks of trans fats do not prove that "processed" food is bad, unless you narrowly define "processed" to mean "partially hydrogenated".

      Actually a huge percentage of processed foods contain transfats (or at least they did), so there was a tremendous correlation. However that was just a sample of a wider trend, which is that when people screw with food, it usually has negative consequences.

    14. Re:I've always known... by RocketRainbow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem with most processed food isn't that it's actively bad - it just isn't good.

      My idea of a lolly is halva or marzipan. At any shop, you can see that lolly means sugar, jelly and a bit of flavouring. Nice start, but there's nothing healthy in that little snack.

      Now suppose you have a sandwich for your next meal. Mine's on good brown bread, yours is on supermarket white. Yours has had the fibre and vitamins removed. Also, I'm having hommus and vegies, while you're having plastic cheese and sausage. You've got a bit of vitamins, but I've got more. Mine also tastes better, but you've forgotten about that. Also, yours likely has trans fats in it. Quite common now that they don't bother raising the bread anymore, but sort of whip it and cut it into rectangles.

      I enjoy juice. It's made out of fruits. Soft drinks look soft of like juice to a toddler who sees them and gets excited, but they're just flavoured sweet water with colouring in.

      Convenience packaged foods might be mostly "safe" but if that's how you usually eat, you're looking at malnutrition, which is definitely bad.

      --
      *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
    15. Re:I've always known... by ooze · · Score: 1

      So what, egg yolk has more chlesterol than the white! But it certainly ha less fat than oil ;)

      And as I said, I only eat mayonnaise when I make i myself, and that is not that often. So how do I care about an egg more or less?

      Also, when you see discovery channel, and a lion or leopard just killed an antelope, what do you notice? The first thing they eat is guts and liver and kidneys and all the innards. And before they go to the steak and T-Bones they go for the legs and necks. That what we call the high quality meat, they couldn't care less for that. And why is that? Because all the important stuff is in the innards.

      That doesn't mean I eat tons of raw liver though ;)

      --
      Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
    16. Re:I've always known... by Woldry · · Score: 1

      Er ... IIRC, numerous studies have verified that (A) dietary cholesterol is, in most people, completely unrelated to metabolic cholesterol, and (B) the cholesterol and fat in eggs, for whatever reason, seems to have very little effect even on the people for whom overall dietary cholesterol is a problem. Gonna go finish my omelette now ...

      --
      How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
    17. Re:I've always known... by LadyLucky · · Score: 1
      Do you have any idea how nasty this makes the plant oils? It turns them into trans-fats generally, which are known to be very bad for you.

      On a recent trip to Spain I observed that they used oil in the place of butter on bread. Even buying a packaged ham and cheese roll came with a small bag of olive oil to spread on the bread. All the advantages of fat on your bread, but without the nasty side effects.

      --
      dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
    18. Re:I've always known... by ToreTS · · Score: 1

      Yep, some really nasty stuff, like, um, hydrogen.

      What, you mean there are explosive substances in my food?

  3. Robust == Robust flavor? This is incorrect by ReformedExCon · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the article:

    quote:
    "Whether coffee has caffeine is not the only thing that differentiates caffeinated from decaffeinated types," Superko said. "Caffeinated and decaffeinated coffees are often made from different species of beans. Caffeinated coffee, by and large, comes from a bean species called coffee Arabica, while many decaffeinated coffees are made from coffee Robusta. The decaffeination process can extract flavonoids and ingredients that give coffee flavor. So decaffeinated brands usually use a bean that has a more robust flavor."
    / end quote

    Robusto is named not because it has a more robust flavor than Arabica, but because it is a hardier species. In fact, the taste of robusto coffee is so heinous that only people without the sense to drink freshly ground coffee are susceptible to this travesty. I suppose that also includes decaf drinkers, but it also includes those who drink freeze dried coffees and mass produced brown powder that comes in cans.

    To be blunt, Starbucks coffee would actually be a step up in quality from robusto beans.

    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
  4. Everything by b100dian · · Score: 1

    Not only "deca" but in general everything that we do makes us die!
    On the other side, this makes a good point not quitting on coffe. I wonder if ciggarettes w/o nicotine are also deadlyer than the usual ones:) "Smoke ciggarettes w/o nicotine and die!". oh, wait, nicotine doesn't kill..

    --
    gtkaml.org
    1. Re:Everything by Tragamor · · Score: 2, Informative
      In small doses, nicotine may not kill but it does elicit autonomic and somatic responses; Dizziness, nausea, and/or vomiting are commonly experienced by non-smokers after low doses of nicotine, however it is toxic in greater doses.

      There are documented cases where people have died from the ingestion of nicotine (generally in the form of nicotine pesticides). In adults, the lethal dose has been quoted as 40-60mg (although not well documented).

      However with those facts aside, nicotine is of course not the only toxic chemical inhaled from cigarettes, so whether the cigarettes contain nicotine or not is moot. (yes, yes... I am aware the parent post is tongue-in-cheek, but have decided to answer to it anyway).

      FTA:
      The Coffee and Lipoprotein Metabolism (CALM) study included 187 people, randomized to three groups: one that drank three to six cups of caffeinated coffee a day; another that drank three to six cups of decaffeinated coffee a day; and a third, the control group, that drank no coffee.

      IMHO, I don't think this is a large enough set to draw accurate data from, as an initial study, these results should lead to further tests - but it seems to me, too early to apply wide sweeping statements - hey, but this is what the press is good at - right?

      Wasn't there a study a few years ago that proved oxygen was bad for us? increased radicals causing cellular breakdown and ageing... As a New Years resolution, try giving that up!!

      --
      To be is to do - Descartes. To do is to be - Sartre. Dooby dooby do - Frank Sinatra.
    2. Re:Everything by Velox_SwiftFox · · Score: 1

      Again, to answer things seriously, it seems rather basic that lower nicotine cigarettes would be consumed in greater quantity. As the tar and combusted materials are the cause of cancers and most other lung diseases, ergo such low-nicotine cigarettes would be more dangerous.

    3. Re:Everything by bhiestand · · Score: 1
      Wasn't there a study a few years ago that proved oxygen was bad for us? increased radicals causing cellular breakdown and ageing... As a New Years resolution, try giving that up!!

      I know you're joking, but what you're referring to is, indeed, fact. It's referred to as oxygen toxicity, and any skilled scuba diver will be familiar with it.

      This is a great site too look for information, but there's always the trusty wikipedia link if you want to read that.

      To quote scuba-doc, "The effects of oxygen are increased at depth so that the maximum PO2 in diving is 1.6ATA, and this is achieved at 218 fsw breathing air, 132 fsw breathing 32% O2, and 20 fsw breathing 100% O2. Convulsion at depth in water usually results in drowning or arterial gas embolism and is prevented by not using oxygen breathing with SCUBA and by limiting oxygen exposure with."

      So yes, oxygen IS bad for you in excess, but you can't naturally breathe excess oxygen at sea level. You have to compress it, and fill your lungs with that compressed air, in order to get enough oxygen in you to hurt you. It's also possible to be injured by breathing high oxygen concentrations for long periods of time. Patients on enriched oxygen mixes, as well as scuba divers, are susceptible to its effects.
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  5. Greeeeeaaaaat by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

    Just what we need. Fat people suing McDonalds for making them fat, and coffee junkies suing $random_coffee_corp.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:Greeeeeaaaaat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      how can someone be a coffee junkie if they're drinking decaf? that's like calling someone who drinks alcohol-free "beer" an alcoholic

    2. Re:Greeeeeaaaaat by Iron_Yuppie · · Score: 0

      if random_coffee_corp = starbucks payment = huge else do_not_bother

    3. Re:Greeeeeaaaaat by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      You may be a junkie on anything, harmful or not. Most diehard altoid junkies chew on mint urinal cakes.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    4. Re:Greeeeeaaaaat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just what we need. Fat people suing McDonalds for making them fat, and coffee junkies suing $sys$random_coffee_corp.

      Fixed your sentence for you :)

    5. Re:Greeeeeaaaaat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suing who? You just left it blank!

    6. Re:Greeeeeaaaaat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right, protect those mega corporations! Damn human beings trying to steal their rights. All they're trying to do is turn a profit with complete disregard for everything else!

  6. Thats it, I quit everything by Snamh+Da+Ean · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is the last straw - I quite drinkng tea and coffee because caffeine is bad for health, quite smoking because nicotine is bad, quite drinking soft drinks because sugar and all that stuff that makes the drink fizzy is bad for you, and now freaking decaff has been sliently killing me. From now on, all bets are off, I'm just going to smoke crack and to hell with the consequences.

    1. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by johnhoward666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I also read once that sunscreen can give you skin cancer too, if used too much. I think these days dying is the ONLY safe option.

    2. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by Sheriff+Fatman · · Score: 4, Funny

      They're misinterpreting their results.

      All they've actually proved, over and over again, is that research is bad for you, and that 'new studies' cause cancer in rats.

      --
      -- Open Source: It's mad, but you don't have to work here to help.
    3. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I quite drinkng [...], quite drinkng [...], quite drinking

      Let me guess: You also quit spelling correctly?

    4. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by Snamh+Da+Ean · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I'm bound to use the preview button one day. Did your post make you happy?

    5. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by trollzor · · Score: 0, Troll

      you have quite good spelling.

      no wait, I mean:

      you have quit good spelling.

    6. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      You drink normal coffee and your blood pressure rises and so does your heart rate = you die of a heart attack.
      You drink decaffeinated coffee and you die of a heat attack . You drink Tea and your stomach rots.
      You drink beer and your stomach grows and puts pressure on your heart and you die of a heart attack.
      You drink water and it could be contaminated with something and cause an infection which leads to a heart attack.
      I tell you , I am taking my chances with dehydration .

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    7. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by Scarblac · · Score: 4, Funny

      Have you ever owned rats? Existence causes cancer in rats.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    8. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by indifferent+children · · Score: 1

      For all their care and worry, bolted doors and locked-up locks, we'll all end up in safety, pushing daisies in the rocks. --The Prodigals

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    9. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by ozbird · · Score: 1

      Dying is a health hazard, and thus not safe. It is, however, predictable - and thus favoured by Microsoft-sponsored studies.

    10. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For anyone who doesn't quite get the above, if you own a pet rat it'll almost certainly die of tumours/cancers. That's just what happens to rodents (including mice, hamsters etc) to varying degrees. Most get to 2-3 years old, and they get tumours. End of story, end of life.

    11. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by Aonghus142000 · · Score: 1

      When are we just going to fess up and admit that death is the natural result of life? Eat what you want, drink what you want, in the end it's not really going to matter. To quote George Carlin, "Eat well. Live right. Die anyway."

    12. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by wannabe-retiree · · Score: 1

      But seriously- has there ever been a study on how many rats get cancer under normal conditions compared to humans?

    13. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 2, Informative

      There may actually some truth to the "sunscreen causes cancer" theory, although to my knowledge nothing conclusive has been proven outside of a laboratory environment (disclaimer: I have studied and researched this topic in some depth).

      PABA (para-aminobenzoic acid) used to be a common ingredient in sunscreens, and has been found to mutate cells. It has generally been removed from sunscreens nowadays anyway, ostensibly because it caused allergic and/or photosensitive reactions in some people.

      Metal (usually zinc or titanium) dioxides have been the "flavour of the month" since, as they excel at reflecting UV light and are less irritating to the skin. However, some studies suggest that the photocatalytic properties of these oxides may potentially result in mutations of contacted skin cells.

      Having said all that, going out in the sun without sunscreen is still orders-of-magnitude more likely to result in cancer.

    14. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by glgraca · · Score: 1

      That's true for humans as well (actually I've heard that only Sharks don't have cancer). If everyone lived to 100, everyone would have some kind of cancer. Rats are smaller, so their metabolism is faster, therefore their lifespan is shorter and they get cancer faster. Even if we didn't have hormones (and they are good at promoting cancer), our environment is still very hostile, and even oxigen causes a lot of damage to our cells. On the other hand, if our environment weren't so hostile, or dynamic, life would probably not have evolved. So the conclusion is that life causes cancer.

    15. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by Gathers · · Score: 1

      Not only existence.. Scientists have discovered that research causes cancer in rats.

      --
      "One doesn't need a large rocket to send a probe to Uranus." - Oscar Wilde on Space Travel

    16. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no... you've got it all wrong. Life causes death, not research.

    17. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by paranode · · Score: 1
      As a former owner of many rats I can certainly attest that this is true. The little guys are fun and if you give them enough attention and a bit of training you will realize they are pretty smart little buggers. If they don't get sick and die then it will just be a while longer before they get a huge tumor and die.

      I had one who was a domesticated "blue" rat and he was really smart. He was sick and getting close to time to go and somehow he managed to figure out how to get out of his cage in the middle of the night and crawl up my bed sheets and snuggle up next to me in bed. He was lonely. They are very social. Poor little guy.

    18. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um actually caffeine is not bad for you, and in reasonable amounts is actually quite beneficial for you.

      where did this idea that caffeine is bad for you come from? a lot of people seem to be under that impression

    19. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by Greatmoose · · Score: 1

      Well, it gives me kidney stones so I'd say caffeine is bad for me, at least. In fact, had one last week (that makes 8 so far.) I really should stop drinking caffeine.

      --
      Clearly I forgot to equip my +5 Codpiece of Karma.
    20. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      It's not just sharks. Most reptiles don't get it either. They've done some studies involving alligators.

      As for everyone getting cancer, well, I've heard that on average everybody gets 13 cancers a year, it's just that your own immune system takes care of them before they get anywhere.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    21. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      From now on, all bets are off, I'm just going to smoke crack and to hell with the consequences.

      Careful there. That will make you eligible for the next republican president.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    22. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by Kelson · · Score: 1

      I recall a biology class in which the professor suggested that one of the reasons we see so much more cancer patients today than we did, say, 200 years ago is simply the fact that we live longer. The longer you live, the greater the chance for something to go wrong with a couple of cells dividing. (A massive rise in carcinogen exposure doesn't improve matters, of course.)

      This same professor was working on research that a number of the symptoms of old age might be due to genetic causes that just don't get expressed unti after reproductive age. If something kills you before you reproduce, natural selection weeds the trait out pretty fast and it ends up being very rare. If it doesn't kill you until after you've had 12 kids, it sticks around in the gene pool.

    23. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      You mean your cells' autocorrection taks care of them. Cells are programmed to die if their DNA gets screwed up. But autocorrection can only cope with so much, so if you do things (like smoking, ingesting large amounts of certain chemicals, etc.) that increase errors in cell division then you increase the chance that the autocorrection won't catch it.

    24. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by Woldry · · Score: 1

      When caffeine wears off, it gives me migraines and heart palpitations. The caffeine itself may not be bad for me (although it does elevate my blood pressure, too, which when I have a sister who had a stroke in her 40's is not a good thing). But clearly the withdrawal from caffeine is not good for me. Of course, most people don't seem to have this reaction to it.

      --
      How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
    25. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by Bladestorm · · Score: 1

      The sun doesnt cause cancer, it prevents it. One of the best studies done on this was with the black community in Africa vs America.

    26. Re:Thats it, I quit everything by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      There's that and there's also phage cells that'll respond to many kinds of cancer if they don't self destruct. There's a number of controls in our bodies, it actually takes a number of failures before a cancer can become large enough to be dangerous/noticable.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  7. Old is much better by freedom_india · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Old products are always much better healthwise than the new fangled ones.

    For instance coconut water is better than Soda, Old Coke is better than New Coke, Coffee is better than the decaf crap.

    Scientists are re-discovering that age-old medicines like Turmeric, etc., are in fact much safer and healthier than the new fangled ones on market today.

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    1. Re:Old is much better by McCarrum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is very true. Take for example, how bleeding the body is healthy. Or kissing a toad can cure the cold.

      There is a middle ground, and thats what we need. It's called balance, or moderation. Simple example, a glass of red wine is good for you. A glass of red wine every half hour is not.

      Myself, I think the only way we're going to start to "scientifically" prove this is when we finally get quantum computers up and running, and can being to use a virtual human in close to real time. Start to feed in the variety of the bazillion different theories that come out of the single focus scientific groups and begin to understand the holistic solution.

      For now, I'm going back to my few glasses of wine.

    2. Re:Old is much better by Hado · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there cocaine in Old Coke?

    3. Re:Old is much better by afd8856 · · Score: 1

      I'd hate to be that virtualized human that you're talking about. Virtualizing the human body 100%, would it also make possible cognitive processes and thought? Interesting dilema.

      --
      I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
    4. Re:Old is much better by koi88 · · Score: 1


      Old products are always much better healthwise than the new fangled ones.

      Yep. I've always preferred the "more natural" drinks: milk, water, wine, beer (only German beer, they're incredibly strict about its purity), coffee, tea or juice (100% only).
      Better stay away from Coke, Alco-Pops and the like.

      --

      I don't need a signature.
    5. Re:Old is much better by DigitumDei · · Score: 1

      I don't know about medicine, where many (although not necessarily all) new cures are far better than anything we could do a century ago.

      But when it comes to food, the more processed it is, the more likely it is to harm you.

    6. Re:Old is much better by Doc+Everett · · Score: 3, Funny
      " Myself, I think the only way we're going to start to "scientifically" prove this is when we finally get quantum computers up and running, and can being to use a virtual human in close to real time. Start to feed in the variety of the bazillion different theories that come out of the single focus scientific groups and begin to understand the holistic solution. "
      We already have this - you're one of the test subjects.
    7. Re:Old is much better by mattspammail · · Score: 1
      --
      Now accepting PayPal donations!
    8. Re:Old is much better by mattspammail · · Score: 2, Funny
      Other items to stay away from:
      • Tap water
      • Anything that is actually labeled as a "drink"
      • Chicken byproduct puree (darned mad cow disease)
      • Anything on this page
      --
      Now accepting PayPal donations!
    9. Re:Old is much better by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      I was NOT talking about superstition. I was talking about facts. Facts like Turmeric is better for health. There is a thin borderline between a genius and an idiot. That line can be crossed easily.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    10. Re:Old is much better by tigersha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sigh. Mother nature is always right. Right.

      Everytime I hear that crap from techno-luddites (and I do, I work in an environimental org) I have two questions

      a) Mother nature also made poisonous spiders, Ebola viruses and gamma rays. Why are natural things better again?
      b) If modern technology and modern medicine is so bad and evil and god knows what else, please explain to me why life expectancy in Humans today is about 30-40% more than 100 years ago. Its about living better for a longer time, or what am I missing?

      Mother nature is a bitch. She operates by building 1 million prototypes and killing off every one except the 10 best. Its always been like that, and allways will. And oyu are one of those protypes, whether you like it or not.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    11. Re:Old is much better by McCarrum · · Score: 2, Funny

      Tell me about it, I dance across it daily :P

      And I do agree, there are many things in the herb world (for example) that have been practised for ages, that science is beginning to "discover". Mind you, there's plenty there that science has said "are you CRAZY?!"

      Tis a long and puzzling path, and it won't be solved for some time to come me thinks.

      Unless aliens are involved.

      Aliens with kitten2poptart powered drives.

    12. Re:Old is much better by RocketRainbow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The parent asserts that traditional remedies are healthier and is flamed with talk of leaches and bibles under the bed.

      The parent is from India and speaks of Turmeric. India was never Christian and didn't have a European style dark age. Instead, doctors slowly experimented with herbs and dosages to create a manual of natural medicine.

      The research done that established that turmeric and ginger are healthy was much better than the research that asserts that decaf is not. If looking for a dietary change, I'll take the advice of the ayurveda over Science By Press Release any day.

      --
      *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
    13. Re:Old is much better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure Coke is little better than malted battery acid, but I've never tried to tell myself that it was good for me. I drink Coke because I like the way it tastes. Noone telling me how much better milk, water or beer are for me are going to change that.

    14. Re:Old is much better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I drink Coke because I like the way it tastes.

      You mean... you don't drink coke because you think it's healthy but because you like the taste? Gon on, tell me more!

    15. Re:Old is much better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just have great suspicion for all the "Dietary Supplements" that claim to have the effects of drugs, but dodge regulation by the FDA by claiming that they are in fact not drugs. They are either drugs and need to be regulated, or they are not drugs and by definition they cannot have the effects they are claiming.

    16. Re:Old is much better by eunos94 · · Score: 1

      I'm with you 100%, but to nitpick a bit, mother nature has not made any *poisonous* spiders that I'm aware of yet, she has made *venomous* spiders. You can eat all the spiders you'd like, they won't kill you. But if the bad ones inject you with their *venom*, it might be an issue.

    17. Re:Old is much better by Khuffie · · Score: 1
      If modern technology and modern medicine is so bad and evil and god knows what else, please explain to me why life expectancy in Humans today is about 30-40% more than 100 years ago. Its about living better for a longer time, or what am I missing?

      Just a point: most of the life expectancy increase can be attributed to cleaner water supplies and better hygiene, not necessarily to modern medicine.

    18. Re:Old is much better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not quite correct. I mean I don't not drink Coke because it's bad for me.

    19. Re:Old is much better by Darius+Jedburgh · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd like to see you saying that while eating a bowl of lightly sauteed venomous spiders (on a bed of wild California rice and garnished with cilantro).

    20. Re:Old is much better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweet baby Jane, a Goats reference. Truly awesome.

    21. Re:Old is much better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life expectancy is longer now? Actually, adult life expectancy -- the age to which one can expect to live once one has become an adult, had not changed since before the Industrial Revolution. Infant mortality is down, and so are rates of childhood diseases, but the former is mostly due to increased affluence (eating and washing better) and the latter is starting to turn around: Witness epidemics of diabetes, asthma, and cancer among children. And don't forget autism, which is mostly caused by (drumroll please....) vaccinations.

      I'm not against science. I'm even using a computer to type this! But although life may be more interesting or less strenous due to technological advances, it is not heathier, nor is life expectancy significantly longer.

    22. Re:Old is much better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And don't forget autism, which is mostly caused by (drumroll please....) vaccinations.

      Translation: you are the sort of person who adopts whatever crazy idea you hear first.

    23. Re:Old is much better by DocWat232 · · Score: 0

      Oh come on! Water that's been through so many kidneys has to be pure!

      --
      DocWat232
    24. Re:Old is much better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A glass of red wine every half hour is not.
      i disasgreez1312!!#
    25. Re:Old is much better by eunos94 · · Score: 1

      As long as it's served with a nice glass of chianti. Mmm....

    26. Re:Old is much better by Randall_Jones · · Score: 1
      the vaccination/autism link is hardly a crazy idea. These vaccines contained mercury, which is a neurotoxin. New studies show that children who suffer from "acquired autism" in almost all cases possess an otherwise rare genetic flaw that results in an inability to effectively eliminate mercury from their bodies. That's pretty damning evidence if you ask me. from http://www.autismwebsite.com/ari/dan/adams1.htm
      In addition, there was a recent study by Holmes' et. al [7] of the level of mercury in the hair of infants (aged 12-24 months) who later were diagnosed with autism compared to controls (n=94 and 45, respectively). This study found that the autism group had 1/8 of the normal amount of mercury in their baby hair compared to controls, which suggests an inability to excrete mercury. They also found that the severity of autism had a strong inverse relationship with the level of mercury, with the most severe group having the lowest levels of mercury in their hair. This is consistent with the hypothesis that the group with the most inhibition of mercury excretion would be the most severely affected.
    27. Re:Old is much better by adamgolding · · Score: 1

      damn i'd hate to be that virtual human...

    28. Re:Old is much better by Onan · · Score: 1
      If you haven't, read Greg Egan's Permutation City. It's a great work, and discusses exactly this.

      Complete "simulation" of a brain makes cognitive process not only possible, but indeed inevitable. Really, if you do a sufficiently thorough job of it, it isn't a simulation, it's a reimplementation.

  8. It is a matter of equilibrium by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Life could be more a matter of equilibrium. It is known that a small quantity of caffeine is not poison for our bodies rather it has a number of good effects on it.
    When we start to do things out of the equilibrium, the situations become unstable (as seen in physiscs).
    It is the same as sugar, fat, proteins, vitamins alcohol and the likes.
    Maybe the right move could be to get small amounts of plain coffee with a little of sugar (thus no sweeteners and no decaffeinated powders). If it is not healthy, it will be by little.

    --
    Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
    For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
    1. Re:It is a matter of equilibrium by aug24 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Like I keep pointing out to people who say "I read today that too much X will kill you":

      Yes of course it fucking will! That's what *too* fucking *much* means!

      Find out where 'too much' and 'too little' are for everything, and get on with enjoying life.

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    2. Re:It is a matter of equilibrium by pedigree · · Score: 1

      Thats right, a nice middle ground. I dont eat animals and as cholestoral is a 100% animal product, I dont ever eat any of it. I drink coffee by the litre and I think its is a perfect middle ground

    3. Re:It is a matter of equilibrium by indifferent+children · · Score: 5, Funny
      "I read today that too much X will kill you"

      That's just vicious FUD spread by Apple and Microsoft. X is no more likely to kill you than any other GUI technology.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    4. Re:It is a matter of equilibrium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem is that you can't really tell for sure exactly how much is TOO much (or too little). it's trite to just say "use the right amount", but finding out what the right amount is, is the problem

    5. Re:It is a matter of equilibrium by kloffinger · · Score: 0

      I live in Japan and marvel at the way the Japanese eat unhealthy food (fatty meats, not enough balance in the food groups etc), drink in excess, smoke in excess, don't exercise, and work too much, yet still remain those with the world's highest life span.

      Thoughts? Research? (I have neither)

    6. Re:It is a matter of equilibrium by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1

      What? fucking too much will kill you?

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    7. Re:It is a matter of equilibrium by sasdrtx · · Score: 1

      Along this line, I recently read of a frat candidate who died of *water* poisoning. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/ a/2005/02/04/BAGNSB576121.DTL

      Does it help to use "fuck" a lot to get mods?

      --
      Most people don't even think inside the box.
    8. Re:It is a matter of equilibrium by ModMeFlamebait · · Score: 1

      What? fucking too much will kill you?

      That's what I'm researching with my GF at the moment. Envy me :P

      --
      Pavlov. Does this name ring a bell?
    9. Re:It is a matter of equilibrium by clearbluesky · · Score: 1

      Even too much oxygen will kill you!

      come to think of it: Life is hazardous to your health!

    10. Re:It is a matter of equilibrium by Woldry · · Score: 1

      Er ... there are plant cholesterols, you know. Loads of them. Almost anything that has fats/oils has at least trace amounts of cholesterols. What's more, dietary cholesterol has very little to do with metabolic cholesterol levels.

      --
      How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
    11. Re:It is a matter of equilibrium by aug24 · · Score: 1

      re using fuck: No, I'm just British!

      Mind you, it ties in with the phrase 'karma whore' quite nicely ;-)

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    12. Re:It is a matter of equilibrium by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      But Microsoft has recently announced that Aero will be optimized for mere mutilation...

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  9. Re:Robust == Robust flavor? This is incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I must agree with you.

    At my work we have this freeze dried lame excuse for coffee, made from said beans. Taste: terrible.
    What's even worse I get this,plastic coating sensation after drinking it. As if I've been licking candles or something.

    Ergo: No more of that black water for me.

  10. Eh, you're going to die anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (although life's too short to drink decaf).

  11. Everything bad for you is good for you again by pubjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Things that have recently been found to have positive health properties: beer, chocolate, coffee. In moderation of course.

    Personally I follow a very simple rule - eat and drink everything, just don't eat or drink too much of any one thing.

    There was an interesting study recently - the French (yes, we hate them, yawn) apparently eat lots of stuff that is supposed to be bad for you, and yet remain healthy and slim. How do they do it? Basically, eat in moderation and don't snack between meals.

    1. Re:Everything bad for you is good for you again by remmelt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Very true. Forget the low carb and light and decaf stuff, just don't eat and drink so much. I never ever eat light stuff because I think it doesn't taste as good as regular. I don't get fat though, because I don't eat twenty in-betweens and little snacks and I don't drink fizz. Plus I take my bike to work. It works, really. There is no need for the latest fad. Just eat vegetables. Without sauce.

      I was amused to find out that when that lo-carb fad was going on (is it still?) doctors who had patients with kidney troubles upped the carbs first thing, and most of it went away... Haha.

      Moderation is the word. Eat in moderation, drink in moderation, even diet in moderation. Just don't live moderately, OK.

    2. Re:Everything bad for you is good for you again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I never ever eat light stuff because I think it doesn't taste as good as regular. I don't get fat though, because I don't eat twenty in-betweens and little snacks and I don't drink fizz."

      I know it's said fats are what makes food taste good, but personally, I find some of the light stuff to taste better than the regular. For example, now that I'm used to diet cola I doubt I'd go back. Lean ground beef is another example, I picked up a pack and was surprised to find it was the best ground beef I'd had. Fat free bologna tastes almost identical to me, and so does quite a few other such foods.

      I'm a guy weighing in a meager 125 pounds, so it's not so much a diet issue... but if you can cut out some excess fat and calories, why not? I'd rather have a small bowl of chips (bowl, not bag.) with them "saved" cals than a slightly more fatty food.

    3. Re:Everything bad for you is good for you again by Dr_LHA · · Score: 0
      Things that have recently been found to have positive health properties: beer, chocolate, coffee. In moderation of course.

      Personally I follow a very simple rule - eat and drink everything, just don't eat or drink too much of any one thing.

      OH! You almost had it there, but stumbled at the final post. I think what you mean is: "Everything in moderation". On the other hand, why use a 3 word cliche when you can come up with a brand new 15 word sentance!

    4. Re:Everything bad for you is good for you again by ceeam · · Score: 1

      Japanese smoke like crazy and still they have one the longest (if not _the_ longest) life expectancies in the world. I _guess_ that the trick is not only moderation but not being crazy and nervous about causing harm to your health, yadda, yadda... I am sure that anti-tobacco FUD hysteria caused more harm and health problems for smokers and maybe even non-smokers than all the cigarettes combined. Same about coffee, for example. Or gaming. Etc.

    5. Re:Everything bad for you is good for you again by Ckwop · · Score: 1

      the French (yes, we hate them, yawn)

      Why do you hate the French? I'm assuming you're American here but the French are one of your most important allies. They gave you the Statue of Liberty as a present, they helped you defeat us (the British) to build an independant state, you've stood shoulder to shoulder with them while you fought two World War with them and they gave you tremendous support throughout the Cold War.

      If you're pissed off because they didn't support the ill-fated invasion of Iraq then you need to take a reality check. France is the western world's friend; A good, honest friend at that. It is a sign of a true friend when they stand up to you when they think your doing something stupid and tell you what they think. France did exactly this and the American's ostracise them for it.

      France had more courage then our Prime Minister who followed Bush blindly in to a unwinnable conflict. I salute the French for showing excellent judgement once again.

      Simon

    6. Re:Everything bad for you is good for you again by kg4czo · · Score: 1
      I know it's said fats are what makes food taste good, but personally, I find some of the light stuff to taste better than the regular. For example, now that I'm used to diet cola I doubt I'd go back. Lean ground beef is another example, I picked up a pack and was surprised to find it was the best ground beef I'd had. Fat free bologna tastes almost identical to me, and so does quite a few other such foods.
      I'm sorry, but the lean meat usually comes out much drier than, say, 80/20. The key here is to balance things out, not to starve yourself from something it really does need. Carbs, calories, fats, protiens, and so forth, are needed by the human body to maintain a balance. Once you throw that balance off, you either become too skinny or too fat. Many people tend to swing one way or another, which I don't think either is very healthy.
    7. Re:Everything bad for you is good for you again by nkh · · Score: 1

      Why do you hate the French? I'm assuming you're American

      I think it was more of a joke than anything else. If I had to bash an American (those fat rednecks, I hate them :D ) every time France is mentionned, I would be already dead of exhaustion. There are stupid people on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean but I don't really care anymore, you have to learn from intelligent people (and most of the Americans I know are very smart, yes they are) and forget what you don't need or like (RealTV for example), the same way I try to ignore stupid people in my country.

    8. Re:Everything bad for you is good for you again by wpiman · · Score: 1
      How do they do it? Basically, eat in moderation and don't snack between meals.
      Oh man- I thought snacking in between meals was good.

      All this health stuff is too difficult for me-- thank god I am a simpleton engineer and not a nuitritionist.

    9. Re:Everything bad for you is good for you again by pubjames · · Score: 1

      I don't hate the French. It was a joke.

      Personally I think Bush should say to Chirac "I'm sorry about the Iraq thing, you were right, it wasn't a very good idea" - but of course that will never happen.

    10. Re:Everything bad for you is good for you again by jandrese · · Score: 1

      But did the Japanese grandparents smoke? Life expectancy is a trailing indicator of the health of a population, you don't notice the decline until it's already well underway.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    11. Re:Everything bad for you is good for you again by frantzdb · · Score: 1

      My motto is "everything in moderation, including excess."

    12. Re:Everything bad for you is good for you again by dylan_- · · Score: 1

      The Japanese life expectancy is high, but there are a couple of things to consider which I suspect have more impact than their lack of concern:

      * Japanese men smoke a lot. The figure is very low for women.
      * Their diet is generally a lot better than the typical western diet.
      * Smoking did not become popular in Japan until after WWII. Expect to see a rise in smoking related illnesses as the effects start to hit.

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    13. Re:Everything bad for you is good for you again by nine-times · · Score: 1
      On the other hand, why use a 3 word cliche when you can come up with a brand new 15 word sentance!

      Because no one listens to clichés?

    14. Re:Everything bad for you is good for you again by jeddak · · Score: 1

      Snacking between meals isn't bad for you; actually, it's healthier to eat small amounts continuously throughout the day. Homo sapiens's evolutionary state has not caught up with his present customs and habits.

      It's *what* you snack on that matters. Think nuts and fruits instead of foods high in simple carbs (e.g. candy, crackers) or cholesterol (e.g. potato chips, nachos, pork rinds).

    15. Re:Everything bad for you is good for you again by RocketRainbow · · Score: 1

      When I had lost a lot of weight I had to learn a lot about eating habits to gain it back.

      Although I had lost the weight for mostly physiological and nutritional reasons, anorexia sort of kicks in anyway. Something about psychological feedback and the famine mentality.

      The initial step was to graze, which is associated with weight gain.

      The next step was to stop grazing. I had to stop what I was doing, sit down and eat at a table. That's the hard bit, and it's people who eat in this way who are healthiest.

      There's no secret to what you eat and when - you just need to stop to enjoy your meal and the rest sort of follows. Foodies can get a bit overweight, but only eating when totally focussed on it means they get kind of bored with actually overeating.

      --
      *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
    16. Re:Everything bad for you is good for you again by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      You are aware that the "diet" and "low-cal" version of food typically contain more sugar and many more synthetic drugs than the regular variety, aren't you? I'd be more worried about the lifetime ingestion of unnecessary drugs in my food than I would about the caloric, fat, etc. content.

    17. Re:Everything bad for you is good for you again by haggar · · Score: 1

      and don't snack between meals.

      And yet, most physicians and dietologists support "grazing" (many smaller meals) against few large meals.

      --
      Sigged!
    18. Re:Everything bad for you is good for you again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      125? Damn, I thought I was skinny.

    19. Re:Everything bad for you is good for you again by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      There are stupid people on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean

      Yes, but we don't elect ours to government. Well, okay, we do. But we don't make ours president![1]

      [1] Note: the fact that we don't have a president in no way detracts from this point.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    20. Re:Everything bad for you is good for you again by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1
      In moderation of course.

      Indeed, moderation is your friend. Except 'funny', of course because that doesn't help your karma a bit.

    21. Re:Everything bad for you is good for you again by Woldry · · Score: 1

      Maybe he's also only three feet (~1m) tall.

      --
      How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
    22. Re:Everything bad for you is good for you again by DavidHumus · · Score: 1
      This article in the New Scientist http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18725 181.700 (only teaser here, unfortunately) makes a few good points:
      1. Caffeinated beverages provide most of the anti-oxidants in most peoples' diets, and,
      2. nearly every study that found bad effects from caffeine has failed to hold up to further scrutiny, the exception being
      3. caffeine is addictive.

      As long as I get my daily dose, I can live with that.
      Here's a couple of good cheat sheets to that end: Caffeine Content of Foods and Drugs ahref=http://www.cspinet.org/new/cafchart.htmrel=u rl2html-29350http://www.cspinet.org/new/cafchart.h tm> and Caffeine Content of Beverages, Foods and Drugs ahref=http://www.holymtn.com/tea/caffeine_content. htmrel=url2html-29350http://www.holymtn.com/tea/ca ffeine_content.htm>

      "Better living through chemistry"
    23. Re:Everything bad for you is good for you again by sjames · · Score: 1

      I was amused to find out that when that lo-carb fad was going on (is it still?) doctors who had patients with kidney troubles upped the carbs first thing, and most of it went away... Haha.

      That's like the problem with low fat 'lite' products. Fat triggers satiety, so you end up consuming more calories when you take the fat out and heap on sugar to cover the cardboard taste.

  12. Move and die by external400kdiskette · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Everything in one way or another in some sort of situation or in excess is going to make us "die" ... but generally I don't see anyone a shortened life for the sole reason that they drank a cup of decaf every day or normal coffee for that matter.

  13. di-hydrogen monoxide by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    So, is there anything not bad for you? Now coffee, what next, are they going to find that too much di-hydrogen monoxide will kill you? There comes a point where you just say, "forget it, I'm gonna be happy and die young."
    On the other hand, decaf coffee isn't really something worth dying for...

    --
    Qxe4
    1. Re:di-hydrogen monoxide by orzetto · · Score: 4, Informative

      Di-hydrogen monoxide is the main cause of death in drowning. Di-hydrogen monoxide, in large quantities, can harbour aggressive biological agents ("sharks") that can be lethal to your health.

      More seriously, I was told some college students had a challenge on who could drink most water. Similar competition with beer normally result in someone dropping drunk, but with water no such effect appeared, of course. So, someone discovered the hard way that there is a lethal dose of water, about 20 liters, beyond which synapses lose their conductivity due to dilution, and you die of heart failure. Can't really be sure on most details and this could be a urban legend, but in general there is always a quantity of anything that will kill you.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    2. Re:di-hydrogen monoxide by thisislee · · Score: 1

      Probably not a myth. I read something similar in an intro to psychology textbook. There was some rehab clinic where the patients started spending more and more time in the bathroom. When they finally tried to figure out what was going on, the patients had discovered that if you drink a lot of water(a real lot) you have similar experiences to being drunk. Misfiring synapses? maybe.

    3. Re:di-hydrogen monoxide by Sockatume · · Score: 2, Informative

      If NHS information leaflets are anything to go by, a similar problem is quite common in ecstacy users. They believe they are becoming dehydrated and panic (after reading the other NHS leaflet about becoming dehydrated when taking ecstacy), and drink a great deal of water for the rest of the night without taking in any sodium. The overhydration leads to swelling of the brain and coma. Of course, this is a government drugs health warning we're talking about, and I believe that the ecstacy itself has a role to play (rather than just the water).

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:di-hydrogen monoxide by ray-auch · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not an urban legend - drinking large amounts of water can indeed be fatal.

      Hyponatremia is probably the effect you were thinking of - but excess water can cause other serious problems also.

      Links here and here

    5. Re:di-hydrogen monoxide by Mathinker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not an urban legend. A teenager was hospitalized close to death not too long ago where I live after drinking 25 liters while winning a water drinking contest.

      I think the technical term would be "electrolyte imbalance" (although that might also be applied to the opposite where you eat too much salts and not enough water).

      Your nerves (and probably a lot of other stuff) need ions to work (but I think it's mainly the axons and not so much the synapses) and drinking too much makes you piss those necessary ions away.

    6. Re:di-hydrogen monoxide by mejesster · · Score: 1

      It occasionally happens to runners who do long distances (marathons and longer) who hydrate appropriately but fail to take in any electrolytes and salts.

      --
      MacroHard - Boning you in a big way! (TM)
    7. Re:di-hydrogen monoxide by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      So, someone discovered the hard way that there is a lethal dose of water, about 20 liters,



      It's about 6 liters, consumed in a short time span (1-2 hours). Less if you drink demineralized water.


    8. Re:di-hydrogen monoxide by ciaohound · · Score: 1

      Drinking too much water can cause death. It's called hyponatremia, and it occurs more often than you might expect. Imagine a situation where you're afraid of dehydration -- say, running a marathon -- so you try extra hard to stay hydrated. If you drink too much too quickly, your electrolyte balance can be thrown off and your brain stops working properly. It's potentially even more dangerous than dehydration because death comes within a few hours without medical attention.

      --
      Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
    9. Re:di-hydrogen monoxide by mbius · · Score: 2, Informative

      A friend of mine in school damaged her brain drinking water to try and pass a drug test. No joke.

      --
      you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
      Prime UID Club
    10. Re:di-hydrogen monoxide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      there is a lethal dose of water

      Read up on Leah Betts, a girl who died in the UK in 1995 after drinking too much water while on ecstacy.

    11. Re:di-hydrogen monoxide by isorox · · Score: 1

      Yes -- Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

              * Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
              * Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
              * Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
              * DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
              * Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
              * Contributes to soil erosion.
              * Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
              * Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
              * Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
              * Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
              * Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere.
              * Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

      Lean about the dangers now!

    12. Re:di-hydrogen monoxide by SubOptimalUseCase · · Score: 1

      It's definitely NOT an urban legend! A Washington, DC police officer, assigned to the bicycle patrol, died from this condition this last summer while on the training course. It was later revealed that he had drunk 3 gallons of water before the training run and an additional 3 gallons during and after the training run! No one new he had drunk the 1st 3 gallons and the rest was consumed from a 'camel pack' over a longer period of time. Granted, it was a stretch of very hot, muggy DC weather and the officer, concerned about dehydration under these conditions, was not aware of the potential risk

      The problem, as the Washington Post described it, was not just a gradual dilution of electrolytes, but a sudden crash in electrolyte levels when a critical point of over-hydration is reached. The symptoms: headache, blurry vision, nausea, vomiting, convulsion can, to someone not familiar with the person's water intake, resemble a heat-related disorder, such as heat exhaustion. Therefore, an unknowing observer may drag this poor sole into the shade and give him 'even more water!'

      In the case of the DC officer, no one knew of his prior hydration and drinking from a camel pack is not entirely obvious. Had they known of these issues, the tragic result may have been avoided. They have since modified their training and operating routines accordingly.

    13. Re:di-hydrogen monoxide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't an urban legend... it happened at my univeristy:

      http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=7488

      http://www.newsreview.com/issues/chico/2005-02-10/ news.asp

      I was there (Electronic Engineering, '05) when it happened and it was big news, it was allegedly going to cast a pall on the college, but on the plus side I left with a good job with a GEnerous company. (hint, hint)

    14. Re:di-hydrogen monoxide by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      Like drowning?

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    15. Re:di-hydrogen monoxide by Tragamor · · Score: 1
      When I was younger, myself and a friend of mine had an improptu drinking session with ice-cooled water; I think between us we managed to polish off about 6 litres over an hour. All well and good you would think, except for the quite serious side-effect we hadn't considered, that we spent the next four hours in intense shivering.

      Obviously with hindsight, cooling down your internal organs is a bad thing, but hey we were only about 11 and these things are fun right?

      --
      To be is to do - Descartes. To do is to be - Sartre. Dooby dooby do - Frank Sinatra.
  14. Re:Robust == Robust flavor? This is incorrect by putko · · Score: 0

    Whoever wrote "So decaffeinated brands usually use a bean that has a more robust flavor," to explain why they use robusta (the cheapest swill, much cheaper than Arabica), probably also says:

    "HIV virus"

    and my alltime favorite:

    "PIN number"

    Actually, it is due to the propensity for acronyms (more often, backronyms) to trip up idiots like this guy that I am officially against acronyms.

    --
    http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
  15. Woody Allen had it right... by bone0101 · · Score: 1

    In his movie "Sleeper", Miles Monroe is revived from stasis to find that so-called "health foods" were harmful and that all of the bad foods were good for you.

  16. I guess Garfield was right by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Funny

    Shame he's rarely funny.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:I guess Garfield was right by belloc · · Score: 1

      And while we're at it, am I the only one who has noticed that the joke in every single Marmaduke comic for the last thirty years has been, "Oh no! Marmaduke is too big and (get this...) is in the way!" Maybe mix in a new punchline?

      --
      I got more rhymes than Jamaica got Mangoes.
    2. Re:I guess Garfield was right by steveo777 · · Score: 1
      Offtopic be damned!!!

      I have always hated that comic for that very reason. If you've ever seen Go!, then you know how I feel about Marmaduke. I'd rather read the whole library of Family Circus' bad comics than ever read Marmaduke again!

      If only Seth Green were reading this... then maybe, just maybe, Family Guy would tear this apart, or even through in a small joke and I'd feel saited...

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
  17. Bernard was right! by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Funny
    "He's already unconscious - decaf might kill him!"
    -- Bernard Bernoulli, on attempting to revive Dr. Fred Edison after rescuing him from the IRS.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    1. Re:Bernard was right! by Wite_Noiz · · Score: 0

      Ah, happy memories

    2. Re:Bernard was right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously - One of the best adventure games I've played next to Space Quest.

  18. throb throb .. throb .. .. .. .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    looks like americanheart stopped beating..

    (which isn't really news, is it now?)

  19. this just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    breathing will shorten your lifespan.. also-- eating only vegetables will make you look like a beatnik retard...... hmm... if vegetarians eat only vegetables what do humanitarians eat?... damnit /. always fucks my mind up.

  20. Re:Robust == Robust flavor? This is incorrect by RocketRainbow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've always understood that the reason decaffeination removes flavour is that the caffeine tastes bitter. The solution is not to use different beans, but to roast a little darker to restore the strong bitter taste.

    My favourite decaf comes from a little boutique that measures it out at the point of sale. Next to their darkest roast coffee, it is clearly even darker still!

    I think the reason most decaf is so bad is that you have to get it pre-ground (even at restaurants and cafes) and thus it's stale and the wrong grind anyway, or else it's such a fringe item that it sits around longer on the shelf going stale between roasting batches.

    --
    *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
  21. Part of the problem with the study by Potato+Battery · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You raise up a good point about stale coffee, which also may have some bearing on the study. From the article:

    "In this study researchers gave participants a nationally popular home-brewed caffeinated coffee and decaffeinated coffee brand."

    Granted, they wanted to do a study researching the health effects of regular versus decaffeinated coffee on the general population, so they went for what most people use, which is probably canned pre-ground. But it's probably a poor reflection of what fresher coffee does. Kind of like comparing the health difference of between boiled or steamed reconstituted dehydrated food.

    Plus, drinking all that average coffee is most likely dampening their joie de vivre. I think that little things that brighten your day can have a lot of benefits, health-wise.

    1. Re:Part of the problem with the study by VdG · · Score: 1

      I've been told that the reflux action on coffee sitting on a hot-plate changes the coffee so that not only does it taste vile but it increases cholesterol, as the article suggests for de-caf.

      I have also heard that the affect on cholesterol of de-caf depends on the particular de-cafination process used. More modern, (and expensive!) methods of de-cafination lead to a better flavour and less harmful effects. Older ones have a similar effect to stewing the brew which in part accounts for their poor flavour.

      (I'm not an expert, but I used to work for a coffee company - and they're still one of my customers - so I used to pay attention to reports on the subject.)

    2. Re:Part of the problem with the study by Potato+Battery · · Score: 1

      There's a fair amount of literature out there discussing the scientific aspects of cooking--the changes foodstuffs go through while being prepared (like the caramelization of sugar, for one), and why certain processes have the effects they do. It's an area I've always wanted to know more about, but there's that time issue. Thanks for the interesting bit of information!

  22. Newspaper article by pubjames · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I read a newspaper article the other day decrying MacDonalds again - criticising their fruit salads. The article (in the UK Guardian as I remember) said that MacDonalds fruit salads had been bathed in artificial chemicals, and how dare MacDonalds feed such dangerous stuff to our children etc. etc. Reading futher into the article, the chemicals in question were citric acid and ascorbic acid (vitamin C).

    1. Re:Newspaper article by Ihlosi · · Score: 1, Informative
      Reading futher into the article, the chemicals in question were citric acid and ascorbic acid (vitamin C).

      [nitpick mode] Vitamin C is ascorbic acid, but not every form of ascorbic acid is vitamin C. [/nitpick mode]

    2. Re:Newspaper article by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2, Informative
      Correct, and the most likely reason is to keep the cut fruit from browning (oxidizing). You can do this at home by dunking your freshly-cut fruit into a bowl of water containing a tablespoon of lemon juice.

      Isn't food science wonderful? {Thank you Alton Brown.)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  23. Re:Robust == Robust flavor? This is incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not true!

    http://www.webster.com/dictionary/robust

    Robust doesn't always have to do with flavor.
    It has NOTHING to do with acronyms.

    Do you want some cookie with that coffee?

  24. This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    This just in, being born will kill you. A study by like 10 bajillion genius Harvard researchers and shit said that 100% of people who are born, die. Scientists suggest that this is based on genes inherited from victim's parents and are working on a test to detect it.

    1. Re:This just in by Freexe · · Score: 1

      What about if you are born dead, how can you die?

      I think you just made that fact up!

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
    2. Re:This just in by kg4czo · · Score: 1
      A study by like 10 bajillion genius Harvard researchers...
      Don't you mean a Brazillion?
    3. Re:This just in by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      Wait, how many is a brazillian?

      Regards,

      George

    4. Re:This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no.

      He means a brassierian.

      Oh, wait - mind in the gutter again!

    5. Re:This just in by c4ffeine · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's a bit less than 100%. There are over 6 billion people who have not succumbed to the dread condition. Additionally, since more people are born than die at any given time, the fatality rate of death is actually dropping. I'd put it at 60% or so, but I have no numbers whatsoever to justify that.

      Isn't it clear? Death is (so far) not a universally fatal condition!

      --
      "73% of quotes on the Internet are made up" -Ben Franklin
  25. thanks by Use+Psychology · · Score: 5, Funny

    Decaffeinated -- not caffeinated
    thanks for that clarification!

    1. Re:thanks by Vo0k · · Score: 2, Informative

      Especially that it's doubly redundant: No coffee is ever caffeinated.
      Coffee, as opposed to "caffeinated drinks" contains natural caffeine, different doses depending on brand, preparation, etc. but I haven't heard yet of coffee that would have to be caffeinated. Decaffeinated coffee on the other hand is subject to decaffeination, process opposite to caffeination - removing the drug.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    2. Re:thanks by wildsurf · · Score: 1

      Especially that it's doubly redundant: No coffee is ever caffeinated.

      A local cafe makes a drink called a "Shot in the Dark," basically brewed coffee with a shot of espresso added. Furthermore, it would certainly be caffeinated coffee if it's brewed using This.

      --
      Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.
    3. Re:thanks by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      Well, hard to call coffee with addition of coffee "caffeinated", if you dropped pure caffeine pills, then yes :) And that caffeinated water... Well, yes, coffee made of it would be definitely caffeinated, but why on earth would you brew decaf coffee with caffeinated water?! (just to make difference between non-caffeinated and caffeinated decaf)?? :)

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  26. I wonder... by Vo0k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    my BMI is way over "reasonable" index, I drink beer, sometimes liquors, normal coffee, a range of foods including these rather unhealthy, don't move too much, yet my blood pressure is perfectly within norm, the "bad cholesterol" detector device displayed LO meaning the levels were undetectably low, I don't have any serious health problems... I wonder why :)

    --
    Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    1. Re:I wonder... by Potato+Battery · · Score: 1

      Good genes and good outlook can go a long way. Hope it keeps working for you.

    2. Re:I wonder... by GetHimHesDifferent · · Score: 1

      How useful is a study with one test case and no control? Any scientists in the house care to answer?

    3. Re:I wonder... by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      Yep, like study of the single and only known instance of planet Earth.?

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    4. Re:I wonder... by Rinnt · · Score: 1

      my BMI is way over "reasonable" index

      Do you by chance naturally have an extra amount of muscle mass? BMI really isn't this best way to measure. For example, my BMI says that I am "overweight". Yet I still have a 6 pack (abs, not beer ;-)! I'm not even that big either... Just a little extra muscle seems all that's required to throw the BMI off...

    5. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Because you're 17 years old. Give it time.

    6. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're an Ape...?

    7. Re:I wonder... by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      Nearing 30.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    8. Re:I wonder... by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you're young and lucky. Keep up the good work!

    9. Re:I wonder... by photon317 · · Score: 1


      Perhaps you're about to keel over tommorow and the signs are obvious, but you're in denial of the symptoms :)

      --
      11*43+456^2
    10. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, what's the deal. I had a decaf coffee once and I didn't die, therefore this study is wrong.

  27. Fatties only by RocketRainbow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Interesting that the decaf was only "theoretically harmful" to fatties. To normal or skinny people it has the reverse effect and the level of the naughty chemical dropped.

    So maybe if you happen to be normal or skinny, decaf is even better for you than you thought.

    Of course we puritanical vegan types aren't dying of a heart attack anyway because we barely eat enough saturated fat to make the cholesterol we need to bind our cells together (yay coconuts and avocadoes: necessary to bind our cells together).

    Does anyone else have trouble actually bringing up the article without a bunch of stuff all over the top of it? (Say, in Firefox?)

    --
    *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
    1. Re:Fatties only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your body makes its own cholesterol. No need to get any at all from the diet.
      Of course, it is nearly impossible to avoid, and there is no need to limit cholesterol in a diet, when it is the level of saturated fat (and certain polyunsaturated fats) overall that you need to be aware of.

  28. Moderation is Key by kripkenstein · · Score: 5, Funny

    I also try to do everything in moderation. I even moderate in moderation, so I end up doing some stuff to the extreme, just so I won't be an extremist at moderation, also known as an extremist moderationist. Or is that a moderate extremist. I give up, time for another cup of coffee.

    1. Re:Moderation is Key by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Just make sure you're only moderately moderate in your moderation. If you moderate your moderation to an extreme degree, the whole thing's going to hell.

    2. Re:Moderation is Key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of moderation... would someone mod these guys down already?

  29. As Paracelsus said by Tim+C · · Score: 1

    The dose makes the poison. Too much of anything is bad for you; too little of some things is bad for you. Strike the right balance and you'll be fine.

    Well, right up until old age gets you; let's face it, if there's secret way to become immortal we haven't found it yet. We're all going to die of something, might as well have a little fun in the meantime.

    1. Re:As Paracelsus said by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      Well, right up until old age gets you;

      too much of time kills too :)

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    2. Re:As Paracelsus said by RocketRainbow · · Score: 1
      Too much of anything is bad for you

      ME TOO!!!!!!!!!

      Seriously, this is said so often that it fails to have much meaning, but let's consider what it means. You need vitamin A to live. But it can kill you. A simple requirement, something you'll die without, and it'll run you through.

      The same is true for many vitamins. Vitamin C is an obvious exception.

      Consider the healthiest things you love to eat. I'll name some of mine: Mangoes will turn my skin orange, cherries will give me a tummy ache, coconuts will give me heart disease, coffee will make me vomit and shake and die a violent painful death. If I have too much of them - which I don't intend to do!

      --
      *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
    3. Re:As Paracelsus said by Shano · · Score: 1

      Too much vitamin C can cause diarrhoea. You really need to overdose on it to have an effect, though. Or drink nothing but lemon juice.

    4. Re:As Paracelsus said by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The most obvious example is oxygen, which is a bleach, and quite nasty in excess. Perhaps we should start a campaign highlighting the dangers of oxygen, and suggesting that people abstain from it - that should eliminate the proportion of the population that doesn't understand the meaning of the phrase 'too much' quite adequately, I think.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  30. Drinking too much water will kill you by peterpi · · Score: 1

    Really, it's true. Salts in the bloodstream or something.

    1. Re:Drinking too much water will kill you by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      Yep, about 6 liters in a short amount of time should mess up your electrolyte balance enough to kill you. Less if you drink demineralized water.

  31. Yellow snow by rev_karol · · Score: 4, Funny

    You don't drink decaf for the same reason as you don't eat yellow snow. They're both piss. End of story.

    1. Re:Yellow snow by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

      Except sometimes yellow snow is actually a lemon snowcone, so those rules are not absolute.

  32. Leading Cause of Death is Birth! by kittywampus · · Score: 1

    All of these studies are missing the mark. The real cause is birth. 100% of the people who are born will die! Guarenteed!

  33. Somebody has to remember this by Keichann · · Score: 4, Funny

    From Garfield sometime...

    John walks into the room, yawning, and picks up a mug of coffee.
    Garfield: No, don't do it John!
    John takes a sip and promptly collapses, asleep.
    Garfield: I warned you! That was decaf...

    1. Re:Somebody has to remember this by DoTheRightThing · · Score: 1
  34. sensationalism by dancallaghan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Drink decaf and die"? Gee I wonder why Slashdot gets accused of headline sensationalism ...

    1. Re:sensationalism by EnglishSteve · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's that sensational really, is it? 100% of the people who drink decaf will, in fact, die.

    2. Re:sensationalism by dzakuha · · Score: 1

      I agree, but this one has got to be intentional and it is so over the top it's funny.

  35. What ? by davro · · Score: 1

    Like most things in life
    The application of "Little & Often" is usally the best approach.

    Cynicism was originally the philosophy of a group of ancient Greeks called the Cynics
    Proberly more money in caffinated drinks, as coffee "drinkers" always fancy another one.

    1. Re:What ? by hovercraftSpareWheel · · Score: 0

      Like most things in life The application of "Little & Often" is usally the best approach.

      Exactly. That's why I drink a small espresso every 15 minutes.

  36. Great! by Peregr1n · · Score: 1

    My doctor keeps telling me to keep off the expressos and Red Bull for my heart's sake. I'll use this to argue back; after all, how can I be an effective techie without my caffeine boosts?!

    1. Re:Great! by nogginthenog · · Score: 1

      You should lay off the Red Bull for your teeth's sake! The boost comes largely from the sugar content.

  37. Starbucks is good coffee by xtermin8 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I beleive Starbucks was one of the first chains to insist on only selling Arabica beans. Its decaf coffees have always been made with Arabica beans. Basically Starbucks was a leading voice in the trade for discouraging the use of Robusta. You may not like Starbucks, but to criticize their large selection of various coffees as being second rate is barking up the wrong tree.

    1. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      After coming out of a nightclub into the painfully bright dawn after nine and a half hours of dancing, etc., I couldn't care less what the coffee tastes like.

      Ah, happy memories of their ice creamy thingies.

    2. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Levilprivateer · · Score: 5, Informative

      As a former barista at a Starbucks competitor, I have to disagree. While Starbucks coffee might not be the premium coffee on the planet, it is no worse (and oftentimes, better) that competing specialty shops. Granted, you are right about people adding so much to the coffee that it becomes a dessert rather than coffee. Still, I can get a good Americano or French press at Starbucks too... and they pull the shots properly, unlike a few other places around here.

      The prioes are, alas, competitive too.

    3. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by RocketRainbow · · Score: 1

      I'm confused...

      How is Starbucks a specialty shop? What do they do that is special?

      If I go to a roaster, I expect a very fresh, careful, passionately produced coffee made with love.

      But of course Starbucks isn't a roaster... their stuff is no different from the Lavazza - made by a company, served by different people who also work for a company.

      Also, as a barista, I'm curious to know what you think an "Americano" is. Just in case an Americano ever asks me for one...

      --
      *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
    4. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm confused...

      How is Starbucks a specialty shop? What do they do that is special?


      Yes, you are confused. He didn't say that Starbucks is a specialty shop. He referred to specialty shops that compete with Starbucks. What's special about them I don't know, but they're not Starbucks.

    5. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    6. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm curious to know what you think an "Americano" is. Just in case an Americano ever asks me for one...

      Not to speak for the parent, but an Americano is a shot of espresso with 6-8 oz. of steamed (hot) water added. Definitely a lot more "forgiving" cup of coffee than a straight espresso and much nicer than a dripped or pressed cup. I usually have one in the morning after my ristretto. Nice to have cup that lasts longer than it takes to make. But wouldn't you know, the first really good espresso shot that I've pulled this week happened to be for an Americano. Sigh...

      I've got to agree, if you've had a fresh-roasted, carefully prepared coffee, Starbucks just sucks. Ditto for all of the extra crap. No, I -don't- want "French Vanilla" in my coffee!!!!

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    7. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by RocketRainbow · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'm so glad I know that now.

      --
      *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
    8. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by udderly · · Score: 1

      From what I've heard and read, the main factors in coffee flavor are 1)quality of the beans and 2)the freshness of the roast. Coffee has many and very complex compounds that degrade quickly when exposed to air. I'm not associated with this company, but if you order some nice fresh coffee from them, you will definitely taste the difference.

    9. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by RocketRainbow · · Score: 1

      We call it "long black" and tend to laugh at the person ordering it who would rather drink dishwater for a long time than have a short moment of joyous coffee ecstasy. (That's ecstasy the emotion, not eccies the drug which is very bad for you if you get in the habit and which I suggest you avoid. Just so you're all clear.)

      We tend to go by the names "long black" and "short black", although if I get a blank stare when I order espresso, I know the barista is going by the size of the cup and I should leave.

      --
      *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
    10. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by OSUJoe · · Score: 1

      Starbucks coffees still tend to use many different grades of beans, instead of consistently the highest grade like some shops (including the one that I work for). Lower-grade beans have varying sizes, more deformities, and generally don't roast as well because it can't be done evenly.

      Starbucks also have a tendency to over-roast their beans which leads to a bit of a burnt flavor on most of their coffees. Do they beat the hell out of freeze-dried store-bought crap? You bet they do. Are they still lacking in quality to save a buck? Yes.

      Funnily enough, around here, they don't even pull shots at Starbucks any more, they have an espresso machine that does that for them with the mere push of a button.

    11. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by RocketRainbow · · Score: 1

      Even more important than the freshness of the roast is the freshness of the grind. The roast can be a week or two old or even a month if it's been properly vacuum packed, but once ground, the coffee will start going stale if not brewed within a minute.

      My grinder's right there next to my Gaggia Classic. When the light goes out to let me know everything's heated up properly, that's when I start grinding. And that's why you've never been to a cafe that does the grinding out back once an hour and then brings it in to be scooped up.

      --
      *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
    12. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by theblueprint · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The thing that I hate about Starbucks is that they burn the hell out of the coffee when they roast it. I can only guess this is so that it actually tastes like coffee after you fill it with a pound of cream and sugar.

      --
      "from the bricks to the booth...I predict the future like Cleo the psychic..."
    13. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Thats why it's called americano. As a joke towards the people who would order it in Europe.

    14. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Rxke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The guy might be rated informative, but he's just a coffee or food snob, dissing Starbucks because it's too regular. I drink my coffe because it has caffeine in it. All the rest is just posing.

    15. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by drsquare · · Score: 3, Funny

      Barista? Why do Starbucks workers get fancy foreign names but McDonald's workers don't, when they're effectively doing the same job?

    16. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should probably stop drinking coffee... you're just a little bitter.

    17. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Levilprivateer · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we suffer from regional differences. A specialty shop is simply a shop that serves the traditional coffee shop drinks, rather than a selection of off-the-shelf generics served in a pot on a burner. Compare Waffle House / Wawa / IHOP... which simply serve coffee... to a shop specializing in coffee drinks, like Starbucks or Caribou Coffee. From what I understand, Starbucks does own roasting facilities. That makes them a roaster, if not a local roaster. To contrast that, most small companies around here contract with external roasters... though they choose the blends, they are not producing it themselves. As far as an Americano... and Americano is a basic drink consisting of shots of espresso over steamed water. The idea is to offer a more substantial drink, while maintaining the fresh flavor of the espresso. I drink it because it offers something more than a dixie cup worth of liquid.

    18. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Levilprivateer · · Score: 1


      Funny, my shop said that too.... but I later discovered that they were simply buying from the same distributor that all the other people were buying from. I've not found a reference as to obvious inferiority of Starbucks' beans... but I did find a posting for a paid position with Starbucks that involved traveling around the world to find coffees suitable for consumption.

      Granted, that's not evidence of perfection or superiority, but it does seem odd that a company willing to pay for exotic travel to discover coffee would go with an inferior product.

      In the end, though, the final determination lies with each and every coffee drinker. I can preach the virtues of Folgers crystals to the masses and not be wrong, or I could stick my nose up and refuse to drink anything that didn't come from impoverised third world amputees suffering under the iron fist of a washed up dictator. Either way, the end result is opinion.

    19. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by RocketRainbow · · Score: 1

      We certainly do suffer from regional differences. Over here, everyone will serve you espresso, including the local Turkish (although you have to remind them you'll divorce your husband if they serve dishwater because you happen to be blonde). After hours, I go for caffe to the gelateria and nobody thinks that's weird. A casual restaurant that didn't serve espresso would just not be popular, although many do plungers for those who prefer a larger drink.

      I enjoy plungers, but you have a different blend in them - lighter for a start, but probably a different source, too. I'm with you on Americano, or "long black"... I just couldn't comprehend that Americans would order watered down coffee and call it American, thus confirming every joke about Americans drinking watered down coffee.

      I'm not sure if that's a case of Americans with big hair taking themselves too seriously, or a healthy ability to laugh at yourselves. I'll guess a little from column A, a little from column B.

      --
      *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
    20. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Levilprivateer · · Score: 1

      Who works at Starbucks?

      To answer, though... making a proper cup of coffee takes a small bit of skill. Following a pre-printed set of burger assembly instructions takes decidedly less skill. Anyone who has learned to pull a proper espresso shot knows how annoying it can be to learn consistency.

      Coffee drinkers are, as a rule, pickier than burger eaters, too. A burger eater is happy if the burger contains the proper ingredients. A coffee drinker is often picky over a perceived difference in a drink's temperature.

    21. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Levilprivateer · · Score: 1

      The Americano thing did start out as an insult, if I recall correctly. Whether americans just didn't get the joke, or took the joke and chose to laugh too, I don't know. As far as I'm concerned, it tastes good and I like it, so that's all that matters.

      (I also find the standard plunger/americano weak, though, so I tend to have them add shots. For an amusing insight into cultural differences, I get stares and giggles when I ask for essentially half espresso and half water here).

      When I was overseas, espresso was the casual coffee drink. The drinks people order here as standard morning drinks (Mocha, Latte, etc.) were considered desserts, from what I understood.

    22. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      A coffee drinker is often picky over a perceived difference in a drink's temperature.



      Mmh. Even to the point of lawsuits, as McDonalds had to find out.

    23. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Levilprivateer · · Score: 1

      You ask me, that was more of a moronic lack of understanding that extremely hot liquid in the vicinity of one's groin is a decidedly bad idea.

    24. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by RocketRainbow · · Score: 1

      In the government town I had to move to for school, if you order espresso, you're likely to get half-espresso, half water. They have to fill up the cup so the customer doesn't feel ripped off. Oddly, if you have a conversation with them, explain that you're used to meditteranian strength and not going to be disappointed with the normal size, they make quite good coffee.

      Generally, it's cappuccino at breakfast, espresso (or macchiato etc) at any other time, especially dessert ...and during the afternoon you might have something sweet and milky with your cake or order "affogato" (coffee with ice cream in) and put it down to personality.

      I usually stick with cappuccino as late as morning tea or even lunch time if it's the first one for the day. Then it's espresso only, with occasional macchiato if I feel like something gentler.

      --
      *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
    25. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      http://www.illwillpress.com/vault.html

      I suggest "Small, Medium, Large" and "Coffee house propaganda."

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    26. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by rajafarian · · Score: 2, Informative

      I drink my coffe because it has caffeine in it.

      Dude, have you considered just buying caffeine pills ? Or alternatively,you should try guarana/caffeine pills from GNC or alternatively to that, have you tried coffee from a local shop that roasts their own bean, i.e. have you tasted "good" coffee (NOT Starbucks, of course) and didn't like it, or didn't care?

    27. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by The+Phantom+Mensch · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you're missing something here. If you pull a long shot of espresso to make an Americano you're doing it wrong and you'll get dishwater since you're overextracting the coffee in your group head. To get a good Americano you pull a normal espresso, then pour it into a larger cup and add hot water. This gives you something with some of the flavor of a good espresso, diluted for someone who likes big gulps.

    28. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by masklinn · · Score: 1
      Coffee drinkers are, as a rule, pickier than burger eaters, too.
      A coffee drinker doesn't go to starbucks. That point is, therefore, moot.
      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    29. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Here we go again..

      The coffee case wasn't a "perceived difference" in temperature. They sold coffee that was hot enough to cause third-degree burns. They sold coffee hotter than their competitors and they knew from past experience that their coffee was too hot.

    30. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Steamed water? Now that's a fucking stupid term.

    31. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Rxke · · Score: 1

      Heehee. I regularly munch coffebeans, does that count? (and used to live on guarana and kola nuts in the mid 90's, but regulations in my country have catched up and both have become less easy to aquire without raising eyebrows...) Oh, and I grind my coffee with a hand-grinder i inherited from my grandfather, so I'm probably half a snob, too. Nothings totally black and white. I just get fed up with people endlessly discussing 'exclusive' foodstuff. Coffee has become such a fashion-statement, argh.

    32. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1
      While Starbucks coffee might not be the premium coffee on the planet, it is no worse (and oftentimes, better) that competing specialty shops.

      Starbucks coffee is no worse than the competitors? That means it's good coffee, right?

      Personally, I find the Eight O'Clock brand to be damn good, and cheap, coffee. Much, much better than what you get in any of the chain coffee shops.

    33. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by arth1 · · Score: 1
      I beleive Starbucks was one of the first chains to insist on only selling Arabica beans. Its decaf coffees have always been made with Arabica beans. Basically Starbucks was a leading voice in the trade for discouraging the use of Robusta. You may not like Starbucks, but to criticize their large selection of various coffees as being second rate is barking up the wrong tree.


      Variety? Starbucks has, to the best of my knowledge, only blends containing South American / Puerto Rican beans. For those of us who can't stand that bitter (as in the original sense of the word, not acidity) taste, Starbuck's isn't even a choice.

      Give me a smooth Kenya AA or Peaberry any day.

      Regards,
      --
      *Art
    34. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by The+Phantom+Mensch · · Score: 1

      Starbucks really is trying to improve their coffee. They're putting out a lot more single country of origin and even plantation specific coffee offerings in their retail stores. Now if they'd just learn to roast a little lighter, especially on the origins that tend to work better than way (East Africa, Central America).

    35. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by mellon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I assume what you've said is essentially a troll, but I can't resist. You are actually a poseur, in the most basic sense - you are projecting an attitude about something in a way that implies it is the only correct attitude. Lamers who drink coffee because they like the way it tastes are simply deluded, from the view you present.

      I will admit that there is some justice to your view - the amount of effort I spend making coffee in the morning is kind of bizarre. However, for what it's worth, the ritual evolved naturally, and I can in fact taste and enjoy the difference between the coffee I brew and what is typically served in a restaurant. I am sorry that you do not share this enjoyment, but as long as coffee does for you what you want, it's all good, right?

      As for the whole robusta vs. arabica thing, espresso fiends should be aware that a lot of espresso includes robusta beans to sharpen the flavor. Robusta has a bad rep because a lot of cheap coffee is made with robusta, but it is a legitimate bean with a legitimate flavor that works well in some blends.

    36. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by mellon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe if you treated McDonalds workers better, you'd enjoy the food there more?

      I've noticed over the years that there's this strong stratification in society, where some jobs are "okay", and some are "lower class." A person who sees themselves as "in" expects peopel with "lower class" jobs to provide them with good service, but has no respect for those who provide them that service.

      Calling an espresso maker a "barista" adds some cachet to the job, and maybe gives some respect to the barista that is missing from the term "burger flipper". I have trouble seeing that as a bad thing. People who make food for you deserve your respect. The fact that you don't respect them is why it's so hard to find a decent food experience anymore these days.

    37. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Levilprivateer · · Score: 1

      Plenty of coffee drinkers go to Starbucks. Perhaps not the ones too hung up on being "leet coffee drinkers", but plenty of other coffee drinkers. Reason? Well... the same reason people go to the supermarket for produce. It may not be the best around, but its convenient, it is of acceptable quality, and finding the absolute perfect item often takes more effort than most people can spare at 5am.

    38. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by bobdinkel · · Score: 1

      It's certainly true that relative to the rest of the world most Americans prefer weaker coffee. The same could be said of American Liberalism :)

      Anyway, my understanding is that the term "Americano" came about during WWII when American soldiers were in Italy. The Americans would add hot water to the Italian coffee/espresso/whatever to suit their tastes.

      --
      A publicly traded company exists solely to make profits for shareholders.
    39. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Rxke · · Score: 1

      no, not trolling, just letting off steam. As I pointed out in another answer i actually hand-grind my morning coffee too, heh, and it also evolved into some kind of ritual. What I was reacting to is this tendency to 'profile' oneself by etalating (is that English?) how connaisant one supposedly is, by dissing other, more 'mainstream' things etc. You yourself I believe do not belong into that category, I guess. That private ceremony is something for yourself, not something to blah-blah about whenever you get the chance to prove you're so sophisticated. I'm reading between the lines you do not do that. Simply put, the whole thing simply irritates me when it happens... For me it feels like snobbery. I'm not trying to go the "I'm tough, I drink my coffe black" routine either... It's just... Nevermind.

    40. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't give respect when they don't respect me.

      I expect them to get the order right, to be polite, the food to be acceptable, and to give me the correct change for my payment.

      These days, it is surprising when these basics are met.

    41. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Just get one of these awesome machines. No fuss, no muss. Mmm, crema.

    42. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1
      I like coffee that tastes good. To me, the best tasting coffee is one that's freshly ground and brewed at home. If I'm going to buy a cup of coffee, I'll take Starbucks over any of the garbage coffee that you buy at a gas station or convenience store.

      One thing I don't like is coffee that's been sitting on a warming plate for 30+ minutes. At work, I'll dump a pot and brew a fresh one if it's been sitting out too long. At my last job, this wasn't a problem as we drank so much coffee there was a fresh pot every 15 minutes. I heard that brewed coffee keeps well in a thermal carafe as opposed to sitting on a warming plate.

    43. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      I suggest cutting back on the caffeine and relaxing a little. It's all for fun.

    44. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1

      What's the proper way to pull a shot? I have a little espresso machine at home that I use regularly. I don't know how much different it is than a full size machine, but I was wondering if there's a 'right' way to use it.

    45. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1
      Americano is the closest thing you can get to regular brewed coffee when you only have espresso to work with. I can see how it would be popular with American WWII soldiers.

      I don't own a coffee maker but I have an espresso machine at home. I often drink plain espresso or make my wife lattes, but sometimes I'm in the mood for just a regular coffee and I can sort of get one by making an Americano.

    46. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by lowrydr310 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it's so hard to find a decent food experience anymore these days

      If you're ever in Southern California, go to In-N-Out. It's a fast food joint that only serves Burgers, Fries, Shakes, and Drinks (no fancy curly fries, onion rings, chicken sandwiches, no breakfast). Every different one I've been to (and I've been to well over 50 of them) has employees that always seem happy and cheerful, making it a great experience. They don't act ridiculous as if they're reading from a training script, but overall they seem like they enjoy their job and they're happier overall.

      Maybe it's because thir starting pay is over $7 an hour, who knows? I do know that it's fairly difficult to get a job there, compared to a place like McDonalds. They're very selective on who they hire, and the overall employee attitude is proabably a result.

    47. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by MrHops · · Score: 1

      When I order an americano, it's almost always when I want to drink a cup to for, say, five minutes, and I don't want to trust their "house coffee". (A term used to describe something that has been sitting in a thermos or on a hotplate for at least an hour, probably more) The greater size of an americano means that it will cool more slowly, so I can enjoy it at my preferred temperature longer.

      When I once again have the time to use/maintain a good espresso machine, that will be the drink of choice in my home. For now I fresh-grind my coffee.

    48. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by clem · · Score: 3, Funny

      Uh oh. The sophisticates are arguing about coffee. Can a slap fight be far behind?

      --
      Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
    49. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Salis · · Score: 1

      WWII was also the first time that many Americans had coffee ... of any type. And it was the mass produced, ground up, just add hot water type given to soldiers. So when you argue about Americanos vs. Espresso's, the WWII soldier would probably demur and say, "Both taste like crap to me, but it's hot and it keeps me awake." I think our tastes have become a lot more sophisticated since then.

      But the joke 'Americano' was probably merited back then.

      --
      Favorite /. tagline: "On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN." And it was good.
    50. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by The+Phantom+Mensch · · Score: 1

      It's probably hopeless unless it's a little machine from Gaggia or Rancilio. If it's a steam-driven machine it's definitely hopeless. If it's a cheap pump driven machine like a Krups then you might have some luck with a fresh can of pre-ground Illy coffee. The first step to good espresso is a first rate grinder, like a Rancilio Rocky ($300 or so). Then you'll want a good espresso machine like a Rancilio Silvia or Gaggia Classic (I have a Gaggia, but the Rancilio might be a bit better). Then you'll want a coffee roaster or a source for really fresh roasted coffee. I have an i-Roast coffee roaster. You're looking at an investment of close to $1000 US. At the end you may find you really prefer press pot coffee most of the time like I do. :-)

    51. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      Starbucks is pretty mediocre.

      I'll take Cafe du Monde anyday, made with a french press or metal filter. On the odd occasion I want cream in it, use sweetened condensed milk.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    52. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by ShibaInu · · Score: 1

      Starbucks may not be perfect, but they've brought the standards of American coffee up considerably. It used to be that you had to live in a major city (or a place that grew coffee) to get decent stuff. Now, every place in America has a Starbucks and it has brought at least some appreciation for better coffee. Nonetheless, their staight coffee is just ok, their straight espresso drinks are good, but their other stuff is like something from Dairy Queen.

    53. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Proteus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Honestly, don't assume. I cannot stand the regular Starbucks coffees -- I find them absolutely rank. I can barely deal with their espresso, but only in a milk-containing beverage. This doesn't mean I'm a coffee snob.

      I think, like most things, it's a matter of taste. Some people like Starbucks, and find it worth the cost. I find it repulsive at any cost. Fortunately for me, my local coffee shop roasts and brews coffee much more to my liking, and even happen to be cheaper than the major chains.

      The difference between a snob and not a snob, here, is evangelism: a coffee snob will not only be convinced Starbucks is bad, but will deride anyone who likes it. A non-snob might hate Starbucks and simply not care if other people like it.

      --
      We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
    54. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by John+Miles · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Starbucks recently (within the last couple years) bought one of the major local chains, called Seattle's Best Coffee. The obvious fear was that SBC, which wasn't a bad place at all, would start serving burned coffee. While that didn't happen, their franchises have been slowly disappearing... which sucks, because I always liked their coffee much better than Starbucks'.

      However, the other side of the equation is that at least here in Seattle, the Starbucks espresso blend seems to be growing closer and closer over time to SBC's. When I drink Starbucks, I'm finding that I no longer notice the charred/burned taste to any great extent. I've almost reached the point at which I don't really care if I'm drinking Starbucks or SBC. Not that I'm any sort of coffee connoisseur like some of the posters in this thread... but still. Whether the change is in Starbucks' coffee or my perception of it, it does seem to be tasting better these days.

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    55. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1
      I didn't think espresso could be so complicated and expensive! After reading all this talk about coffee it made me want to get a cup. I just brewed a 'fresh' pot of Folgers and it's pretty foul.

      Your suggestion seems to be common among coffee 'connosieurs': freshly roasted coffee. Living close to New York, I don't think it will be much of a problem finding it, though I am interested in home roasting.

      I found these: http://www.sweetmarias.com/prod.ZachandDanis.html and http://www.sweetmarias.com/prod.hearthwareiRoast2. shtml which I'm intersted in.

      I'm now also interested in a coffee press but don't know much about them. How well do they work? Do they work better with one particular roast or are they good all around? Do they extract the same amount of caffeine as drip brewed coffee? Do they require a coarse grind?

    56. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by leland242 · · Score: 1

      (I'm not a troll)

      Is it still there???

      I wondered after the hurricane what happened to that cool place...

    57. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Zeph · · Score: 1

      Listen, Starbucks coffee is probably fine. The problem is that they over-roast said coffee. So their coffee drinks tastes burnt. Period. I was talking to the guy who delivers coffee to our office, and he agreed, noting that "in the industry, we call them Charbucks." It's approrpiate, and this is true whether you buy it by the pound or the cup. Their specialty drinks are fine -- you can't taste the char beneath the milk and other nonsense.

    58. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by SacredNaCl · · Score: 1

      As I read this thread, and all of the coffee snobbery one way or another - the biggest factor in a good cup of coffee is good beans, freshly roasted, and freshly ground. The basic technology involved in making a good cup of coffee hasn't changed that much.

      Buy your beans green, unroasted. Roast them yourself. You can use a variety of methods, pan roasting is fairly easy, air poppers make decent roasters. The important thing here is to remember they keep roasting for a few minutes after the heat is no longer applied, and there are still plenty of chemical changes going on a few hours after. Some people prefer to let the beans sit a day after roasting before they use them, some prefer to just go ahead and use them right away. I'm in the former camp (I like to let them sit for a day, and I don't grind till I use it), but I've tried it the other way (with Kenyans who pan roast) and it was pretty good and sweet. Some local shops do sell fresh roasted (as in that morning) coffee, you are probably already going in to buy your unroasted beans from them. Nothing wrong with using this service, but you do pay for it, and its hard to find a shop that has truly fresh roasted coffee for sale in my area. Even finding unroasted beans took a bit of calling around.

      I don't have expensive coffee making equipment. I have a Braun KF-187B, the only l33t tech here is a decent water filter (to strip out chlorine and other nasty taste, made moot becuase I have RO-filters for the house for any water for drinking), and a temperature control which doesn't really do more than control the hot plate. I use a cheap "Good-Food" grinder, $12, and it does just as good as the expensive ones. I also have a Barista espresso machine should I desire that, but I don't use it very often. I also have a press-pot ($13), which makes slightly better coffee than the Braun, but is a bit of trouble (mostly with clean up. 205F water in, let it sit for 4 1/2 minutes, put the plunger down, done).

      Most of what is needed in making a decent cup is at the front end, good ingredients in. In the case of espresso, its just a matter of learning the correct pull length for the machine and your particular beans. So play with it a bit with a stop watch and figure it out. Once you know, it isn't going to change much.

      The one exception I will make to this, is some equipment on the espresso side is indeed garbage. I was given a Salton machine for making espresso, and aside from mostly just making a mess, it never did make a pleasant cup no matter what I did with it. I gave it to Goodwill.

      No rocket science involved. Just quality control. No $1200 of equipment to buy. You could buy my set up with a little internet shopping for $150. The end result is a sweet coffee that you largely don't need sugar or cream for. Now I don't make the frothy drinks and frothy cream and what not, if you want that, you'll have to spend a little more on equipment for that. If I want whipped cream on my coffee, I use a whisk and heavy cream. Yes, its low tech, it works.

      People want to make it more complicated than it is, or send you on a good chase to get expensive equipment for this or that, and it mostly isn't needed. For the price of an air popper ($30), a grinder ($12-14), a jar for roasted beans ($4) and a press pot ($13) you can have better coffee than you can buy from 99% of the specialty stores. If you want espresso, $75-80 more for that.

      --
      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
    59. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by mellon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When you say this, the long form of your argument goes like this:

      1. There is a way that people should act. They should be respectful towards each other.
      2. This person has been disrespectful to me - they have acted contrary to the way people should act.
      3. Because of this, I am going to act the same way they have decided to act - I am going to disrespect them back.

      Consider what would happen if every single person in the world thought this way. Would it ever be possible that people would stop disrespecting each other? Now consider this line of reasoning:

      1. There is a way that people should act. They should be respectful towards each other.
      2. This person has been disrespectful to me - they have acted contrary to the way people should act.
      3. Just because this person doesn't know how to act properly doesn't mean that I should also act improperly, so I am going to treat them with respect even though they haven't treated me that way.

      What would happen if 10% of the people in the world held to this way of thinking? How would the world change?

    60. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by buck_wild · · Score: 1

      Too hot? I'm not sure there IS such a thing.

      Jesting aside, if I want my coffe to be hot when I get to my destination it needs to be hotter at the start of the trip.

      --
      If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
    61. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      According to the website they were going to open on decatur street on October 19th.

      http://www.cafedumonde.com/main.html
      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    62. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by buck_wild · · Score: 1

      We'd all turn into tree-huggers, and carry our groceries home in burlap sacks.

      Just kidding. I agree with you, for the most part: never be shitty to someone who has the power to fuck up your food.

      Funny story: I worked in an office, and another guy and I went to a fast-food burger place for lunch. We stood in line to order, and when he got to the front the cashier just stood there staring at him with attitude. So he says "Um, aren't you supposed to say 'Hello, welcome to Burger King,' or something like that. She was obviously not having the best of days, and just responded with "What do you want?" So he just ordered and we left for the office carrying our food. When we got back to the office, I started eating my food. When he started eiting his, not only had they put onions on it, but there was a bite out of 'just' the meat. Everything else was fine but the meat. So again, don't disrespect those in the food industry, at least not to their face.

      --
      If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
    63. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by buck_wild · · Score: 1

      Excellent post. Thank you.

      --
      If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
    64. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by wildsurf · · Score: 1

      If you're ever in Southern California, go to In-N-Out. It's a fast food joint that only serves Burgers, Fries, Shakes, and Drinks.

      They have plenty of variety within those bounds though... How many fast-food joints can make you an Animal Protein 4x4?

      To stay remotely on-topic, I'll note that the decaf espresso I drink at night (Peet's Decaf Sumatra) probably gains me far more health through a good night sleep than I lose from HDL effects. (And it's caffeinated double-shots in the morning, baby!!)

      --
      Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.
    65. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Maybe if you treated McDonalds workers better, you'd enjoy the food there more?

      How? They don't decide what to cook, how to cook it and what ingredients to use. You could give the burger flippers a fucking blow job, and you'd still get a tasteless, rubbery, vomit-inducing burger along with some greasy fries and a bland sugary drink.

      The fact that you don't respect them is why it's so hard to find a decent food experience anymore these days.

      Why's that? If we treat them better are McDonald's going to start serving food that actually tastes of something?

    66. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by rjenkins1 · · Score: 1

      That's right. And I assume everybody has a cup of good caffienated coffee while they read Slashdot in the morning.

    67. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      The people at Subway's are nothing more than mere sandwich makers, but they still make excellent subs. I've been to places where the burger flippers are masters of their art and I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of places where getPlural($FANCY_JOB_NAME) are incapable of giving you basic service.

      They can have all the fancy names in the world, if they provide me with food that is arguably sub-par they don't get much respect as a food provider. OTOH, if I leave the place with a smile because I have just had a really good meal I'm likely to meet the people working there with respect. After all, they can do something I can't (make good food).

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    68. Re:Starbucks is good coffee by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1
      I didn't get around to buying fresh roasted beans yet, but I did lay down some cash for a decent coffee press. It's relatively small (12oz) but good enough for me. I like a good cup of coffee in the afternoon at work, and this thing does the job even with crappy pre-ground vacuum sealed coffee.

      The first cup I made was excellent - I used about 3 spoons for the 12oz cup and the coffee tasted very nice (and packed a nice buzz). I made another cup using less coffee to see how much of a difference it made, and I didn't like it as much as the first. It was too watery - I guess I like strong coffee. I just can't wait to get fresh beans now!

  38. Not really news by Robotech_Master · · Score: 1

    My father has long been of the opinion, based on something that he read somewhere, that decaf coffee is more harmful than regular coffee. Something to do with the decaffeination process introducing harmful chemicals into the brew, or maybe he was just thinking of the process originally used to brew Sanka, I don't know. Either way, this will be just a little bit more validation for him...

    --
    Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
    1. Re:Not really news by ti-coune · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Attention !

      Not all decaf process use chemicals. Some only use water to remove the caffeine, yes, just water.

      If you read the article carefully you will see that they don't link the cholesterol change to the decaf process but they say on average manufacturers use different type of green coffee (robusta) to produce decaf and it's this green coffee that brings in more fat components, nothing to do with the decaf process.

      You could use arabica to produce decaf as well and you could not conclude anythinh then. The title of the article is misleading, once more.

      ANd don't forget that anti-oxidant are present in coffee, more than tea, and these are good for the health.

      It's not all that simple I'm afraid.

      my two cents,

    2. Re:Not really news by BarryNorton · · Score: 1

      Yes, I buy green arabica, decaffeinated by the Swiss method (as you say, with nothing more than water), and had decided this article had nothing of interest to me before it even appeared on Slashdot...

    3. Re:Not really news by freeweed · · Score: 1

      Water's still a chemical.

      Yeah, I'm being pedantic. Just sick of the re-definition of the words "chemical" and "organic" over the past 10-20 years. Makes it very hard to actually explain anything about chemisty to a layman.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  39. Coffee maker recommendations? by RKBA · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    On a somewhat(?) related note, I have a Gaggia Syncrony Digital coffee maker and it makes wonderful freshly ground coffee with a "crema" on it (it doesn't use paper filters so retains a *LOT* more flavor) but the water and coffee bean containers are too small and I can't use the steamer at the same time as I'm making coffee because the steamer doesn't have a separate heater tank.

    Does anyone know of a better coffee maker they can recommend?

    1. Re:Coffee maker recommendations? by RocketRainbow · · Score: 1

      Stop it, troll! Your post is hurting my brain on so many levels!

      Gaahh... paper filters for espresso at 17 bars! Doing the milk at the same time as the coffee! Spending over $1000 on a fully automatic espresso machine and not knowing what espresso is! Not realizing espresso only takes a few seconds! Wanting coffee to be good but not wanting to touch it, feel it, interact with it and attach the handle, carefully watch the crema settle, turn it off when the crema starts to fade. GAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!

      If anyone ever deserved the score 5, Troll, my friend, it is you.

      Kisses!

      Rocket

      --
      *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
    2. Re:Coffee maker recommendations? by Scarblac · · Score: 1

      Dear coffee guru, I want to learn about making great coffee. Any URLs you would recommend?

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    3. Re:Coffee maker recommendations? by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

      Google is your friend. Start at www.sweetmarias.com, they have tons of info and external links to coffefreaks, etc..

      Personally, I like La Pavoni, but it adds some variables to the process. More variables potentially means more control, but can also mean more frustration as well.

      BTW, the coffee maker alone won't do it, you need good coffee and a good grinder as well. But you knew that because you went to all of the great coffee sites that you Googled, right?

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    4. Re:Coffee maker recommendations? by RKBA · · Score: 1

      Yes, in fact I have a subscription to Sweet Maria's and get two pounds of freshly roasted coffee each week from them, but I'd rather go by personal recommendations (if you can call a post on SlashDot "personal" ;) than to read marketing blurbs.

    5. Re:Coffee maker recommendations? by mbius · · Score: 1

      I really like the Nespresso machine at work.

      --
      you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
      Prime UID Club
    6. Re:Coffee maker recommendations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're not going to reccomend a coffee maker then? ;)

      B

    7. Re:Coffee maker recommendations? by RocketRainbow · · Score: 1

      Well now that we're "friends", I'd suggest you go have a chat with the old Italian guys sitting out front of your local caffe and then with the guru in the nearest wholesale place.

      The best way to learn how to make coffee is to learn how to drink it. The rest follows.

      --
      *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
  40. Slashdot Headline by krygny · · Score: 5, Funny

    "DRINK DECAF AND DIE!!"



    When the hell did Rupert Murdoch buy Slashdot?!!

    --
    Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
    1. Re:Slashdot Headline by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      When I first read the headline, I thought "That has much less of a ring to it than 'Eat shit and die'".

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
  41. gaming... bad!, coffee..... bad! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I hope they won't research my third addiction. I haven't spend years building my porn collection just to hear it's unhealty.

    1. Re:gaming... bad!, coffee..... bad! by Google85 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I hope they won't research my third addiction. I haven't spend years building my porn collection just to hear it's unhealty.
      Too late... "Porn makes you blind: official"
  42. Roasting decreases caffeine by xtermin8 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is a common misconception that darker, stronger coffees have more caffeine. Actually the lightest roast coffees have the most caffeine. In fact espresso roast, pound for pound, has less caffeine than regular coffees. It is only the brewing process that makes the drink more caffeinated than regular coffee. This fact doesn't contradict you're theory, but you might find decaf roasted dark for reasons other than flavour

    1. Re:Roasting decreases caffeine by RocketRainbow · · Score: 1

      What's a regular coffee?

      --
      *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
    2. Re:Roasting decreases caffeine by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

      Roasted to City or City+ vs. Vienna roast for espresso....

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    3. Re:Roasting decreases caffeine by rob_squared · · Score: 1

      You must work at Starbucks.

      --
      I don't get it.
    4. Re:Roasting decreases caffeine by Imsdal · · Score: 1

      That would be a "giant piccolino Cafè au Lait without milk". It is imperative that the little thingy on the "e" in "Cafè" is the wrong direction, or else you risk that someone outside of Starbucks may actually understand you.

    5. Re:Roasting decreases caffeine by Ansonmont · · Score: 1

      A "regular coffee" used to refer to coffee with both cream and sugar. However, the term did have significant regional variations, with some places having 2 sugars instead of just one, or no sugar at all. In a restaurant you would say "I want two regular coffees, please."

      This, of course, was before Starbucks, etc. Coffee was just coffee then, no lattes, mocha frappachinos, etc (and Sanka for those who wanted decaf).

      -A

    6. Re:Roasting decreases caffeine by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Ugh.. the term "regular coffee" needs to be retired. When I worked at Dunkin' Donuts, whenever someone said 'regular' they were always asked "Do you mean regular as in non-decaf, or regular as in cream and 2 sugars?" The answers always varied.. "oh no, use milk" "no, just one sugar" "no, don't add anything"

    7. Re:Roasting decreases caffeine by Icculus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's also a misconception that there is such a thing as 'espresso roast', and, if such a thing did exist, that it is a very dark roast. Typically espresso freaks will roast a bit lighter (a 'full city' roast) for the best flavor, but different roasts suit different varieties better. I think it's the big coffee houses that have made this 'espresso roast' so prevalant. But you are 100% correct on the ligher=more caffeine front

    8. Re:Roasting decreases caffeine by YomikoReadman · · Score: 1

      Ultimately, it works like this. Darker Roast = Less caffeine. After that, the caffeine content of the beverage is dependant on the brewing process. Actual brewed coffee has more caffeine than an espresso. Reason being for that is that the grounds are actually soaked when brewing for coffee; with espresso steam is just forced through some very fine grounds.

      As an aside to that, this makes me wonder why people are so big on Starbucks. Between being overroasted, since that's really all Seattle coffees are is overroasted, as well as the large amount of espresso drinks they sell, you'd probably find more caffeine in a can of soda than your triple shot caramel latte, not to mention the soda is cheaper.

      --
      I have no regrets, this is the only path.
      My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
    9. Re:Roasting decreases caffeine by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1
      Actual brewed coffee has more caffeine than an espresso.

      Are you sure of that? I thought espresso had more caffeine because 212+ degree steam is passing over them and condensing into water as it passes, as opposed to soaking the beans in ~160 degree water.

      Another interesting thing is how a 'cup' of coffee is measured. The US FDA considers a cup of coffee to be 5 oz. I don't know about you, but everywhere I buy coffee the smallest size is at LEAST 12 oz. That's almost 2.5 times the FDA's cup size. I don't even know how big Starbucks' largest cup is, but it's more than I can drink.

      url:http://www.ico.org/caffeine.asp

    10. Re:Roasting decreases caffeine by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Actual brewed coffee has more caffeine than an espresso.

      Are you sure of that? I thought espresso had more caffeine because 212+ degree steam is passing over them and condensing into water as it passes, as opposed to soaking the beans in ~160 degree water.

      The darker you roast coffee beans, the more caffeine is destroyed. The process for making espresso extracts more caffeine from the grounds than brewed coffee, but the actual beans themselves generally have a lower caffeine concentration than typical "green" americano roast beans (assuming starting from the same beans; some beans are naturally higher in caffeine). If you want a truly vicious caffeine buzz, try using light roast, espresso grind in the espresso machine. Doesn't taste as good as real espresso, but it packs a wallop.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    11. Re:Roasting decreases caffeine by Craig+Maloney · · Score: 1

      I've been asked that when asking for a plain coffee. Unfortunately I used to ask for "Black Coffee", but that tended to get me stared at even worse.

    12. Re:Roasting decreases caffeine by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Interesting, as 'black coffee' was one of the few terms that we would not question.. although I do remember someone requesting black coffee and being baffled as to why I did not add sugar.

    13. Re:Roasting decreases caffeine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an aside to that, this makes me wonder why people are so big on Starbucks. Between being overroasted, since that's really all Seattle coffees are is overroasted, as well as the large amount of espresso drinks they sell, you'd probably find more caffeine in a can of soda than your triple shot caramel latte, not to mention the soda is cheaper.

      the Starbucks tastes better

    14. Re:Roasting decreases caffeine by Fishstick · · Score: 1
      "Coffee regular", equally "regular coffee".

      1. Context: Standard deli beverage order.
      2. Literal Meaning: Coffee with milk and sugar.
      3. Real Meaning: If you attached a parking lot to a deli the result, in car-culture America, would be called a diner. It's the original not-too-slow food with with vinyl booths, a counter with vinyl-top stools, and a take-out area or window. "Regular" has nothing to do with non-decaffienated or un-flavored coffee; it merely describes, in the fewest words, the amount of dairy whitener and cane-based sweetener most commonly added to a cup of coffee here. Busy delis prepare "regulars"-to-go in advance - a styrofoam or paper cup with the milk and sugar already in it - just pour in the coffee and put a lid on and it's ready. In common usage also are the phrases "coffee light", "coffee regular - no sugar", "coffee black", and others soon to lose all meaning and disappear, as nowadays every greasy spoon has Tasmanian Raspberry Water Process Decaf Cappucino or some other exoticism in addition to coffee.


      http://www.filmscouts.com/scripts/room.cfm?name=le cture/tny

      I remember John Travolta in some movie teaching a kid about coffee and explaining "this is coffee regular".
      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    15. Re:Roasting decreases caffeine by The_Dougster · · Score: 1
      When my wife came walking in the door with a cheap Mr. Coffee espresso maker, I admit that I was pretty skeptical. Now I start my day with a nice mug full of four shots of espresso and thats all the coffee I drink all day now. I used to walk around with a giant thermal mug until noon.

      That thing does make a decent cup of java, I'll give it that much.

      --
      Clickety Click ...
    16. Re:Roasting decreases caffeine by YomikoReadman · · Score: 1

      Yup, quite positive. By steeping the beans, regardless of temperature, you extract more from them. It's why people so rarely drink straight espresso; it's generally very thin and flavorless, moreso than any other coffee brewed in the italian style.

      --
      I have no regrets, this is the only path.
      My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
  43. I don't care about these crap articles anymore ... by raulfragoso · · Score: 5, Funny

    Once I read that smoking could kill me, then I stopped smoking

    Then I read that drinking alcohol is bad, so I stopped drinking

    Then I read that too much sex could cause a heart stroke ... so I stop reading !

  44. Life is a Lethal Disease by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 4, Funny

    A study I conducted in private has found that life is a lethal disease. In fact, it has been identified as the leading cause of death in nations around the world. The disease is slowly degenerative, with some individuals surviving for over a hundred years; but eventually, the disease exhausts the body's resources, resulting in organ failure, followed by death. The incubation time of the disease is about 9 months, and it spreads through unprotected sexual intercourse.

    Symptoms of the disease vary wildly from individual to individual, but generally include excessive motion, episodes of sadness as well as happiness, aggression, anxiousness, nervosity, and compulsive eating and drinking.

    Various drugs have been found to weaken the symptoms of the disease, and some substances can even slow the progress of the disease, but a definite cure has not been found, despite elaborate research. So for now the only remedy is prevention.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    1. Re:Life is a Lethal Disease by Dracolytch · · Score: 1

      You know what they say: 98% of people die of death.

      ~D

      --
      This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
    2. Re:Life is a Lethal Disease by fluffy666 · · Score: 1

      And 2% of people don't die??

      Of course, there's always zombie outbreaks to think of. Do zombies die of old age?

      On the other hand, the extreme population explosion implies (with one or two assumptions) that something like 10% of all the humans who have ever lived are alive today. So we only have a 90% mortality rate, so far.

    3. Re:Life is a Lethal Disease by Dracolytch · · Score: 1

      Nono... 98% die of death. The other 2% die of "other stuff".

      In a related article I saw that 28% of all statistics were made up.

      ~D

      --
      This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
    4. Re:Life is a Lethal Disease by DevNova · · Score: 1

      Don't forget another symptom ... mostly cyclical periods of unconciousness.

  45. And yet, the real cause is ignored..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The real cause of death doesn't lie in food or beverage. Here's a recent study that explains everything:

    "We all know that Heart Disease is the #1 cause of death in the U.S. But think hard about this: In Japan, they've got a diet that is low in fat and they have less heart disease than the US. While in France, the diet is very high in fat, and they also have less heart disease than in the US. In India, almost nobody drinks red wine and the heart disease rate is lower than in the US. But in Spain, everybody drinks too much red wine and sure enough they have less heart disease than the US. Algeria has the lowest sexual activity rate, and they've got less heart disease than in the US. But Brazil has the highest sexual activity rate and sure enough...the heart disease ratio is lower than in the US. His sage wisdom to me? Drink, eat and make merry all you want. It's speaking English that kills you."

    1. Re:And yet, the real cause is ignored..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My hypothesis: We have more heart disease due to the aggravating factors, due to obesity increasing the bad effects of those factors in the U.S. In the US, people drive their cars and watch their televisions a lot more than in those other countries. (As opposed to walking more, to get around.)
      Someone I met from the Netherlands told me he went to Chicago and expected to be amazed by the size of the huge skyscrapers... instead he was amazed by the size of the huge people. When I travelled in the Netherlands, and in France, I saw very few obese people. This is waaay different than the situation in the U.S. midwest.

    2. Re:And yet, the real cause is ignored..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to drive in Chicago during the winter months. Otherwise the polar bears will eat you.

    3. Re:And yet, the real cause is ignored..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Aggravating factors" indeed. You're on to something. I think the biggest one is the American/puritan work ethic and the stress that comes with it.

      The French take one or two months of vacation every year, and work shorter weeks, so they can get away with fatty foods, because their stress level is so low. C'est la vie.

      The Japanese work insane hours with little vacation under high pressure, but they can get away with that due to an incredibly healthy diet.

      Here in America, we have wisely (cough) chosen the workweek of the Japanese and the diet of the French, proving once again what incredible wiseguys we are. Seriously, we're total crack ups. Talk about missing the point.

  46. Useless study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There's probably some other variable involved that they didn't account for. For instance, if you drink your coffee with sugar and caffeine helps you metabolize sugar better. Or there's some chemical byproduct of the decaffeination process. Or caffeine increases your heartbeat rate which has cardiovascular benefits. Etc...

  47. axiom LDL==bad. Really? by javaxjb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of course, this presumes that LDL is actually bad for you, i.e. the correlation between LDL and heart disease is strong and that those proposing the correlation is significant have actually proven causation as well. There are those who believe otherwise (http://www.thincs.org/). But hey, why buck the multibillion dollar drug industry? They will bury you.

    --
    Programmers in mirror are brighter than they appear
    1. Re:axiom LDL==bad. Really? by HyTronix · · Score: 2, Informative

      LDL, in and of itself, may not be harmful. Oxidized LDL, particularly
      oxidized Lipoprotein-A, is quite damaging to arterial walls. An amino acid called Homocysteine *may* play a role in this: http://www.homocysteine.com./

      Others have asserted that high triglyceride is an independant factor as well. Considering what I've seen in my own family, I'd say it could be any or all of the above.

      My father has low LDL, low triglyceride, and high HDL. Low cardiac risk ratio. Has high homocysteine. Has had two bypass operations.

      My mother has high Triglyceride, high LDL, low HDL, and normal homocysteine levels. Has had three bypass operations.

      My aunt has high LDL, low HDL, and *very* low homocysteine. She's 87 and has never had heart trouble.

      I think that in all likelyhood, high LDL levels (that are mostly Lp-A) are probably dangerous alone, and especially so if there's an oxidizing factor present. High HDL definitely looks protective, as long as other factors (high homocysteine) are not present. High homocysteine may be able to cause "low" levels of LDL to clog your arteries.

      Certainly, more study is needed that includes factors other than just LDL.

      My $0.02.

  48. Decaf - what is the point? by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    To me, drinking decaf coffee is about as appealing as drinking non-alcoholic beer.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Decaf - what is the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, if I drink decaf, other people may die.

    2. Re:Decaf - what is the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Non-alc beer is good. Try it. You can even drink it at work, since there's no alcohol!

  49. In conversation with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    beavis: flavonoids !
    butthead: hehehehe
    beavis: hehehehe ... flavonoids.

  50. Drink Water. by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nothing is bad in moderation. Or at least worrying about. Drink water most of the time and I doubt you have to worry what the occasional cup of coffee, wine, hard liquor, soda does to you.

    I repeat simple common sense - drink water most of the time. It seems nothing else is safe these days. Some weeks it comes out that red wine/coca-cola/coffee is good because of X and then the next week it's bad because of Y.

    Above all - don't drink the shit that has 'corn syrup' or 'high fruchtose corn syrup' or whatever 'syrup' in it. It'll just get you diabetes faster. This includes most sweet drinks not diet. Like Starbucks Frappacinos at the next 7-eleven.

    I'm serious about water. Up to 50 years ago, most people had water most of the time. It's good for you body and there is nothing for your kidneys/liver has to filter. Now, I know people who wouldn't look at a glass water - much less have one for days on end - instead ingesting endless gallons of soda. I hate to see their health 20 years down the road.

    It's probably going to get worse in the future as this generation are accustomed to the friendly coca-cola vending machines besides the non-working water founta in schools these days.

    Coffee is bad because it encourages you to consume more calories through milk and sugar, plus it has caffiene and the various crap that goes with it. I think caffeine is more of a addiction - I seen people who never had coffee before turn into caffeine addicts who needed a cup 'to wake up' and then one at lunch and then another at 4pm. I wouldn't care but they actually became cranky if they didn't get their fix.

    Not that I don't like a good cappacino at lunch myself. But if common sense prevailed and people didn't have an insatiable want of drinking something more 'tasty' or sugary or exotic or whatever at every turn - I doubt reports of this kind would worry anybody.

    *I'd say unsweetended green tea is okay too in mass quantities but then there will be a report out next week:)

    1. Re:Drink Water. by naich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Up to 50 years ago, most people had water most of the time."

      Not really. Ordinary water tended to have nasty bugs in it, so the way to get rid of them was to either boil it (and make tea, as they did in the East) or ferment it (as they did in the West).

      Because people in the East used the boiling method, rather than the fermentation method of purifying water, they didn't develop the same tolerance to alcohol that people in the West have.

    2. Re:Drink Water. by Shano · · Score: 1

      Coffee is bad because it encourages you to consume more calories through milk and sugar, plus it has caffiene and the various crap that goes with it. I think caffeine is more of a addiction - I seen people who never had coffee before turn into caffeine addicts who needed a cup 'to wake up' and then one at lunch and then another at 4pm. I wouldn't care but they actually became cranky if they didn't get their fix.

      Why the hell would you want to spoil a good cup of coffee with milk and sugar, anyway?

      Actually, I'm more addicted to coffee (the flavour) than the caffeine. I can switch to decaf with no ill effects (have done occasionally, usually around exams - I work better when I'm not twitching all the time), but insist on some kind of coffee in the morning.

    3. Re:Drink Water. by jimmyfergus · · Score: 1
      Above all - don't drink the shit that has 'corn syrup' or 'high fruchtose corn syrup' or whatever 'syrup' in it. It'll just get you diabetes faster. This includes most sweet drinks not diet. Like Starbucks Frappacinos at the next 7-eleven.

      I agree with all you say - but I'm interested in this high fructose corn syrup stuff. I've been told it's evil and will kill us all, but a little research told me that all they do is use enzymes to break (invert) the sucrose into fructose and glucose (I could be a bit off on the details here). It's the same process by which bees turn nectar into honey. It makes it taste sweeter.

      So, I'm not yet convinced that high fructose corn syrup is much more evil than, say honey? (which, as you observe, is not that good - excess leads to diabetes etc.)

      One page I found warning us of the danger of HFCS going on about the "chemicals" used in manufacture. These "chemicals" were the enzymes that bees use.

      I'm not informed enough to know for sure, but I'm sceptical of the claims that HFCS is poison.

    4. Re:Drink Water. by rolfwind · · Score: 1
      I agree with all you say - but I'm interested in this high fructose corn syrup stuff. I've been told it's evil and will kill us all, but a little research told me that all they do is use enzymes to break (invert) the sucrose into fructose and glucose (I could be a bit off on the details here). It's the same process by which bees turn nectar into honey. It makes it taste sweeter.

      So, I'm not yet convinced that high fructose corn syrup is much more evil than, say honey? (which, as you observe, is not that good - excess leads to diabetes etc.)


      I don't believe I said anything was evil though I'm apt to think of some things as undesirable.

      Corn Syrup and Hydrogenated Stuff (margarine and found in snack foods) have been correlated to the rise of diabetes and obesity since they were introduced in the 1970's. Although correlation does not necessarily mean causation, the fact that "consumers love the taste" of containing hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated ingredients speaks volumes, even if the cause is just the excess calories.

      One page I found warning us of the danger of HFCS going on about the "chemicals" used in manufacture. These "chemicals" were the enzymes that bees use.


      Again, I don't consider HFCS poison in itself, but in quanity. Consider, in Europe, people as a whole had little tooth cavity problems until the 1600/1700s, when they started making refined sugars (started among Royalty/rich first because sugar started out very exensive and they started getting more deserts). This naturally suggests that our bodies as a whole aren't evolved to digest such quanities of sugar if our teeth already have problems with it.

      Consider the native americans - they have problems with alcohol when the Europeans started bring it over - because the Europeans had thousands of years to evolve to digest it compared to Indian's complete inexperience. To this day, their rates of diabetes and alcoholism is much higher (alcohol is a sugar, though I don't know if the diabetics are alcoholics, didn't read up on that yet). Humans are not evolved to eat super high amounts of sugar at will - simply because this was never our situation before for the great majority of the population.

      I would say the same applies to apple juice or orange juice. They are basically sugar water (albeit natural) and the unprecendeted availability of juice (year round) and the unprecedented availability of it and cheap cost is something relatively new to us humans. Before, most fruits or juices were consumed according to local seasons, but most likely whole with their bodies with the exception for wine, schnaps (english word?), other alcohols, and ciders.

      Note: Many "fruit juices" have added high fructose corn syrup so they are not all natural either. Another popular sugar is white grape sugar.

      BTW, I believe Corn Syrup is used in America since the '70s mostly because subsidies make sugar more expensive. In Europe, sugar is more used in soda still though that doesn't make it better for health:)

      Another problem with High Fructose Corn Syrup is that it has a much higher uptake than regular sugar into the bloodstream.

      Go to wiki or other reliable resource and look this stuff up.

      Anyway, the chemicals in the decaffeination process don't sound particularly appealing either:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decaffeination
    5. Re:Drink Water. by jimmyfergus · · Score: 1
      Sorry if I misled, I tried to make it clear that I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said. I was heading off on a bit of a tangent about HFCS, which other people have condemned to me over other sugar products.
      Go to wiki or other reliable resource and look this stuff up

      Yeah, the Wikipedia and some web searches is all I've done. I was counting that as being fairly uninformed ;-).

    6. Re:Drink Water. by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1
      Ordinary water tended to have nasty bugs in it, so the way to get rid of them was to either boil it (and make tea, as they did in the East) or ferment it (as they did in the West).

      AFAIK the reason why 'fermented' waters (aka beer) are safe is not because they are fermented but because it was boiled before being fermented. Even in the Middle Ages.

    7. Re:Drink Water. by leobh · · Score: 1

      There was an interesting feature some time ago in the National Geographic about coffee. Though I've forgotten the details, the study in question showed coffee to be highly addictive, and showed that not having a cup of coffee in the morning has a seriously debilitating effect on the brain activity of a regular caffeine-user compared to that of a non-user. Put simply, the more you consume coffee, the more your brain actually requires it to function at the same level as a non-user, though caffeine does indeed seriously 'boost' the brain activity of an infrequent user (and obviously, by implication, less so the more frequently they use caffeine). Can't actually find the issue in question on the NG website; maybe there's a different, UK version?

  51. Drink Green Tea and Live by slashmojo · · Score: 1

    Just drink Green Tea and you will live longer.. or not..

  52. It's not good coffee by wiredog · · Score: 1

    In general, they over-roast their beans.

  53. Small amounts of coffee by jurt1235 · · Score: 0

    Small amounts of coffee just do not do the trick. With about 5 cups of coffee in the morning, I am active untill 16:00 in the afternoon. With about 8 cups, I make it till 19:00. Decaf is just for the taste of coffee with the cafeine effect. Drinking coffee just for the taste is pretty useless. I think people like coffee because of the caffeine. For me coffee is certainly an acquired taste, mainly through the way to sweet frapuchinos/frapiatos from Starbucks et al..

    --

    My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
  54. Blame Evolution: It's In Our Genes by reallocate · · Score: 1

    My theory: If our illustrious evoltionary ancestors weren't eating or drinking it hundreds of thousands and millions of years ago while they were genetically mutating their way toward homo sapiens, then "it" probably isn't good for us. Or, at worst, is actually harmful.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  55. No JNI by trollable · · Score: 3, Funny

    I always advocated pure Java.

  56. Old news, finally proven by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When will people learn you wonder. When it comes to substances like caffeiene, alcohol, e.a. its usually not healthy to go "oh, I'm consuming too much. Lets fully stop at once and drink a substitute instead", since its not the substance causing harm; its usually the amount in which its being consumed.

    Isn't it a little obvious that if you start gubbling up substitutes in the same amounts those too could cause problems ?

  57. Go for it, dude. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you know you want to.

  58. Re:Blame Evolution: It's In Our Genes by kirkols · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah, our ancestors were eating their enemies. You are what you eat.

  59. Re:Robust == Robust flavor? This is incorrect by djdead · · Score: 1

    so heinous that only people without the sense to drink freshly ground coffee are susceptible to this travesty

    For the best taste you gotta roast your own. Nothing else even comes close.

    --
    -1: flamebait should really be -1: inciteful
  60. Beer prevents Cancer by Larsing · · Score: 1

    In other news, beer, especially the dark English varieties, can prevent or inhibit the growth of cancer cells.

    Italian coffe and English ale, I knew I had it right from the start! ;-)

    http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/halsa/story/0,2789,7 30462,00.html
    Apologies about the link, it's in Swedish...

    Here's one to the institute that discovered it:
    http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2005/Oct0 5/beerandcancer.htm

    --
    Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
  61. Re:Robust == Robust flavor? This is incorrect by ZiakII · · Score: 2, Funny

    Whoever wrote "So decaffeinated brands usually use a bean that has a more robust flavor," to explain why they use robusta (the cheapest swill, much cheaper than Arabica), probably also says:

    "HIV virus"

    and my alltime favorite:

    "PIN number"

    Actually, it is due to the propensity for acronyms (more often, backronyms) to trip up idiots like this guy that I am officially against acronyms.


    Your on a computer nerd website and you forget "NIC Card" .... just thinking about someone saying that makes me want to hurt someone.

  62. Thank you, no really, thank you. by beisbol · · Score: 2, Funny

    thank you for giving me a way to justify my insane caffeine addiction. now all i need is that article telling me how cigarettes lower my cholesterol and reduce my chance of heart disease.

    1. Re:Thank you, no really, thank you. by wpiman · · Score: 2, Informative
      Here you go.

      Smoke away- but please crawl into a field when you die-- don't drive up the cost of health care for those who need it for non-preventable, legitamite purposes.

      Smoking

      May help prevent Alzheimer's and makes you slimmer. So smoke away- but when you die of lung cancer, please crawl out into a field somewhere and die a not so peaceful, quick death there. We'd rather that than have you chew up medical resources dying a long and slow death in hosptital. This drives up the cost for the rest of us who might need it for non-preventable things.

      Talk to physicians and they'll tell you there are few things you can put in your mouth that are worse for you than a cigarette. But it's not all doom and gloom. Smokers are at least doing their bit to slow down the runaway obesity epidemic that is sweeping through the western world. "In many studies, you often find smokers are slimmer. We've certainly seen it in our studies," says Jodi Flaws at the University of Maryland school of medicine. "Some people think it's due to certain chemicals in cigarettes somehow making them burn more calories, but others believe it suppresses appetite. It may well be both."

      Drastically upping your chances of cancer and heart disease might not be the best way to avoid obesity, but it's certainly easier than running round the block.

      Scientists have also found evidence that smoking might, in some circumstances, help prevent the onset of various dementias. Many dementias go hand-in-hand with a loss of chemical receptors in the brain that just happen to be stimulated by nicotine. Smoking seems to bolster these receptors, and smokers have more of them. The theory is that smokers may then have more to lose before they start losing their minds. "It does seem that nicotine has a preventative effect, but the problem is that the other stuff in the cigarette tends to rot everything else," says Roger Bullock, a specialist in dementia and director of the Kingshill Research Centre in Swindon. So if your time is nearly up anyway, and you have somehow managed to steer a course past the Scylla and Charybdis of heart attacks and tumours, smoking might just help you retain your marbles.

    2. Re:Thank you, no really, thank you. by aug24 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, and after researching the effects, I stopped smoking roll-ups and started using big bong that I bought in Egypt.

      The weird thing is, once I broke the physical habit of making and smoking, I stopped getting around to loading the bong even though I enjoyed it. I haven't smoked in months.

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    3. Re:Thank you, no really, thank you. by foniksonik · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Parent is totally off topic... and I'll continue it... I've always wondered whether the stats showing increased risk of heart disease for smokers may be corrupted by the fact that many smokers also live overly sedentary lifestyles, ie: they don't go jogging in the morning, don't play b-ball after work or raquetball or any of the other things non-smokers do to distract themselves while smokers sit back and enjoy a cup of coffee and a newspaper. Similarly do smokers also 'breathe shallow' as a result of smoking... ie: taking deep breaths really isn't common for a smoker, also due to sedentary lifestyle plus the fact that smoking typically involves a shallower inhale in general... so the lungs aren't regularly fully inflated...

      These may be moot points as they go hand in hand with the smoking habit... but is it accounted for? Could a person live an otherwise very healthy lifestyle, exercising, yoga, eating well... and still smoke.. and enjoy a life without emphesema and heart disease and lung cancer?

      I smoke a pack a day but when I go for checkups the nurses think I'm an athlete and have never told me that I have symptoms of anything detrimental. When I tell them I smoke they don't believe it. I eat very well, excercise regularly and in general keep my body in good shape. I also take Taurine, a fish based enzyme that helps to avoid arterial hardening by improving elasticity of blood vessels (vitamin C does the same in large doses). I wouldn't say I do more preventative healthcare than a non-smoker however... just a few things differently.

      I mention heart-disease and emphesema because they are a much larger percentage of smoking related illlnesses than lung cancer which I believe is nearly as prevalent in non-smokers as in smokers, though when smokers get it it's all, 'must be from smoking' (my grandfather had lung cancer, smoked from age 14 to 40s but was also in the Navy, stationed on the first nuclear subs... hmmm.. was it smoking that did him in or exposure to radiation).

      To sum up, is it really smoking that increases disease or is it the lifestyle that many smokers live???? moreso than non-smokers.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  63. Even if you go vegetarian/vegan... by lwagner · · Score: 1

    ...and even if you went vegetarian/vegan, there are "researchers" trying to gain fame by saying that tofu, soy, is bad for you. Can't win. What do we eat? Anyone know?

    1. Re:Even if you go vegetarian/vegan... by RocketRainbow · · Score: 1

      As a vegan, I can promise you that drinking soy milk won't make you grow big girly breasts. If it did, I assure you it would be more popular with the ladies and far less popular with my macho hairy boyfriend.

      Do you see your girlfriend, sister or colleague hooked on tofu for no good reason but looking FABULOUS lately?

      Some things that do have this affect are: fennel (eaten by Roman warriors because it directs weight gain into muscle mass), barley (a majoy ingredient in beer), fenugreek (a stinky Indian herb some people like), and vitamin E (which is apparently the "beauty" vitamin).

      Also, tofu doesn't cause cancer - it's hardly a cure but it's the sort of thing you eat if you hope to catch out the free radicals before they go injuring your DNA.

      There's sometimes talk of soymilk being "unnatural" and "soy beans are traditionally only ever eaten fermented" - not true. Some people are allergic to soy, but then agian I'm allergic to my country's national flower, and I'd say the latter is much more common than the former.

      Given the way that they raise and process animals and given that you can get good tofu at the supermarket and it's usually organic and always labelled GMO Free, I'd say eat tofu.

      --
      *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
    2. Re:Even if you go vegetarian/vegan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever notice that all these studies have a common theme? They overdose their subjects on something, then claim it's bad. The answer is, eat everything (that's considered food), but eat it moderation. Time & time again, the studies prove that variety is the healthiest food.

    3. Re:Even if you go vegetarian/vegan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too much tofu goves me mood swings. (male) I may not grow boobs, but the estrogen does do stuff.

    4. Re:Even if you go vegetarian/vegan... by RocketRainbow · · Score: 1

      If tofu with its phytoestrogens (like estrogen but weaker) gives you mood swings, then I can only hope you are staying away from eggs and milk, which are full of real hormones. And animal flesh for that matter.

      Be careful of leafy green vegies that may have phytoestrogens in them.

      I accept that the parent has difficulty tolerating tofu. Personally, I have had a lot of trouble with certain fruit, and my own father, like 10% of the population is lactose intolerant.

      But this is not something I've ever heard of and it's possible that the parent has a very unusual, even unique condition, not something that would be considered a health risk for the same reason that peanut butter is not considered a health risk: it's quite healthy for the billions of the rest of us.

      --
      *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
    5. Re:Even if you go vegetarian/vegan... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Given the way that they raise and process animals

      You can get free-range/organic/grain-fed meat at lots of places these days.

  64. GOOD for fatties, BAD for thin people by jjo · · Score: 3, Informative
    You didn't read closely enough.

    In measuring HDL cholesterol, researchers looked specifically at HDL2, a type of HDL in which high levels are particularly associated with lower risk of heart disease

    IN overweight people, decaf drinking was associated with increase of good cholesterol, so they might benefit from decaf. Thin and normal-weight people saw a decrease in good cholesterol, so they might want to avoid decaf.

    This is, of course, much more complex than "Drink decaf and die". So it's probably hopeless to try to get the real message across.
    1. Re:GOOD for fatties, BAD for thin people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The conclusions of the study are nonsense because cholesterol has never been tied to mortality.

      http://www.thincs.org/
      http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cvd_index.html

  65. Every Diet by Windsinger · · Score: 1

    Basically, eat in moderation and don't snack between meals.

    Any real diet that isn't Atkins or South Beach tells you this. Americans of course can't deal with self-discipline or effort. As with parents and the TV babysitter, we only want a simple solution involving no effort on our part.

  66. German Beer? by freedom_india · · Score: 1

    German Beer? like Busch or Budweiser? or is it the crap like Becks?

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    1. Re:German Beer? by koi88 · · Score: 1


      German Beer? like Busch or Budweiser?

      Busch and Budweiser are American beers. They have German-sounding names because, maybe they were founded by Germans or German Americans or maybe just because somebody thought beer will sell better with a German name. Boeing isn't a German company either (founded by a 2nd generation German American).

      Beck's is a German beer brand, but IMHO the taste is a little boring. There are others that are much better.
      But all are made according to the "purity requirement": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinheitsgebot

      --

      I don't need a signature.
    2. Re:German Beer? by masklinn · · Score: 1

      Uh, none of the "things" you listed come even close to a realy German beer (or belgian, belgian beers are also really good).

      Gosh, even implying than Budweiser is not crap...

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    3. Re:German Beer? by Sarisar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually there are TWO budweiser drinks, one American one... some other country that I can't remember (although this is probably the right one so it would be Czech). I'm guessing this is why Bud did the whole 'genuine bud' thing to make the difference quite obvious.

      I wouldn't drink the non American one - it's not great. Although to be honest I'm not too fussed about 'the king of beers' either - I'd rather have one of these.

  67. Do it yourself poison kit by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 1

    Buy 3-4 cans of Skoal or other chewing tobacco.

    Place contents of cans into a saucepan with enough water to cover

    Slowly simmer over a low - medium heat and allow the the tobacco to steep as much as possible. Keep adding water in small quantities to keep the tobacco covered

    At this point, start wearing gloves! Pour the contents of the saucepan through a strainer to remove the solids. Put the liquid back in the saucepan and put back on the stove. Reduce heat to minimum setting.

    Keep an eye on the pan and continue keeping it on low heat until most of the liquid has evaporated and a syrup begins to form. Don't allow it to get too thick! Remove from heat and add isopropyl alcohol as necessary to keep it liquid.

    Just a couple of drops of that in anyone's drink is usually enough to send them to the emergency room with a very rapid heart beat. More than a few drops is usually enough to make sure they don't come home.

    --
    A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
  68. Of course it's bad by IAmATuringMachine! · · Score: 2, Funny

    As I've said in my debugging code for years, 0xDECAFBAD

    --
    "Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes."
    -E. W. Dijkstra
  69. Day of the Tentacle by Dwedit · · Score: 1

    Anyone who has played through "Day of the Tentacle" no doubt already knows about the nasty evil powers of decaf coffee.

  70. Burnt Starbucks Coffee by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

    Starbucks also have a tendency to over-roast their beans which leads to a bit of a burnt flavor on most of their coffees. Do they beat the hell out of freeze-dried store-bought crap? You bet they do. Are they still lacking in quality to save a buck? Yes.
    Well, that would explain it... I've tried Starbucks several times because people keep assuring me that it really is good and every time it's acrid and burnt. As for the comparison to store-bought coffee... *shrug* Maybe it's a matter of taste, but I'll take store-bought instant over Starbucks! I like my coffee to not leave with with a horrible taste in my mouth for the next few hours.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  71. We're all gonna die by 3CRanch · · Score: 1

    In short, drink caffine, get hypertensive and die...

    drink decafinated, get higher cholesterol, and die...

  72. Re:Robust == Robust flavor? This is incorrect by putko · · Score: 1

    NIC CARD!

    Exactly -- the kid of dumbass who studies coffee (and its effects on the heart), yet makes the statement that "robusta" has a robust flavor, is the type of dumbass to say "NIC Card".

    I actually think hackers are more likely to find these mistakes awful; they correspond to type errors in a programming language -- and you can't have those.

    The Army just came up with a gun, and they backronymed it into "PHASR" --- you know, like on Star Trek? Get it? Really fucking funny, right? See here: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8275&f eedId=online-news_rss20

    Well, here's their acronym:
    "Personnel Halting and Stimulation Response" == PHASR,

    and the official usage will be something like, "PHASR rifle" -- which makes sense.
    PHASR performs the role of a goddamned adjective, even though "phaser", in common use, is a noun.

    That's so retarded!

    Yet the idiots who named it clearly intended for it to be called "PHASR", not "PHASR rifle", or "PHASR sniper rifle."

    So that means that if the jarheads use it semantically correct ("PHASR rifle") they'll sound like idiots saying "NIC card" -- but if they just say something like, "I blasted him with my PHASR!", you'll be thinking, "How did you blast him with your 'stimulation response'?" and then, "well, was that a 'PHASR rifle/pistol/dildo that you blasted him with?" PHASR is just an adjective, right?

    There's an increasing trend for this sort of retarded name-i-fyin':

    http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles /2005/10/04/robotic_vacuum_maker_bu_team_up_on_ant isniper_device/

    "REDOWL"? Why not just call it a "FUCKTARD", and come up with a backronym for that?

    --
    http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
  73. Re:Blame Evolution: It's In Our Genes by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 0
    Let's see, that would presumably cut out most forms of domesticated animals (cattle, sheep, pig, chicken), many forms of grains (maize (aka 'corn'), wheat, barley), fruits (any seedless fruit, many hybrids like nectarene), and a huge percentage of the vegetables, especially beans, and the cabbage family.

    Somehow I think you are grossly over-simplifying, or perhaps are simply ignorant.

  74. Errr, no. by spineboy · · Score: 1

    A majority of people in the East are missing a gene -alcohol dehydrogenase. So basically when they drink the alcohol isn't broken down, and it just keeps running around in their system for a much longer time. Sake s a very popular drink in Japan, but still a huge percentage of the population is missing that gene.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
    1. Re:Errr, no. by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``A majority of people in the East are missing a gene -alcohol dehydrogenase.''

      I assume you mean they are missing the gene that encodes for the synthesis of ADH. Is this actually true, though? Have some links?

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  75. Re:Blame Evolution: It's In Our Genes by RocketRainbow · · Score: 2, Funny

    Since coffee is indiginous to Ethiopia where humans appear to have evolved*, I'm glad that it's such a natural food stuff and totally good for me.

    The researchers have clearly made a mistake. Pass the goofballs.

    *Humans from Kansas are known not to have evolved.

    --
    *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
  76. Re:Robust == Robust flavor? This is incorrect by mbius · · Score: 1

    Gee whiz. They'll let just any old nerds in here these days, won't they?

    --
    you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
    Prime UID Club
  77. Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I only eat sheep testicles, eggs, and lots of fiber -- nature's broom. So far so good. Oh, and I'm trying to kick my fentanyl habbit, but it makes life so much more pleasant.

  78. Except... by Austaph · · Score: 1

    you've obviously never tasted tobacco or felt the sting of nicotine in your throat -- much less a crude tobacco concentrate. One sip of that and you'd have a better chance of coughing to death.

    Acid-Base chemistry, on the other hand, is simple enough for a 10 year old. Extract the alkaloids from tobacco, drop a lethal dose in a shot of rum. A lethal balm is also very plausable, granted you'd need to apply it while wearing gloves. Friends close, enemies closer. Cheers!

  79. No Proof Heart Disease Related To Cholesterol by cannuck · · Score: 0

    I don't whether to laugh or cry when it comes to so-called "medical research". At least the medical/chemical industrial complex doesn't claim their "studies" are scientific.

    The mythology told by "men in white lab coats" almost approaches the mythological tales of King Arthur (anyone watch PBS last night?). There is no scientific proof (using the scientific method) that cholesterol has anything to do with "heart dis-ease".

    In fact there are some studies that show there is no relationship! Here's one source that doubts the whole notion http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/hd.html .

    But heart dis-ease has become such a cash cow - almost any mythology will fly. Take the mythology from 500 "studies" that "proves that wine is good for the heart." These 500 "studies" were scrutinized and turns out that wine has nothing to do with avoiding heart disease. People who can afford to drink wine with their meals in restaurants are in the upper middle class income stream and can afford a) medical insurance for treatment b) can afford the $3000 ski trip holiday in the alps etc. c) can afford high quality food - including organic foods and so on.

  80. Damn, I got worried for a bit there.... by Datamonstar · · Score: 1

    ... then I read decaf. *yawn*

    I'm going to go get some (cafinated) coffee.

    --
    The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
  81. How much is a cup? by PurpleButter · · Score: 1
    From the article, "Coffee drinkers in the United States consume an average of 3.1 cups each day."
    I wonder what that really means. Is that 3 8oz. cups? I venture a guess that most coffee cups sitting on /.ers' desks are around 12-16oz.

    Also from the article, "if you only drink one cup each day, the results of our study probably have little relevance because at that level your daily coffee dose is relatively low,"
    Luckily, with my personal cup warmer, my morning cup o' decaf usually lasts about 1/2 a day.

    --
    Look at the whole picture, not just the hole in the picture.
  82. Re:Blame Evolution: It's In Our Genes by reallocate · · Score: 1

    You're wrong. (Surprise!) Our genetic structure evolved in an environment that saw our ancestors ingesting chemicals and nutrients from meat, grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, etc. I'm suggesting that ingestion of chemicals and nutirents that were not available to our evolutionary ancestors is liable to get us into trouble.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  83. Re:Robust == Robust flavor? This is incorrect by The+Phantom+Mensch · · Score: 1

    Have you ever seen coffee beans being roasted, or roasted your own? Coffee beans are decaffeinated while they are green, and they turn a shade of brown in the process. When you roast them they get darker still, darker than normal beans for the same final roasting temperature (as measured by a thermal probe in the roaster). So you could say that a dark looking decaf bean was roasted the same amount as your normal bean, it just looks different.

    Another thing about decafs is that they have a lower shelf life than normal beans. But what is this about only getting it preground? All of my local supermarkets have bean dispensers with a few whole bean decafs in stock. They're stale of course, as are all of the beans at the supermarket, but they're decaf.

  84. personal findings about coffee by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    slightly offtopic, but I know this will interest some of you

    being an avid coffee drinker, I was keen to get the freshest, tastiest cup of joe possible.

    eventually I moved on to buying green beans, and roasting them myself.

    doing comparisons with friends (unknowing test subjects), I found out that my own personal brews had a LOT more caffeine than that of the regular coffeeshop fare.

    consequently, I tried to reduce my intake of caffeine by going back to coffeshop coffee, but my withdrawal symptoms have been excruciatingly painful nonetheless.

    hopefully the migraines will stop soon

    1. Re:personal findings about coffee by UncleFluffy · · Score: 1

      I do the same, but roast up a batch of regular and a batch of decaf and drink half-caf. Tastes good, still got a pretty fair kick, no headaches any more.

      --

      What would Lemmy do?

  85. Re:Robust == Robust flavor? This is incorrect by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    Well, at least Robusta is better than the blend of Chicory root and Molasses, which is what most instant 'coffee' is made from.

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  86. being born causes death by GungaDan · · Score: 1

    but being "born again" only causes brain death. ;-)

    --
    Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
  87. Learn to use the English language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Justin, your VULGAR adjectives show a level of ignorance that makes your points moot. Who wants to read what you have to say when you don't have enough control over yourself to make good points without using vulgar language.

    Grow up and wash that mouth out with soap!

  88. AH HA! It is all suddenly very clear ... by SubOptimalUseCase · · Score: 1

    'confinement' causes cancer in rats! Take a free, roaming, independent rat and shove him into a container, give him meaningless tasks and ... oh wait, that sounds like my job - hmmm.

    Perhaps if the rats were kept in open, self-governing colonies and were given the 'choice' to cooperate with research studies ... oh wait, that sound like my government - hmmm.

    Maybe if ... yep, you're right. We're pretty much screwed.

  89. I've heard of it, but why would you? by raygundan · · Score: 1

    I've read a couple of articles about various groups with naturally-decaffeinated coffee plants. One group was doing genetic engineering, and the other had found a wild variety with no caffeine. Both still had some breeding to do to get things to market.

    Nonetheless, even though coffee with no caffeine exists, I still don't have any idea why you'd caffeinate it, so your point still stands.

  90. Steamed water by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

    Steamed water?

    I know, that's why I put hot in parentheses.

    But the fact is, normally you use the steamer to heat the water quickly, so it's, uh, steamed water.

    --
    A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    1. Re:Steamed water by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but when I use the microwave to heat water, I don't call it "microwaved water".. or "stovetop water" for the range. It's hot. It doesn't matter how you heat it up.

    2. Re:Steamed water by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 4, Funny

      Of course, you are correct. But you might want to switch to decaf anyway, you seem a little uptight...

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
  91. Damn hippies by Urusai · · Score: 3, Funny

    I prefer to make my sandwiches with extra butter and a thick slice of lard, and dip my salami in the warm blood of baby seals. While cutting down a virgin redwood.

    1. Re:Damn hippies by Reverend528 · · Score: 1

      For a real treat, fry the bread in bacon grease.

    2. Re:Damn hippies by The_Dougster · · Score: 1
      "We take eighteen ounces of sizzling ground beef, and then soak it in rich creamery butter. Then we top it off with bacon, ham and a fried egg. We call it . . . the Good Morning Burger."

      Yumm.... *stomach rumbles*

      --
      Clickety Click ...
  92. no caffeine hey? by guardia · · Score: 1

    "another that drank three to six cups of decaffeinated coffee a day; and a third, the control group, that drank no coffee." ha! maybe they got stressed and developed LDL cholesterol on withdrawal.

  93. A bit sensational? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Don't you think the title of this article is a bit sensational? All sorts of things we do can raise our cholesterol, but that's not an instant death sentence. People who have been drinking decaf coffee for years are still around. We cannot eliminate all dangers and everything "bad for you" from our lives. Things would be very boring and unpleasant.

    I'm sure even people with cholesterol problems can have a cup of decaf every once in awhile and be no worse off.

  94. Re:Robust == Robust flavor? This is incorrect by Vinnie_333 · · Score: 1
    you have to get it pre-ground

    BTY - You can get whole bean decaf. I use to get it during the brief period of time when I experimented with decaf. It was pretty good decaf, but you did have to use a lot more to get a nice tastey cup of joe. And I wouldn't say it's a fringe item. A lot of people drink decaf.

    --

    "We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
  95. And water is how safe, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I repeat simple common sense - drink water most of the time. It seems nothing else is safe these days.

    I don't know where you get the idea that water is "safe". Hell, here in Ontario, Canada, we had the Walkerton debacle in 2000 wherein people died from E.coli that was circulated through "clean" tap water. And this is in an industrialized nation where we're not supposed to have problems with this kind of crap anymore. God forbid you visit/live in Mexico or Africa or some such where the water quality is worse.

    - water can carry harmful bacteria
    - artificially created/modified products (such as soda and juice from concentrate) contain chemicals that may kill you
    - butter is too high in fat, but margarine contains too many artificial products and can even lead to anal leakage
    - sugar is bad for you, but so are artificial sweeteners
    - grains are treated with pesticides and other chemicals, and, once processed, are often so robbed of nutrients as to be totally unhealthy
    - vegetables are treated with pesticides and other chemicals, and are coated with wax to look pretty on the shelf
    - beef can be unsafe due to mad cow disease, and it's also much too fatty
    - poultry can be unsafe due to salmonella, and force-fed poultry is often, once again, much too high in fat
    - pork is just too high in fat to be healthy, and it also can carry its own share of harmful bacteria

    Shall I go on?

    I could find links that lead to studies that support all of the previous claims, but anyone who really cares enough can just Google it. What I'm getting at is that nothing is safe. That's why we have an immune system, but it's also why we get sick and die. That's why I've given up on eating "healthy", because nobody can agree on what "healthy" is!

  96. And how safe is water, exactly? by atomic_toaster · · Score: 1

    I repeat simple common sense - drink water most of the time. It seems nothing else is safe these days.

    I don't know where you get the idea that water is "safe". Hell, here in Ontario, Canada, we had the Walkerton debacle in 2000 wherein people died from E.coli that was circulated through "clean" tap water. And this is in an industrialized nation where we're not supposed to have problems with this kind of crap anymore. God forbid you visit/live in Mexico or Africa or some such where the water quality is worse.

    - water can carry harmful bacteria
    - artificially created/modified products (such as soda and juice from concentrate) contain chemicals that may kill you
    - butter is too high in fat, but margarine contains too many artificial products and can even lead to anal leakage
    - sugar is bad for you, but so are artificial sweeteners
    - grains are treated with pesticides and other chemicals, and, once processed, are often so robbed of nutrients as to be totally unhealthy
    - vegetables are treated with pesticides and other chemicals, and are coated with wax to look pretty on the shelf
    - beef can be unsafe due to mad cow disease, and it's also much too fatty
    - poultry can be unsafe due to salmonella, and force-fed poultry is often, once again, much too high in fat
    - pork is just too high in fat to be healthy, and it also can carry its own share of harmful bacteria

    Shall I go on?

    I could find links that lead to studies that support all of the previous claims, but anyone who really cares enough can just Google it. What I'm getting at is that nothing is safe. That's why we have an immune system, but it's also why we get sick and die. That's why I've given up on eating "healthy", because nobody can agree on what "healthy" is!

    1. Re:And how safe is water, exactly? by rolfwind · · Score: 1
      I repeat simple common sense - drink water most of the time. It seems nothing else is safe these days.

      I don't know where you get the idea that water is "safe". Hell, here in Ontario, Canada, we had the Walkerton debacle in 2000 wherein people died from E.coli that was circulated through "clean" tap water. And this is in an industrialized nation where we're not supposed to have problems with this kind of crap anymore. God forbid you visit/live in Mexico or Africa or some such where the water quality is worse.

      - water can carry harmful bacteria


      Water = H20

      Water + E.coli = deadly
      Coca Cola = deadly

      I did not give you permission to add E.coli to your water>:( Also, I didn't say to drink "ocean water = (at a minimum) salt + water." Don't blame me when it turns out unsafe. I didn't specifically advocate tap water. You can get bottled water from a reputable bottler such as say the Coca-Cola Company (Dasani). It should be as safe as Cola.

      Shall I go on?


      Not really. Your list is ridiculous in the perspective of risk. Also, cook your chicken fully to avoid samonella and use better cuts of pork (porkchops) and not bacon to avoid fat - 1st grade shit here, really. Didn't you mom teach you?

      I also see some thing missing on your list:
      -inhaling tar&nicotine sticks are not the most healthy things for your lungs
      -exchanging bodily fluids with complete strangers might not be a bright idea
      -inhaling paint thinner may get you high and brain damaged

      There is a well documented correlation between overindulgence of fats and sugars and diabetes/obesity. It's like driving under the influence of alcohol, your chances of getting into an accident is higher but not guaranteed.

      These other risks such as mad cow disease or E.coli are bad luck that can't be guarded against reasonably in the US if you insist on tap water (or even bottled water) and if you are in Mexico drink bottled water. The reason you get the shits in Mexico is not only because of what the water contains but what you are used to. After a couple of weeks of living their, your immune system will get used to it or you'll die of dehydration, what not. Let time tell.

      Again, think with half a brain and use common sense - then your posts may have a point.

      I could find links that lead to studies that support all of the previous claims, but anyone who really cares enough can just Google it. What I'm getting at is that nothing is safe. That's why we have an immune system, but it's also why we get sick and die. That's why I've given up on eating "healthy", because nobody can agree on what "healthy" is!


      Then you should just think what humans are likely evolved to eat by now and try to shoot for eating the food and drinking such drinks that it should, by nature, be designed to eat and process. This means that purely processed food such as candybars should be indulged in sparingly. Same with fruitjuice which is basically natural sugar water - fruits are healthier whole.

      Humans were not evolved to eat massive amounts of sugar - Europeans started getting cavities en masse when introduced to refined sugar in the 1600/1700s (starting with Royalty who could afford sugar first initially). Native Americans still have higher rates of diabetes and alcoholism because of the complete lack of experience with alcohol (alcohol is a type of sugar) that Europeans bought with them to America. Europeans had at least 4,000 years to evolve toward it.

      Is common sense that hard?
    2. Re:And how safe is water, exactly? by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      Before I have to answer a stupid reply, I meant to type:

      Water = H20
      Water + E.coli = deadly
      Coca Cola = okay
      Coca Cola + E.coli = deadly

      NOT "Coca Cola=deadly"

    3. Re:And how safe is water, exactly? by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      Coca Cola + E.coli = deadli e-CocaColi.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  97. This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scientists discover that life is the leading cause of death.

  98. How much does it take to kill you though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, how much caffeine drinks DOES it take to kill you though? Ha! For me it's 100.31 cups of Brewed Coffee.

  99. Quitting or not? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

    A few years ago, I ran into my old ninth grade history teacher, a curmudgeon and proud of it, but a great teacher. We chatted for quite a while and got onto the subject of his neighbors, many of whom were college professors that I knew from school. He mentioned Bill Thonson, the prof I had taken a photography class from, and a man I had always liked, had recently died. My old teacher spoke admiringly of Bill and said that he had "died with all of his vices intact." Something to live up to, I think, especially since Bill's list was impressive.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  100. Re:Robust == Robust flavor? This is incorrect by Liptonice · · Score: 1

    For your information;

    In general, Arabica beans contain less caffeine then Robusta coffeebeans. Most decafeinated coffees are made with Arabica.
    Quality of the beans is determined by various factors such as color (before the roast), shape of the beans, taste and hardness; Strictly Hard Bean is an indication of a high quality.

    Blessed Be,

    Lipton

  101. Why decaf beans are darker... by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    I buy green coffee beans and roast them myself. But in the case of decaf beans, "green" is a misnomer - they come out of the decaffination process brown already. And when you roast them, they turn out darker than regular beans, even if you roast them to the same degree.

    Sean

  102. Re:Robust == Robust flavor? This is incorrect by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
    I think the reason most decaf is so bad is that you have to get it pre-ground (even at restaurants and cafes) and thus it's stale and the wrong grind anyway, or else it's such a fringe item that it sits around longer on the shelf going stale between roasting batches.

    According to Alton Brown, the reason most decaf is so bad is because it's a lot more expensive to make - the decaffinating process costs money, yet customers aren't willing to pay a dollar more per cup of decaf coffee than caf coffee, so they make up the difference by using really crappy beans.
    They also tend to roast them really dark to hide what would otherwise be discolored beans.

  103. Well-done Study by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

    It looks like this study avoided the pitfalls of earlier studies -- examing free-living populations.

    There was a study performed by Harvard Medical that reached the same conclusions. The problem is, the subjects were all medical students and doctors (ie those who already had poor health were aware of a supposed link between caffeine and bad health). Thus, those had a propensity for certain diseases and health problems avoided caffeine, and instead drank decaf. The problem is, they had a propensity to poor health already, so the study showed that decaf "caused" poor health.

    My probability professor used to bitch about studies like that. It looks like this one avoided those problems. Good for them.

  104. Press Release by bill.sheehan · · Score: 1
    ROOTERS Drinking water may increase your risk of a horrible death Wed Nov 16, 2005 2:37 PM ET

    By Mangie Kerr

    DULLAS (Rooters Health) - Drinking water may raise the risk of boneitis more than Diet A&W Root Beer does, Flatlanda investigators announced at the Bonitis Organization Internation Networking Group (BOING) conference currently meeting here.

    Dr. Chuck N. Little and Dr. Fred D. Katt of the Wounded Knee Medical Center analyzed the effects of fluid consumption on bone density in 193.5 subjects enrolled in a clinical trial known as the Root Beer Float.

    The subjects were randomly assigned to one of three groups: water drinkers, Diet A&W Root Beer drinkers, and those who drank straight gin. Each drank three to six cups of fluid per day for a period of two weeks.

    At the end of the study, there were no significant differences among those who drank Diet A&W Root Beer. The gin drinkers were demanding olives and vermouth. But the water drinkers showed a significant but undisclosed difference in bone density. Whether this difference is statistically meaningful is also undisclosed so that nothing can distract from the alarming warning of the menace of boneitis.

    "This is terribly important," said Dr. Katt, who went on to emphasize the pressing need to approve his grant proposals for more study of this critical public health threat.

  105. Let's not panic yet by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1
    Reading the article, there are a number of things that suggest that more study is needed and no one should panic.

    The Coffee and Lipoprotein Metabolism (CALM) study included 187 people, randomized to three groups: one that drank three to six cups of caffeinated coffee a day; another that drank three to six cups of decaffeinated coffee a day; and a third, the control group, that drank no coffee.

    Although there are people who do drink 3-6 cups of day, would normal 1 cup a day drinker be affected?

    "Caffeinated and decaffeinated coffees are often made from different species of beans. Caffeinated coffee, by and large, comes from a bean species called coffee Arabica, while many decaffeinated coffees are made from coffee Robusta. The decaffeination process can extract flavonoids and ingredients that give coffee flavor. So decaffeinated brands usually use a bean that has a more robust flavor."

    As someone who has worked in the coffee industry and has worked with the decaffeination process, this is a generalization that is not always true. Caffeinated coffee comes from many different beans. Arabica and Robusta are just of the most common. I would say that majority of caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee comes from Robusta because it is a cheaper bean. The common coffees (Folger's, Maxwell House, etc) that you would get in a normal restaraunt (MacDonald's, KFC, etc) and at the supermarket are often Robusta. Higher grade coffee is made from Arabica. Because it is more expensive, often it is not decaffeinated because those willing to pay more for coffee want it caffeinated.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  106. Two types of decaf processes by Morinaga · · Score: 1
    Color me a skeptic because I don't see how removing properties of a food would promote higher cholesterol. Regular coffee still has all the properties of decaf plus some additional chemicals that are removed during the decaf process. The study seems to suggest that there's something in coffee that promotes higher LDL levels yet is also counter-acted by the caffeine. The removal of which exposes decaf drinkers to this risk. With all due respect to the American Heart Association, 187 people seems to be an insignificant sample size, especially when that sample of testors are split in to three seperate test groups. Not to mention that the control group is part of that split. Essentially the test sample size is 124 that is split in to two test groups. Anyway, more information on decaf processes and how decaf coffee still has cafeine. http://www.chilipaper.com/FNCC/decaf_coffee.htm

    Caffeine, which is found in coffee and other foods (cocoa, tea), is that substance that keeps us awake, both when we need it and when we don't want it. Unfortunately, to some people this and other side effects of caffeine are not welcome.

    Decaffeinated coffee or "decaf" is coffee that has had most of the caffeine removed. By weight, the amount of caffeine found naturally in coffee is only about 1% for the Arabica and 2% for the Robusta coffee beans.

    When you read "97% Caffeine Free", 97% of that 1% or 2% has been removed.

    There are currently two methods used commercially that remove caffeine from coffee:

    European Process Swiss Water Process

    European Process

    Most decaf coffees are made using a chemical process first used in Europe. This process involves soaking the beans in water and then "washing" them in methylene chloride to absorb the caffeine from the bean. After this, the beans are rinsed clean of the chemicals, dried and shipped to the coffee roasters. The advantage of this method is that it provides decaf coffee with more flavor than the Swiss water processing. Although there is virtually no trace of any chemicals left in the bean after roasting, some people are uncomfortable knowing that the coffee they are drinking was chemically processed.

    Swiss Water Process

    The second method is known as "Swiss water processing". This process uses no chemicals, but rather hot water and steam to remove the caffeine from the coffee. The "life" of the bean is taken into the water, and then the water solution put through activated charcoal filters to remove the caffeine. Once the caffeine is removed, these same beans are then put back into the decaffeinated solution to re-absorb everything except the caffeine. The beans are then dried and shipped to the roasters. The disadvantage is that the water processing removes more than just the caffeine. Some of the oils from the coffee bean are removed as well, making it less flavorful.

  107. sanitation, dood, sanitation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    b) If modern technology and modern medicine is so bad and evil and god knows what else, please explain to me why life expectancy in Humans today is about 30-40% more than 100 years ago. Its about living better for a longer time, or what am I missing?

    Nothing has done more for human longevity than modern sanitation. Nothing has done more to make people healthy than not having to walk through shit flowing in the street.

    My grandfather's side was especially long-lived - his parents and grandparents regularly lived into their 90's and 100's. (Grandpa _might_ make it to 90, but he's just hanging on by a thread...) But they lived on a farm, or in a rural setting, where there wasn't a concentration of bodies generating copious amounts of shit. Sewer system technology is only about a hundred years old, making city dwelling a healthier choice for the past 100 years.

    People thrive despite technological medicine, not 'because of'.

  108. OHHH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YOU'RE INTELLIGENT.

  109. What an aweful thing to say... by NIN1385 · · Score: 1

    That is possibly the scariest news headline I have ever read. The worst one I have ever seen is 133 Dead As Delta Cancels Flight in Midair.

    --

    If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
    1. Re:What an aweful thing to say... by slothman32 · · Score: 1

      Where was that?
      Is it online?
      What was the article acutally about?
      In any case it is a funny name.

      --
      Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
    2. Re:What an aweful thing to say... by NIN1385 · · Score: 1
      Haha. Nice to see somebody caught that one, I thought it would die miserably. The article was fake, it is on The Onion right now, here is the link bro.

      The article from The Onion

      Thanks for noticing!

      --

      If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
  110. Re:Robust == Robust flavor? This is incorrect by kureido · · Score: 1

    Decaf coffee is in general bad because it's expensive to process. If you use the same high-quality beans as you'd use for caffeinated coffee, the added cost of time and equipment would drive the price of a cup of decaf higher than the price of a cup of regular. That's bad for business -- most people probably wouldn't pay extra for a cup of decaf. So the processors use cheap, lower-quality beans for decaf, and the final price ends up closer to the price of regular coffee.

  111. Batter Up! by DaFunker · · Score: 1

    Marijuana...check Ephedra...check Tobacco...in progress Caffeine...next in line We continue the march of using "what if's," "maybe's," and "sometime's," to villify and then ban substances that when used in moderation and properly offer about the same risk of harm as driving a car or walking down the street. Probably even less so. Oh well, you have to find something for lobbiests, politicians and fringe scientists to work on.

  112. Decaf, schmecaf by Kelson · · Score: 1

    I always said decaf coffee was an abomination. Now we have evidence to back it up!

    1. Re:Decaf, schmecaf by freedom_india · · Score: 1
      True. Not just coffee, whenever man has tampered with natural products, he has always ended up with producing stuff that has been more harmful. Nature has a damn good reason backed by 1.25 million years (of human existence) for leaving things as they are.

      Plastics, Polythelene, Decaf, etc., are proof of Man's vain attempt to "show up" Nature, while Nature sits around laughing at us...we have been on this planet for a blink of time ine earth's history.

      It is like US jumping into in Iraq and Vietnam shouting "fighting terror" without understanding the basics first.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    2. Re:Decaf, schmecaf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plastics, Polythelene, Decaf, etc., are proof of Man's vain attempt to "show up" Nature, while Nature sits around laughing at us...

      Just out of curiosity, what's your computer made of?

  113. I have the solution ! Yes ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Caffeinated Chocolade Beer - Yea !

  114. To quote Mark E Smith of The Fall... by Darius+Jedburgh · · Score: 1

    ..."99% of non-smokers die".

  115. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's part of their plan to segue into hardcore pornography. I mean, how else do we wind up with shows like "Desperate Housewives" on network TV? :)

  116. Are we taling 'instant' coffee or the cafe type? by grolschie · · Score: 1

    Are we talking about cheap instant decaf coffee or a decaf latte made with real beans in a cafe?

  117. Melodramatic much? by MegaFur · · Score: 1

    Sheesh. I read about this over at the BBC. That artcle, at least, made it clear that the concern was like the mildest of concerns. I mean we're talking one study makes one link between decaf coffee and some cholesterol levels and maybe one other thing. That's it. Big whoop. And even then, it only affected people that drank, I think, six or more cups a day.

    So now everyone here is making fun of this slashdot article, and rightly so. This is what we call *sensationalism*. But hey it works, you clicked on the link right? Just as "the revolution will not be televised" I suspect much of the *real* news may not have splashy headlines or catchy theme music.

    --
    Furry cows moo and decompress.
  118. Decaf isn't significantly more expensive by billstewart · · Score: 1
    I like good coffee, and don't like lots of caffeine, so I buy good decaf coffee beans, which tend to cost at most about 10% more than regular good beans, and that's assuming I'm paying retail at Peet's or equivalent high quality roasters. And if you make the coffee properly, it tastes very good, though some varieties have a bit less flavor, and I've only found one place that'll decaffeinate milder East African beans like Ethiopian. But every good roaster has a decent decaf Sumatra.

    If you're using $10/pound coffee, $11/pound decaf isn't going to increase the cost of a cup significantly, especially because the places that use it are typically charging $1.50-$2/cup for the atmosphere and the extra 2 cents cost of materials doesn't matter. If you're using $3/pound coffee, and making it weaker, the difference is under a penny, which doesn't matter unless you're dealing with McDonald's kinds of volume.

    The reason decaf coffee at non-coffee-centric restaurants tastes so nasty is that the restaurant starts with cheap beans (which does seem to make more difference for decaf) and leaves the pot sitting on the burner for longer because there's usually not as much demand for decaf as regular, after leaving the preground decaf sitting unrefrigerated in the can for longer than the regular to make sure it went stale first. So the regular is fresh cheap boring weak coffee, while the decaf is old stale burned cheap boring weak coffee.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  119. Decaffeination solvents removing flavor by billstewart · · Score: 1
    Decaffeination works by soaking the coffee beans in some solvent to dissolve the caffeine, but that's always going to dissolve other flavor components as well - it's not just the caffeine flavor that's lost. There are a bunch of different methods for solvents, temperatures, length of time, filtration, etc. to try to minimize the flavor loss and/or cost and make it easy to recover the caffeine for putting in sodas.

    Robusta coffees used to be popular for this, partly because they're cheap and used to be the main caffeine coffees sold as well, and partly because they have more caffeine that can be used for the soda market, and partly because the early methods took out more flavor than the current methods.

    Decaf beans are really common, though - most of the places I buy cups of coffee either grind their own decaf and regular from beans or else get them both preground in big bags. Occasionally I'll be at a small espresso place that has one grinder for the regular and gets the decaf ground out of a can, but it's not that common.

    At least most US airlines these days brew their decaf as well as regular. I remember the days of powdered Sanka all too well.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Decaffeination solvents removing flavor by sdpuppy · · Score: 2, Informative

      A very common solvent used for decaffeination is CO2 which leaves absolutely no traces of the solvent in the product, since it turns to gas at normal pressures. (compressed to a pressure such that it has liquid properties - for more info, google Super Critical Fluid Extraction)

    2. Re:Decaffeination solvents removing flavor by billstewart · · Score: 1

      CO2 and the various water and steam methods do have the benefit of not leaving annoying chemicals in the coffee, as opposed to some of the early solvents. The other side of the problem, though, is what components of coffee flavoring get washed out along with the caffeine. I haven't been able to make any really good comparisons - too much variation among beans, roasting, etc., and not enough information on which "natural" decaffeination method most decaf beans use, though a lot of the "Swiss Water Process" stuff seems bland to me.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  120. Re:Starbucks has lots of coffee varietals by billstewart · · Score: 1
    Eh? Go into a Starbucks and look at the beans-for-sale board, and you'll see lots of different varietals, and then look at the what's-brewed-today board. They normally have two caffeine flavors, one stronger and one milder, and one decaf. Too often the decaf is just "House Blend", which isn't that bad but I'd usually prefer Sumatra. Usually one of the caf versions is a blend and one is a varietal. They'll often have Kenya AA beans or a New Guinea Peaberry, but it's not that often what they're brewing.

    I prefer Peet's, where the coffees are usually *more* bitter than Starbucks, but both of them do brew a fairly strong dark coffee for their main market. Unfortunately neither of them does an East African decaf - I've found one local coffee place that roasts an Ethiopian decaf, and does surprisingly well given the damage decaffeinating does to milder coffees.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  121. Coffee in government towns by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Sacramento California is about 2 hours east of San Francisco, and I occasionally had projects there either with the state government or more often with companies that had data centers there (it's outside the earthquake zone). For a number of years there seemed to be a conspiracy never to sell any coffee strong enough to wake up a government bureaucrat. The weakest of all was at the cafeteria in the office building where the state telecom bureaucrats worked - I'd guess it had less than half as much coffee per cup of light brown water as MacDonalds. There was one Lebanese restaurant that made espresso, but that was about it. Eventually Starbucks moved in, and if you went to the suburbs where the computer companies were, it became possible to get coffee.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  122. Anti-Starbucks Snobbery is a SanFranciscoism by billstewart · · Score: 1
    Here in the San Francisco Bay Area it's popular to sneer at Starbucks, who sells a mass-market coffeehouse experience as opposed to the small quirky independent coffeehouse experience, just as we sneer at Borders big-chain bookstores that moved in to compete with 50 different independent bookstores. We don't sneer at Peet's, who are a local coffee chain that's been around a long time, but Peet started it here and they make really good coffee. And they're from Seattle, even though they learned coffee roasting from Peet, so it's a rival town.

    But we've always had good coffee here in SF, and back when I lived in New Jersey there were enough Italians around that you could find espresso in almost any town, though average coffee wasn't that good.

    Out in the MidWest and most of Flyover Country, Starbucks saved the locals from drinking tasteless brown water. They were a wonderful thing. Sure, there are exceptional areas, like New Orleans, and you'd get better coffee up north than down south, partly because of the weather, and partly because of cultural differences (Lutheran churches generally have better coffee than Methodists, who make much better coffee than Baptists :-) But before Starbucks, MacDonalds was the standard for dependable coffee in most of the US - anywhere else was likely to be even worse.

    Los Angeles was another special case, in the bad direction. Instead of Midwestern wimpy brown water, it was Mexican-style coffee made with LA's bad-tasting water, so it was really atrocious. I've had similar coffee in Mexico, where they use darker roasted coffee than average boring US coffee but make it weaker, so it's about the same strength, kind of like making Americano except a lot weaker, but there's something about the flavor of LA's not-very-drinkable tap water that interacts badly with that style coffee. Blah! Starbucks was a real improvement when they started taking over LA and the Valley.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  123. sunscreen/cancer by RandyOo · · Score: 1

    IIRC (from what I've read), if you use sunscreen, it will prevent most skin cancer, but also raise your risk of getting much more lethal cancers, like colon or lung. I think I'd rather have the odd skin cancer cut out, personally.

  124. A question. by Darius+Jedburgh · · Score: 1
    People who make food for you deserve your respect.
    Why?
    1. Re:A question. by mellon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because if they put poison in your food, you die. If they make your food well, it gives you pleasure. And if you treat them like drones, you're encouraging them to give you drone food. Don't try to tell me it doesn't matter - even at a place like McDonalds it's possible to get comparitively good or bad service.

      Furthermore, how do you want to be treated? With respect, or like a drone? If with respect, then you're just like everybody else. Why would you treat someone else differently than you yourself would like to be treated?

      It's not so much that in treating someone else with respect, you ensure that they treat you with respect. That's not the case, as I'm sure you've experienced. But if you refuse to put negative energy into the world, that's less negative energy in the world, and ultimately that means less negative energy coming back at you, even if it doesn't work in the moment. And when you put positive energy into the world, then that's more positive energy in the world that can come back to you later. I know it sounds a bit lovey-dovey, but on a practical level it does seem to work.

    2. Re:A question. by buck_wild · · Score: 1

      "if you treat them like drones, you're encouraging them to give you drone food. Don't try to tell me it doesn't matter - even at a place like McDonalds it's possible to get comparitively good or bad service."

      The only problem with your theory is that the cashier, whom you can respect in spades, does not have a hand in making your food. At least not at the fast food places around me. I do, however, agree with you on the level of service you *could* receive, at least from the cashier.

      --
      If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
  125. huh? by RandyOo · · Score: 1

    Alcohol dehydrogenase is an enzyme, not a gene. And a related bit of trivia: Do you know what the antidote for methanol ingestion is? Good old ethanol! See the wiki and scroll down to see why.

  126. not entirely true by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    Look up the history of seafaring (specifically European seafaring). You could boil water and put it in a cask for a long journey, and it might still go bad from what was in the cask. If it had alcohol in it, it prevented re-contamination during storage.

    Many European naval experts felt that a drinking water-based (as opposed to grog or rum) naval fleet was so difficult to maintain as to be impractical. Losses from water-borne illness would be very large.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:not entirely true by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1

      That the fermentation somewhat inhibits new contamination sounds logical, but does not contradict my statement that the water was drinkeable because of being boiled, not because it was fermented. To the best of my knowledge cholera would not have gone away by fermentation.

  127. Turkish Coffee vs. Americanos by billstewart · · Score: 2, Interesting
    20 years ago I was travelling around the Middle East. Any time the bus would stop, within 2 minutes the driver would be hanging out with people drinking a little cup of half-mud local-style coffee. Any time any of the _passengers_ wanted coffee, anywhere, we'd get handed powdered-Nescafe, because they know that's what Americans drink (and in fact, for most of the people in the group**, that was true.) Arrrgh. I want coffee strong enough the spoon doesn't fall over when you stir it, but just weak enough that the spoon doesn't actually dissolve. After a couple of tries I was able to convince some places to give me coffee the way the locals drink it - much better... And then there was the place out in the wadi where Moses or Lawrence of Arabia had done something (I forget which; somewhere in southern Jordan anyway), where I had coffee with the local historical-monument-guards, which was much more civilized in spite of being in a tent in the middle of nowhere.

    Jordan's version of Turkish coffee is a bit different from the Greek or Turkish stuff, just as most of the common Middle Eastern cuisine varies a bit from place to place, but it's pretty similar. But you're wrong about "Americano" being a joke - to us, it's not "the stupid way stupid Americans like their coffee watered down from the way normal people drink it", it's "coffee made the strength Americans like it at home, with enough water in it that you can drink a whole cup of hot liquid, instead of drinking an octuple-espresso which is what you'd get if you asked the Italians/French to make you 250ml of coffee." Yeah, ok, it's watered down, but it's no more diluted than drinking a latte - it's just diluted with water instead of milk.

    **Yes, I was with tourists; my wife knew the guy leading the group, who'd been travelling to the Middle East on various business for about 60 years, and we wanted to go there with him while he was still in reasonable health, so there was us, a 40-year-old guy, and a bunch of old people who prefered powdered nescafe. Got to see all kinds of cool places in Jordan and Egypt as well as the usual modern tourist traps and the usual 4th-century pilgramage tourist traps.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  128. Robusta vs. Arabica = Bad Experiment Design by billstewart · · Score: 1
    Hey, this *is* the science section of Slashdot, isn't it? If using a robusta-based decaf instead of arabica-based makes a difference, then it's not a very good control group. You could argue that it's bad experiment design. Alternatively, you can view it as "an unexpected result", and try re-running the experiment with decent coffee for the decaf drinkers. That's probably a more reasonable interpretation - I assume they thought they were just testing for caffeine, and expected the decaf drinkers to be more healthy than the caffeine drinkers except maybe for effects like ulcers where the acidity and oiliness of the coffee is more important than the caffeine.

    I found the results surprising and annoying - I drink lots of (good arabica) decaf because I like coffee but don't like being caffeinated all the time, have high blood pressure, normal-to-low LDLs, and low HDLs. I didn't expect coffee to be affecting my cholesterol, but having them tell me I ought to start drinking lots of caffeine to improve my heart risks is really _not_ what I want to hear :-)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  129. Teens Healthy as ever by Archades54 · · Score: 1

    this just in, depressed teens healthier than ever, they regularly cut themselves.....

    --
    If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
  130. Well, tell us, then ... damn it! by aegilops · · Score: 1

    I'm all intrigued. Tell us about your morning coffee ritual. I love Slashdot threads that involve coffee because I'm always in awe of the real "out there" coffee drinkers.

    Seriously. I'd love to hear what you do. Part voyeurism, part looking for tips to improve my own humble brew.

    Aegilops

  131. Why would you treat someone else differently...? by Darius+Jedburgh · · Score: 1

    I try to treat all people with a certain amount of respect. Is there something special about people who sell food? My experience of places like McDonald's is the service is pretty obnoxious so those people get less respect from me than average. On the other hand people who do a great job of serving me in a restaurant will get more respect. I don't see anything special about food.

  132. I'm waiting for someone to say smoking is safe... by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

    Which may or may not be a possibility. Between low level radioactive particles being passed into the air from coal fired power plants, through automotive exhausts (which contain roughly the same amount of toxins as cigarette smoke), and even pollutants blown over the Pacific from China.

    For all we know, smoking could either be a scapegoat or at the very least, be improving some people's tolerance for said dangerous materials in the air.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  133. Re:Why would you treat someone else differently... by mellon · · Score: 1

    There isn't anything special about food. The reason I mentioned it was that someone was belittling the idea of giving a food service job a name that had some implicit cachet - barista instead of coffee server. I think it's cool that Starbucks is treating their employees as if what they do is cool, not ordinary.

    Pulling espressos is about 50% the job itself, and 50% interaction with the customer. If you just wanted an espresso, you'd buy a machine - if you get an espresso drink every day, you could pay for the quite expensive equipment required to make your own espresso in about a year, so there's no reason to ever go to *$$ or your local family-owned coffee shop unless you want something more than just an espresso drink.

    So the 50% of the job that's not pulling the espresso is, essentially, being somebody that your customers want to see on a regular basis. And if you are the customer, then your job, should you choose to accept it, is turning the person behind the counter into someone you want to see every day. If you don't want that job, brew your own coffee.

    Anyway, the point is that when you say "so those people get less respect from me" you are saying that you have abdicated your power to decide to be who you want to be to the other person; if they act toward you the way you want people to act toward you, then you will act back in kind, and if they don't, you won't either. Why not take the power into your own hands, and just be nice to everybody, regardless of how they treat you?

  134. pub med link for ADH by spineboy · · Score: 1

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2511595&dopt=Abstract /

    and
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8986205 &query_hl=3/

    http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/127/5/376/

    This is a fairly well known fact. To absolutely corect would have been better to say that some Asians often have a copy of the ADH gene that doesn't function (essentially),as compared to ethnic caucasians. There are some racial differences in drug metabolism. See also G6P metabolism in people of Afican and mediterrainian descent - certain drugs used to prevent malaria caused a hemolytic anemia (red cells burst).

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  135. Re:Are we taling 'instant' coffee or the cafe type by the_greywolf · · Score: 1

    instant folgers and other such "coffee" substitutes are made from beans which have been over-roasted, improperly ground, and added to water that isn't an appropriate temperature, then it's rapidly freeze-dried to produce the "instant" granules.

    you tell me.

    --
    grey wolf
    LET FORTRAN DIE!