Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

could you call a product that can stay tinned for a year and after opening will still stay fresh longer than the product you got by grinding whole beans?

Uh, dried? As... far as I'm aware a number of things like coffee are basically shelf-stable for a long, long time on their own so long as they're not kept in odd conditions, once they're more or less dehydrated. You don't need fancy chemical stuff, you can pull that one off in your kitchen with junk you pluck off the side of the road... basically just takes heat and time, then a little bit of care with storage.

[Ulfarr]

But granulated sugar doesn't go off without preservatives, .

Sugar is a preservative though. Not that I disagree with your post.

I'm not 100% sure it's true but one explanation I've been told is that above a certain sugar content, it causes the (bacterial) cell walls to rupture. Something to do with osmotic pressure.

[anewaname]

I previously included the context of the "big coffee" companies when expressing this idea about how the additional chemical processing in ground coffee is not good for the consumer. Please consider that context while considering what I am saying, and here is an expansion of that "big coffee" context, from Washington Post article:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

For decades, tobacco companies hooked people on cigarettes by making their products more addictive. Now, a new study suggests that tobacco companies may have used a similar strategy to hook people on processed foods.

In the 1980s, tobacco giants Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds acquired the major food companies Kraft, General Foods and Nabisco, allowing tobacco firms to dominate America’s food supply and reap billions in sales from popular brands such as Oreo cookies, Kraft Macaroni & Cheese and Lunchables.

Do you follow that? The folks that brought cigarettes with 4000+ chemicals to you, which cause addictions stronger than the natural chemicals of tobacco, used their profit to buy big chunks of the food industry, then they sent their chemical modification teams into those companies and applied their methods to those products, which include all the big brands of coffee. The ingredient labels say "coffee", but it has been modified. And hey, right now Phillip Morris is owned by Proctor&Gamble and they want to spin its expenses away from them... but their products all use fragrances that are chemically crafted to create physiological responses, and the teams that create those fragrances seek your addiction, not your health.

My advice was to buy whole bean and ground it, because while I do not know specifically what was done to that ground coffee, I know the businesses are run by the same people, and to them we are fish they are trying to put a hook into. They will modify that ground coffee through heat and/or exposure to specific gases, to create molecules in the surface area of the product that function as preservatives or "taste hooks".

[Criptfeind]

Here's my problem with this theory.

I know a cigarettes are bad for me (for a lot of reasons but an additional one is) because when I go to the philipmorris website I can pull up a list of 109 additives. It's very believable that some of these are addiction causing chemicals. I can look at oreos and kraft foods and lunchables and see a laundry list of added chemicals and also fats and sugars and salt which are also unhealthy and addictive. But then I go look at Coffee and.... Nothing. But the theory is that although they are openly telling you their sinister designs in all their other products, because, legally, they have to, coffee is different, they are using some secret process to somehow modify the coffee though heat and gasses to make it more addictive. Coffee is special, they are sinisterly modifying it in some secret process rather then just calling it a infused blend or some shit and openly advertising it like they do their other addictive additions.

Why they do this to coffee alone? Unstated. What gasses? Unknown. What processes? Unknown. What it does to the bean? Unknown. How does it all work? Unknown. Proof? None.

It's a conspiracy theory without proof that accuses a evil corporation of doing further evil, which is attractive, but it accusing them of doing secretly doing evil in one area when they are already proudly and openly doing that evil in other areas.

I'd like to promote my alternative theory: Evil megacorporations don't need to add unhealthy addictive chemicals to coffee because coffee is itself a unhealthy addictive chemical.

[anewaname]

The tobacco companies probably called it a "conspiracy theory" too, until they were convicted in the RICO case which clarified it was an "actual conspiracy".

So it only took 30+ years for their product to get labelled as something other than "tobacco", and that list of 109 additives is the minimum they were required to list after the court cases. There will be more chemicals used in the processing that are not required to be listed or they stopped using.

These industries will do what they can to increase profit and they will not care about the user's health. If they can increase how their product triggers the consumer's reward system for ingesting their product, they will. Choose with consideration when your choice gives power over you to another...

[Criptfeind]

The tobacco companies probably called it a "conspiracy theory" too, until they were convicted in the RICO case which clarified it was an "actual conspiracy".

Yes, some conspiracies are real, most however, are not. Why would I think one without proof and that doesn't really make sense is a real one?

Choose with consideration when your choice gives power over you to another...

I don't drink any caffeinated beverages whatsoever, and part of my decision to not do so is because caffeine is addictive. Your hand ground beans might save you from the conspiracy addiction chemicals but I'm sorry to break the news to you, you're getting a full dose of the real well known addiction chemicals already.

[Il Palazzo]

'I don't wanna no drugs in my drugs because I could get addicted while getting addicted' is certainly a take one can take. I'm not convinced the extra drugs are real, though.

[Great Order]

Yeah if you're worried about addictive additives in your coffee then you're kind of worrying about the wrong thing.

Caffeine is hilariously addictive. A cup of coffee has about 100mg, which is about the amount of caffeine needed daily to form an addiction. Also caffeine makes you feel good and it really doesn't take much to form an association.

[Egan_BW]

Delicious stimulant.

[hector13]

At least until the point your body is so dependent on it you need to consume it just to feel normal.

[Il Palazzo]

Shut up. I can quit any time I want.

[Frumple]

If you feel like dealing with a week or two of headaches, anyway, heh.

Do recommend, tho', it's a noticeable quality of life improvement once the withdrawal symptoms peter off.

[Egan_BW]

At least until the point your body is so dependent on it you need to consume it just to feel normal.

Well, in which case I'll keep consuming it.

[wierd]

At least until the point your body is so dependent on it you need to consume it just to feel normal.

I note this, and regularly go off the caffeine when I note that I have become neuro-dependent.

I want the BOOST, not "new normal". 

My routine act of doing this, has apparently made me able to go months without the stuff, without issue or much of any symptom. Just a day or two of hard sleep, and I'm fine. 


I guess your mileage may vary.

[hector13]

I get really bad headaches from caffeine withdrawals so I avoid it for the most part.

I’ll get a caffeinated soda if I go out to eat, or as a treat to myself if I have the house to myself; and I can really feel the stimulant effect now because of that.