Thank you very much for the detective work! This is terrific news!

"Does coffee or caffeine affect my diabetes?

Ask the Dietitian (Diabetes Dialogue, Winter 1997)

Caffeine does not appear to affect blood sugar when consumed in moderate amounts. This is good news since many Canadians start their day with a cup of coffee. This does not mean that people with diabetes can consume excessive amounts of caffeine. Drinking caffeine in large amounts as coffee over a short period of time has been shown to raise blood sugar. Caffeine does this by enhancing the effect of two hormones (adrenaline and glucagon). These two hormones release stored sugar from the liver resulting in high blood sugar."

There are many other sources that also discuss the effects of coffee on blood sugar.

Regardless, I drink a double espresso every day. I won't give it up.

And for people with diabetes:

http://www.newstarget.com/001514.html

I will have to respectfully disagree about coffee being carb free. The USDA people specifically state "made with water". Solids definitely pass thru the filters else the coffee wouldn't be dark. I can see them collected in the bottom of my pot sometimes. It's a negligible amount, but if you are a thorough carb counter (I count the carbs in packs of sweetener, cans of soda, cups of crystal light & tsps of dry spices, too) it should be accounted, IMHO. If you are eating over 30 carbs a day and don't drink much coffee, it probably won't matter if you chose not to count the carbs.

I found it helpful to count coffee carbs while on induction and continue to count them on OWL. On the other hand I don't always count Sugar Alcohol carbs *EEPS*, so it's sort of an academic argument. *laughs* The main difference for me between the SA's and coffee is that I used to drink 1-2 pots of coffee a day and at that rate the carbs really do add up whereas the SA candies are a special 'treat" that I only eat a couple times a week at most.

My 2 cents, anyway lol

Hmmm... Okay, if the solids in the brewed coffee account for a gram per 8-oz cup....how much of that is fiber? Or is it entirely starch... or plant sugars....

Too much math for me. I'd need three cups of coffee, minimum, to figure it all out!

Remember a gram is a unit of weight. I sincerely doubt that if you evaporated the liquid from 10 cups of coffee that you'd even be left with 1 gram of solids, much less 1 gram per cup, unless you've got a leaky filter or something.

Yum. Crunchy.

There are enough solids in 6 oz of coffee for us to quibble over *laughs*

We both agree the solids exist. The only question is what are they?

Below I've listed the two descrepant nutrient listings for comparison. The first thing I notice is that the new listing has half as many calories as the old. Maybe they are using less coffee grinds per pot? It's a possibility but let's say they have better technology now and can more accurately determine carbohydrate from other substances. And what substance has displaced the carbohydrates? ASH, apparently. In previous versions, 6 oz of coffee only contained 0.177 grams of ash. The new version now says 6oz. of coffee has .62 grams of ash.

Now, we can make a few inferences with this data.
If we assume to be true that new technology allows us to better define nutrient data, then, apparently, the old method tended to overstate carbohydrate and understate ash content.
After comparing several other items in the nutrient data bases I find my theory is not consistent- only brewed coffee seems to be a victim of misinterpretation.

What are the other possibilities? Detecting ASH & Carbs isn't "new" tech... maybe someone made a mistake! Maybe the 16 previous versions are correct and the 17th version has an error? It is a possibility we have to admit. I was particularly suspicious when I looked up espresso in the new database and also found that listed as 0 carbs. The grind to liquid ratio is MUCH higher in espresso so surely some carbs must be detectable but apparently not according to the new database.

The other thing that makes me suspicious is that it says 0 carbs- not even .0001 grams? But they can detect .21 grams of protein.... this is a BEAN we're talking about, right?

Another possibility is that one version used a very dark roast while the others used a much lighter roast- heat does break down sugars and could account for the lower carb and higher ash ratio.

So I called "Rena" to discuss the coffee mystery with her but she is out sick with the flu.
I will follow up with her, however.

All in good fun,

*blessings* - Terra



Reference:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Current Version 17 says:
From http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodco...ist_nut_edit.pl

Nutrient Units 1.00 X 6 fl oz
-------
178g
Proximates
Water g 176.91
Energy kcal 2
Energy kj 4
Protein g 0.21
Total lipid (fat) g 0.04
Ash g 0.62
Carbohydrate, by difference g 0.00
Fiber, total dietary g 0.0


The 16 previous versions say:

From: http://www.rahul.net/cgi-bin/fatfre...H%20TAP%20WATER

Nutritional Data for 6 FL OZ COFFEE; BREWED, PREPARED WITH TAP WATER
0.0% Cals from fat, 21.7% Cals from protein, 78.3% Cals from carbs.

Name Unit Amount
Food energy KCal: 3.540
Protein Gms : 0.177
Total lipid (fat) Gms : 0.000
Carbohydrate, by diff. Gms : 0.708
Total saturated fat Gms : 0.004
Cholesterol Mg : 0.000
Total dietary fiber Gms : 0.000
Ash Gms : 0.177
Water Gms : 175.761

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, I always love it when people are bull-dogs for the truth. Go get 'em, girl! Of course, you're assuming they've retested coffee 16 times, maybe they've only tested it twice but it was in 16 versions of the database.

For instance, when I release new software the vast majority of the code is exactly the same as the last version, but it includes updates and bug fixes.

I'd assume the database works the same way, they don't retest everything in the database every time they release a new version, it just has some new items and some old items with revisions.

*friendly smile* Thank you for the encouragement! lol You're right. They may not have tested it since who knows when --maybe only one time. After looking at it a bit longer I bet it's all about the roast- darks are bound to have less sugar and more ash. It's only really been in the past 10-20 years or so that people have been drinking the gourmet darker blends in the US. If it's been a long time since they tested it could very well be they used a much lighter roast back when.

Coffee beans definitely start out with plenty of carbohydrates in them.

From: http://wwwchem.uwimona.edu.jm:1104/lectures/coffee.html
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Coffee Chemistry

For simplicity, this will be subdivided into sections.
Carbohydrates
Nitrogenous Components
Chlorogenic Acids
Volatile Components
Carboxylic Acids

Carbohydrates
A range of carbohydrates, including polysaccharides and the low molecular weight sugars (mono-, di- and trisaccharides) are found in green coffee.
Sucrose is the major free sugar present and for arabica is present at about 8% on a dry basis.
Polysaccharides (glycans) amount to up to 50% on a dry basis of green coffee. Hydrolysis of coffee polysaccharides has been shown to give mannose >> galactose > glucose >> arabinose.
On roasting the coffee major changes occur, depending on the degree of roasting, e.g. from light to dark and simple sugars such as arabinose are progressively destroyed.

Nitrogenous Components
These may be described in terms of three main groups of compounds: alkaloids, trigonelline together with nicotinic acid and amino acids and proteins.

Caffeine.
Caffeine is perhaps the best known and controversial alkaloid found in coffee and it is present at about 1-2% on a dry weight basis in arabica.
An alternative view (random dot 3D image) of the caffeine molecule can be found here." (snipped)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Blessings!

What exactly is "ash"? I assume it is something indigestible that is found in all food?

No question beans usually have lots of carbs in them, but then again, you usually eat the whole thing not pour boiling water over them and then throw them away the bean. The exception being chocolate covered espresso beans... but my days of eating those are long over!

I have been meaning to grow a coffee tree, or bush. I hear they have delightful smelling flowers and can make a nice indoor plant.

I think ash is primarily a metal oxide (I think usually potassium) not inherent in food necessarily until it has been thermally or chemically oxidized. Don't take my word for it, it's been a loooong time since high school chem.

I've been wishing for a Camellia Sinensis plant myself. They're supposed to be an attractive evergreen and we drink a lot of green tea. My area of the PNW is sposed to be a good zone for them too.

Wyv

lol I could only find an answer from a Pet Food site!

"First of all, ash is the inorganic mineral portion of any substance. When referring to dog and cat food, "ash content" is te mineral matter, including magnesium, calcium, phosphorus, iron, and copper. The ash analysis does not reveal the percentage of each mineral, therefore it does not tell much about the food."

Now what it is considered for human food, I cannot tell you with 100% certainty. Probably the same? lol If I understand them correctly, ash represents the overall mineral content/weight present in food. It's then broken down further into types of specific minerals- calcium, magnesium etc.

I was thinking ash is ash- as in the residue of burned organic matter that one might expect from deep roasting of beans-- but the whole thing is a bit confusing! lol
.

I've been thinking the same! We can grow Camellia's here, I assume it's the same as those pretty flower plants.

You bet your ash!

I just thought I'd say I really really hope I am wrong!


cuz I LOVE COFFEE!

*smiles*