Instant Coffee Beats Drip in Blind Taste Tests (theguardian.com) 152
Instant coffee beat drip coffee in blind taste tests conducted by researchers at the Drexel Food Lab. Jonathan Deutsch and Rachel Sherman tested 84 participants across two rounds of tastings for The Guardian's Filter US newsletter. They first narrowed 24 instant coffee varieties to the best options. Those finalists then competed against drip coffees in a second test. 77% of participants preferred instant coffee over drip. The top-performing instant coffee was not from premium third-wave brands but a common grocery store variety.
Deutsch compared the result to iconic products like Heinz ketchup and Reese's Peanut Butter Cups. Upscale interpretations of certain classic items often fail to surpass the originals, he said.
Deutsch compared the result to iconic products like Heinz ketchup and Reese's Peanut Butter Cups. Upscale interpretations of certain classic items often fail to surpass the originals, he said.
Uhh (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Give me a moka pot (une cafetiere italienne pour mes amis francais) any day for taste, convenience, and price. I've never had very good espresso from a cheap espresso maker.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never had very good espresso from a cheap espresso maker.
Most cheap espresso makers aren't really espresso makers. They don't make enough pressure for full extraction. However, there is now a ~$100 DeLonghi pumped unit which does a fine job. Sadly it has a stupid milk steamer, but it's otherwise pretty good.
Re: (Score:3)
Poster name fits.
Re: (Score:2)
Most cheap espresso makers aren't really espresso makers. They don't make enough pressure for full extraction.
Most expensive ones aren't either, that includes plenty of commercial ones. The world has moved on from the Italian definition of "espresso" to the point where high end coffee shops will give you a different product if you order an Italian espresso vs just an espresso. The idea of blasting 9 bar hot water through 7g of coffee in 23 seconds really is a relic in modern times, or something almost deserving of Designation of Origin protection.
My local coffee shop draws espresso at 7 bar from their hyper fancy m
Re:Uhh (Score:5, Informative)
Did they also do a round to determine the best drip coffee? And the best drip coffee maker.
I mean, really, if you compare the best instant against the worst drip, made in a decade old Mr. Coffee that's never been cleaned, or even had the mold scraped out, yeah, the drip will win just for not being . . . lumpy.
(Not that I care about toxic bean waste to begin with. All coffee tastes like ass. I'll never understand how anything that smells that good can taste that bad.)
Re: (Score:3)
Here in the survey article they simply describe it as "a commercial brewer" and it seems like this was tested in the USA so I would have to assume it's your classic Bunn brewer you see everywhere.
https://www.theguardian.com/th... [theguardian.com]
I do agree that there are lot's of variables like even here drip machines are probably less popular today then in the past. French press, pour over, Aeropress, cold brew and then you open the the can of espresso after that.
Maybe that's what this study is getting at, instant coffee
Re: (Score:3)
Filter paper types can also impact coffee flavor.
One of the reasons I prefer Chemex pour-over is the thick filters remove a lot of the acid/sour taste from coffee.
But then fresh ground beans in a Chemex was the first type of coffee I ever had. By the time I was 10 years old Mom had me making the coffee in the mourning so she could get ready for work.
Still, might give the instant they say is best tasting a try.
Re: (Score:2)
Chemex are really nice and I loved mine until I broke it. Also loved my Aeropress until I managed to break that as well. I have an all stainless french press now and when I manage to break that it'll be instant coffee from here on out.
Re: (Score:3)
It was done by a professional lab, not a journalist, so I'm going to assume they at least cleaned the mould out.
Re: Uhh (Score:2)
That depends who was paying.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what they say about assuming . . .
Plus, assuming isn't science.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't assume they are right about that...
Re: (Score:3)
I think the point being missed here is that stuff touted as better is often too fancy for people's taste.
Like I can tell the difference between an expensive high end brand of chocolate and a regular chocolate bar because the regular bar is cut with more sugar and American chocolate has a distinctly "rancid" taste to it.
But that doesn't mean I'm going to buy a $20 dark chocolate Lindt chocolate bar. I'm perfectly happy going to the baking aisle and buying a bag of chocolate chips if I want to eat chocolate a
Re: (Score:3)
I'm drinking drip coffee right now (Score:3)
It's far easier to make a terrible pot of coffee with a drip than a good pot. It is possible to have decent drip coffee, but it almost is never is any good. It's super cheap though, I paid $16 for my drip machine (Mr. Coffee). And if I put expensive pre-ground coffee into it, it's pretty good (Lion). But where the cheap drip machine really shines is that I can throw half a stick of cinnamon in with the coffee and have the next 2 pots smelling like Christmas. I also grind my own beans, because I have a decen
Re: (Score:3)
With almost 50 years of grinding coffee beans every morning (starting with a blade grinder in the late '70s), I've gone through a fair number of grinders. Finally found one that has lasted almost 10 years: Capresso grinder. It is electric but the grind time dial is a just a spring loaded rheostat. There's no sensors or buttons to stop working. Reminds me of the old washing machines in the '70s; just a spring loaded dial controlling things.
Re: (Score:2)
(Stupid story, I had a house guest who stole a weird assortment of stuff, including my coffee grinder.)
Re: (Score:2)
I mainly got the Baratza because they have an extensive catalog of replacement parts and have YouTube videos on how to install them. The insides are simple, although there are pros and cons to each model which is a shame they couldn't get it all right in a single model.
Re:I'm drinking drip coffee right now (Score:4, Interesting)
My wife is Peruvian and we fill our suitcases with coffee from Cusco and Quillabamba on the way back. The way to make coffee there is they have a small pot with what looks like a small tin can on the top with holes in the bottom. Fill the can halfway with coffee, pour boiling water over it, and let it drip into the little pot. Do that two or three times, depending on how strong you want and how much you filled the can. Now put hot water in your cup and pour the coffee concentrate you've extracted into it.
Heaven
Re: (Score:3)
I also grind my own beans [...] To my tastes at least, better than drip coffee is a percolator.
You can get that same 'charred coffee' flavor with a drip machine by simply leaving a pot on the warmer for a few hours. It takes a bit longer than a percolator, but you can vary the strength by 'burning' the pot for different lengths of time. You turn the lightest roast into a rich dark this way.
My personal go-to is a freeze-dried blend of Arabica and Robusta, medium-roasted by the Maxwell House, that I brewed via a 77c hot-stir dissolution in an 8.5cm open-top ceramic. I bring it down to 60c via a shor
Re: (Score:2)
Yea. I'm very much of the generation that has the coffee pot sitting there from morning until afternoon. I drink a pot of coffee of day, but it takes me all day.
My parents and grandparents were far more extreme in their habits, with the first pot going into a large thermos for my grandfather to take to work. And multiple carafes around the house to hold coffee while the next pot brews.
Re: (Score:2)
I alternate between a French press and using a pour over depending on the mood.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh gods no. Drip coffee beats americano any day of the week. Yech. I avoid americano like the plague.
We finally got a drip coffee machine in addition to the espresso machine at work. If I want espresso - I'll have that. If I want a nice "regular black coffee" - drip coffee any day.
Re: (Score:2)
Coffee is merely a medication for me. I want it in the easiest and most cost effective method. Instant coffee is expensive per dose compared to cheap drip coffee, which is what I use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think drip coffee is bad, let me introduce you to instant coffe.
Also this: The Case for Bad Coffee https://www.seriouseats.com/th... [seriouseats.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah.
Most Australians would have never seen a drip coffee machine, and rarely instant coffee.
Everything here is high pressure expresso machines, or pod machines if you don’t care so much.
Nobody uses sugar either, because our coffee quality is usually excellent with no bitterness.
Re: (Score:2)
Technology connections enters the room.
Or James Hoffman
So (Score:5, Insightful)
People prefer bad coffee?
Re: So (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually most people hate coffee. But don't realize it. They want a sugary milk drink they call coffee or they drink Foldgers or 7-11 coffee or some other swill like Starbucks, who admittedly does not make coffee, but milk drinks.
Drip, french press, nespresso or keurig for me only. But I like the taste of coffee.
Re: So (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I usually chuck mine in the dishwasher. Or honestly just rinse it off stove a bit of coffee oil residue doesn't matter between washes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So (Score:4, Informative)
I don't understand the popularity of Starbucks. The coffee is overpriced, and I think it tastes awful. Which takes me back to a comment I made earlier - I think this study is just capturing the fact that most people have lousy senses of taste and smell. That's why Starbucks and IPAs are popular - most people can't tell they're drinking garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, IPAs. I've tried to like them, but they are just too damn bitter. Now, regular Pale Ale is good stuff. It's like IPA but with 1/3 the hops and is amazing. I think IPA drinkers just think that more bitter=more better, but that's nonsense. Same as people who drink super dark espresso, neat. Like what are you tasting there? It's like drinking liquid vulcanized rubber. Oddly, though, I do have two shots of super dark espresso every morning, but I brew them with twice the normal amount of water (so as lung
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand the popularity of Starbucks. The coffee is overpriced, and I think it tastes awful.
This goes back to what the top comment in this thread said, though. Starbucks coffee is terrible specifically because it's roasted specifically to be good for making sugar bombs. Think about a latte, where even with a double the coffee taste is subtle. When you put as much sugar and milk into a drink as Starbucks does, the only way you can taste the coffee is if it's burnt to hell.
I think this study is just capturing the fact that most people have lousy senses of taste and smell. That's why Starbucks and IPAs are popular - most people can't tell they're drinking garbage.
IPAs as a body are very different from Starbucks. Yes, there absolutely are crap ones which are essentially the same thing, just
Re: (Score:2)
I was drinking a lot of french press and my cholesterol starting rising fairly dramatically. I've had really good cholesterol numbers my entire life, so this was fairly alarming. I stopped drinking french press and when I had my next test done less than a year later, my cholesterol numbers were back to normal for me. Highly dependent on your individual physiology and the amount of coffee you're drinking, but something to watch out for.
Apparently the paper filters in drip and pour over are effective are effe
Re: (Score:2)
I admit it, I drink Tasters Choice. It's good, I'm telling you! At a restaurant of cafe I sometimes get coffee I like more, but just as often I like it less!
Re: (Score:2)
Well it is diluted poison, so arguably all coffee is bad. This makes coffee a quintessential acquired taste, and because of that people will tend to prefer what they're used to.
Think of the kind of person who would participate in a blind taste test at a food testing lab. They mentioned they had 84 participants, but didn't mention how they were selected, so there could be all kinds of self-selection bias on display here.
But so what? The average joe prefers instant coffee, lite beer, and processed cheese. In
Re: (Score:2)
I think what they're really capturing here is that most people don't have very sensitive chemical senses. The people who do tell everyone else what is good and what should be expensive, but most of the rest don't need to care. Sadly, I do have a sensitive nose and tongue, so I'm very particular about certain things, including coffee. My wife, on the other hand, has no idea that the wine she drinks is complete garbage, which saves
Re: (Score:2)
What they're capturing here is that instant coffee can capture the ideal roast-to-brew timing, then dry it out. Drip coffee has so many factors - when the beans were roasted and ground, what type of grinder was used (burr is usually best), water temperature (200F/93C for brewing, give or take), how long it was sitting on a burner after being brewed, etc. Whole beans are usually best within 3 weeks of roasting, ground beans about 3 days from breaking a flavor seal (vacuum packing helps). Try drip coffee like
Re: (Score:2)
People prefer bad coffee?
Or - what you consider bad, most people don't.
Blind taste? (Score:5, Insightful)
As in they have no taste? I mean there's a time and place for instant coffee (its super convenient when camping) but its definitely got that......after taste (and fore-taste) that isn't great. Even so-called 'good' instant coffee. If you're going to boil water for instant coffee, why not just make coffee? It takes me literally 120 seconds to make a mokapot on my induction stove. Maybe instant is 30 seconds if you use a microwave.....who did they get to 'blind taste' this anyway, people who don't like coffee or haven't ever tasted good coffee????
Re: (Score:3)
But then you get savaged for not freshly grinding your own beans.
Maybe it's different in the US, but in Europe the most common way of heating water to boiling point is with an electric kettle.
Crappy instant coffee is crappy, but there are some good ones out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Electric kettles aren't common in the US, while they exist I don't think I know anyone who owns one for instance. I was just watching a youtube show partially about this done by an expat Brit living in Chicago which is how I'm even aware electric kettles are common over there as that isn't exactly something you notice when you visit a country :)
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to recall that Technology Connections did a video about them for Americans. They are handy and safe, although the limited power output of US outlets does limit them a little. 230V FTW.
Re: (Score:2)
I own an electric kettle because I like tea with my breakfast. Always toyed with the idea of buying a 240V kettle but that would require running a new line from the breaker box and then I'd have to put my own 240V US style plug on the kettle to meet the electrical codes.
Not until later on at work do I make myself a coffee.
Re: (Score:2)
although the limited power output of US outlets does limit them a little. 230V FTW.
We can have 220/240V outlets in the USA. We have standards for them at a variety of current carrying capacities. I've installed the 240V@20A outlets (on new circuits from a subpanel) before. Then we could slap a US style plug on one of your kettles and run it just fine.
However, my inverter microwave does a fine job of heating water, to boiling if I want. Also, an espresso machine is available for $100 (from DeLonghi) and produces a better result.
Re: (Score:3)
Inverter microwaves aren't any better at heating water to boiling than the regular kind. What they are better at is lower power levels.
Also unless you have an epically huge microwave, then a kettle is faster. My 3kW kettle does beat or my pretty huge 1800W industrial microwave. Unfortunately they don't make that model with an inverter for some reason, their only comparable one has an opaque door for some reason. My one quibble is the duty cycle is a bit long for really got low power performance.
I would also
Re: (Score:2)
Inverter microwaves aren't any better at heating water to boiling than the regular kind. What they are better at is lower power levels.
More of the power put in goes into the food, so watt for watt, they are better at heating everything.
Also unless you have an epically huge microwave, then a kettle is faster.
I don't disagree, I'm just not in so much hurry that I can't wait another minute.
Re: (Score:2)
You're both right and wrong. It looks like Panasonic now make an upgraded version with an inverter. It is a little more efficient, 2650W Vs 2830W, but they both have an output power of 1800W, so it's still no faster. Microwaves are generally limited by the output power of the magnetrons, so they're rated by that, not the input power. Still there's not a lot in it by the looks of it.
As for fast kettles, well I'm British. I drink a lot of tea.
Re: (Score:2)
I think their virtues are enhanced a bit for folks living in a country that's big on tea drinking. In regards to myself, I have a stovetop kettle that I barely use so I don't think an electric one would be a strong purchase for me.
Re: (Score:2)
I think their virtues are enhanced a bit for folks living in a country that's big on tea drinking.
There is that, but kettles are good for any time you need boiling water. Whether it's instant ramen or fresh ravioli it's quicker to boil the water in a kettle. The same applies when I make a pot of coffee. Out of curiosity, if you wanted to make coffee in a big french press how would you heat the water?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It works really great, and doesn't have problems with the fact that I live at 6100' so that water boils at about 192F, or 89C.
Kettles still work with boiling points much lower than that. I'll let Steve Mould explain. [youtube.com]
It's quite interesting; kettles don't work how I always assumed they did. Or how Steve did, for that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
[looks at my electric kettle on my desk at work, same brand/model kettle at home]
Been using an electric kettle since moving out on my own at 17 and renting a garage room near college (no kitchen stuff). Lived off of raman and frozen burritos (once I got a mini fridge and a small microwave). This was in '80s Florida and current New Mexico.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's different in the US, but in Europe the most common way of heating water to boiling point is with an electric kettle.
It is different in the US because US homes use half the voltage so the same volume of water can be heated a lot faster with European residential current. There may be other cultural reasons as well, but electric kettles are simply more convenient in Europe.
Re:Blind taste? (Score:4, Informative)
It isn't really twice as fast in Europe, though. While, yes, standard US outlets are 120V versus Europe's 230V, amperage also matters because what controls cooking time is wattage and wattage = voltage times amperage. In the US, kettles are typically 1500W or, if you dig a bit, 1800W. You can also find much smaller ones for things like camping and travelling, usually around 600-800W. Looking at European models (which is difficult to do from the US), I see that 3000W is pretty common in the UK, where they use ring mains: 240V at 32A, of which a maximum 12.5A draw is allowed per outlet. Mainland Europe, however, doesn't use ring mains, and commonly has circuits of 230V at 6A or 10A, although 16A are supposedly also common. Higher amperages also exist but for specific purposes only (same as in the US). At 6A, you can only do 1380W kettle, less than in the US, assuming intermittent use. If the manufacturer assumes continuous use, then it's limited to 1035W. For 10A circuits, it's a bit better at 2300W/1725W. Looking at what's actually available, I see a lot of 1200W and 2000W models, which aren't far off from what the US has. Only the UK has the higher 3000W models, as well as China, but China doesn't really count because their safety standards aren't really up to snuff.
Anyway, all of this is academic, because my 1800W kettle boils 1.5 L of water in about 3 minutes. That's good enough for anyone, and much faster than my gas stove is. If that minute and and a half was that important to me, I'd run a 240V outlet and buy a UK 3000W kettle, but it's just not worth it. What I'm saying is that the 230V versus 120V debate is missing the point. In the US, all circuits are 15A minimum, which is more wattage than the smallest EU circuits, and, in the US 20A circuits are practically standard for most purposes (you usually just have to have multiple outlets on the same circuit to use them, or the special 20A outlets or the 15A/20A combo outlets that I see in most new work around here. Yup, 20A devices use a different plug from 15A devices, but it's possible to have an outlet that can handle both at the same time.) This means that it doesn't really matter which voltage you use; you can do the same things with it.
Also, I'd like to point out that most US homes have split single phase 240V 200A service, while most EU homes have single phase 240V 63A service. Some older homes have 100A or 150A, but 200A is standard in the US for new homes and retrofits. And, in some areas, three phase is becoming more common. In particular, delta high leg three phase, which gives you 120V, 208V, and 240V circuits and 240V delta three phase power, which is the best of all worlds, again at 200A. The usual three phase is 120vY208v, which is nice, but you don't get a true 240V. This is also why we went with 240V over 230V like the EU or 220V like China. Most things will run just fine of either 208V or 240V, which means that we can use most of our stuff with either type of power. Only motors really give much of a crap, and they often have tapped windings so you can use either with the same motor. Anyway, 200A service is way better than 63A service. I've read that for new work, 125A service is becoming quite common in the EU, but I haven't seen anything about anything as high as 200A service for homes in the EU or UK. So, we got you beat there. Having everyone at 200A service makes electric car charging a much easier thing to do. Having three phase everywhere would be even better, but 63A 230V three phase, wattage wise is the equivalent of roughly 110A 230V single phase, so even if the euros are doing three phase, the US still has them beat. Now, 125A 230V three phase would beat out our single phase 240V 200A service but just barely. Of course, when the US eventually switches everyone over to three phase, it'll be at 200A, so we'll still win, especially if delta high leg gets used, which is what you'd want to use for retrofits from split single phase. USA USA USA!
Re: (Score:3)
The little two-shot moka pots are great for camping too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It takes me literally 120 seconds to make a mokapot on my induction stove. Maybe instant is 30 seconds if you use a microwave.....who did they get to 'blind taste' this anyway, people who don't like coffee or haven't ever tasted good coffee????
The test was instant coffee compared to drip. If you prefer a stronger "espresso-like" coffee taste, it might be very well better to go instant compared to drip as drip coffee tends to be pretty bland.
Doing a comparison to moka it should be a different story, but to be fair there are some quite good instant coffee brands nowadays.
There's no reason why instant has to suck (Score:4, Insightful)
The YouTuber technology connections has a pretty good video on a expensive freeze dryer and he made his own coffee with it. He also made the point that you do not want to buy a freeze dryer because they are a huge pain in the ass and I definitely agree.
Re:There's no reason why instant has to suck (Score:4, Interesting)
Dunno about other countries, but in Peru at least Nescafe is made with local Peruvian beans so it's definitely better than in the US.
Not sure why this is on slashdot, but... (Score:2)
Drip coffee tends to be terrible unless you have a good coffemaker. Still better than percolators, but meh. Instant coffee has also drastically improved over the past few decades. This is not surprising. This is like that guy that posted his ai-generated blog post to HN that ultimately had the conclusion that things that fit in cache are faster.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a mediocre drip maker from Proctor Silex, it made okay coffee but the carafe could only be poured at a very narrow range of speeds or it would piss all over the table.
It died, but it lasted OK before that, so I bought another one. They managed to make it even shittier. They "fixed" the pouring problem so it would pour okay at low to medium speeds, which actually was an improvement. But the new unit could only be filled with water through a hatch, and you could only fill it very slowly. And then the wa
If it was instant vs percolator (Score:2)
If it was a taste test between percolated coffee and instant, maybe instant is in the running. Maybe. Every instant coffee I've had is a step below "survival food" quality. At best, it provides a coffee-coloured liquid that has faint aromatics reminiscent of bad coffee, hidden below layers of strong off-tastes.
What I've noticed about instant (Score:2)
For the longest time I couldn't touch caffeinated coffee without getting heart palpitations. For whatever reason that's gotten a bit better and I've been able to drink some caffeinated coffee.
I bought some bagged stuff, cheap flavored hazelnut coffee that should have been pretty weak because you normally want it to be a pretty light roast so that it doesn't overwhelm the added flavoring. Why yes I am a wussy why do yo
/. needs a lameness filter ... (Score:3)
... for submissions as well as for content.
Then again, I clicked and I'm commenting, which counts as "engagement," so maybe I'm the bad guy.
Love the comments (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
One thing about coffee taste is temperature. If you fill 6 little plastic cups with an ounce or two of liquid and then sip through them, the temperature of the first one is much higher than the temperature of the last one. Did they control for temperature? Did they control order of tasting?
Maybe this is just a flawed study.
Re: (Score:3)
One thing about coffee taste is temperature. If you fill 6 little plastic cups with an ounce or two of liquid and then sip through them, the temperature of the first one is much higher than the temperature of the last one. Did they control for temperature? Did they control order of tasting?
Maybe this is just a flawed study.
Also, (a) many of the aromatic compounds in coffee are volatile and evaporate relatively quickly; which is why brewing into a (basically) sealed carafe is better than into an open pot; and (b) there are chemical processes that degrade the flavor of coffee that start just after brewing, which can't be mitigated. It's unclear if sampling re-constituting freeze-dried coffee vs sampling a series of cups of recently brewed coffee is comparable - even noting that some of the noted processes may have occurred be
Re:Love the comments (Score:4, Insightful)
Like others have pointed out it means that drip coffee is terrible.
Re: (Score:2)
The science is right, it turns out that the tastiest piece of shit tastes slightly less shitty than the nastiest piece of shit. Most of the comments here are talking about drinking something other than shit.
Drip coffee makes me barf. Instant is no better. Somehow this is an American comparison, but then I also understand why you guys love your Starbucks... when it's the best thing you can get...
Vindicated! (Score:3)
I honestly prefer instant coffee to most other kinds of coffee. I bought a Nespresso machine with high hopes, and it's terrible. Way too bitter for me.
But you have to use the right instant coffee. This stuff [madewithnestle.ca] is head and shoulders above any other instant coffee and better than most other types of coffee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're right; I became acclimatized to instant. However, sometimes I go to local coffee shops that make espresso or cappucinos and I prefer those to my instant. Maybe it's just the home espresso machines I dislike.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, I'll try it. Yes, anything that can rehabilitate Starbucks' noxious brew is worth looking into!
Information (Score:2)
This has to have some caveats. I'm sure some version of instant coffee can beat some version of drip coffee, but there's no way that instant Folgers is gonna beat a decent quality drip coffee.
I'm not even a coffee snob - I typically drink something relatively cheap (eg Cafe Bustelo) with plenty of cream and sugar, but instant just doesn't taste right.
Amateurs (Score:3)
I prefer my caffeine intranasal, transcutaneous, or in the form of concentrated 300mg cans that I can chug.
Re: (Score:3)
I prefer my caffeine intranasal, transcutaneous, or in the form of concentrated 300mg cans that I can chug.
I'll use this product [amazon.co.uk] as an (incredibly overpriced) example of a 'better' way of getting a quick caffeine fix.
Personal opinion, but when half a kilo costs ~£5 (at my local GrapeTree) it's hard to say "no"...
Re: (Score:2)
You've never had a coffee enema? /s
Pfft. Lightweight
Do remember to let it cool down first if you decide to try it though.
Old news (Score:4, Funny)
Folger's Crystals already did this experiment this back in the 1980s. Then they publicized the results ad nauseam.
Missing some of the best instant coffee brands (Score:2)
UCC has some of the best instant coffee on the market. Widely available is Blend 117 and Blend 114, and both are excellent. I'm not a fan of their Blue Mountain Blend. It's also my go-to for a quick iced coffee because you can make it stronger than usual without being overwhelmingly bitter.
Generally Japanese style charcoal roasted coffee holds up better to the dehydration process than a French roast. As some of the flavor that is lost in the process is at least replaced with a pleasant smokiness, making sur
Instant coffee was always fairly good ..... (Score:3)
.... for the first day after opening the jar. After that, the taste rapidly deteriorates.
What qualifies as 'drip'? (Score:2, Insightful)
The story isn't clear and I haven't been able to find a link to the actual study yet.
If 'drip' is really just coffee from a coffee machine, this is easy to believe, since coffee made for most coffee machines is going to be cheap garbage. Does it include Nespresso machines and the like?
I assume they're not talking about espresso or Americanos, nor pourovers or French Presses. The language is too vague here.
If I grind fresh beans and put them in a high-end drip coffee maker, like a Technivorm, I'm pretty sure
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does it include Nespresso machines and the like?
It does not. Drip coffee is what it says on the box, water dripped through coffee. It's commonly called filter coffee as well since you need a filter to separate it. While nespresso in general is trash it at least is a pressurised puck and thus has more in common with an espresso than anything else.
The other poster said something about good drip coffee, I'll take their word for it but with a grain of salt. I've never achieved "good" drip coffee, and I spent a good several months where that was my only optio
Same reason children prefer margarine? (Score:2)
They tested cookies made with butter vs cookies made with margarine, to see if children could tell the difference. Children could tell the difference, and preferred margarine. They believe the reason is: children are used to margarine, so butter tastes odd.
My guess is: if people are not used to drip coffee, it's not going to taste right.
Re: Same reason children prefer margarine? (Score:2)
+5 Insightful
Depends... (Score:2)
If american ground coffee is the alternative, luke warm piss would pass the test. Actually I'd prefer instant coffee to that horror brew. Not even British coffee is that bad.
Not a fair test (Score:2)
They started by doing blind taste tests to determine which were the best instant coffees. Did they also do blind taste tests to determine which were the best drip coffees? If not, their conclusions are not valid.
Length of exposure to the beans (Score:2)
AeroPress blind taste testing has shown that a short exposure of hot water to the ground beans, yields the best taste. For this reason, AeroPress instructions recommend pressing immediately after mixing the grounds with the boiling water.
This makes sense to me, as long exposure of grounds to hot water, leads to a muddy taste. A short exposure is much brighter and flavorful.
Drip coffee exposes the grounds to hot water for several minutes, leading to a muddy flavor. As a coffee lover, I can't stand drip coffe
Is that US style drip "coffee"? (Score:2)
Because that stuff is vile and undrinkable.
Not even the same drink (Score:2)
This is like taste testing espresso vs drip coffee. They're completely different drinks. Instant tastes absolutely nothing like drip coffee. It's not a preference of quality, it's a preference of type.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's coffee not a fucking gourmet meal
Just wait until climate change finishes fucking the coffee growing industry.
Or tariffs here in the U.S. for purchasing coffee, for now anyway.
Noting that, like bananas, very, very little coffee is grown in the U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
People add the weirdest shit to their coffee: olive oil, butter, coconut oil, egg yolk, cheese, salt, hot pepper, lemon, peanut butter, turmeric, etc.
I can get on board with some things, especially if the coffee is more of a desert or treat in the afternoon or evening. Like hazelnut extract, cardamom, cinnamon, nutmeg, etc. Sure, it's going to start tasting like a spiced cake if you add any of that, but with little to no sugar or flour, it's less caloric.