Hey, man, drink what you want. It doesn't change my life in any way, shape, or form. But I have to ask, have you seen the image describing where decaf coffee comes from?
I should hope you're not being serious! In case anyone thinks this is real, decaf is not made from the dirt. It's beans that have gone through one of a few different processes. Swiss water method is what I prefer due to the low chemical processing.
Perhaps try roasted fig coffee substitute? It's definitely not coffee but has enough of the same roasty flavor notes to be passable. With milk and sugar, I probably wouldn't notice it wasn't coffee if I wasn't paying attention.
Depends on your definition of healthy and sweet. ‘Healthy’ is vague and fairly subjective. Plenty of coffee substitutes exist, such as roasted chicory-barley mixes that taste decent and provide you with some fiber. Is it healthy?
My question is whether espresso-method coffee has all the same properties. The study itself clearly states "brewed coffee" and they brew the crap out of it ("extraction in boiling water for 8–10 min"), I can't take brewed coffee on the regular b/c it upsets my stomach.
Yes, I know the four main methods of decaffeination. The haters have gone down this road with me many times. Why can't people just let me drink my decaf? It's like they can't enjoy their caffeine unless everybody does. It's weirdly pushy.
I don't think GP was criticizing you for liking decaf. Just pointing out that the decaf process may have affects on the beneficial compounds that aren't caffeine.
I didn't even know there were 4 methods - supposedly Swiss Water Process is the best in terms of not affecting the flavor or exposing you to exotic solvents, is one of the four superior to SWP?
My initial charitable reading -- as someone who sometimes dabbles in decaf -- is that decaffeination has the bad side effect of stripping flavors, and likely many of the other biologically active chemicals. I can see from their further posts that they were more interested in unscientific fear mongering instead.
That said, I do think there is some truth that decaf is lacking (including via supercritical CO2) and I wonder how long until we could have a product like genetically engineered coffee plants that produce everything except caffeine. I'd like that, though I can immediately see an issue with growing a plant without its natural pesticide.
> likely many of the other biologically active chemicals.
Do you reckon taking green coffee beans and roasting them til they’re brown right through has any detrimental effect on the biological compounds in the beans?
There is nothing objectively wrong with drinking something you like the taste of, however, when it is coffee specifically, I believe, the utility of it is the caffeine it contains; that, and the culture around coffee-drinking makes me feel the way I described. Notice the "in my humble opinion" at the end of my message.
Exactly — I am taking caffeine pills, and when I confessed this to a normie coffee drinker, I was called an addict, even though not only is the dose mere 100 grams, half of that of a Tim Hortons medium black, the pills also have L-Theanine in them, which is supposed to reduce jitteriness or something.
By "All you haters that give me grief for drinking my daily cup of decaf can shut up now", you are implying that decaf has the same health benefits of real coffee. That's not proven. And if you weren't meaning to imply that, there was no point to that reply.
Right? All high quality coffee makers use a proper method so there is absolutely zero downside in decaf. Just make sure to check which method they use (all big ones state it on their website or else)
All you haters that give me grief for drinking my daily cup of decaf can shut up now.