Paper Coffee Filters vs. "Gold Filters"

FryBoy

FryBoy

New member
In another recent thread concerning coffee makers, there was some mention of so-called "gold" coffee filters -- although they're not really filters, they're just fine metal strainer devices that hold the grounds in place while the coffee is made.

I stopped using the metal "filters" several years ago after reading reports on the health consequences of unfiltered coffee. In short, unfiltered coffee, including coffee made using a gold "filter," causes a significant increase in LDL, the bad form of cholesterol. Paper filters have been shown to remove the compounds that cause this.

Since reading the studies, we've been using unbleached coffee filters. Some purists may argue that the resulting coffee is less flavorful than unfiltered coffee, but that's pretty much been disproved in blind tasting by coffee experts.

Here's a report from the American Heart Association on the subject:

http://atvb.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/11/3/586.pdf
 
Mama

Mama

Queen of Cornbread
Site Supporter
Well, Fred, I use bleached filters so I'll be contributing to the added expense for health care reform too....but I do use CFL light bulbs :yum:
 
FryBoy

FryBoy

New member
Mama said:
Well, Fred, I use bleached filters so I'll be contributing to the added expense for health care reform too....but I do use CFL light bulbs :yum:
Click to expand...
I suggest you try the unbleached. Bleaching adds chemicals you don't need. Unbleached work just as well ans the white ones.
 
FryBoy

FryBoy

New member
Here's a more recent study from the American Heart Association's site regarding coffee, filters, and cholesterol:

http://atvb.ahajournals.org/cgi/con...er&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Here's one quote from the study:
"In 1983, Thelle et al reported a significant, positive correlation between the amount of coffee ingested and serum cholesterol levels in a population-based study in Northern Norway. These findings have been confirmed in several subsequent studies. It was later shown that the method of brewing (boiling) was crucial for the hypercholesterolemic effect of coffee. In contrast, consumption of filtered coffee had little or no effect on serum cholesterol level."​
 
C

ChowderMan

Pizza Chef
Super Site Supporter
actually the study showed that increased lipid content
1.0 g/l in boiled coffee
0.02 g/l in boiled and filtered coffee - that's fifty times less.....

is the reason.

the study does not investigate or even address different kinds of filters.
the bad news: the filter in use is a bleached white one from Melitta.

perhaps the remnants of the bleaching chemicals are responsible for a 50 fold reduction in lipids?
perhaps the ground coffee mass itself is a sufficient filter cake to cause the reduction - regardless of what 'contained' it?

/quote
However, part of the lipid in this brew was attached to or contained in the floating fine particles of grounds that were not consumed by the subjects.
/unquote

so remove the fines by any method you'd like and you're good to go.
 
Doc

Doc

Administrator
Staff member
Gold Site Supporter
Good post Fryboy. I missed that study all together. We've been using the metal filter for over a year now. And DW just had her blood work done and her bad Cholesterol is up. hmmmmmmm Thanks for the tip. :thumb:
Unbleached makes sense to. I've never looked for them but I like the idea. :D
 
FryBoy

FryBoy

New member
ChowderMan said:
...so remove the fines by any method you'd like and you're good to go.
Click to expand...
That's a rather significant leap of logic. I have seen no studies that contradict these findings. Moreover, the AHA stands by these studies, which to me is more significant and impressive than a layman's supposition.
 
PieSusan

PieSusan

Tortes Are Us
Super Site Supporter
I do overkill. I have a gold filter but I still use the unbleached paper liners for it. I use a bold flavored coffee, dark roast that is less acidic and use both in an effort to assist my stomach as I have GERD and cannot give up my morning cuppa joe.
 
C

ChowderMan

Pizza Chef
Super Site Supporter
there's little question about what causes the effect.
but that "only paper filters can reduce..." is an unfounded assumption.

there is no information - nor any attempt in either cited study - to quantify what kind of filtration process does a poor/better/best job. so there is no leaping option available in any direction - the only evidence presented is that the specified Melitta filter "worked" - everything else is conjecture.

as pointed out in the study, there are bigger issues with the methodology as it pertains to the wider real world.

to prepare the coffee, boiling water was poured over the grounds and allowed to soak - subsequently the coffee was decanted into a second container. is that an accurate description of how you prepare coffee?

the amounts of (various) oil extracted / released by ground coffee beans is dependent on the temperature of the water used. the study raises this issue. the average coffee maker of the world does not put "boiling water" over the grounds.

so while there is little question that specific lipid compounds can elevate serum cholesterol - the study the AHA is standing by mentions, but did not research, whether or not similar levels of lipids are generated by lower temperature water. that drip coffee, filtered or not, is similarly "dangerous" is an unproven assumption - see the Conclusions.

the study makes an assumption that "the lipid is retained in the paper filter"

the study reaches the conclusion ..consumers... "can safely consume coffee so long as the drink coffee that is filtered through paper."

the study failed to pursue "where the lipids went"

with all the fancy extractions and scientific means at their disposal, they did not measure lipids trapped in the paper filter.

the study presents no direct evidence, nor does it cite a reference, to support the assumed role of paper. I did not read all 26 references; scanning the title blocks I didn't see anything much about "lipid absorption by cellulose fibers" or such.

certainly the intent of the study is not "wrong" - it indicates directions for further research.

but the study shows/demonstrates/proves that bleached white paper works - that is the end of "proven"

what is scientifically unfounded - and "a rather significant leap of logic" -is the assumption that metal/other filtration is not effective. specifically, the assumption that metal mesh baskets does not work is complete speculation.
 
High Cheese

High Cheese

Saucier
I don't drink coffee as much anymore since I quit smoking. But I use the "gold" filter that came with my Cuisinart. I stopped using paper filters just because of the hassle of remembering to keep them in stock.
 
FryBoy

FryBoy

New member
ChowderMan said:
there's little question about what causes the effect.
but that "only paper filters can reduce..." is an unfounded assumption.

there is no information - nor any attempt in either cited study - to quantify what kind of filtration process does a poor/better/best job. so there is no leaping option available in any direction - the only evidence presented is that the specified Melitta filter "worked" - everything else is conjecture.

as pointed out in the study, there are bigger issues with the methodology as it pertains to the wider real world.

to prepare the coffee, boiling water was poured over the grounds and allowed to soak - subsequently the coffee was decanted into a second container. is that an accurate description of how you prepare coffee?

the amounts of (various) oil extracted / released by ground coffee beans is dependent on the temperature of the water used. the study raises this issue. the average coffee maker of the world does not put "boiling water" over the grounds.

so while there is little question that specific lipid compounds can elevate serum cholesterol - the study the AHA is standing by mentions, but did not research, whether or not similar levels of lipids are generated by lower temperature water. that drip coffee, filtered or not, is similarly "dangerous" is an unproven assumption - see the Conclusions.

the study makes an assumption that "the lipid is retained in the paper filter"

the study reaches the conclusion ..consumers... "can safely consume coffee so long as the drink coffee that is filtered through paper."

the study failed to pursue "where the lipids went"

with all the fancy extractions and scientific means at their disposal, they did not measure lipids trapped in the paper filter.

the study presents no direct evidence, nor does it cite a reference, to support the assumed role of paper. I did not read all 26 references; scanning the title blocks I didn't see anything much about "lipid absorption by cellulose fibers" or such.

certainly the intent of the study is not "wrong" - it indicates directions for further research.

but the study shows/demonstrates/proves that bleached white paper works - that is the end of "proven"

what is scientifically unfounded - and "a rather significant leap of logic" -is the assumption that metal/other filtration is not effective. specifically, the assumption that metal mesh baskets does not work is complete speculation.
Click to expand...
Here's the conclusion from the first study, which the American Heart Association stands by -- you be the judge:
Our data show that the method used to separate
coffee grounds from brew is crucial in determining
the hypercholesterolemic potential of coffee beverages.
We cannot yet answer the questions whether
the temperature of the water or the length of time
that coffee grounds are in contact with hot water are
also relevant. Thus, we cannot tell whether coffee
brewed without a paper filter but with lower-temperature
water or a shorter contact time will raise
cholesterol levels. It is clear, however, that those
concerned about the cholesterol-elevating effect of
coffee can safely consume coffee so long as they drink
coffee that is filtered through paper.
​
The researchers acknowledge that there may be other factors that contribute to or even cause the cholesterol-raising effect of coffee, including the brewing method, but to date -- and it's been nearly 20 years since the first study was reported -- there have been no reported studies of which I'm aware or which are cited by the AHA that have reached a different conclusion.

The bottom line is that although the research is arguably incomplete and may be subject to criticism, the conclusion that paper filters remove the component of coffee that has been shown to be responsible for increasing LDL cholesterol remains unchallenged by hard evidence. That finding may be wrong, but that possibility seems to me to be a weak argument for ignoring the studies, especially since the fix -- paper filters -- is easy and cheap. That's good enough for me, but then I'm a compulsive seat-belt wearer.
 
C

ChowderMan

Pizza Chef
Super Site Supporter
please point out the citation in either study to establish that a gold mesh filter is not a filter and using a purpose wire mesh filter does not produce "filtered coffee"

/quote
I stopped using the metal "filters" several years ago after reading reports on the health consequences of unfiltered coffee. In short, unfiltered coffee, including coffee made using a gold "filter," causes a significant increase in LDL, the bad form of cholesterol. Paper filters have been shown to remove the compounds that cause this.
/unquote

your assertion "Paper filters have been shown to remove the compounds that cause this." is not supported by any data in the reports cited.

paper filters were used -
bad stuff went in the top,
bad stuff did not come out the bottom.
where did the bad stuff go?

the research did not examine the bad stuff content of the used filter or the filter cake created.

it is entirely your own assumption that the bad stuff is in the paper - the research offers not a single clue regarding the precise removal mechanism affecting the levels of bad stuff.

could be interesting to find out later that some left over nasty bleaching agent is responsible for chemically binding the bad stuff to the paper - and the healthy unbleached paper filters are ineffective at removing the bad stuff, eh?

neither cited report makes any mention what-so-ever of metal mesh baskets / filters. they were not tested / used in this work.

the assertion:
"so-called "gold" coffee filters -- although they're not really filters"
is your own.
they were not used in the cited research, there is no mention of them in the cited research.

in the Conclusion:
It is clear, however, that those
concerned about the cholesterol-elevating effect of
coffee can safely consume coffee so long as they drink
coffee that is filtered through paper.

is a correct and supported statement - but it is also an incomplete conclusion. the research is complete devoid of any investigation into the role of "paper" in removal of the bad stuff.
 
FryBoy

FryBoy

New member
Why should a consumer care what role the paper plays in the removal of the bad stuff as long as it's show to do exactly that?

As for the gold filters, the studies indicate that the bad stuff is in the coffee oils, which a simple strainer, whether gold plated or not, seems to me to be unlikely to remove.

Here's another more recent article on the subject: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070614162223.htm
 
C

ChowderMan

Pizza Chef
Super Site Supporter
>>The paper filters, the article suggested, removed the coffee oils, which contain cafestol.

well, I "suggest" that Elvis is alive and well in Caledonia.
do you believe it?

>>his wife read an article on coffee’s effect on cholesterol.
and the source is? perhaps ghost authored by Elvis?

is it the paper or simply the filtration?

>>Why should a consumer care what role the paper plays in the removal of the bad stuff as long as it's show to do exactly that?

no care required, nor do I - but you have advanced the theory that other alternatives are not similarly effective, and without any research citation to support that.

>>seems to me to be unlikely to remove.
we all have opinions.
actual science however can show that the surface tension of an oil dictates what size mechanical filter the oil will pass through under gravity pressure.

and here's why I bring that up:
if you read the AHA article, page 589, it says
the boiled coffee bean liquid contains 1.98 g/l of the bad stuff
the filtered boiled coffee bean liquid contains 0.02 g/l of the bad stuff

continuing on from page 589 to page 590 it says
"The paper filter was found to retain 88% of the lipid present in the boiled-type coffee brew before filtration . . ) - unpublished data.

I am forced to assume you have not read the full article, as you have not pointed this out.

so disregarding the lack of peer review of the methods / results of the unpublished data and accepting them as "fact" this says the paper retained 88% of 1.98 g/l, leaving 12% of the 1.98 g/l to go into the filtered solution.

so let's do the math: 12% remaining x 1.98 g/l = 1.98*0.12 = 0.2376 g/l bad stuff passes into the filtered coffee.

but the filtered solution contains, per the AHA article page 589, 0.02 g/l of the bad stuff.

so,,, while the paper removed/absorbed roughly 50% of the bad stuff it encountered, "something else" removed 91.58% of the bad stuff "it" encountered.

this is the problem with incomplete research - generates more questions than it answers.
there are lots and lots of ways to manipulate the numbers based on various assumptions and theories.

if you'd like, I can poke multiple large holes in the logic of the above argument.

but the research did not "follow the bad stuff trail" and we're left with
"unpublished research"
"seems to me to be unlikely to remove"
"the wire mesh is not a filter"
"the article suggested"
 
suziquzie

suziquzie

New member
I didn't like the "gold" filter for my old-school melita because it clogged so much.... kinda useless.....

I'd rather use the unbleached but I cant find them in the store.....I think ordering coffee filters online is more bother than picking up a box of bleached as long as I'm shopping once a week.
 
C

ChowderMan

Pizza Chef
Super Site Supporter
>>>I didn't like the "gold" filter for my old-school melita because it clogged so much.

daadaa-ditdit... dateline ad-land... spectacular new coffee filter announced - it filters out absolute 100% of "the bad stuff"

daadaa-ditdit... dateline real life... yeah, it's clogged, it doesn't allow anything, good or bad, to pass.

now somewhere on page 14 or 15 of the National Enquirer article it may - and that's a big _may_ - be revealed that a clogged filter results in overflow where everything goes past, good, bad, indifferent.

but that's not important to the headline.

it's all a question of perspective and interpretation.
 
FryBoy

FryBoy

New member
ChowderMan said:
>>The paper filters, the article suggested, removed the coffee oils, which contain cafestol.

well, I "suggest" that Elvis is alive and well in Caledonia.
do you believe it?

>>his wife read an article on coffee’s effect on cholesterol.
and the source is? perhaps ghost authored by Elvis?

is it the paper or simply the filtration?

>>Why should a consumer care what role the paper plays in the removal of the bad stuff as long as it's show to do exactly that?

no care required, nor do I - but you have advanced the theory that other alternatives are not similarly effective, and without any research citation to support that.

>>seems to me to be unlikely to remove.
we all have opinions.
actual science however can show that the surface tension of an oil dictates what size mechanical filter the oil will pass through under gravity pressure.

and here's why I bring that up:
if you read the AHA article, page 589, it says
the boiled coffee bean liquid contains 1.98 g/l of the bad stuff
the filtered boiled coffee bean liquid contains 0.02 g/l of the bad stuff

continuing on from page 589 to page 590 it says
"The paper filter was found to retain 88% of the lipid present in the boiled-type coffee brew before filtration . . ) - unpublished data.

I am forced to assume you have not read the full article, as you have not pointed this out.

so disregarding the lack of peer review of the methods / results of the unpublished data and accepting them as "fact" this says the paper retained 88% of 1.98 g/l, leaving 12% of the 1.98 g/l to go into the filtered solution.

so let's do the math: 12% remaining x 1.98 g/l = 1.98*0.12 = 0.2376 g/l bad stuff passes into the filtered coffee.

but the filtered solution contains, per the AHA article page 589, 0.02 g/l of the bad stuff.

so,,, while the paper removed/absorbed roughly 50% of the bad stuff it encountered, "something else" removed 91.58% of the bad stuff "it" encountered.

this is the problem with incomplete research - generates more questions than it answers.
there are lots and lots of ways to manipulate the numbers based on various assumptions and theories.

if you'd like, I can poke multiple large holes in the logic of the above argument.

but the research did not "follow the bad stuff trail" and we're left with
"unpublished research"
"seems to me to be unlikely to remove"
"the wire mesh is not a filter"
"the article suggested"
Click to expand...
What remains is that all the research -- which has been published in peer-reviewed medical journals here and abroad and which has been repeatedly and consistently duplicated -- supports the proposition that paper coffee filters remove the component of coffee that contributes to higher levels of LDL in humans.

You apparently refuse to accept that conclusion because the research is, like virtually all medical research, less than perfect, even though there is no evidence that it's wrong. Indeed, there's apparently no contrary contention within the scientific community.

Why anyone would attempt to persuade others to ignore the weight of scientific opinion regarding their health is beyond me. This is like arguing with a tobacco executive about smoking. Do you own stock in a gold coffee filter company or something?
 
suziquzie

suziquzie

New member
ChowderMan said:
>>>I didn't like the "gold" filter for my old-school melita because it clogged so much.

daadaa-ditdit... dateline ad-land... spectacular new coffee filter announced - it filters out absolute 100% of "the bad stuff"

daadaa-ditdit... dateline real life... yeah, it's clogged, it doesn't allow anything, good or bad, to pass.

now somewhere on page 14 or 15 of the National Enquirer article it may - and that's a big _may_ - be revealed that a clogged filter results in overflow where everything goes past, good, bad, indifferent.

but that's not important to the headline.

it's all a question of perspective and interpretation.
Click to expand...


cripes.... once again.... sorry i clicked here..... :shock:
 
C

ChowderMan

Pizza Chef
Super Site Supporter
>>What remains is that all the published research -- which has been published in peer-reviewed medical journals here and abroad and which has been repeatedly and consistently duplicated -- supports the proposition that paper coffee filters remove the component of coffee that contributes to higher levels of LDL in humans.

cite the research, not the rhetoric.

>>has been repeatedly and consistently duplicated

you have cited exactly precisely two sources. you need to reveal these repeated and consistent duplication sources.

if you can cite a reputable source that says gold filters are ineffective in reducing these compounds, I'll happily accept that I'm wrong. everything cited today DOES NOT EVEN ADDRESS that question, much less prove or disprove it.

but you decline to address that issue. you continually go back to "paper filters are good for you" - which I have clearly stated is a true statement but I do not accept your statements that wire mesh filters are not similarly effective.

I asked multiple times, you only reply with "he said, she said" - not a lot of substance for your "That's a rather significant leap of logic" contention.

/quote
it's been nearly 20 years since the first study was reported
/unquote

well, gosh, there should be a lot of research available - cite some.

/quote
-- there have been no reported studies of which I'm aware or which are cited by the AHA that have reached a different conclusion.
/unquote

so cite some that have reached the same conclusion and support your contention that only a paper filter has this effect and more specifically that a wire mesh filter is ineffective.

do you refuse to accept that I do not disagree with the presence of "bad stuff" in coffee?

you do I hope realize - as I have repeated here several times - my debate is with the unsupported assumption that paper and nothing but paper is capable of precipitating a reduction in the bad stuff. you speak of logic leaps but do not employ anything different than National Enquire science.

and I have no personal or financial interests in anything "coffee"
 
C

ChowderMan

Pizza Chef
Super Site Supporter
suziquzie said:
cripes.... once again.... sorry i clicked here..... :shock:
Click to expand...

no need to be sorry. your observation is based on a completely valid first person experience.

I only meant to demonstrate the degree of spin some people, and companies, impart to fragmentary information - it's not far off Bill Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." okay Bill, define sexual relations - and then explain why Hilary doesn't agree with you.

and, as an engineer and scientist I seriously object to amateurs taking such great liberties with "data"
 
chowhound

chowhound

New member
That does it. I'm going back to cooking coffee over an open fire in a steel pot with egg shells thrown in the bottom... or do you think the calcium leached by the egg shells will make my bones brittle if I drink too much coffee, like five pots a day?

:hide:

Enquiring minds want to know.
:whistling:

Seriously, I do appreciate the passion and research that has been put into this thread. I like to be informed about the choices I make, but those choices are ultimately mine to make. For better or worse.

You guy can be on my debate team anytime. :thumb:

OK. Carry on.
 
FryBoy

FryBoy

New member
ChowderMan said:
...and, as an engineer and scientist I seriously object to amateurs taking such great liberties with "data"
Click to expand...
The researchers who conducted the studies were not amateurs, nor are the doctors and scientists employed by the American Heart Association. The AHA accepts the researchers' conclusions that the "Cholesterol-Raising Factor From Boiled Coffee Does Not Pass a Paper Filter" (the title of the researchers' paper posted on the AHA website).

I defy you to cite one peer-reviewed study that supports your conclusion that gold coffee filters are as effective as paper filters at removing the cholesterol-elevating effect of coffee. You can't because there are no such studies, and you're talking through your hat, apparently due to some odd political bias (I'm confident that Bill Clinton wasn't involved in the study).

BTW, unless your background is in this area of medicine, you too are an amateur, regardless of your purported status as an "engineer and scientist."
 
Mama

Mama

Queen of Cornbread
Site Supporter
Would anyone care for some cornbread...it's hot out of the oven with plenty of butter and honey....

P3140550-2.jpg
 
phreak

phreak

New member
I know this much. The coffee made with my french press with all it's oily heartclogging goodness is WAY better tasting than the coffee out of my weekday timer driven paper filtered blasphemy of a "coffee maker".
 
FryBoy

FryBoy

New member
phreak said:
I know this much. The coffee made with my french press with all it's oily heartclogging goodness is WAY better tasting than the coffee out of my weekday timer driven paper filtered blasphemy of a "coffee maker".
Click to expand...
No doubt about it, the French press makes great coffee. But for me and my wife it's just not practical as it doesn't make enough for our daily use (3 or 4 cups each) and it doesn't keep the coffee hot for hours (7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. or so) like an electric.
 
Carolina Cooking

Carolina Cooking

New member
Old thread.

however I hate that gold filter that came with my Cuisinart Brew Central That I got to replace Bunn.

it had grounds left in it & goes into my cup .. Hate that.

unbleached brown filters for me. :thumb:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top