oil

Attention over time

7-day rolling share of analyzed posts/comments mentioning this entity · 90 daily points ending 2026-08-07

Final complete day: 2026-08-07. Attention was 1.4% — this entity appeared in 10 of 723 analyzed posts/comments in the seven days ending that day (62 mentions).

Each point is a seven-day rolling window of complete UTC days; a point is comparable only when at least 100 analyzed posts or comments fall inside it. A day with no analyzed records counts as zero; missing coverage is marked and never shown as zero. The series ends at the latest complete analyzed day — it never extends into the current incomplete day. How attention is measured.

Recent mentions

1. 2026-08-02 18:21 UTCComment

   Now this is really hilarious. You completely change your entire argument when I prove you wrong, and yet you have the audacity to act like my refutations are the flawed arguments. So you've moved on from claiming that crema is an emulsion of oil and CO2, to saying that it's "foam" of cO2 within oil. Changing your story entirely after it's been disproven just proves that you're making things up as you go along. Also, did you just say the CO2 "undissolves"? Now, why would it do that? You should do a little experiment. Fill a small pot halfway with water. Heat it, then mix in two or three tablespoons of sugar, stirring it until it dissolves. Now, remove the pot from the heat and watch the sugar jump out of the solution. Oh wait, the sugar isn't "undissolving". Maybe you need more. May as well jump ahead by adding as much sugar as you can get to dissolve into the water, i.e. a saturated solution. And you know what, let's try to get some more in there. Heat the water to a good 175 degrees and add in even more sugar. You now have a super saturated solution. You could make rock candy with it, if you wanted to. But before you do, take the pot off the burner to see what happens. Awww...nothing. No sugar jumping out of the solution. See, there are two problems with your hypothesis. First, once a solute dissolves into a solvent, it's going to remain dissolved unless causes a change to occur. Now, a change in temperature certainly qualifies. But, unlike a solid substance like sugar, dissolved CO2 increases at LOWER temperatures. So as the brewing water begins to cool, as it flows into the cup, CO2 will actually become more stable in water solution, not less. Now personally, I would proffer that any cooling of the water at this point is negligible, so that the CO2's affinity for being dissolved in the water is not significantly greater due to water temperature after a mere split second. But that still leaves us with a missing impetus for the CO2 to "undissolve" a split second after it being dissolved into the water. But there's another major flaw to your premise. Specifically, the empirical observations that happen if we simply let the espresso stand. If your hypothesis about crema were true, then we would see a heavy layer of oil left behind when crema dissipates. But that's not what happens. Now, you keep making a big deal about the fact that some brewed coffees will exhibit a thin oily slick floating on the top. This is literally less than the width of a hair. It is literally a TRACE amount of oil, and it is entirely incidental to the coffee. If you were eating a pizza right now, dust in the air would be falling onto it as we speak. That does not mean dust is a pizza topping. You are substituting the incidental fact with the controlling fact, and you are making ridiculous arguments that defy science in order to justify it.

2. 2026-08-02 17:35 UTCComment

   So, after all of that, you don't even address what the research you linked actually discusses. It's really bizarre that you exhibit the control+F level of understanding ("it said oil somewhere in there!") and yet you think you figured something out. You do the exact same projection dance by accusing me of taking a simplistic all or nothing mentality, in order to hide the fact that you are actually taking an all or nothing mentality. It just goes to show that you're being intentionally dishonest. Your link is about the metabolism and lipid profiles of individuals. Not one single thing has to do with the content inside of a mug of coffee. And I will point out AGAIN that the main increase they find associated with coffee consumption is CHOLESTEROL which is produced by animals, not plants. Coffee plants do not produce cholesterol, genius. To whatever degree coffee consumption might bear a causal relationship with lipid profiles, it would be a consequence of effecting metabolic activity. Not as a dietary source of fats. Your primary basis for your position seems to be that byproducts of coffee bean oil can accumulate in the exhaust of roasteries. Based on that, your logic seems to backwardsly imply that this MUST lead to coffee seeds containing oil (sure they do, a little bit) and that some relevant amount of oil must therefore remain after roasting, and therefore brewed coffee is actually a suspension of oil in water. This is, of course, absolute insanity. And that's me being polite about it. Despite your attempts to put words in my mouth, I never once claimed that coffea seeds don't contain oil. The question here is what are the contents of the cup when we brew the beverage known as coffee. And the answer to that question is that it's water that has dissolved compounds from the coffee beans. Contrary to popular belief, one is not extracting oil from the grounds. Any oil that comes out in brewing is trace amounts and is incidental. It's like having a few grains of pollen on the surface of an apple. Picking an apple doesn't mean you're harvesting pollen. This is not difficult for most people to understand. But it will pose a real challenge for those hell bent on salvaging false beliefs. You have a real problem with linear thinking and connecting cause to effect, and you're better off not demonstrating it further.

3. 2026-08-02 07:34 UTCComment

   > Do you even understand what is being discussed in the link you provided? Yes. I take it you need it explained? Cafestol and Kawehol are "oily" diterpenoid hydrocarbons - in layman's terms, "oils". They're not the only ones, but they are the ones mentioned in that study. Did you just Control+F "oils" and get really really smug? >If you bothered to pay attention I already mentioned the fact that in some uncommon cases trace oils will melt out during brewing, and form a thin film. I did notice, but thought it might be tacky to cheekily point out that sentence undermined most of the point you were trying to make. But you sure went in hard here, so maintaining some semblance of geniality seems futile. "Oils are never in coffee that's a myth water can't even dissolve oils and my faith tells me the oils turn solid during roasting! Definitely no oils. People are stupid if they think there's oils in coffee. Except sometimes some oils are present and still liquid and can get carried with the water without dissolving ... anyways, moving on...!" Acknowledging your thesis is flawed in a sidenote doesn't make your thesis correct. >You also clearly don't understand how oils polymerize. Any given oil will polymerize at different temperatures, so it's inherently ridiculous to claim that roasting doesn't involve high enough temperatures. But your claim is all the more bonkers because you claim oils may "carry off" during roasting (i.e. vaporize and smoke off). Well, that's exactly the temperature that's needed to polymerize that oil. If you raise it to its spoke point, what didn't smoke off will polymerize into a solid as it cools again. I can even picture how clever you thought you were while writing this. But basing all that gleeful condescension on "some=all" fallacy is kinda ... betraying your lack of qualifications to mount up that particular high horse. Beans are made of solid mass. Beans' mass conducts heat, but is not superconductive at 300°F+. What happens on the surface of the bean is not happening on the inside. It's a meaningful challenge of the craft of roasting to ensure that you get the bean as consistent as possible and are able to get the inside, the majority % of the bean, where you need it without *overdoing* the outside. During roasting, darker roasting especially, some surface oils will "smoke off" as you put it, and will accumulate in exhaust over time. Another key element I suspect you're missing is that oils leave the bean with water as it converts to steam and busts out - oils and water occupy the same 'areas' of the cells, which were 'built' by the plant to contain them. So it takes a bit of force for the water to escape when it turns into steam - which can carry or drive out oils with the water vapour, exposing the oils to drum air temp, which is higher than the temperatures reached within the bean. The majority of oils leaving the bean during most roasting to outcomes lighter than a medium-dark roast are not actually 'smoking off' but are, for lack of a better term, expelled by escaping steam. Then after that, the exhaust typically runs at far higher temps than the beans themselves are reaching - closer to actual temperature of the heat source than the beans, that are being brought up to a target temperature that is lower than the set temp of your heating. The temperatures that those expelled oils are exposed to can skyrocket much higher if the roaster uses an afterburner, which most do. It's required for emissions control in most developed regions. Most creosote cleaning I needed to do was above the afterburner - the ducting between the roaster, the cyclone, and the afterburner saw far less deposits. Fairly obviously, that does not mean that all oils within the entire bean polymerize. The majority of oils in the bean do not, and the majority of oils within the bean are not polymerizing at temperatures achieved within the bean during roasting, even if some niche oil that represents like .00000001% of the beans' mass might theoretically polymerize at room temperature or whatever contrivance you're leaning on here. No matter what you "believe" and definitely have not researched.

4. 2026-08-02 06:50 UTCComment

   > First of all, how in the world do you propose carbon dioxide is going to physically emulsify with oil? Fair enough - emulsion is liquid on liquid. This is gas on liquid so foam is a better word to use. > Second of all, if carbon dioxide was going to emulsify with oil during brewing, it would already have happened during the roasting process. You just said it can't happen, now you're saying it'll happen trapped in a solid medium? > Third, the majority of remnant CO2 after roasting off gasses within 2-3 days at most. If you'd ever worked with coffee you'd know that isn't true. Let coffee off-gas for 3 days then stick it in a sealed bag. The bag will expand. There is still gas in the beans. > Fourth, any remnant CO2 still in the grounds at time of brewing would dissolve into the brewing water, not combine with remnant oil, and the further myth of trapped CO2 in coffee grounds is often cited as the basis for pre-wetting grounds in order to avoid the CO2 from dissolving into the brewed coffee. The CO2 dissolves into the water under high pressure and heat, in then undissolves and forms a foam with lipids (the oil you think doesn't exist). > Fifth, aside from infrequent trace amounts, there's no oil in coffee as evidenced by the fact that oil and water do not mix, and coffee does not separate out into separate hydrophobic and hydrophilic layers the way that oil and water do. Literally just look at the top of brewed coffee that hasn't been through a paper filter. Look at old dark roast beans. They are oily. You can fucking see it. > Sixth, if oil and CO2 were the contents of crema, then crema would not be limited to only espresso, but would also emerge with just about any hot brewing method. Other methods don't use 9 bar of pressure. > Which brings us to seven, if coffee had oils, the only way it wouldn't separate out would be for the coffee itself to be an emulsion. And if that were the case, then it would be impossible to brew with a paper filter. Again, literally just google "oily coffee beans". It's cute you're into chemistry, but it's blindingly obvious you have never worked with coffee and don't know basic fundamentals. Leave it to the pros kiddo.

5. 2026-08-02 06:29 UTCComment

   Oh gods, not the carbon dioxide thing. First of all, how in the world do you propose carbon dioxide is going to physically emulsify with oil? Second of all, if carbon dioxide was going to emulsify with oil during brewing, it would already have happened during the roasting process. Third, the majority of remnant CO2 after roasting off gasses within 2-3 days at most. Fourth, any remnant CO2 still in the grounds at time of brewing would dissolve into the brewing water, not combine with remnant oil, and the further myth of trapped CO2 in coffee grounds is often cited as the basis for pre-wetting grounds in order to avoid the CO2 from dissolving into the brewed coffee. Fifth, aside from infrequent trace amounts, there's no oil in coffee as evidenced by the fact that oil and water do not mix, and coffee does not separate out into separate hydrophobic and hydrophilic layers the way that oil and water do. Sixth, if oil and CO2 were the contents of crema, then crema would not be limited to only espresso, but would also emerge with just about any hot brewing method. Which brings us to seven, if coffee had oils, the only way it wouldn't separate out would be for the coffee itself to be an emulsion. And if that were the case, then it would be impossible to brew with a paper filter. Seriously, you guy should just stop. You're just making things up at this point in a desperate attempt to avoid having to admit your wives tales are wrong. There's a lot of myths about coffee, mostly hatched exactly like this--people not knowing but wanting to pretend they know. You're better off learning for real.