coffee-forum.net
Promoting coffee discussion.

Main
Date: 07 Sep 2007 12:08:32
From: phreaddy
Subject: figuring caffeine levels
I'm trying to figure out how much caffeine is in a triple ristretto so
I can reassure my wife/guests/etc.

I found this caffeine guide from the Mayo Clinic, but it doesn't
address the triple ristretto issue.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/caffeine/AN01211

I assume a triple ristretto's cafeine level is NOT a straight
multiplication from a single shot, because you're not using three
times as much water, even if you are using three times the coffee. (My
understanding is that caffeine is one of the last things to be
extracted, not one of the first. Thus, French-pressed coffee will have
more caffeine than drip coffee, which will have more than espresso,
etc. Am I on the right track?





 
Date: 13 Sep 2007 09:07:03
From: Flasherly
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
On Sep 12, 11:12 pm, i840cof...@optonline.net wrote:
> Without the same blend and roast from the same batch of coffee being
> used in each method along with knowledge of the coffee to water
> ratio's, grind analysis, water temperature, filtration method contact
> time and in the case of instant the instant method used you are not
> comparing equals, and the results are not reliable by virtue of the
> lack of a scientific method of comparison.
>
> -Donald Schoenholt
>
> P.S. if you will excuse a personal note to a friend, nice quote in
> today's NY Times, Mark.
>
> -DNS

They're valid as statistical abstracts derived for averages, (apart
from horseshoes and hand grenades, damn liars and statisticians),
within accepted means and scientific methodology. How else is wiki
able to offer a table of relative caffeine content for coffee serving
sizes, based on averages, except for going after the LCD (least common
denominators). . . On the same table are listed commercially viable
comparisons, (of all drinks, inclusive of averaged sums of coffee,
those containing specific amounts of caffeine). Instances of a latter
case, if controlled by duplicable industrial specifications within FDA
sanctions, are implicitly so [placed by juxtaposition] for adhering to
discrete scientific phenomena, yet nonetheless within an averaged sum
observance for comparative means and the table's entirety. Closest
discrete comparative scientific analogy for coffee is a bottled
Starbucks or highly sequenced chain production, whereas specialized
subsets apart from bulk commodity distribution channels are reasonable
expectations exhibiting greater or lesser measurable statistical
relevance.

If not, one ought consider simply to change wiki figures to reflect a
broader sense indicative of a truth of caffeine, most of all likely to
be encountered when sampling espresso. A contingency and probability
exists, then, someone just may be interested.



 
Date: 12 Sep 2007 20:12:24
From:
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels

Without the same blend and roast from the same batch of coffee being
used in each method along with knowledge of the coffee to water
ratio's, grind analysis, water temperature, filtration method contact
time and in the case of instant the instant method used you are not
comparing equals, and the results are not reliable by virtue of the
lack of a scientific method of comparison.

-Donald Schoenholt

P.S. if you will excuse a personal note to a friend, nice quote in
today's NY Times, Mark.

-DNS



 
Date: 12 Sep 2007 20:56:33
From: CoffeeKid
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
On Sep 12, 11:55 am, Randall Nortman <usenet8...@wonderclown.com >
wrote:

> Before you get *too* excited, I'll continue my gadfly role and point
> out that he's estimating how much a ristretto extracts based on how
> much a normal pull extracts. An educated guess, it would appear.
> Pile a heap of arithmetic on top of an educated guess and you still
> have only an educated guess. Everybody has been in agreement all
> along with your initial guess that a ristretto should extract less as
> a percentage than a normal pull, but so far nobody has actually
> produced any experimental results that would tell us how much less.

I agree with this. I'd love to see actual scientific studies done on
different volumes of extraction vs. weight of coffee used + time
brewed.

My guess was based on something I've read in a variety of scientific
journals about caffeine in coffee - including Illy, but also including
other sources:

"caffeine is very resistant to leaving the (ground) coffee during
percolation"

In a gigantic ristretto situation (eg 20g coffee, producing a 30ml
shot, in 25-30 seconds), less of the overall ground coffee is being
percolated by the water as compared to a standard 7g/30ml shot, which
says to me on a common sense level, the extraction of caffeine per g
of coffee must be less as well.

Mark



  
Date: 12 Sep 2007 21:49:06
From: Randall Nortman
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
On 2007-09-12, CoffeeKid <Coffeekid@gmail.com > wrote:
[...]
> I agree with this. I'd love to see actual scientific studies done on
> different volumes of extraction vs. weight of coffee used + time
> brewed.

Unfortunately, purification of caffeine involves nasty solvents you
don't want to mess around with at home, so we're dependent on people
with funding to pay labs to do this sort of thing.

However, low-end TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) and Brix (dissolved
sugar) meters are priced well within reach of home enthusiasts, and I
think we'd get pretty good numbers if we measured the TDS or Brix of a
normal extraction and the TDS or Brix of a ristretto and assumed that
everything was extracted equally, then just scaled the published
figures for espresso to arrive at figures for ristretto (or any other
funky extraction). It would be pretty close, anyway.

However, for all my big talk, I have neither a decent espresso machine
nor a TDS or Brix meter. I think a Brix meter is on my short-term
shopping list (dozens of uses around the house!). The espresso
machine, though, is relegated to the long-term wish list.

--
Randall


 
Date: 12 Sep 2007 17:09:37
From: phreaddy
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
On Sep 12, 2:59 am, CoffeeKid <Coffee...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Sep 7, 12:08 pm, phreaddy <phrea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to figure out how much caffeine is in a triple ristretto so
> > I can reassure my wife/guests/etc.
>
> > I found this caffeine guide from the Mayo Clinic, but it doesn't
> > address the triple ristretto issue.
>
> >http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/caffeine/AN01211
>
> > I assume a triple ristretto's cafeine level is NOT a straight
> > multiplication from a single shot, because you're not using three
> > times as much water, even if you are using three times the coffee. (My
> > understanding is that caffeine is one of the last things to be
> > extracted, not one of the first. Thus, French-pressed coffee will have
> > more caffeine than drip coffee, which will have more than espresso,
> > etc. Am I on the right track?
>
> I go by Illy's reported studies, based on their scientific studies
> (both theirs and third parties) - but I'm remembering these numbers
> off the top of my head, so they may be +/- a few mg:
>
> Arabica roasted: 1.2% caffeine by weight
> Robusta roasted: 2.2% caffeine by weight
>
> Espresso extraction: 70-80% of caffeine extracted under normal brewing
> conditions*
> Drip coffee extraction: 92-97% of caffeine extracted under normal
> brewing conditions**
>
> * double "ristrettos" extract less caffeine - caffeine is one of the
> more resistant things to "leave" the ground coffee, so where 40-60mls
> of water flow through 7g of coffee will extract 70-80% to produce a
> 30ml shot (some water stays in the puck, some goes back thru the
> machine because of backpressure release), when 70mls or so goes
> through 20g of coffee to produce a 30ml shot, less caffeine per g
> would be extracted (see below). I'm estimating as low as 50% for a
> ristretto style shot.
>
> ** drip, as Illy defined it, is a 6 minute pass through percolation of
> a bed of coffee, and the continual water flow is what finally defeats
> caffeine's resistance, and extracts almost all the coffee's stored
> caffeine, leaving as little as 3% behind. Methods such as aeropress,
> vacpot, clover, etc will produce significantly less caffeine in the
> cup.
>
> So:
>
> 1g coffee = 12mg caffeine arabica, 22mg caffeine robusta.
>
> 7g coffee (single shot, traditional, using arabica) = 84mg of caffeine
> x .70 (lowest estimate for normal) = 58.8mg in a single shot.
>
> 14g coffee (double shot, traditional, using arabica) =168mg of
> caffeine x .70 = 117.6mg caffeine in 60mls espresso.
>
> 20g coffee (pulled ristretto, using arabica, producing 30mls of
> espresso or less) = 240mg x .50 = 120mg espresso, 30ml shot. (that's a
> heckuva potent shot tho)
>
> Basically double all the amounts, and subtract 10% for robusta shots.
>
> Drip:
>
> 7g per 4 ounces brewed
>
> 8oz cup = 14g = 168mg caffeine x .92 (low end) = 154.56mg caffeine
> 12oz cup = 21g = 252mg caffeine x .92 (low end) = 231.84mg caffeine.
>
> Again, double the amounts and deduct 10% for robusta. Most instant and
> cheapo coffee is robusta, so that's a huge caffeine hit.
>
> Mark

Count on Mark to cut through the crap and answer the question. Thanks!



  
Date: 12 Sep 2007 18:55:18
From: Randall Nortman
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
On 2007-09-12, phreaddy <phreaddy@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 2:59 am, CoffeeKid <Coffee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 7, 12:08 pm, phreaddy <phrea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm trying to figure out how much caffeine is in a triple ristretto so
>> > I can reassure my wife/guests/etc.
[...]
>> I'm estimating as low as 50% for a
>> ristretto style shot.
[...]
> Count on Mark to cut through the crap and answer the question. Thanks!
>

Before you get *too* excited, I'll continue my gadfly role and point
out that he's estimating how much a ristretto extracts based on how
much a normal pull extracts. An educated guess, it would appear.
Pile a heap of arithmetic on top of an educated guess and you still
have only an educated guess. Everybody has been in agreement all
along with your initial guess that a ristretto should extract less as
a percentage than a normal pull, but so far nobody has actually
produced any experimental results that would tell us how much less.

In other words, nobody actually knows, but lots of people are willing
to guess. Mark's guess is probably pretty close.

Make sure that next time you have guests over for ristrettos, you have
a chalk board and a calculator handy to explain it all to them. Or
you could just say "It has less caffeine than you think it has,
because so little water is used to brew it."

--
Randall
Or serve decaf


 
Date: 12 Sep 2007 06:59:01
From: CoffeeKid
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
On Sep 7, 12:08 pm, phreaddy <phrea...@gmail.com > wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out how much caffeine is in a triple ristretto so
> I can reassure my wife/guests/etc.
>
> I found this caffeine guide from the Mayo Clinic, but it doesn't
> address the triple ristretto issue.
>
> http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/caffeine/AN01211
>
> I assume a triple ristretto's cafeine level is NOT a straight
> multiplication from a single shot, because you're not using three
> times as much water, even if you are using three times the coffee. (My
> understanding is that caffeine is one of the last things to be
> extracted, not one of the first. Thus, French-pressed coffee will have
> more caffeine than drip coffee, which will have more than espresso,
> etc. Am I on the right track?

I go by Illy's reported studies, based on their scientific studies
(both theirs and third parties) - but I'm remembering these numbers
off the top of my head, so they may be +/- a few mg:

Arabica roasted: 1.2% caffeine by weight
Robusta roasted: 2.2% caffeine by weight

Espresso extraction: 70-80% of caffeine extracted under normal brewing
conditions*
Drip coffee extraction: 92-97% of caffeine extracted under normal
brewing conditions**

* double "ristrettos" extract less caffeine - caffeine is one of the
more resistant things to "leave" the ground coffee, so where 40-60mls
of water flow through 7g of coffee will extract 70-80% to produce a
30ml shot (some water stays in the puck, some goes back thru the
machine because of backpressure release), when 70mls or so goes
through 20g of coffee to produce a 30ml shot, less caffeine per g
would be extracted (see below). I'm estimating as low as 50% for a
ristretto style shot.

** drip, as Illy defined it, is a 6 minute pass through percolation of
a bed of coffee, and the continual water flow is what finally defeats
caffeine's resistance, and extracts almost all the coffee's stored
caffeine, leaving as little as 3% behind. Methods such as aeropress,
vacpot, clover, etc will produce significantly less caffeine in the
cup.

So:

1g coffee = 12mg caffeine arabica, 22mg caffeine robusta.

7g coffee (single shot, traditional, using arabica) = 84mg of caffeine
x .70 (lowest estimate for normal) = 58.8mg in a single shot.

14g coffee (double shot, traditional, using arabica) =168mg of
caffeine x .70 = 117.6mg caffeine in 60mls espresso.

20g coffee (pulled ristretto, using arabica, producing 30mls of
espresso or less) = 240mg x .50 = 120mg espresso, 30ml shot. (that's a
heckuva potent shot tho)

Basically double all the amounts, and subtract 10% for robusta shots.

Drip:

7g per 4 ounces brewed

8oz cup = 14g = 168mg caffeine x .92 (low end) = 154.56mg caffeine
12oz cup = 21g = 252mg caffeine x .92 (low end) = 231.84mg caffeine.

Again, double the amounts and deduct 10% for robusta. Most instant and
cheapo coffee is robusta, so that's a huge caffeine hit.

Mark



  
Date: 12 Sep 2007 09:28:22
From: Dan Bollinger
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
Thanks, Those are inline with what the ASIC article said, too. I think we are
getting to the bottom of this. Dan

> So:
>
> 1g coffee = 12mg caffeine arabica, 22mg caffeine robusta.
>
> 7g coffee (single shot, traditional, using arabica) = 84mg of caffeine
> x .70 (lowest estimate for normal) = 58.8mg in a single shot.
>
> 14g coffee (double shot, traditional, using arabica) =168mg of
> caffeine x .70 = 117.6mg caffeine in 60mls espresso.
>
> 20g coffee (pulled ristretto, using arabica, producing 30mls of
> espresso or less) = 240mg x .50 = 120mg espresso, 30ml shot. (that's a
> heckuva potent shot tho)
>
> Basically double all the amounts, and subtract 10% for robusta shots.
>
> Drip:
>
> 7g per 4 ounces brewed
>
> 8oz cup = 14g = 168mg caffeine x .92 (low end) = 154.56mg caffeine
> 12oz cup = 21g = 252mg caffeine x .92 (low end) = 231.84mg caffeine.
>
> Again, double the amounts and deduct 10% for robusta. Most instant and
> cheapo coffee is robusta, so that's a huge caffeine hit.
>
> Mark
>



 
Date: 11 Sep 2007 08:19:40
From: Dogshot
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
How about this:

Illy reports espresso extraction ratios around 22%-25%. If caffeine
represents about 1% of the content of Arabica beans, then 10gm
(10,000mg) of coffee should extract .25x10,000x.01= 25mg of caffeine.

Therefore, a 20gm triple should extract about 50 milligrams of
caffeine.

These numbers seem a bit low compared to reports about espresso
caffeine content. Maybe the caffeine extracts at a higher proportion
than 22%-25%?

Mark



  
Date: 11 Sep 2007 21:29:25
From: Randall Nortman
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
On 2007-09-11, Dogshot <ralphtoyou2003@yahoo.ca > wrote:
> How about this:
>
> Illy reports espresso extraction ratios around 22%-25%. If caffeine
> represents about 1% of the content of Arabica beans, then 10gm
> (10,000mg) of coffee should extract .25x10,000x.01= 25mg of caffeine.
>
> Therefore, a 20gm triple should extract about 50 milligrams of
> caffeine.
>
> These numbers seem a bit low compared to reports about espresso
> caffeine content. Maybe the caffeine extracts at a higher proportion
> than 22%-25%?


This calculation is probably closer to reality than the others in this
thread, but in fact different compounds are extracted from the beans
at different rates. I think caffeine is neither the most nor the
least soluble compound in the beans, but I think it tends toward the
more soluble end, and so probably a greater percentage of it is
extracted than of other stuff in the beans. (In particular, there's a
lot of insoluble fiber in those beans that is not going to end up
being part of that 22-25%.)

--
Randall


 
Date: 11 Sep 2007 08:05:57
From: Dan Bollinger
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
Using the data from that article I mentioned, and if my math is correct, I get
that for each gram of Arabica coffee used, it will yield this much caffeine.

Sack (Drip) = 6.43mg caffeine / gram coffee (medium roast, coarse grind)
Percolator (Press Pot) = 9.29mg caffeine / gram coffee (medium roast, coarse
grind)
Espresso = 8.57mg caffeine / gram coffee (dark roast, fine grind)

So, if you make a double-shot of espresso with 16g coffee, expect 137mg of
caffeine.

If you use 35 grams to make a press pot of coffee and pour that into two, big
mugs, they will have 163mg of caffeine in each.

If you use Robusta, expect much more caffeine across the board.

Dan


> I'm trying to figure out how much caffeine is in a triple ristretto so
> I can reassure my wife/guests/etc.



  
Date: 11 Sep 2007 21:25:13
From: Randall Nortman
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
On 2007-09-11, Dan Bollinger <danNObollinger@insightSPAMbb.com > wrote:
> Using the data from that article I mentioned, and if my math is correct, I get
> that for each gram of Arabica coffee used, it will yield this much caffeine.
[...]

Your math is probably correct (I didn't check it), but your reasoning
is wrong. The study is not useful because they put way too much water
through the espresso grounds, leading to a very, very, very thorough
extraction. Way too thorough. We would usually call it
over-extracted, but in fact I think super-hyper-ultra-mega-extracted
would be a better description. Pretty much everything other than the
insoluble cellulose fiber was extracted from those grounds after they
put that much water through it at high temperature and pressure. If
you put that much water through the grounds, you will change the
nature of the extraction. You can't just "scale back" the numbers
derived from that experiment to arrive at something applicable to
normal espresso extractions. A normal espresso extraction will leave
a lot of stuff (caffeine and a lot else) in the grounds, because less
water goes through them.

When you put less water through the grounds, you extract less caffeine
from them. This is why brewing espresso with the same water:grounds
ratio as drip doesn't give you any useful information about how much
caffeine will be in espresso extracted according to normal espresso
ratios. In a ristretto (which is what started this thread), even less
water goes through the grounds, and (presumably) even less of the
caffeine will be extracted.

--
Randall
"How to lie with math"


   
Date: 11 Sep 2007 17:56:37
From: Dan Bollinger
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels

"Randall Nortman" <usenet8189@wonderclown.com > wrote in message
news:13ee1tpqpijq4d3@corp.supernews.com...
> On 2007-09-11, Dan Bollinger <danNObollinger@insightSPAMbb.com> wrote:
>> Using the data from that article I mentioned, and if my math is correct, I
>> get
>> that for each gram of Arabica coffee used, it will yield this much caffeine.
> [...]
>
> Your math is probably correct (I didn't check it), but your reasoning
> is wrong. The study is not useful because they put way too much water
> through the espresso grounds,

Randall, they did not overextract the grounds, they pulled regular sized double
shots. The dilution occurred afterwards, just prior to the caffeine lab tests.
Without normalizing the coffee grounds to water ratio, they could not graph and
compare the various preparation methods. I suppose they could have evaporated
off water from the perc and sack methods until it matched their double shot
volume, but then someone would surely be complaining about that, too.

Rather than taking me to task, I wasn't involved with the study, why don't you
get the article and read it for yourself? Maybe you'll see something I missed.
If nothing else, you can verify my math.

Dan




    
Date: 11 Sep 2007 22:06:11
From: Randall Nortman
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
On 2007-09-11, Dan Bollinger <danNObollinger@insightSPAMbb.com > wrote:
>
> "Randall Nortman" <usenet8189@wonderclown.com> wrote in message
> news:13ee1tpqpijq4d3@corp.supernews.com...
>> On 2007-09-11, Dan Bollinger <danNObollinger@insightSPAMbb.com> wrote:
>>> Using the data from that article I mentioned, and if my math is correct, I
>>> get
>>> that for each gram of Arabica coffee used, it will yield this much caffeine.
>> [...]
>>
>> Your math is probably correct (I didn't check it), but your reasoning
>> is wrong. The study is not useful because they put way too much water
>> through the espresso grounds,
>
> Randall, they did not overextract the grounds, they pulled regular sized double
> shots. The dilution occurred afterwards, just prior to the caffeine lab tests.
> Without normalizing the coffee grounds to water ratio, they could not graph and
> compare the various preparation methods. I suppose they could have evaporated
> off water from the perc and sack methods until it matched their double shot
> volume, but then someone would surely be complaining about that, too.

Sorry, this was not my understanding of what you were saying. I think
the other person who has responded about this study had the same
misunderstanding that I did. But instead of diluting it before
measuring, why didn't they just do the same math you did, but in
reverse, and normalize according to grams of coffee used, and forget
all about volume?


> Rather than taking me to task, I wasn't involved with the study, why don't you
> get the article and read it for yourself? Maybe you'll see something I missed.
> If nothing else, you can verify my math.

You didn't actually say where we could find the article, did you?

--
Randall


     
Date: 11 Sep 2007 20:14:59
From: Dan Bollinger
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
> But instead of diluting it before
> measuring, why didn't they just do the same math you did, but in
> reverse, and normalize according to grams of coffee used, and forget
> all about volume?


You are asking me? I already said I wasn't involved in the study. Ask the
authors.

> You didn't actually say where we could find the article, did you?


Yes, I did. Again, it is at ASIC, from the 2nd Proceedings.

To save googlebandwidth: http://www.asic-cafe.org/index.php

Dan



      
Date: 12 Sep 2007 01:03:31
From: *alan*
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels

"Dan Bollinger" <danNObollinger@insightSPAMbb.com > wrote in message
news:UdidnRyrG6gXrXrbnZ2dnUVZ_oKhnZ2d@insightbb.com...
>> But instead of diluting it before
>> measuring, why didn't they just do the same math you did, but in
>> reverse, and normalize according to grams of coffee used, and forget
>> all about volume?
>
>
> You are asking me? I already said I wasn't involved in the study. Ask the
> authors.
>
>> You didn't actually say where we could find the article, did you?
>
>
> Yes, I did. Again, it is at ASIC, from the 2nd Proceedings.
>
> To save googlebandwidth: http://www.asic-cafe.org/index.php
>
> Dan

Actually, no -- you didn't. You'd referred previously only to "A study
presented at ASIC".

And, if you are referring to the 2nd Colloquium, that will be found more
readily at:
http://www.asic-cafe.org/htm/eng/sectioneng.php?code=co&number=02

Of the 30 articles listed there, there is only one which appears to be
relevant:
"Variations of the caffeine content in coffee beverages" F. Verlengia, A.
Rigitano.
Unfortunately, however, the article appears to be unavailable for download
and, in spite of advice that "Single full text papers can be purchased
on-line using the buttons available in the respective Table of Contents",
the buttons are apparently out of order.
Pity.
If that was the article to which you're now referring, and you'd been able
to download it for free, please post the URL you used for it. If it wasn't,
please post the complete URL for the article you *are* referring to. I,
for one, have been confused by your interpretation and explanation of it and
would appreciate being able to read the original.
Thanks.
--
alan



       
Date: 12 Sep 2007 09:22:09
From: Dan Bollinger
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
> Actually, no -- you didn't. You'd referred previously only to "A study
> presented at ASIC".
>
> And, if you are referring to the 2nd Colloquium, that will be found more
> readily at:
> http://www.asic-cafe.org/htm/eng/sectioneng.php?code=co&number=02
>
> Of the 30 articles listed there, there is only one which appears to be
> relevant:
> "Variations of the caffeine content in coffee beverages" F. Verlengia, A.
> Rigitano.
> Unfortunately, however, the article appears to be unavailable for download
> and, in spite of advice that "Single full text papers can be purchased on-line
> using the buttons available in the respective Table of Contents", the buttons
> are apparently out of order.
> Pity.
> If that was the article to which you're now referring, and you'd been able to
> download it for free, please post the URL you used for it. If it wasn't,
> please post the complete URL for the article you *are* referring to. I, for
> one, have been confused by your interpretation and explanation of it and would
> appreciate being able to read the original.
> Thanks.
> --
> alan

Didn't your mama ever teach you about 'honey and vinegar?' As you've learned,
there is no URL, which makes it rather difficult for me to post, it too.

Dan



        
Date: 12 Sep 2007 16:28:42
From: *alan*
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels

"Dan Bollinger" <danNObollinger@insightSPAMbb.com > wrote in message
news:hIudnblD9qPcdXrbnZ2dnUVZ_ternZ2d@insightbb.com...
>> Actually, no -- you didn't. You'd referred previously only to "A study
>> presented at ASIC".
>>
>> And, if you are referring to the 2nd Colloquium, that will be found more
>> readily at:
>> http://www.asic-cafe.org/htm/eng/sectioneng.php?code=co&number=02
>>
>> Of the 30 articles listed there, there is only one which appears to be
>> relevant:
>> "Variations of the caffeine content in coffee beverages" F. Verlengia, A.
>> Rigitano.
>> Unfortunately, however, the article appears to be unavailable for
>> download and, in spite of advice that "Single full text papers can be
>> purchased on-line using the buttons available in the respective Table of
>> Contents", the buttons are apparently out of order.
>> Pity.
>> If that was the article to which you're now referring, and you'd been
>> able to download it for free, please post the URL you used for it. If it
>> wasn't, please post the complete URL for the article you *are* referring
>> to. I, for one, have been confused by your interpretation and
>> explanation of it and would appreciate being able to read the original.
>> Thanks.
>> --
>> alan
>
> Didn't your mama ever teach you about 'honey and vinegar?' As you've
> learned, there is no URL, which makes it rather difficult for me to post,
> it too.
>
> Dan

Since "there is no URL" and one cannot download it nor even apparently
purchase it, it would be helpful to explain how you were able to access the
article, or at least provide the full citation on title and author(s) of the
article. I don't understand why you seem to be so reticent about supplying
that information. If it is the article I guessed it might be, it may still
have some value in spite of it having presented over 40 years ago. Thanks
again for all your help.



         
Date: 12 Sep 2007 21:32:03
From: Dan Bollinger
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
>> Didn't your mama ever teach you about 'honey and vinegar?' As you've
>> learned, there is no URL, which makes it rather difficult for me to post, it
>> too.
>>
>> Dan
>
> Since "there is no URL" and one cannot download it nor even apparently
> purchase it, it would be helpful to explain how you were able to access the
> article, or at least provide the full citation on title and author(s) of the
> article. I don't understand why you seem to be so reticent about supplying
> that information. If it is the article I guessed it might be, it may still
> have some value in spite of it having presented over 40 years ago. Thanks
> again for all your help.

I'm registered with ASIC and I asked them for a copy and they emailed a
photocopy to me. Dan



 
Date: 09 Sep 2007 15:22:50
From: Dan Bollinger
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
There is a lot of talk, but not much fact, about caffeine content in coffee. One
of the difficulties is that there is a huge variability on caffeine content in
green beans in general. What we know is that altitude is not a factor.

A study presented at ASIC says the most significant factors for caffeine content
for a given coffee lot is (in order of importance) grind, preparation method,
degree of roast.

Their tests revealed that coffee roasted and ground to typical value for various
preparation methods had these caffeine percent content:

Sack (and probably Press Pot) = 0.045
Percolator (and probably Drip) = 0.065
Espresso = 0.060

In all tests, 70g of the same Arabica coffee was used for each liter of water.

For all preparation methods, with an given combination of grind and roast, the
percolator always extracted more caffeine and the espresso machine the least.

Dan

"phreaddy" <phreaddy@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1189192112.628611.111290@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> I'm trying to figure out how much caffeine is in a triple ristretto so
> I can reassure my wife/guests/etc.
>
> I found this caffeine guide from the Mayo Clinic, but it doesn't
> address the triple ristretto issue.
>
> http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/caffeine/AN01211
>
> I assume a triple ristretto's cafeine level is NOT a straight
> multiplication from a single shot, because you're not using three
> times as much water, even if you are using three times the coffee. (My
> understanding is that caffeine is one of the last things to be
> extracted, not one of the first. Thus, French-pressed coffee will have
> more caffeine than drip coffee, which will have more than espresso,
> etc. Am I on the right track?
>



  
Date: 09 Sep 2007 22:32:54
From: *alan*
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels

"Dan Bollinger" <danNObollinger@insightSPAMbb.com > wrote in message
news:PrKdndn7B_Tb1XnbnZ2dnUVZ_rqlnZ2d@insightbb.com...
> There is a lot of talk, but not much fact, about caffeine content in
> coffee. One of the difficulties is that there is a huge variability on
> caffeine content in green beans in general. What we know is that altitude
> is not a factor.
>
> A study presented at ASIC says the most significant factors for caffeine
> content for a given coffee lot is (in order of importance) grind,
> preparation method, degree of roast.
>
> Their tests revealed that coffee roasted and ground to typical value for
> various preparation methods had these caffeine percent content:
>
> Sack (and probably Press Pot) = 0.045
> Percolator (and probably Drip) = 0.065
> Espresso = 0.060
>
> In all tests, 70g of the same Arabica coffee was used for each liter of
> water.

However, since no one makes espresso with that high a water ratio (figuring
a typical 9 grams per shot, the 70g/liter ratio would roughly be producing a
4.4 fl oz shot, which I doubt would be considered "espresso", regardless of
the method of production.
While the figures you've cited may very well have some theoretical
significance, since a much lower water ratio is used for expresso (9 grams
for approximately one fluid ounce), the comparison using a much higher water
ratio is, in practical terms, meaningless.


> For all preparation methods, with an given combination of grind and roast,
> the percolator always extracted more caffeine and the espresso machine the
> least.
>
> Dan



   
Date: 09 Sep 2007 20:43:32
From: Dan Bollinger
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
> However, since no one makes espresso with that high a water ratio (figuring a
> typical 9 grams per shot, the 70g/liter ratio would roughly be producing a 4.4
> fl oz shot, which I doubt would be considered "espresso", regardless of the
> method of production.
> While the figures you've cited may very well have some theoretical
> significance, since a much lower water ratio is used for expresso (9 grams for
> approximately one fluid ounce), the comparison using a much higher water ratio
> is, in practical terms, meaningless.

Not at all. The researchers brewed coffee by a number of methods. When they got
to the espresso machine they use the same coffee to water ratio of 70g coffee to
liter of water. They didn't really brew a liter of espresso. They normalized
the amounts so they could graph the results and compare apples to apples. I
haven't bothered to calculate what this would be in terms of mg of caffeine for
a given serving, but it should be pretty easy to do.

D






    
Date: 09 Sep 2007 19:49:32
From: *alan*
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels

"Dan Bollinger" <danNObollinger@insightSPAMbb.com > wrote in message
news:MrSdndr72pnsDnnbnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@insightbb.com...
>> However, since no one makes espresso with that high a water ratio
>> (figuring a typical 9 grams per shot, the 70g/liter ratio would roughly
>> be producing a 4.4 fl oz shot, which I doubt would be considered
>> "espresso", regardless of the method of production.
>> While the figures you've cited may very well have some theoretical
>> significance, since a much lower water ratio is used for expresso (9
>> grams for approximately one fluid ounce), the comparison using a much
>> higher water ratio is, in practical terms, meaningless.
>
> Not at all. The researchers brewed coffee by a number of methods. When
> they got to the espresso machine they use the same coffee to water ratio
> of 70g coffee to liter of water. They didn't really brew a liter of
> espresso. They normalized the amounts so they could graph the results and
> compare apples to apples. I haven't bothered to calculate what this would
> be in terms of mg of caffeine for a given serving, but it should be pretty
> easy to do.

I think you're missing the point. I understand fully that the study was done
with coffee brewed by different methods. I understand fully that they used
the RATIO of **70 g/1 liter** in ALL of the methods. You don't have to brew
a liter of espresso to brew it with the RATIO of **70g coffee to one liter
of water**. If, as you said "When they got to the espresso machine they
use the same coffee to water RATIO of **70g coffee to liter of water**",
then in order to keep that RATIO, they would either be "normalizing the
amounts" by using 9 grams of coffee to produce a watery 4.4 fl oz shot, OR
one fluid ounce of water to .49 grams of coffee. The result of using the
**70 grams/1 liter RATIO**, in either case, would be an extremely watery
espresso.

That is why a comparison using a RATIO of **70g/liter** may have theoretical
interest but in practical terms is meaningless, since the typical espresso
RATIO of coffee to water is 9 grams/1 fl oz (*that* ratio = *70 grams/0.23
liters* or *304.4 grams/liter*).

If you want a meaningful comparison between drip coffee and espresso **per
serving**, you're not going to be able to calculate correctly if you're
using the same coffee to water RATIO to make both. A meaningful comparison
would be between say 1 oz of espresso (brewed with coffee to water ratio
typical of espresso) and 8 oz of drip (brewed with coffee to water ratio
typical of drip coffee).
--
alan



 
Date: 09 Sep 2007 07:13:56
From: Flasherly
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
On Sep 8, 10:08 am, Randall Nortman <usenet8...@wonderclown.com >
wrote:
> On 2007-09-08, Flasherly <gjerr...@ij.net> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Espresso is optimally extracted to derive the most desirable coffee
> > essences, forgoing by intent and methodology undesirables.
>
> Optimally? Wow, your water must be smarter than mine to know which
> chemical compounds you want and which ones you don't want.

Optimal essences. Perhaps a hasty surmise not to see where the water
angle is pertinent, but then I did leave essences implicit and vaguely
undefined. I could have done better to have started with traditional
as that optimal, specifically, for an espresso machine. A unique
construct, espresso machines, but nevertheless a commonly practiced
methodology, around since 1920. Variables to an adequate machine
design that have a track record, have advanced since the 20's, and
consequently offer greater accountability. By essences, then, a
presumption can be made within that tradition, upon a bias of Italian
construct, in order to simply follow through [sic, a tradition] to
achieve some closer proximity to the best coffee is capable.

Since everything is now worked out - that we know that the water's
just fine, as is the caffeine, we may as well include a finite
composition of chemical compounds within the coffee. All that is left
is a need to adhere to proper methodology, again, implicitly stated
for a good espresso shot, such that the shot is achieved within a skew
of proportions, ratios, and set tolerance for allowable deviation.

As is in the of case a ristretto, with water and caffeine established
as constants, for an acquired result, the extracted shot, as is
expected and acceptable within means to have followed through a
methodology to produce it.

All that need be left and different about a ristretto is simply
applicable ratios to derive for an end. To which, I'll postulate
(having never actually made one): a ristretto is more ground coffee to
less or equal amounts water, might I say a third more grinds to a
third less or equal amounts water, for an average brewed cup, as is
commonly served and most likely to be encountered, (from the provided
chart);-- such that a ristretto ought contain, on average, a third
more caffeine, than a regular espresso would correspondingly
contains. (Simple thirds for a direct route to parity and simplicity
between caffeine content.)

If the OP pours three such concoctions into a serving, the result may
be estimated to be within a same likelihood, to contain three times
the caffeine content of a brewed cup of coffee.

Postscript - I might add an aside, exhaustively as providence is to
objectify sound measures, it seldom means a wit more to guests, those
I've encounted, whom, upon first encountering a distinctive taste
given espresso, forthwith and rather unctuously presume an added
import caffeine signifies.

Yours Cordially -
Flasherly



 
Date: 08 Sep 2007 17:30:34
From: Flasherly
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
On Sep 8, 5:42 pm, Randall Nortman <usenet8...@wonderclown.com > wrote:

>
> Neither comparison is very interesting, because espresso and brewed
> coffee simply are not comparable on a volume basis. More useful would
> be to compare caffeine levels per unit of grounds used, which would
> tell you which method extracts a greater percentage of the caffeine in
> the grounds. Or you could compare americanos with brewed coffee.
>
> --
> Randall

Yes they are - in a matter of dopamine neurotransmitter stimulants /
interpolated from sublimation extraction data charts/* - per serving
size corresponding to a similar result. Volumetrically, there's
approximately three times caffeine in espresso to brewed coffee, half
Powershot, a third more over Cocaine Energy, and sevenfold to Full
Throttle or Rockstar Energy.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#_note-Erowid_Caffeine_Content
* http://departments.oxy.edu/tops/Caffeine/CAFFEINE-S.pdf



 
Date: 08 Sep 2007 07:41:52
From: Flasherly
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
On Sep 8, 10:08 am, Randall Nortman <usenet8...@wonderclown.com >
wrote:
> On 2007-09-08, Flasherly <gjerr...@ij.net> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Espresso is optimally extracted to derive the most desirable coffee
> > essences, forgoing by intent and methodology undesirables.
>
> Optimally? Wow, your water must be smarter than mine to know which
> chemical compounds you want and which ones you don't want.
>
> > Whereas brew can and percolated most likely will extract all or most
> > constituents indiscriminately.
>
> Yeah, I have that indiscriminate sort of water myself. Well, it does
> discriminate against non-polar compounds, mostly. Maybe I should
> upgrade to yours, and get me some of that optimal extraction.
>
> --
> Randall

Water as an agent is a separate unity, effectively neutral to
caffeine, for minerals in natural balance to augment how water
corresponds within a complementary blend, flavoring both as a
reactant, then, and in causing desirable essences to meld for a
composure of optimal quality. Perhaps it would help to look upon a
scale respective to the methodology employed. Good water in a bad brew
respective to good water in a good brew. It shouldn't be surprising,
in either case, the optimal remains within identifiable means
discernible tastes employ.



 
Date: 08 Sep 2007 13:56:05
From: WaterBoy
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
> Espresso is optimally extracted to derive the most desirable coffee
> essences, forgoing by intent and methodology undesirables. Whereas
> brew can and percolated most likely will extract all or most
> constituents indiscriminately. Whether and what applies to caffeine
> ratios, can't say in any certain sense for categorical measurements
> I've offhand available for a difference between methods.
>
> What's interesting is a perceived outcome and psychological
> consequence in the rationale people apply to a cup of espresso. Yes,
> here's a cup espresso. And, yes, a certain taste exists within what we
> may say is distinctive - therefore, from essences as least adulterated
> for a flavor coffee compositions are capable to impart.
>
> Yet, least adulterated must be more, for some to say, that is
> implicitly stronger. Hence, doubt is shed whether then an obtuse
> quality, strong, should be impugned for some ramification ascribed to
> greater caffeine intake.
>
> A conundrum and veritable expository, perchance, presented to coffee-
> brewing friends, whom lack withal means and significance for a closer
> approximation than what they're capable [only to brew].


Dragon Naturally Speaking?

waterboy



  
Date: 09 Sep 2007 21:41:29
From: wavemechanic
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels

"WaterBoy" <waterboy@financier.com > wrote in message
news:1189259765.905312.219040@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> Espresso is optimally extracted to derive the most desirable coffee
>> essences, forgoing by intent and methodology undesirables. Whereas
>> brew can and percolated most likely will extract all or most
>> constituents indiscriminately. Whether and what applies to caffeine
>> ratios, can't say in any certain sense for categorical measurements
>> I've offhand available for a difference between methods.
>>
>> What's interesting is a perceived outcome and psychological
>> consequence in the rationale people apply to a cup of espresso. Yes,
>> here's a cup espresso. And, yes, a certain taste exists within what we
>> may say is distinctive - therefore, from essences as least adulterated
>> for a flavor coffee compositions are capable to impart.
>>
>> Yet, least adulterated must be more, for some to say, that is
>> implicitly stronger. Hence, doubt is shed whether then an obtuse
>> quality, strong, should be impugned for some ramification ascribed to
>> greater caffeine intake.
>>
>> A conundrum and veritable expository, perchance, presented to coffee-
>> brewing friends, whom lack withal means and significance for a closer
>> approximation than what they're capable [only to brew].
>
>
> Dragon Naturally Speaking?
>
> waterboy
>
Hehe.
My money's on Altavista's Babelfish online translator,
English >Japanese>English. Try it sometime for a laugh.




 
Date: 08 Sep 2007 06:21:07
From: Flasherly
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
On Sep 8, 7:45 am, "Dan Bollinger" <danNObollin...@insightSPAMbb.com >
wrote:
> > I assume a triple ristretto's cafeine level is NOT a straight
> > multiplication from a single shot, because you're not using three
> > times as much water, even if you are using three times the coffee. (My
> > understanding is that caffeine is one of the last things to be
> > extracted, not one of the first. Thus, French-pressed coffee will have
> > more caffeine than drip coffee, which will have more than espresso,
> > etc. Am I on the right track?
>
> The Mayo, and other, estimates are going to assume that you are making coffee
> from 100% Robusta, which has a lot more caffeine than the Arabicas many of us on
> alt.coffee drink.
>
> And, espresso blends normally have a lot of Arabicas, so the blend has less
> caffeine than, say, Folgers.
>
> So, if you were making drip coffee from an espresso blend you will be serving
> less caffeine per serving, than drip from Folgers
>
> Caffeine is partially soluble in water. It takes a little time for it to
> dissolve. This suggests that the slower brewing time of espresso (1/2 minute) is
> going to extract less caffeine than drip (3-5 minutes). However, coffee is
> ground a LOT finer for espresso, making extraction easier, so all in all, I'd
> say that both methods are extracting most of the caffeine.
>
> I wanted to reassure my wife and my physician, that my three Americanos a day
> made from a double shot each had no more caffeine than three mugs of Folgers, so
> I checked into having a lab test them. But, it was very expensive, so I didn't
> do it.
>
> I'm convinced that my Americano has less caffeine than most people's cups of
> coffee. This has been confirmed many times when I've drunk some 100% Robusta
> drip brewed and got an immediate, strong caffeine 'hit' to the point it gave me
> a headache.
>
> Dan

Espresso is optimally extracted to derive the most desirable coffee
essences, forgoing by intent and methodology undesirables. Whereas
brew can and percolated most likely will extract all or most
constituents indiscriminately. Whether and what applies to caffeine
ratios, can't say in any certain sense for categorical measurements
I've offhand available for a difference between methods.

What's interesting is a perceived outcome and psychological
consequence in the rationale people apply to a cup of espresso. Yes,
here's a cup espresso. And, yes, a certain taste exists within what we
may say is distinctive - therefore, from essences as least adulterated
for a flavor coffee compositions are capable to impart.

Yet, least adulterated must be more, for some to say, that is
implicitly stronger. Hence, doubt is shed whether then an obtuse
quality, strong, should be impugned for some ramification ascribed to
greater caffeine intake.

A conundrum and veritable expository, perchance, presented to coffee-
brewing friends, whom lack withal means and significance for a closer
approximation than what they're capable [only to brew].



  
Date: 08 Sep 2007 14:08:22
From: Randall Nortman
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
On 2007-09-08, Flasherly <gjerrell@ij.net > wrote:
[...]
> Espresso is optimally extracted to derive the most desirable coffee
> essences, forgoing by intent and methodology undesirables.

Optimally? Wow, your water must be smarter than mine to know which
chemical compounds you want and which ones you don't want.

> Whereas brew can and percolated most likely will extract all or most
> constituents indiscriminately.

Yeah, I have that indiscriminate sort of water myself. Well, it does
discriminate against non-polar compounds, mostly. Maybe I should
upgrade to yours, and get me some of that optimal extraction.

--
Randall


 
Date: 08 Sep 2007 07:45:58
From: Dan Bollinger
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
> I assume a triple ristretto's cafeine level is NOT a straight
> multiplication from a single shot, because you're not using three
> times as much water, even if you are using three times the coffee. (My
> understanding is that caffeine is one of the last things to be
> extracted, not one of the first. Thus, French-pressed coffee will have
> more caffeine than drip coffee, which will have more than espresso,
> etc. Am I on the right track?

The Mayo, and other, estimates are going to assume that you are making coffee
from 100% Robusta, which has a lot more caffeine than the Arabicas many of us on
alt.coffee drink.

And, espresso blends normally have a lot of Arabicas, so the blend has less
caffeine than, say, Folgers.

So, if you were making drip coffee from an espresso blend you will be serving
less caffeine per serving, than drip from Folgers

Caffeine is partially soluble in water. It takes a little time for it to
dissolve. This suggests that the slower brewing time of espresso (1/2 minute) is
going to extract less caffeine than drip (3-5 minutes). However, coffee is
ground a LOT finer for espresso, making extraction easier, so all in all, I'd
say that both methods are extracting most of the caffeine.

I wanted to reassure my wife and my physician, that my three Americanos a day
made from a double shot each had no more caffeine than three mugs of Folgers, so
I checked into having a lab test them. But, it was very expensive, so I didn't
do it.

I'm convinced that my Americano has less caffeine than most people's cups of
coffee. This has been confirmed many times when I've drunk some 100% Robusta
drip brewed and got an immediate, strong caffeine 'hit' to the point it gave me
a headache.

Dan





 
Date: 07 Sep 2007 14:36:02
From: Cyclepete
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
On Sep 7, 4:07 pm, Ken Blake <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain > wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:08:32 -0700, phreaddy <phrea...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to figure out how much caffeine is in a triple ristretto so
> > I can reassure my wife/guests/etc.
>
> > I found this caffeine guide from the Mayo Clinic, but it doesn't
> > address the triple ristretto issue.
>
> >http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/caffeine/AN01211
>
> > I assume a triple ristretto's cafeine level is NOT a straight
> > multiplication from a single shot, because you're not using three
> > times as much water, even if you are using three times the coffee. (My
> > understanding is that caffeine is one of the last things to be
> > extracted, not one of the first. Thus, French-pressed coffee will have
> > more caffeine than drip coffee, which will have more than espresso,
> > etc. Am I on the right track?
>
> I can't answer your question, but I see that that site says brewed
> coffee has 135mg of caffeine per 8oz cup, and espresso has 30-50 mg
> per oz. That means that 8oz of espresso has at least 240mg per 8oz,
> way more per oz than brewed coffee.
>
> I had always understood that roasting drives out caffeine and
> therefore that the darker roast of espresso has *less* caffeine per oz
> than brewed coffee.
>
> Can anyone shed any light on this? Is the Mayo Clinic's site
> necessarily correct, or are there opposing points of view?
>
> --
> Ken Blake
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Drip coffee might use 7 grams of coffee grounds per 6 oz serving.
Espresso uses 7 grams of coffee grounds per 1 ounce serving. So
espresso is using 6 times as much coffee grounds per extracted ounce
as drip coffee.

The espresso process isn't as efficient as drip in extracting the
caffeine, so you get less caffeine out of a given weight of coffee
grounds. This is probably a bigger effect than the roast difference.
In fact, a lot of espresso is roasted lighter than the typical Star$
roast.

I've never heard that espresso had the same caffeine content, on an
ounce by ounce basis, as drip coffee. I've always seen numbers similar
to what you have posted. What I've often heard is that espresso has
less caffeine per SERVING than drip coffee.




 
Date: 07 Sep 2007 13:07:26
From: Ken Blake
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:08:32 -0700, phreaddy <phreaddy@gmail.com >
wrote:

> I'm trying to figure out how much caffeine is in a triple ristretto so
> I can reassure my wife/guests/etc.
>
> I found this caffeine guide from the Mayo Clinic, but it doesn't
> address the triple ristretto issue.
>
> http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/caffeine/AN01211
>
> I assume a triple ristretto's cafeine level is NOT a straight
> multiplication from a single shot, because you're not using three
> times as much water, even if you are using three times the coffee. (My
> understanding is that caffeine is one of the last things to be
> extracted, not one of the first. Thus, French-pressed coffee will have
> more caffeine than drip coffee, which will have more than espresso,
> etc. Am I on the right track?


I can't answer your question, but I see that that site says brewed
coffee has 135mg of caffeine per 8oz cup, and espresso has 30-50 mg
per oz. That means that 8oz of espresso has at least 240mg per 8oz,
way more per oz than brewed coffee.

I had always understood that roasting drives out caffeine and
therefore that the darker roast of espresso has *less* caffeine per oz
than brewed coffee.

Can anyone shed any light on this? Is the Mayo Clinic's site
necessarily correct, or are there opposing points of view?


--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


  
Date: 08 Sep 2007 07:47:17
From: Dan Bollinger
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
> I can't answer your question, but I see that that site says brewed
> coffee has 135mg of caffeine per 8oz cup, and espresso has 30-50 mg
> per oz. That means that 8oz of espresso has at least 240mg per 8oz,
> way more per oz than brewed coffee.

Ken, Interesting, but I'm not sure why this is important. I don't know of anyone
who drinks 8oz. of espresso! Do you?

Dan




   
Date: 10 Sep 2007 15:52:42
From: Brent
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
> Ken, Interesting, but I'm not sure why this is important. I don't know of
> anyone who drinks 8oz. of espresso! Do you?
>
> Dan
>

um thats only like 4 double shots...

I do that periodically... more on occaisions...

my daily start is two doubles.

Brent




   
Date: 08 Sep 2007 14:32:52
From: Ken Blake
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 07:47:17 -0400, "Dan Bollinger"
<danNObollinger@insightSPAMbb.com > wrote:

> > I can't answer your question, but I see that that site says brewed
> > coffee has 135mg of caffeine per 8oz cup, and espresso has 30-50 mg
> > per oz. That means that 8oz of espresso has at least 240mg per 8oz,
> > way more per oz than brewed coffee.
>
> Ken, Interesting, but I'm not sure why this is important. I don't know of anyone
> who drinks 8oz. of espresso! Do you?


I sure don't drink that much at one sitting. My point wasn't to
suggest that anyone does, but only to compare caffeine levels at the
same volume.

Alternatively, I could have made both one oz, but that would have
meant using fractions for the brewed coffee.

--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


    
Date: 08 Sep 2007 21:42:51
From: Randall Nortman
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
On 2007-09-08, Ken Blake <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain > wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 07:47:17 -0400, "Dan Bollinger"
><danNObollinger@insightSPAMbb.com> wrote:
>
>> > I can't answer your question, but I see that that site says brewed
>> > coffee has 135mg of caffeine per 8oz cup, and espresso has 30-50 mg
>> > per oz. That means that 8oz of espresso has at least 240mg per 8oz,
>> > way more per oz than brewed coffee.
>>
>> Ken, Interesting, but I'm not sure why this is important. I don't know of anyone
>> who drinks 8oz. of espresso! Do you?
>
>
> I sure don't drink that much at one sitting. My point wasn't to
> suggest that anyone does, but only to compare caffeine levels at the
> same volume.

Which is a bit like comparing the miles per gallon of a Volkswagon and
a freight barge. At least the units will match up, right?

> Alternatively, I could have made both one oz, but that would have
> meant using fractions for the brewed coffee.

Neither comparison is very interesting, because espresso and brewed
coffee simply are not comparable on a volume basis. More useful would
be to compare caffeine levels per unit of grounds used, which would
tell you which method extracts a greater percentage of the caffeine in
the grounds. Or you could compare americanos with brewed coffee.

--
Randall


     
Date: 08 Sep 2007 19:39:47
From: Johnny
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels

"Randall Nortman" <usenet8189@wonderclown.com > wrote in message
news:13e65qrrhmigb50@corp.supernews.com...
> On 2007-09-08, Ken Blake <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
> > On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 07:47:17 -0400, "Dan Bollinger"
> ><danNObollinger@insightSPAMbb.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > I can't answer your question, but I see that that site says brewed
> >> > coffee has 135mg of caffeine per 8oz cup, and espresso has 30-50 mg
> >> > per oz. That means that 8oz of espresso has at least 240mg per 8oz,
> >> > way more per oz than brewed coffee.
> >>
> >> Ken, Interesting, but I'm not sure why this is important. I don't know
of anyone
> >> who drinks 8oz. of espresso! Do you?
> >
> >
> > I sure don't drink that much at one sitting. My point wasn't to
> > suggest that anyone does, but only to compare caffeine levels at the
> > same volume.
>
> Which is a bit like comparing the miles per gallon of a Volkswagon and
> a freight barge. At least the units will match up, right?
>
No, not at all like that.
Much more akin to comparing the energy out of a gallon used to fuel a barge
and that use to fuel a volkswagon...
The thread is after all about comparing caffeine levels, it isn't about the
efficiency of extraction except as that relates to caffeine levels.. To say
that you can't compare espresso with brewed coffee doesn't really cut it.
Caffeine is caffeine, you _can_ compare the dose. Ken is not suggesting that
you drink 8oz, just the caffeine levels in the two drinks. Do you have a
better way of comparing caffeine levels per ounce of product, and if so
whats your rationale?




      
Date: 09 Sep 2007 15:17:49
From: Randall Nortman
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
On 2007-09-09, Johnny <removethis.huuanito@hotmail.com > wrote:
[...]
> Do you have a better way of comparing caffeine levels per ounce of
> product, and if so whats your rationale?

My point is that comparing caffeine levels per ounce of product is not
a useful comparison, because you don't consume them in the same
volume. Generally, you compare food values per serving, not per
amount. To assess dietary impact, would you compare an ounce of
butter to an ounce of lettuce, or a pat of butter to a bowl full of
lettuce?

The two comparisons answer different questions -- what question are we
asking? In fact, the original poster was asking a question that none
of the answers have been relevant to. He wanted to know the caffeine
levels in a triple ristretto, as opposed to three shots of normal
espresso. That is a very specialized question, and I'm not sure it
will have been measured, and there is probably quite a lot of
variation in it anyway, depending on the barista and the blend. I
would *guess* that it's slightly less than what's in three normal
shots, but I couldn't say how much less.

So, we're all useless to the OP, apparently.

--
Randall


       
Date: 09 Sep 2007 09:20:31
From: Ken Blake
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 15:17:49 -0000, Randall Nortman
<usenet8189@wonderclown.com > wrote:

> On 2007-09-09, Johnny <removethis.huuanito@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > Do you have a better way of comparing caffeine levels per ounce of
> > product, and if so whats your rationale?
>
> My point is that comparing caffeine levels per ounce of product is not
> a useful comparison, because you don't consume them in the same
> volume.



And *my* point, with which I started the thread, was that my
understanding had been that the caffeine levels per ounce in espresso
were lower than in brewed coffee, because the longer darker roasting
of espresso drives out caffeine.

I was merely asking whether that understanding was correct or not.


> Generally, you compare food values per serving, not per
> amount. To assess dietary impact, would you compare an ounce of
> butter to an ounce of lettuce, or a pat of butter to a bowl full of
> lettuce?


It doesn't matter. That's irrelevant to the question I asked.


> The two comparisons answer different questions -- what question are we
> asking? In fact, the original poster was asking a question that none
> of the answers have been relevant to. He wanted to know the caffeine
> levels in a triple ristretto, as opposed to three shots of normal
> espresso. That is a very specialized question, and I'm not sure it
> will have been measured, and there is probably quite a lot of
> variation in it anyway, depending on the barista and the blend. I
> would *guess* that it's slightly less than what's in three normal
> shots, but I couldn't say how much less.


But *my* question was very different one.

--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


        
Date: 09 Sep 2007 10:02:08
From: *alan*
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels

"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain > wrote in message
news:f178e3p4r8677fo9fogapugc9lcir3ai2m@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 15:17:49 -0000, Randall Nortman
> <usenet8189@wonderclown.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2007-09-09, Johnny <removethis.huuanito@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> > Do you have a better way of comparing caffeine levels per ounce of
>> > product, and if so whats your rationale?
>>
>> My point is that comparing caffeine levels per ounce of product is not
>> a useful comparison, because you don't consume them in the same
>> volume.
>
>
>
> And *my* point, with which I started the thread, was that my
> understanding had been that the caffeine levels per ounce in espresso
> were lower than in brewed coffee, because the longer darker roasting
> of espresso drives out caffeine.
>
> I was merely asking whether that understanding was correct or not.

In a word: no.
Your understanding is not correct. While it may be true that, as a rule,
the darker the roast, the lower the caffeine content, a fluid ounce of
espresso will have more caffeine than a fluid ounce of brewed coffee simply
because a higher proportion of coffee to water is used in preparing
espresso.
(P.S. I thought someone named phreaddy started the thread . . .)



         
Date: 09 Sep 2007 15:22:22
From: Johnny
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels

"*alan*" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:mGVEi.7365$z_5.6901@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:f178e3p4r8677fo9fogapugc9lcir3ai2m@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 15:17:49 -0000, Randall Nortman
> > <usenet8189@wonderclown.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2007-09-09, Johnny <removethis.huuanito@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> > Do you have a better way of comparing caffeine levels per ounce of
> >> > product, and if so whats your rationale?
> >>
> >> My point is that comparing caffeine levels per ounce of product is not
> >> a useful comparison, because you don't consume them in the same
> >> volume.
> >
> >
> >
> > And *my* point, with which I started the thread, was that my
> > understanding had been that the caffeine levels per ounce in espresso
> > were lower than in brewed coffee, because the longer darker roasting
> > of espresso drives out caffeine.
> >
> > I was merely asking whether that understanding was correct or not.
>
> In a word: no.
> Your understanding is not correct. While it may be true that, as a rule,
> the darker the roast, the lower the caffeine content, a fluid ounce of
> espresso will have more caffeine than a fluid ounce of brewed coffee
simply
> because a higher proportion of coffee to water is used in preparing
> espresso.
> (P.S. I thought someone named phreaddy started the thread . . .)
>

In a timely manner this months Roast Mag covers the topic starting on p72:
RoastBusters
Kicking the Caffeine Myth

unfortunatly you need to have the print version to see it, it's not on their
website.
They say that in general caffeine is not destroyed during the roasting
process as the bp of caffeine is 599 F and roasting temps don't go that
high.
In fact darker roasts have a higher proportion of caffeine, starts off
about 1.2% Cafeine per baen for green 1.6% for medium roast and 1.7% for a
dark roast due to the loss of weight of the ban as it is roasted.
Pound for pound darker roasts have more caffeine availbale for exraction but
scoop for scoop: less.




          
Date: 10 Sep 2007 16:00:09
From: Brent
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
Jack Hanna in Sydney(?) is testing this scientific like, and came up with
the answer in short - the roast has an effect on caffeine content, but it is
negligible

to quote Jack
"So basically, the caffeine content IS affected by the colour of the roast
but not a dramatic difference but still there is loss.
However due to the loss of organic matter, the ratio of caffeine to organic
matter is reduced infavour of caffeine, thus when brewing a darker roast you
technically have SLIGHTLY more "

the figures quoted in Roast are to my understanding subject to some
debate...


Brent


>
> In a timely manner this months Roast Mag covers the topic starting on p72:
> RoastBusters
> Kicking the Caffeine Myth
>
> unfortunatly you need to have the print version to see it, it's not on
> their
> website.
> They say that in general caffeine is not destroyed during the roasting
> process as the bp of caffeine is 599 F and roasting temps don't go that
> high.
> In fact darker roasts have a higher proportion of caffeine, starts off
> about 1.2% Cafeine per baen for green 1.6% for medium roast and 1.7% for a
> dark roast due to the loss of weight of the ban as it is roasted.
> Pound for pound darker roasts have more caffeine availbale for exraction
> but
> scoop for scoop: less.
>
>




           
Date: 09 Sep 2007 21:40:56
From: Johnny
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels

"Brent" <me@privacy.net > wrote in message
news:5kjtq6F407feU1@mid.individual.net...
> Jack Hanna in Sydney(?) is testing this scientific like, and came up with
> the answer in short - the roast has an effect on caffeine content, but it
is
> negligible
>
> to quote Jack
> "So basically, the caffeine content IS affected by the colour of the roast
> but not a dramatic difference but still there is loss.
> However due to the loss of organic matter, the ratio of caffeine to
organic
> matter is reduced infavour of caffeine, thus when brewing a darker roast
you
> technically have SLIGHTLY more "
>
> the figures quoted in Roast are to my understanding subject to some
> debate...
>
Hi Brent,

it's not clear, from what you quote, where Jack differs from the Roast
article and exactly why, or on what basis. They come to the same conclusion:
darker roast= >slightly more caffeine. That being the case Jack's conclusions
must also be the subject of the same debate. Do you have some reference to
what Jack is doing where we can learn more? I ask more out of interest than
to disagree.

The part about "due to the loss of organic matter" is mentioned in the
Roast article but they point out that water loss is a bigger factor in
overall weight loss, and it is the weight loss that causes the caffeine to
overall weight ratio to increase. Nothing you've quoted from Jack technicaly
disagrees with the Roast article. Jack seems to be in agreement:
"technically have SLIGHTLY more". Roast had 1.7% for dark roast and 1.57%
for medum roasts. That sounds a whole lot like "slightly more" to me.

They seem to be saying much the same thing to me, but perhaps there is a
difference in what each regards as 'negligible'.

Johnny




            
Date: 10 Sep 2007 17:13:47
From: Brent
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
Oh, and I am definitely not clear in my thinking :)

The point Jack was reinforcing is that while there is a difference between
light and dark, it is bordering on not worth worrying about...

The argument as to lossage involves way to many big words, and I kind of
resolved to be happy with "not worth worrying about" but for some reason I
keep reading the arguments trying to understand...

Brent


> Hi Brent,
>
> it's not clear, from what you quote, where Jack differs from the Roast
> article and exactly why, or on what basis. They come to the same
> conclusion:
> darker roast=>slightly more caffeine. That being the case Jack's
> conclusions
> must also be the subject of the same debate. Do you have some reference
> to
> what Jack is doing where we can learn more? I ask more out of interest
> than
> to disagree.
>
> The part about "due to the loss of organic matter" is mentioned in the
> Roast article but they point out that water loss is a bigger factor in
> overall weight loss, and it is the weight loss that causes the caffeine to
> overall weight ratio to increase. Nothing you've quoted from Jack
> technicaly
> disagrees with the Roast article. Jack seems to be in agreement:
> "technically have SLIGHTLY more". Roast had 1.7% for dark roast and 1.57%
> for medum roasts. That sounds a whole lot like "slightly more" to me.
>
> They seem to be saying much the same thing to me, but perhaps there is a
> difference in what each regards as 'negligible'.
>
> Johnny
>
>




         
Date: 09 Sep 2007 16:55:34
From: Ed Needham
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels

"*alan*" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:mGVEi.7365$z_5.6901@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
<SNIP >a fluid ounce of
> espresso will have more caffeine than a fluid ounce of brewed coffee
> simply because a higher proportion of coffee to water is used in preparing
> espresso.
> (P.S. I thought someone named phreaddy started the thread . . .)

...and the fact that with espresso, you are introducing additional energy,
in the form of pressure, to the brewing equation , and likely extracting an
increased percentage of all the brewable components, including caffeine.
--
*********************
Ed Needham
"to absurdity and beyond!"
http://www.homeroaster.com
*********************




         
Date: 09 Sep 2007 11:29:15
From: Ken Blake
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 10:02:08 -0700, "*alan*" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>
> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:f178e3p4r8677fo9fogapugc9lcir3ai2m@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 15:17:49 -0000, Randall Nortman
> > <usenet8189@wonderclown.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2007-09-09, Johnny <removethis.huuanito@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> > Do you have a better way of comparing caffeine levels per ounce of
> >> > product, and if so whats your rationale?
> >>
> >> My point is that comparing caffeine levels per ounce of product is not
> >> a useful comparison, because you don't consume them in the same
> >> volume.
> >
> >
> >
> > And *my* point, with which I started the thread, was that my
> > understanding had been that the caffeine levels per ounce in espresso
> > were lower than in brewed coffee, because the longer darker roasting
> > of espresso drives out caffeine.
> >
> > I was merely asking whether that understanding was correct or not.
>
> In a word: no.
> Your understanding is not correct. While it may be true that, as a rule,
> the darker the roast, the lower the caffeine content, a fluid ounce of
> espresso will have more caffeine than a fluid ounce of brewed coffee simply
> because a higher proportion of coffee to water is used in preparing
> espresso.



Yes, you've confirmed what others have said.


> (P.S. I thought someone named phreaddy started the thread . . .)



Could be. I don't remember who started the original thread, but I'm
the one who asked the question I restated above. I should have said
"And *my* point, with which I started the *sub*-thread..."

--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


        
Date: 09 Sep 2007 17:01:44
From: Randall Nortman
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
On 2007-09-09, Ken Blake <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain > wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 15:17:49 -0000, Randall Nortman
><usenet8189@wonderclown.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2007-09-09, Johnny <removethis.huuanito@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> > Do you have a better way of comparing caffeine levels per ounce of
>> > product, and if so whats your rationale?
>>
>> My point is that comparing caffeine levels per ounce of product is not
>> a useful comparison, because you don't consume them in the same
>> volume.
>
>
>
> And *my* point, with which I started the thread, was that my
> understanding had been that the caffeine levels per ounce in espresso
> were lower than in brewed coffee, because the longer darker roasting
> of espresso drives out caffeine.
>
> I was merely asking whether that understanding was correct or not.

OK, sorry, this is different than what the original poster asked, and
I wasn't really sure what point you were making, so this was a bit of
a misunderstanding. I should not have been so snotty about it.

But I will be a little snotty in telling you that your understanding
was not correct. ;) It is incorrect on two fronts: first, espresso is
a brewing method, not a roast level. Espresso can be brewed with
light or medium roast coffee, and many people prefer it that way.
Second, darker roasting does destroy a small percentage of the
caffeine, but if that were the only difference, then you'd expect that
regular coffee brewed with dark roasted beans would have the same
caffeine as dark roast espresso, per volume, but it doesn't.

The difference is mostly explained by the fact that roughly 9 grams of
beans produce roughly 1 fl.oz. of espresso, but the same 9 grams
produce roughly 6 fl.oz. of drip brewed coffee. (Give or take. It all
depends on the brewer/barista/machine/phase of the moon.) So if you
assume that the same percentage of caffeine is extracted from the
beans with the two methods, then the per volume amount of caffeine
would be roughly 6x as much in the espresso. It would be surprising
if it weren't at least a little higher -- I mean, espresso is stronger
all around than brewed coffee, certainly in flavor and it's reasonable
to assume it would be stronger in caffeine (by volume) as well.
Espresso is, as a gross simplification, very strong (concentrated)
coffee.

But the extraction percentage is not the same between the two methods,
because (1) less water is used when making espresso, and (2) the
extraction method is different -- shorter time, more pressure. The
net result is that espresso extracts a smaller percentage of the
caffeine that's in the beans, so it has slightly less than 6x the
amount of caffeine by volume, but still a *lot* more by volume. But
it is actually less per *serving*, which is why I was saying that
comparing by serving size makes more sense than by volume.

--
Randall


         
Date: 09 Sep 2007 11:26:51
From: Ken Blake
Subject: Re: figuring caffeine levels
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 17:01:44 -0000, Randall Nortman
<usenet8189@wonderclown.com > wrote:

> On 2007-09-09, Ken Blake <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
> > On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 15:17:49 -0000, Randall Nortman
> ><usenet8189@wonderclown.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2007-09-09, Johnny <removethis.huuanito@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> > Do you have a better way of comparing caffeine levels per ounce of
> >> > product, and if so whats your rationale?
> >>
> >> My point is that comparing caffeine levels per ounce of product is not
> >> a useful comparison, because you don't consume them in the same
> >> volume.
> >
> >
> >
> > And *my* point, with which I started the thread, was that my
> > understanding had been that the caffeine levels per ounce in espresso
> > were lower than in brewed coffee, because the longer darker roasting
> > of espresso drives out caffeine.
> >
> > I was merely asking whether that understanding was correct or not.
>
> OK, sorry, this is different than what the original poster asked, and
> I wasn't really sure what point you were making, so this was a bit of
> a misunderstanding. I should not have been so snotty about it.


OK, apology accepted, and thanks.



> But I will be a little snotty in telling you that your understanding
> was not correct. ;)


That's not snotty at all. You answered my question (as did someone
else, essentially the same way, earlier) and I thank you.


> It is incorrect on two fronts: first, espresso is
> a brewing method, not a roast level. Espresso can be brewed with
> light or medium roast coffee, and many people prefer it that way.


Although that may be true, normally espresso is made from a darker
roast, isn't it? It's only that darker roast I was referring to.


> Second, darker roasting does destroy a small percentage of the
> caffeine, but if that were the only difference, then you'd expect that
> regular coffee brewed with dark roasted beans would have the same
> caffeine as dark roast espresso, per volume, but it doesn't.
>
> The difference is mostly explained by the fact that roughly 9 grams of
> beans produce roughly 1 fl.oz. of espresso, but the same 9 grams
> produce roughly 6 fl.oz. of drip brewed coffee. (Give or take. It all
> depends on the brewer/barista/machine/phase of the moon.) So if you
> assume that the same percentage of caffeine is extracted from the
> beans with the two methods, then the per volume amount of caffeine
> would be roughly 6x as much in the espresso.


Yes, that's much the same explanation I got earlier. Thanks again. My
original understanding was probably wrong because I read somewhere
that the amount per ounce of beans was less in espresso, and I somehow
erroneously thought it was per ounce of coffee.

All clear now.


> It would be surprising
> if it weren't at least a little higher -- I mean, espresso is stronger
> all around than brewed coffee, certainly in flavor and it's reasonable
> to assume it would be stronger in caffeine (by volume) as well.



My experience assuming things that are "reasonable to assume" often
gets you into trouble. That's why I asked.

--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup