Michael Plant > wrote:
>
>Jim's got a point in there somewhere. Nigel, if I recall correctly,
>emphasized that the data you get from one set of leaves does not necessarily
>carry over to others. Instead, he offers a set of guidelines that include
>such facts as the leaves closest to the tip of the stem -- the buds, for
>example -- contain more caffeine than the older leaves further away from the
>stem tip. I look askance at the Holy Mountain caffeine data.

Note first of all that the caffeine level depends somewhat on how you make
the tea; although the caffeine is very soluble and most of it comes out
in the first minute of steeping, there's still a diifference with different
steeping methods and times. So if a company actually took their teas and
titrated them, then gave a caffeine specification in the catalogue, that
specification may not actually relate to a cup you make.

Also note that some teas contain xanthines that are similar but not
identical to caffeine. So, knowing a precise caffeine level may not
translate to knowing the degree of biological effect because it's not
just caffeine doing the job in all cases.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."