4

Like the title say, I've always heard that, but I tried it but I can't really tell. So is there any scientific evidence for or against it?

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
OneOfOne
  • 159
  • 1
  • 1
  • 6
  • Energy contents of coffee isn’t all that high to begin with. Almost all of the energy in coffee would come from added sugar. – Konrad Rudolph Nov 29 '12 at 23:47
  • @KonradRudolph I assume that the OP means 'energy' as in the effect of consuming caffeine, and not caloric energy as you seem to be suggesting. – SpellingD Nov 30 '12 at 21:17
  • Yeah exactly, I didn't mean energy from calories. – OneOfOne Nov 30 '12 at 22:56
  • 1
    It would be much better to [cite an example of the claim](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions). For example, it isn't clear what amounts you are talking about. Coffee drinkers can easily consume 4 cups of coffee in a day, but are they likely to eat 100 beans? – Oddthinking Mar 12 '13 at 08:31
  • This seems obvious, without any research. Where does coffee get it's caffeine from? Ground coffee beans. How could coffee possibly have more caffeine than the beans from which it gets the caffeine? – PoloHoleSet Mar 22 '17 at 13:40
  • @PoloHoleSet chemical reaction to water, heat, etc can do all kinds of different things. For example you need more grounds to get the same caffeine content in cold brew coffee. – OneOfOne Mar 22 '17 at 18:54
  • @OneofOne - heat does not magically synthesize caffeine. Hot water EXTRACTS more caffeine from the beans than cold water. Again, the beans are the source of the caffeine. You're talking about the relative effectiveness of extracting caffeine from the source, the beans, not creating caffeine via some synthesis. There's still no way you can get more caffeine than what exists in the beans. The beans are the source of all the caffeine in the coffee. – PoloHoleSet Mar 22 '17 at 19:01

1 Answers1

9

The only things I could find that seemed legitimate and not from forum posts about this was from these Livestrong articles.

From the first article...

Before people learned to brew coffee as a beverage, they ate coffee beans to get a boost of energy for hunts or while farming. Eating coffee beans has the same effects as drinking coffee. However, the effects are magnified because eating the beans provides all of the caffeine and other chemicals in coffee, not just what manages to drip through the filter. In addition, the active ingredients in coffee beans are quickly absorbed through the mucus membranes in the mouth.

The second article talks about the amount of caffeine you can get from eating coffee beans.

An average cup of coffee is made from approximately 25 beans and contains 75 mg of caffeine. So the brewed value of each bean is about 3 mg. However, when you eat the bean, the amount is a little higher.

Even though neither article directly states the amount of caffeine that you will get, if you combine the information in both of the articles they state that you will get more caffeine as well as the other chemicals and nutrients of coffee by eating or chewing on the beans vs drinking coffee.

Cruril
  • 2,622
  • 1
  • 16
  • 26
  • This makes sense to me, as a brand of caffeinated gum I use links to a [study](http://www.stayalertgum.com/files/A%20The%20Rate%20of%20Absorption.pdf) that demonstrates there's a greater absorption of caffeine through mucous membranes than through letting it be absorbed through the stomach linings. However, I've also heard anecdotal claims that coffee being hot contributes to faster absorption. – SpellingD Nov 30 '12 at 21:25
  • @SpellingD: Source? I've heard there's *faster* absorption to the bloodstream through the mucous-membranes, but not necessarily *more* absorption. – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft Apr 09 '14 at 22:11
  • 1
    @BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft Sorry, as not being a disciple of this subject I misused terminology. I only meant rate, not that you would absorb MORE caffeine from mucous membranes from a given source than the stomach. Indeed, the study I linked to did not indicate a difference in bioavailability of gum vs. capsule. My previous link died with the re-branding of the name of the gum, so here it is again. http://www.militaryenergygum.com/wp-content/uploads/Bioavailability2.pdf – SpellingD Apr 11 '14 at 18:24
  • @SpellingD: The difference is not just being pedantic about terminology, it completes changes the answer to the question. If the absorption *amount* is higher, the answer is *"yes,"* but if only the absorption *rate* is higher, the answer is *no*. – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft Apr 11 '14 at 22:06
  • 1
    @BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft I wasn't trying to downplay my error, I was just giving an explanation for my ineptness; I agree completely. – SpellingD Apr 13 '14 at 03:14
  • It looks like the second article has been changed/edited since the quote was posted. It uses different numbers altogether and now directly states that you get *much* more caffeine by chewing an equivalent amount (over 3x brewed). – Is Begot Oct 13 '14 at 16:56