Caffeine

This is a thread for one of the acceptable drugs, caffeine. It seems reasonable to assume most of us get our caffeine from coffee and tea, but for those of you who do use caffeine supplements and whatnot, how do you like them? For those of us who have rationalized away the idea that allowing caffeine and liquor is alright but all other drugs are bad, how did you ease into heavier drugs? How could one use caffeine as a gateway drug? How important is caffeine in your life? Do you use it often; does it help you wake up and operate in your normal activities? Lastly, feel free to discuss recipes, techniques, and opinions for coffee, tea, and other caffeinated foods that you enjoy or find interesting.

Caffeine pills are definitely the gold standard if you plan on taking caffeine regularly for its cognitive effects. The dosage is standardized, so you always get the same amount (whereas with coffee it's more of a crapshoot), and due to the method of ingestion it works more effectively. Altogether, caffeine pills are infinitely more convenient. I don't see why more people, aside from coffee aficionados, don't take to simply using caffeine pills every day. The only argument in favor of drinking coffee as opposed to taking caffeine in pill form is enjoying the taste/smell/experience of drinking it. Or because of society's stupid outdated stigma surrounding taking "pill" versions of things.

I've been wanting to really get into coffee and learn about the different blends and roasts and other buzzwords I don't understand yet; does anyone have any resources or knowledge to share? Also is it an expensive hobby cos I'm broke

I've been taking caffeine pills(usually 2 200mg pills) daily for a while now and they're definitely worth it. You save a lot when compared with buying coffee, it's super convenient and I find I urinate less when compared with drinking coffee.

I have recently been looking into taking caffeine pills instead of coffee. While I love the taste of coffee, it gets expensive over the week and I'm always low on cash.

>>33 Check this book out. It's not an expensive hobby, but it can be if you let it. Some of the best cups I have had are from a 4 dollar pour over and a 40 dollar grinder. Basically find a local place that roasts their own coffee and get it fresh. Gadgets aside, fresh beans make the cup better. If you have any specific questions let me know.

>>33 Not too expensive, French press is 10$ and a very good grinder that'll last your life is about 40$ (hario burr grinder). I started by lurking on the Coffee stackexchange site and also by reading "How To Make Coffee" by Lani Kingston.

>>33 the other lainon replies contain good information (haven't read coffeist manifesto, but have heard it's quite good.) i always took a "buy it cheap (not too cheap) and make it strong" approach to coffee. but after my partner introduced me to the joys of good coffee made well, i finally began to understand why people buy $25 pounds of coffee. when i first saw her process of making our morning coffee using a scale, i thought it was comical and endearing. now i see the light. quick guide: >ratio 15:1 water:coffee ratio. You can go up to 20:1 (some stand by 18:1), but 15:1 is my preference in terms of strength. >water filter that soykaf, son. (it's okay if you can't. but it does make a difference.) >beans Single origin is king. Personally, I'm very fond of Ethiopian and Guatemalan beans. Many of the major mainstream distributors (ie, Starbucks & Peets) have begun to catch on to the popularity of the single origin meme. I've had two single origin beans from Starbucks, they're not bad. But they pale, by an order of magnitude, to the roasters I'll list below: >roasters (note: san francisco is currently considered to be at the forefront of american coffee production, usurping seattle's claim to the throne. i grew up in SF and my recommendations are going to biased, but i can also find out about more localized or international roasteries for the curious.) Four Barrel, Blue Bottle, Ritual, Andytown, Chromatic. Verve (from Santa Cruz) and Heart (from Portland) are probably my two favorites. Now, the above is if you really want to bring out the flavor of the beans, and learn why they're giving the cupping notes they receive. In other words, this is more about really getting into the bougie af side of coffee, with an emphasis on flavor. So this approach is definitely a fairly expensive hobby, in terms of what most people normally average for coffee (assuming that you make it at home - if you're regularly buying coffee out, then this is probably an affordable option for you.) If you just want better coffee, as >>41 said, a good grinder is important. French presses are very nice, but I'd recommend a dripper for making pour over coffee, if you'd like a more flavorful coffee without going to as much effort as the method I outlined above. (Also recommending Hario's ceramic dripper, $20.) finally, as >>39 said, freshness makes the beans better. for full flavor, beans should be used within 2 weeks of roast date.

I quit caffeine a few years ago, but yesterday I had two cans of coca cola, and the caffeine really was killing me. I'm never getting back into caffeine.

>>32 In theory, coffee contains a bunch of other compounds that might have positive effects.

>>44 ugh, same. whenever I drink caffeine I end up with a stomach ache.

>Caffeine reduced CBF [cerebral blood flow] by an average of 27% across both caffeine states. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2748160/ Use it carefully. I personally stopped coffee. I drink now yerba mate maximum of 2 times a day for caffeine.

>>68 As someone living in south america, I was used to drink a lot of yerba mate during the day. Had to stop because it was fuarrrking up my intestines/liver. Ocasionally drink it still because I really like it. But I have the feeling that it turned into an addiction for me.

My dream is to find organic and relatively fresh coffee grounds, as opposed to grounds that were taken from the plant months ago and have been through a potentially health-damaging industrial process. Meanwhile, has anyone had that wakey-wakey coffe effect from a tea? Teas are a nice thing there's lots of them. I love making tea cocktails mixing some of them. I keep a bottle with water and some tea leaves in the fridge, I filter that into a glass for cold coffee, and add water and leaves from time to time. >>32 >stupid outdated stigma surrounding taking "pill" versions of things. Got any sources for that? What I know is plants contain thousands of fitonutrients that, our bodies evolved to use. But companies can't patent a plant, so they extract the compound they think is more important, put it into a pill with a bunch of other stuff to ameliorate the side effects, and sell you that. Here's a source talking about the same effect with a different plant. In an experiment they actually removed curcumin (the one they thought was the active ingredient) from turmeric, and it still worked. https://nutritionfacts.org/video/turmeric-curcumin-plants-vs-pills/ >>68 Be careful with yerba mate, I read that the industrial process they use to make it from the plant leaves residues that can cause throat cancer when they build up. I live in South America too so mate is an everyday drink for most people, but I buy organic yerba from diet stores. https://nutritionfacts.org/video/is-yerba-mate-tea-bad-for-you/ https://nutritionfacts.org/video/update-on-yerba-mate/ >>73 Try different yerbas or balance the effect out adding some other tea leaves like mint or green tea, or whatever depending on what mate does to your guts. Why would it harm your liver, though? >>68 According to this studies https://nutritionfacts.org/video/coffee-and-artery-function/ That effect does not come from caffeine, because caffeine from other sources (like tea) actually boosts arterial function. But in the study you link they used caffeine pills, so if I'm not mistaken both studies contradict eachother. I guess I'll stay with tea, I don't think drinking water that hot (like in traditional mate, with tat metal straw) is that good anyway, and tea is lots of fun because of the variety and how you can mix them, make them inlots of different ways, put them in food and learn about the health benefits. Coffee is so fuarking delicious though, I'll have to find a tea that's similar.

>>78 Update on >Coffee is so fuarking delicious though, I'll have to find a tea that's similar. I just bought coffee cookies.

>>78 >Why would it harm your liver, though? Not sure it damaged my liver. Went several times to a doctor and even got a ct scan but couldn't find anything conclusive.

>>78 Your argument seems to fall on the "appeal to nature": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature It's not because it's natural (or the new fancy hipster term "organic") that it does good for you. As Paracelsus said: " All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison…" or something like that. I think you've read Dave Asprey bullsoykaf, right? Most of what he says about coffee is a exaggerated to sell more of his "organic, mold free, super blast bulletproof coffee". >has anyone had that wakey-wakey coffe effect from a tea? I do, using yerba mate with green tea. If you do a powder from both and agitate in a recipient with 100C boiling water it extracts a good quantity of caffeine... >I love making tea cocktails mixing some of them I do to, I like it. I'm experimenting with Salvia now (noticed any effect at all), but I've have experiences with ginkgo biloba, ginseng and others. So far, aside from caffeine containing plants, no effect noticed. I've tried pills of kava and rhodiola rosea, nothing too. >Got any sources for that? Not the same guy but, as I said, you're falling on appeal to nature fallacy. What science do with plants some animistic religions say is bad. Basically because most of these think that all plants have an spirit ("anima mundi", or qi, kundalini, ether, etc) and when you consume these plants you're actually consuming it's spirit. It's fine if you apply it in a metaphorical way, but that's not exactly what science shows. What science do is: - Get a plant - See what is the major components of it - Remove the normal compounds (chlorophyll and some alkaloids) that have now show any particular effect (through double blind, placebo controlled, randomized clinical tests) - Test it in animals. If show effects, go to the lab and check the components again - Start removing those other substances until find the one that's actually doing the desired effect - Test it again, but now with the pure substance in a clinical way (the state of art today is a peer review of double blink, placebo controlled and randomized) - If some result is found, other academics will do research too. Other universities start to do peer review on papers. - If the statistic is good, someone will do an meta-analysis of all these studies and, through statistics (see p-number), they can check if it works or not Of course, you could argue that there's a kind of reductionism here. For example, different substances, when interacting may lead to different results. Science is aware of it. Most of them already know the drug metabolism (CYP450 and other enzymes, P-glycoprotein, etc) and the pharmacokinesis. >yerba mate [...] can cause throat cancer True. I've read that too. But to it actually cause cancer you'll have to drink it a lot. Also, most of the studies, IIRC, did with hot water, that may be the actual cause of cancer. If you think about it, a lot of people on south america drink it everyday and, if this cancer hypothesis is true, you should see a higher statistics in cancer on those places... and there's no statistics on this. Actually, there's more cancer , from what I remember, in big cities than on, say, the rural places of Paraguay or the south of Brazil.

>>86 [cont...] >caffeine from other sources (like tea) actually boosts arterial function. That's the point. Our body, when you rise something, enter in an state of homeostasis. That is, it tries to normalize the effects. So, let's say you rise dopamine. When you do it, you'll generally get the opposite effect through time, your body will lower the dopamine receptors. So what most people do? They take more of the substance. So it goes up, but then the receptor again, goes down with time. Now, when you take of the drug rising dopamine, your baseline levels will not be the same as it were before you started taking this drug, it will be bellow the baseline of some time (potentially years). That's the tolerance effect and way some substances is addictive. With caffeine is the same. It's a vasoconstrictor, through adenosine, but as time passes, your body does homeostasis and lower the blood flow in some areas to compensate the constant caffeine effect. So it results on less blood flow on some parts of the brain, and, therefore, less oxygenation, which is very bad. >Coffee is so fuarking delicious though, I'll have to find a tea that's similar. Yep. It's fuarrrking great. Some people say that strains of black tea, when with a sweetener, have similar tastes. I personally don't like black tea, but who knows...

>>86 >Your argument seems to fall on the "appeal to nature": I must've been unclear, sorry, in reality I don't think that X must be good because it's natural. I do think that our bodies evolved as a very complex chemical system that makes use of what's available in the environment. Processed foods and most synthetic medicines are very different to what's found in nature. From that, I think that if there's something in nature that's good for our health, it's just more likely that it'll be better than the processed version, even moreso if you take into account that it might have bad effects that didn't come up in the tests. That happens a lot, one silly example is when they try something on mice to determine wether it causes cancer, they say it doesn't because mice die from aging a couple months later, when the human lifespan is a lot higher than that of mice thus the exposure would be longer lasting, and untested. It's like trying to correct some computer code that's been made more efficient by random changes for millions of years in parallel. I'm not saying that no advance is possible, just that it's hard and should be done step by step, like science used to be done before there were big companies whiping the scientists' backs. >I think you've read Dave Asprey bullsoykaf, right? I didn't know about him, but he seems to be full of bulletproof soykaf. I would've thougt you'd expect better from me, given that the sources I cited are scientific papers. >I do, using yerba mate with green tea. Thanks, I'll give that a try. >I'm experimenting... Do you mean for sweetening? I went cold turkey on sweeteners and straight into mixing in some sweet tea leaves, I like it a lot better. You mentioned lots of stuff I didn't know, I'll be looking them up. >Basically because most of these think that all plants have an spirit Not my thing, but to each his own. >different substances, when interacting may lead to different results. That's what I was going to say, I think that's where we have different views. I think that there's no point, healthwise, to get as close as you can to the 'pure active component', given that our body, and the plant, are two very complex chemical systems that are very hard to understand, yet drug companies rush the studies. Science's advanced a lot into understanding said proccesses and I love that, but the ones doing the purifying are generally not trying to make it healthier, they try to make it acceptable enough to sell it with a patent. That's the general idea I ended up having after researching on nutrition for some time, my main source was that site I linked in my previous post, it sources directly from medical papers, preferrably double blind, placebo controlled, randomized. >>yerba mate >Also, most of the studies, IIRC, did with hot water, that may be the actual cause of cancer. I think so too. And the effect should be even greater in South America because there it's not drunk as yerba mate tea, but as 'mate' (like in this pic), which means drinking almost-boiling water with a straw. But there are way too many cancer causes, so I think it'd be very hard to study. And yes, I've read the same about there being more cancer in cities in general than in rural populations. >I personally don't like black tea, but who knows... Yeah it's one of my less favorites. I'll make sure to report back here if I can alchemy some tea into a coffee-like that's not soykaf. And thanks a bunch for the homeostasis explanation, it made a lot of sense.

>>116 >(like in this pic) Forgot. This one.

I've been taking caffeine pills for about a year now, the only real problem you should have in mind is that it is very easy to find yourself chasing a euphoric caffeine "high". Especially if you normally have a small intake switching to 200mg pills makes it easy to pop more than you should and end up in a bad spot.

>>116 You seem like a good guy. You're welcome. >when they try something on mice to determine wether it causes cancer, they say it doesn't because mice die from aging a couple months later, when the human lifespan is a lot higher Well, that's predicted by science (most of the time). The tests on mice is not measured by the time he'll live, but the what is the speed of change before and after the treatment. So, you don't have to account for the lifespan, but the this variable, that is the changes between a period of time. This is predicted on cancer, for example, by how many cancerous cells multiply (metastasis) in a period of time. So if you want to predict the effects on human, you can by using mathematics. It's not a perfect calculation, but it's most of the time pretty close to what is expected on humans (generally shown on clinical trials). >made more efficient by random changes for millions of years in parallel. True, but evolution is not teleologic, so it's not that the "code" is more efficient, it's just more adapted to it's ambient. But, the ambient that we lived millions of years ago has changed in last few centuries and the natural adaptation time is not fast enough to prevent some diseases, so we have technology to help us. Let's say that the code is not yet adapted to current changes (temperature, pollution, increased social interaction, stress, etc), and those "glitches" on this code can be corrected using synthetic drugs. For example, depression have increase a lot in the last two centuries, and synthetic medications like SSRI's do a pretty good job about this. >like science used to be done before there were big companies whiping the scientists' backs. It's true that big companies have a influence on medical science, but I don't this it's a big conspiracy. These paid research's don't last much time on academy, because the results need to be tested and peer reviewed before it is approved by governmental agencies as a proved method of cure. >I would've thougt you'd expect better from me, given that the sources I cited are scientific papers. I just did a generalization, sorry. Most people that advocate for "organic new age coffee beans" today came from the marketing of Dave Asprey, so I just thought you were one of these guys... >Do you mean for sweetening? No, I don't use any type of sweetener. Just because I like the taste without it. Green tea has a unique taste called "umami" that is somewhat sweet, that's why I use it together with yearba mate (and also because of l-theanine). But sweeteners like Stevia don't do bad for you, since it's not absorbed by your body at all. [cont...]

>>119 [cont...] > I think that there's no point, healthwise, to get as close as you can to the 'pure active component I think there is. You vision is more skeptical about this (I mean the greeks vision about skepticism, that there's we can't reach a true view of the things because they are too complex), I understand, but I think there *is* a point. You can't ignore the fact that most of these things did good for our society. For example, the invention of anti-biotic, the anesthetics, and drugs to cure things that we had no treatment back in the days (like psychological problems, or cancer by itself). And, as I said, scientists working on this kind of research know a fair amount of these interactions between different substances. As a example yourself cited, the curcumin is basically inactive via the oral route of administration, because it's destructed by enzymes called CYP450 complex. So, scientists thought: how about we put something that inhibit the activity of these enzymes? That's what they did. They used piperine together with curcumin to get an 1000% more absorption and get results that you can't achieve just with curcumin by itself. >And thanks a bunch for the homeostasis explanation, it made a lot of sense. You're welcome (> . <)

>>119 >Well, that's predicted by science (most of the time) I had a particular study in mind, I can't find it now. But I've come across so many studies in which mice testing backfired that I'm extra careful when reading about their (mice) use now. There's a huge number of variables in each system (rat, plant, human) and in studies as encompassing as the cancer ones, the number of variables that actually affect the results is very big, and the error that those variables input into the predictions grows greater whith time, and that's important in this case because cancer progresses throughout many years. I'm sure you knew about that, just now I was looking up what's the lifespan of a rat lab and in the way I found many articles questioning the results this type of testing yields. Only then I found that it's around thirty-three months. Again, I'm not saying that rats are an useless resource, but maybe they're used or trusted too much. >But, the ambient that we lived millions of years ago has changed in last few centuries and the natural adaptation time is not fast enough to prevent some diseases, so we have technology to help us. Yeah, sad prospect, if you ask me. Personally I try to reduce the causes of illness instead. In my research I’ve found a very encompassing pattern; what helps cure or treat a disease helps prevent it if you haven't been diagnosed with that disease, and the more disease-preventing habits you bring in, the more disease-causing habits you're swapping out. Example: green tea makes a tumor retreat if you have cancer, but helps your body prevent it if you don't (that's why I drink it, I didn't know about l-theanine, plusgood), and by drinking more of it you might be drinking less of those popular weird colored drinks that are full of cancer-causing agents. This "pattern" only works for natural agents though, otherwise it'd include taking chemo when you don't have cancer. That'd be like the oposite of preventing it. This is why I dig scientific studies on the causes of disease. Fun read from wikipedia: "The physician John Hill described tobacco snuff as the cause of nose cancer in 1761. This was followed by the report in 1775 by British surgeon Percivall Pott that chimney sweeps' carcinoma, a cancer of the scrotum, was a common disease among chimney sweeps." >It's true that big companies have a influence on medical science, but I don't this it's a big conspiracy. I don't either, I don't think they're trying to harm science, but they won’t spare it if there's profit to make there. And you're right, generally they push it (I'm sure you're aware of the methods) until the regulation, law, or whatever is passed, or they find another way to do what they want. Then other scientists debunk the bad studies and hopefully roll back the bad regulations, but that's harder because money flows the opposite way. >organic new age coffee beans We should've made a double blind, placebo controlled, randomized study where we put people to drink the same type of coffee beans before and after entering the era of aquarius, that would've taught them. >But sweeteners like Stevia don't do bad for you, since it's not absorbed by your body at all. I knew about a cap of two stevia-sweetened drinks per day to avoid mutagenics. https://nutritionfacts.org/video/is-stevia-good-for-you/ >You vision is more skeptical about this (I mean the greeks vision about skepticism, that there's we can't reach a true view of the things because they are too complex) I'm not Greek-skeptical, I actually can't help but feel disdain towards that "we'll never possibly know" attitude (unless we actually can't ever know, like are we living in a perfect simulation). As a disclaimer, I haven't read any books by that type of a skeptical so I'm not at all knowledgeable about that and surely have a wrong idea about their arguments. Still, we know that the chemistry of one living thing ingesting another living thing is very complex, I don't think there's a point in comparing who of us thinks is more complex. >That's what they did. They used piperine together with curcumin They invented curry! It's been in use for its medicinal properties in India's traditional food and even topically. I do admire the Indian's ways in this regard, "let's administer some piperine with the curcumin and test for curcumin quantities in blood samples" can be done in a couple hours using relatively recent knowledge and equipment, but it must have taken the Indians years and years of collective studying to discover that sort of effect by trial, error and long observations, maybe even passing the work down generations to make up something like ayurveda. I KNOW I KNOW I sound like some hippy with a flute wearing colorful pants, but I try to not cage my learning into an appeal to nature nor into an appeal to science (not saying that you do), and I find the ways of ancient science no less interesting than those of modern science. Maybe even more because I know less about them, there must be lots of "unknown knowns" (or unknown have-been-knowns), I would guess that in ancient times they used an ancient version of placebos, test subject randomization, etc in their tests. And the interaction is very interesting, like this scientists discovering why and how some property of curry works. By the way, curry helps with Alzheimer's too, in case anyone reading this has a relative or something who's affected by it. https://nutritionfacts.org/?fwp_search=curry&fwp_content_type=video As a bottom line, I think that something that looks like a disagreement comes from us mixing up two things; the development of science’s knowledge of physiology, and the development of the drug industry as we know it. I think it's great that we know how curry works and we should keep on learning, but that we should still treat ourselves with curry or turmeric+pepper instead of a curcumin+piperine+stuff pill or additive. With that pill we didn’t invent antibiotics, we discovered a new way to make a type of artificial antibiotic. It’s useful to know how, why and to what extent it works but that’s no reason to use it over anything else. And this is what I ended up thinking after reading (and while I read) lots of information based on good scientific papers (double placebo, blind controlled, with test subjects names looked up in /dev/urandom). Corny last sentence: you made me do some research so I could write this reply, so thanks for that. Should I also clarify that the site I cite so much doesn’t pay me or something? It’s just that it’s the best source I know aside from the actual papers he cites.

>>122 >[rats a]re used or trusted too much. True, but that's not the point in using animals. The point on using animals is to *test*, not to prove. For example, when you design a new drug, you'll not give it to 10 people and see what's the result, since the drug would act unpredictably. It's applied on rats then, and just after it's applied directly on humans. Most of the drugs have similar effects on rats and humans, so rats is great for it's use. I probably didn't get what is your critic. There is studies on rats with, say, anthocyanin from wine, for example. It has the same effects on rats and humans, from what I know, and that's not so impressive. Now, if you extract the other substance from wine, resveratrol, and pit it on a pill, both rats and humans see a significant effect. Some synthetic derivatives from resveratrol even are more effective (forgot the one that I studies some time ago, if I remember I'll post here later). >what helps cure or treat a disease helps prevent it I'm sure that's not how it works. It'll depend on what disease we're talking about. When you push/pull something on your body, like a hormone, a neurotransmitter/receptor, or something else, you'll always cause other change on your system. That's the well known "side effects", but I don't think people really understand this concept. The systems is greatly interconnected. When you change something you'll probably cause other problem. If you take some natural substance to reduce the effect of carcinogens, for example, you'll cause other problems. In this example, you'll probably fuarrrk up your mTOR. The diminutive approach, instead of addictive one, seems to me more likely to help. Reducing contact with air pollution (using HEPA filters on home or nose filters on outside), reducing ingestion of bad aliments (even water itself, that has great quantities of fluoride), evading blue light at night (with blue light blocker glasses), etc. Some would go further and start to protect against EM waves. I don't have a background on this, but I would suggest that so many EM waves we have on big cities probably do bad for people. >green tea makes a tumor retreat... Yes. But if you get the substance that does it (EGCG - catechins) and synthesize it, put on a pill with some bioenhancer (piperine), the effects is much more perceived. What you thought process fail is that you would have to consume too much green tea to get all the goods and the greater effect. What science does is just identify these good things and then synthesize them. >I would guess that in ancient times they used an ancient version of placebos, test subject randomization I don't think so. They tested the substances, but much (if not all) of it was anecdotal, empiricism-based tests. India also had a great influence of Rasayana, that is very animistic and ritualistic and not much scientific (on Asia the Waidanshu is also not very scientific): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasayana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waidan >With that pill we didn’t invent antibiotics, we discovered a new way to make a type of artificial antibiotic Now that's an appeal to nature. What's your definition of "invention" and "natural"? For example, the "artificial antibiotic" is based on what, if not on 'natural' principles? I didn't get this. >that’s no reason to use it over anything else. There's so many reasons. First, you can't get these natural antibiotics without taking loads of plants. Second, the effects of known 'natural' antibiotics is different from the synthetic ones that we have discovered, that have saves millions of people. For example, penicillin is 'natural' (in the sense you see it), but it's of general spectrum. It does nothing to many bacterial infections, so we require new, synthetic, antibiotics, specific to the kind of bacteria we're trying to kill. Most of the time, there's no "natural" substance that kill such specific bacteria without destroying human system. Your view progressed to primitivism now? Will you became a fruitarian in future? haha, just kidding. >Should I also clarify that the site I cite so much doesn’t pay me or something? I think they're paying you do astroturf a healthier way to live and that it's a big conspiracy... (*>*) To people reading: please, interact more. I don't like to have a conversation with only one person in a forum with dozens of other people, this makes the perspectives limited to belief bias of both people interacting, and that's bad. If you can, contribute with some reply, use name calling if necessary, I don't care, just do.

One of my friends went caffeine > adderall > cocaine. I actually mainly use coffee to help me soykaf though. I used to drink it everday so i prob have dependence but the dependence doesnt equate with drink more coffee in my head. In fact often times i have trouble getting that sweet spot where im awake but focused. Usually I just drink too much coffee and dont know what to do with myself cause I cant focus.

I don't drink tea because of caffeine, just for taste. It's a very versatile and convenient beverage. >>78 About that yerba mate claim, I thought I read somewhere (not sure where, probably wikipedia) that chronic consumption of hot drinks can lead to an increased risk of throat cancer, and not just drinking yerba mate in particular. Regardless, I still need to check out the links you posted. >Coffee is so fuarking delicious though, I'll have to find a tea that's similar Try a heavy roasted oolong or get into pu-erh. I've had a few good Wi-yu rock teas, roasted and unroasted, that have a deep body and a nice smokey taste. For pu-erh, I haven't had very many varieties, but they're usually very earthy and might be worth looking into.

>>133 >Usually I just drink too much coffee and dont know what to do with myself cause I cant focus. That's why l-theanine is used. It counter interact most of the caffeine side-effects (probably because of GABA and alpha brain waves). Try green tea with coffee next time, or buy bulk l-theanine and put on coffee... You could also try alpha binaural waves, seems to help me a bit (I do my own on audacity, though).

>>128 >The point on using animals is to *test*, not to prove. That's fair, I didn't make that destinction. Maybe I’ve seen too many studies where rats were used as proof, or I misunderstood it that way. >>what helps cure or treat a disease helps prevent it >I'm sure that's not how it works. It’s not clockwork, just something I’ve seen happen in a lot of situations with helpful foods. Maybe it happens when the same thing in the body fights the early stages (which might count as prevention) and the later stages (which’d be the cure), and that’s what thiso food boosts. >That's the well known "side effects", but I don't think people really understand this concept. I myself think I do, and a big part of what makes me prefer five cups of tea a day instead of one pill is the unknown unknowns in the side effects. I know we (collectively) know a lot about the processes, but our body is so complex that I’d rather keep it tea. >If you take some natural substance to reduce the effect of carcinogens, for example, you'll cause other problems. And with this I’d always go with tea because I think it’s more likely that the pill will have more/worse side effects than the tea because the tea’s components have been there, mixed like that and in that concentration throughout our evolution. It’s not an amazing argument, but it tilts the scale enough for me right now, as a general statement. >you'll probably fuarrrk up your mTOR. You mean too little mTOR from too much tea? Maybe some foods should be taken week on-week off for such type of effects of a long exposure. >The diminutive approach, instead of addictive one, seems to me more likely to help. Very yes. >Now that's an appeal to nature. What's your definition of "invention" and "natural"? For example, the "artificial antibiotic" is based on what, if not on 'natural' principles? I didn't get this. Thinking of it like that, everything would be natural, yes. By “inventing antibiotics” I mean creating the first of its kind. Like in there not being antibiotic compounds in nature before them being synthesized in a lab. I don’t think it’s an appeal to nature though, because I didn’t use that to argue that the “non-invented” one was better. I’m just about words. >you can't get these natural antibiotics without taking loads of plants. I don’t see that as a problem, it’d even be a healthy trait as long as your diet is varied. Availability could be a deciding factor, but I guess it can go both ways in that aspect. And preference/laziness of course. >[synthetic medicine being more tweakable and made specific to the matter at hand] That’s true, even if you have to patch up loads of side-effects it could be faster than alchemying natural things for the same purpose, in a ticking bomb scenario. Depends on one’s knowledge of them, of course. The good unknown unknown that bugs me is that maybe it was already written in some ancient Chinese book somewhere, while for modern science papers are a websearch away. I think I’ve looked up enough about nutrition, food and drugs to get an intermediate understanding, or at least some sort of common sense of how this works. If I want to move this on I should read more about Indian or Chinese traditional medicine, I’ve personally heard stories as impressive as people getting back from multiple esclerosis by adopting weird diets. Otherwise I won’t be able to compare them any further and eventually won’t be able to choose what the best treatment is in case of sickness. >Your view progressed to primitivism now? Maybe I’m close to ancientism? I’d be closer to that than to “pillism”, that's for sure, as cyberpunk as a “pillian” would be. I do think it’s a shame that (I think?) we stopped building upon ancient medicine, burned all papers (or never cared to get them in the first place) and pretty much started all over again some centuries ago. >Will you became a fruitarian in future? Wow that’s a thing. Fruitarian for a week sounds like fun, as long as I eat a lot of different types. If I do, I’ll make a fruit juice thread. >>137 Thanks! I’ll try to find them all and will bring my experience back when I give them a try.

I like black tea. I steep two tablespoons of leaves per cup of water at 190 degrees Fahrenheit for two and a half minutes. I also use pills when I need a quick boost. I kind of want to create a Spice(as in Dune)-like drug by mixing caffeine, adderall, some B-vitamins, a mild hallucinigen (not sure what yet), and cinnamon, but I need to do a lot more work on the proportions. My opinion on the whole, "Pills vs Plants," issue is that perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away (as the quote in the OP of that minimalism thread says). I think we should identify all the effects of all the compounds, including combinations, and sell the ones that work best. Once we know what's chaf (or just less effective at the same thing), why bother to keep eating it?

>>158 >it’s more likely that the pill will have more/worse side effects Actually it's quite the opposite. With natural products you have a vast amount of unnecessary stuff that may cause more side effects and interaction with the real substance(s) you really need. I'll give you the same example about wine: to get a good quantity of resveratrol from wine you would need to drink it... a lot. But you obviously can't, since you'll get into a comatose if you do. The resveratrol pill, therefore, will cause less side effects. >You mean too little mTOR from too much tea? No, I was using the example with drugs that diminish cancer cells or it's proliferation will cause side effects and you can't just take lots of stuff and think it's ok. > I didn’t use that to argue that the “non-invented” one was better. You actually did... or I'm interpreting this wrong: >but that’s no reason to use it [synthetic antibiotics] over anything else Am I wrong? Well, english is not my first language, obviously, so I guess I have some issues with interpretation. >If I want to move this on I should read more about Indian or Chinese traditional medicine Not really, unless you want to approach it in a pseudo-scientific way or if you're a researcher testing the substances in some weird plant. I'll explain more bellow... >people getting back from multiple esclerosis by adopting weird diets. The probability of placebo is great here. >Otherwise I won’t be able to compare them [who?] any further and eventually won’t be able to choose what the best treatment is in case of sickness. What the "them" mean? Modern scientific knowledge vs the Chinese/Indian folk medicine? Why would you want to "compare" them? We have to look to things that work, not to some ideology. That's where the scientific method enters, looking at reality in a objective and falsifiable way. >pretty much started all over again some centuries ago. Well, that's how it is. Much of the ancient scripts where based on metaphysics (that I call mythology - "mythos" meaning "false"), such as life driving forces qi, lung, ether, spirit/soul, etc. These views can't be tested (as of today) if they exist or not, and it's irrelevant to medicine. What is relevant is the real effect and many things proposed as a solution in ancient cultures just don't make any effect when doing clinical tests. Much of these folk medicines are based on suggestibility and general placebo effect. For example, if some random person gives you chamomile saying it will calm you, it probably will not. If a respected shaman inside a community with very strong animistic religion gives this exactly same chamomile, it is more likely to take effect, since the placebo effect is intensified by an authority bias and some techniques of suggestibility (gestures and conversation is used by shamans just like hypnosis). It's an ad infinitum discussion. We have it for centuries now (about everything we are talking here on this thread). A thing you might like to research is "hormesis". People are using it now on everything (exercise [high intensity interval training], eating schedule [intermittent fasting], cold baths , drugs, etc). Other things that might interest you is ketogenic diet and genetic and microbiome sequencing to find mutations and fix it with nutrition (see the MTFH mutation and methylcobalamin). Have you tried to grow plants yourself, like in aeroponics? See the OpenAG project from MIT, it's really interesting. Also "spirulina". There's lots of different things to discuss. Your world view is a bit different of mine (and that's fine), but it doesn't mean we can't discuss other subjects (you can create threads about these things, I'll reply for sure).

From what I can tell, caffeine has zero effect on me. Teas, coffees, ect. I get no buzz or alertness and I can go to sleep right afterward and I usually don't drink it that often. Am I screwed or is there something I don't get?

>>167 Check your blood pressure.

>>167 Well I also dont feel any effect from coffee and can also go to sleep on it essy. However I know it does have an effect cause during my two hour long classes where I normally cant even keep my eyes open if I drink coffee during them I can actually stay up. Im still tired but not passing out tired.

I tried a new tea cocktail (I was gonna say "cocktea" but it doesn't sound good) last night. My sleep schedule was upside down, I was tired of trying to fix it and I calculated that I was gonna get sleepy around 5am. So I mixed: >valeriana >chamomile >lemon balm >passiflora >green tea And when I wanted to go to sleep, after dinner, I had a cup and half an hour later I was hitting the bed. Slept for six or seven hours and woke up in the early morning, no groggyness or anything, it actually felt like eight hours of good sleep. >>162 >With natural products you have a vast amount of unnecessary stuff that may cause more side effects My understanding is that our organism knows how to deal with the bunch of components because evolution, I mean, the body is like "well, looks like this is an orange, better get ready to extract vitamin C et cetera and prepare to engage in this and that digestive function", and that can start as early as one feeling the taste or the smell of the orange. I just listened to an episode of a podcast that was very relevant to this issue and might explain my view better than I can. The podcast was the combined audio of this short videos: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/food-synergy/ https://nutritionfacts.org/video/reductionism-deficiency-mentality/ https://nutritionfacts.org/video/industry-response-to-plants-not-pills/ My conclusion: I'll keep learning and have the best diet I can think of, composed of lots of different whole plants and teas. If I get sick nonetheless, I'll go to the hospital and take whatever the shaman prescribes. >> I didn’t use that to argue that the “non-invented” one was better. >You actually did... or I'm interpreting this wrong: >>but that’s no reason to use it [synthetic antibiotics] over anything else I didn't mean the former to justify the latter. Not my mother tongue either, sorry. >Why would you want to "compare" them? We have to look to things that work, not to some ideology. I don't see them as different ideologies but different methods. And they come up with different solutions, as one deals in synthetic compounds and the other mixes whole foods. So they get different results, and that's what I think it'd be interesting to compare. I didn't mean to disgregard the spiritual component of ancient medicine, I just wasn't thinking about that aspect when I wrote that. >many things proposed as a solution in ancient cultures just don't make any effect when doing clinical tests. Do you have any studies in mind? >placebo effect is intensified by an authority bias It must have been very strong, given that such beliefs permeated the whole of some of those communities' lives, if I'm not mistaken. But I'm guessing, I know close to nothing about that. If anything, it sounds like one more reason to try it in my environment. Wondering, I just found about nocebo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo. >A thing you might like to research is... Thanks for all that, I'll be reading into it. >>167 Same. All I get is the diuretic (piss) effect. I've been drinking coffee since I was a child so I don't know if that can be the difference. >>171 Try a bunch of fruit for breakfast, that helped me go through morning classes. Other things make my empty stomach work too much and tire me even more.

>>197 >valeriana >chamomile >lemon balm >passiflora >green tea Care to share your recipe? At what ratio did you mix those?

>>198 I put all of that in a cup, and then the boiling water, after a couple minutes filtered it into another cup. No specific ratio for each, just weigh the taste of each plant and how strong an effect you want. Valeriana might be the only tricky one, because it's the most potent tranquilizer of the group (I make it sound like it's valium, but it's not. It just gives you some gentle sleepy times) but it doesn't taste great. It actually smells like feet. If passiflora is not sweet enough you can (I did) sweeten it with ginger; chop it and throw it in with the leaves. Or put a whole chunk of (peeled) ginger in so you can take it out and eat it afterwards.

>>199 >green tea it contains caffeine... not good for sleep (adenosine antagonist accelerate heart beat) >sweet with ginger That works? Could use Stevia instead. It's safe in the right dosage. The study you linked about cancer is using loads of stevia...

>>197 >Do you have any studies in mind? This guy did a compilation: https://www.quora.com/How-scientific-is-Ayurveda-compared-to-modern-medicine-and-homeopathy

I speak English (mother language) at home and French outside and I've been noticing that when I don't drink any coffee, while I'm totally normal when speaking English, I'm totally timid and nervous when speaking French. However, after a cup of black coffee, I end up totally outgoing, sociable and even witty no matter when language I speak. I do quite like coffee, but I'm starting to get worried that I'll be dependent on it in order to be socially functional.

I had to quit temporarily once due to an infection (I had to quit beer and half the food I like too) and was never more depressed in my life. As soon as I got back on the coffee, my life fell back into place within hours. Sounds stupid but it's the truth. If I have little money and have to choose between coffee or food I'll choose coffee. If I pick food, later I'll be full but wish I was caffienated. If I get caffienated, I'll be hungry but find food somehow anyway.

>>309 Thats really interesting, I want to test now if coffee is what changes how my day is going. I used to drink it everyday in hs but because I dont get cravings for it in college I often dont. Sometimes I have really off days where I just cant socialize all that well, my friends will drag me to a party and my minds just not in it. Could it be the days without the coffee? About to find out.

bump

Cafetiere with a Hario mini burr grinder, currently set to 16 clicks counter-clockwise. >pre-warm mug and cafetiere with hot water >leave kettle for 0:30-1:00 post-boil >bloom coffee for 0:30 ensuring that grounds are covered >fill with desired amount of water for one cup (depends if I want milk or not) >no stirring >brew for another 3:30-4:00 >skim grounds off the top with a tablespoon >press and serve I would like to try getting into green tea, partly for something new and partly for health benefits.

I'm the original poster. Thanks for all of your responses. I mostly use coffee to help wake up in the morning, but find myself making it in the afternoon as well sometimes. I'm going to start buying coffee freshly ground from a local market and use my French press more often and see the difference from typical coffee using a basic automatic brewer. I don't drink tea often at all, but I believe I should. I previously most often drank my tea mixed with lemonade or lemon juice and it was an excellent way to get a boost. I'm interested in brewing my own Chifir' and was wondering if anyone else here has experience with it to give me some advice. I've considered taking caffeine pills, but I usually have access to coffee if I need it so I suppose I simply don't have a need for the pills.

>>86 >If you do a powder from both How does one acquire powdered green tea, I understand that there is a different more casual form than the ceremonial matcha from japan?

>>474 I simply buy normal green tea (bancha), then separate only the dehydrated leafs (not actually necessary) and use a normal mixer or grinder... it makes a good powder, that you can use for tea with more caffeine and l-theanine. You can't drink it as normally you would do with matcha, because it's a 'heavy' powder, you have to filter it... But I'm using more caffeine now. It has a faster and higher effect than tea, you don't have to prepare it, and you can actually know how much mg you're taking. I got some information from a biologist, that the oxidation of green tea is bad and take too much of it is not good. Since I "need" about ~400mg of caffeine per day, I was taking way too much green tea (~3 liters), so I decided to just take caffeine pills, it's easier.

So i just bought bulk guarana powder, i was drinking instant coffee but it was really inconvenient and my stomach suffered sometimes ...and i can't get used to the strong taste of black tea, anyways any ideas on how to keep a powder properly stored, it came in a bag but it isn't one of those ziplock types. has anyone tried it ? I'll start with 200mg and see how it goes from there

>>477 The best way to store (long-term) is vacuum Mylar bags, with an oxygen absorber inside. For short term, an hermetic closed mason jar would do the job. Check out Stevia to make it taste better...

Caffeine helps my ADD massively, normally it's so bad I can't think straight or enjoy anything. However it causes me terrible anxiety and always makes me take a huge dump like clockwork, often diarrhea

I've taken caffeine pills like truckers use and you have to be careful with those, if they expire its just a delayed fuse but they always seem to work when i need them. i limit use of them because if i don't it will give me that feeling where my heart feels kind of sharp like im pumped full of adrenaline. so if i have to take one i space it out between 5-8 hours before i can even look at caffeine. if i need something weaker i drink a rockstar or black coffee no sugar. i like to avoid caffeine so i generally go on a month long binge with it and don't touch it for months later. its when i have projects i get back into it

This is more steampunk than cyber, but Girl Genius has an official line of teas. https://www.etsy.com/shop/BethanysArts?section_id=19969617

>>30 I've always had a ridiculously high caffeine tolerance but lately I just traded smoking in for caffeine and started treating it more and more like a drug. There is very little stigma around caffeine in general and I've recently found myself in a bad spot. I take pills, drink coffee and the occasional energy drink. Overall my problem is mostly I get stressed with deadlines and don't take the time to think about limiting myself. Still I enjoy caffeine for it's productive effects at least for me. I can pop a caffeine pill at 10 pm or so, push a git update in a night, drink a coffee at 5 am and go to work. Sorry for the unorganized soykaf post.

Cohhcarnage now has Cohhfee.

I recently took a break from caffeine and when I started back up, I was only using it every other day. But I'm using it every day again because I function so much better with it.

I used to dislike caffeine but I'm coming around to it, aka I'm getting psychologically addicted. But really, it's a low-risk stimulant which I actually like a lot. I generally have low doses throughout the day, and every once in a while I'll take a larger dose when I feel the need for intense focus. I'm considering switching to caffeine pills for that purpose because I dislike coffee. tea is the best delivery mechanism imo. It's subtler and less acidic so it doesn't fuarrrk up your stomach if you drink a lot, and the taste is also very pleasant.

>>40 >The Coffeeist Manifesto Heh, great name. Thanks for sharing.

>>786 On a semi-related note does anyone know of a good epub-reader program that has a dark theme? I find white backgrounds to be overbearing.

>>33 Maybe not what you're interested in, but I roast my own at home - About half as expensive and immeasurably tastier than anything storebought. I made a thread on mayoichan that goes over the processes (don't want to link it here and get accused of advertising so you're on your own to find it, good luck).

>>788 what method are you using? or are you using a dedicated rig for the roasting process. I was able to achieve decent results with an Air-crazy popcorn popper.

>>790 I started with a popcorn thing which was alright. I've found it's much easier and I get more even results just doing it on a cookiesheet in my oven. You have to have a `convection' setting though (basically just a fan that blows the hot air around).

>>791 ill have to try that next time, what settings are you attempting and what roast level were you shooting for?

>>794 I do 480F for 11-13 minutes. I greatly prefer lighter roasts. You have to cool them down quick after removing them too, else they'll continue to roast - I pour them between bowls in front of a fan out a window (because of the chaff).

>>796 yeah how bad is the chaff in the oven when your done though? do you see any unevenness to the part touching the tray? would be interesting to use a fine stainless mesh instead of a cookie sheet to let air all around, now that i think about it

I got tired of paying for energy drinks and coffee, so I cut out the middleman and bought pure caffeine. You can buy 100g for twenty bucks and it will last you multiple years. You can add it to baking recipes or add it to any flavored drink. Or, my personal favorite, you can snort it. It costs absolutely nothing and you get a much stronger caffeine hit than the equivalent amount of caffeine ingested orally. Try it with ~100mg sometime

I've had a lot of caffeine and this song is so uplifting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs069dndIYk Also, what's the best site for ordering good coffee beans?

I wish I could get a taste for good coffee but I'm also glad my taste is pleb - I'm happy drinking my soykafty instant stuff, it tastes alright to me.

>>804 Pure caffeine? I read a news story years ago when some guy tried a teaspoonful at a party and bled to death internally. I don't think you're supposed to have pure caffeine.

Idk I'm a tea drinker. I couldn't say I really feel the effect though. I know the caffeine is there, and I suppose I feel a bit better every morning if I drink some tea, but otherwise I can't imagine actually missing its presence in my life. I drink tea because I like the taste. When I stopped drinking soda though, I did feel the "withdraw" so to speak. I guess there's not enough in most tea for it to make a big difference. Does caffeine truly make some of you more productive or active in life? I guess for someone who hasn't gone down that rabbit hole I wouldn't know, but even when I do feel the effects of caffeine after lots of cups of tea, I don't feel more productive. If anything, I'm more on edge.

>>1074 An unheaped teaspoon is 5ml, which is way more caffeine than you should ever be having at once. The story I heard was about some woman who took 20g by accident and had a stroke. The most caffeine I've ever had in my system at once would have been ~1-2g (from maybe 32 cups of coffee in a 4 hour period) and the only negative symptoms I experienced were vomiting once and slightly shaking hands about 4 drinks after that. It's relatively easy to poison yourself with pure caffeine powder if you haven't bothered to actually read any references but if you've even checked out the information NGO's or government agencies publish on the topic it's pretty easy to use caffeine responsibly. I read most current reputable research literature on caffeine before I switched to nutraceuticals and IIRC the only short or long term health risk of regular doses of <1g caffeine in the healthy was a predicted (not observed) increase in vulnerability to one particular type of stroke during use. Keep in mind the half life of caffeine is 4-6 hours, so if you take a 200mg pill every 3 hours forever (which I did while studying) you'll coast along at 500-700mg in your body and probably not feel any negative effects. I typically use caffeine tablets (200mg, 1/day before training) because they are convenient and have standard dosage. I use caffeine because it's absolutely fantastic as a health supplement and training aid in a huge number of ways, and the only aspect of caffeine I could do without is the actual 'high' from dopamine activation.

>118 Like some others here, I used caffiene pills. It's superior in pretty much every way, unless you REALLY enjoy that cup of coffee in the morning. Like 50x cheaper, controlled dosage (most pills are 200mg with a divot to easily break them in half, I often cut them into fourths), less time wasted, and I suppose other little things like no coffee breath or spills. Thing is, I don't think it was worth it. The first few times you use caffiene, you get euphoria and motivation that you will probably never get again from the drug, and you have to deal with tolerance, crashes later on, and uncomfortableness if you dose too much. Some of this can be ameliorated with L-theanine, eg switching from coffee to tea, and over time you get better at timing your doses to avoid addiction and too much tolerance. But overall, for me personally at least, I have more energy at all times if I'm completely caffiene-free. Realizing that, a few simple changes to my sleeping habits did wonders for those moments in the day when I couldn't wake up or focus enough to get something done. People have vastly different experiences with caffiene anyway, judging from comments on Reddit and here so you should just experiment and see what habit brings the most benefit/least harm to your life.

>>1086 >The first few times you use caffiene, you get euphoria and motivation that you will probably never get again from the drug I thought this is "fixed" by a week or two of complete abstinence? I do agree with you that it might be the best system to have caffeine-free as baseline, though

>>1087 It's true. 2 weeks max should reset you. Speaking from experience. I go back and forth between methylphenidate and caffeine, resetting the tolerance for each by using the other for a time.

Is Caffeine good for ADHD, or should I try something else?

>>1595 take a look at this thread https://lainchan.org/drug/res/1640.html