Originally Posted by
Bill Anders
Truer words can't be spoken.
In my case, I've had to build a comprehensive spreadsheet tracking all of my blood work values over the years, tracking not just averages but standard deviations for each. That's been huge for keeping my doc focused.
In my case for LDL, I was averaging 129 for the years that we were using a french press, with a standard deviation of ±17 (tris were 130 ±20). She had been on me to get those numbers down (based on family history). Looking back with the benefit of hindsight, my values prior to our french press years averaged in the 90's for LDLs and 110's for Tri's. Right about the same time that I stumbled across the studies about filtered vs unfiltered coffee, I had a test return LDL and Tri values of 149 and 205 respectively and she was writing a script. The LDL value is outside the standard deviation, but not too much, while the value for the Tri's was 3.7x the standard deviation, which is far enough outside on its own to warrant a second look instead of action. Luckily she listens to discussion (and her eyes glaze over when I break out the spreadsheet). She was skeptical, but several tests later and without intervention, just switching the coffee making style, and I'm now on the low side of those values, pulling my averages down to where she's happy.
Sure there were likely other things going on for that one moment that the Tri's value was overly high. But throughout that time, the coffee-making method been the only variable that has changed in my diet and activity. Sure, it's a n=1 and there are many other possible explanations, but it's another data point to add to Robert's linked study and the multitudes of others that have come out since that one was published. I wasn't aware of it being a possible contributor, my doc certainly wasn't, and most folks I run across that enjoy their unfiltered coffee aren't either.