• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
LongeCity .                       Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Labdoor Analysis of Dark Chocolate

chocolate lead cadmium caffeine theobromine flavonoids

  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#1 onz

  • Registered User
  • 50 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Canada

Posted 13 February 2017 - 09:28 PM


Labdoor have done an analysis of dark chocolate!

 

Pretty disappointing that they all failed tests for safe levels of cadmium and lead.

 

Was very interesting to see the caffeine, theobromine, and flavonoids data.

 

Note: The analysis is by serving size, so take that into account when comparing the results.

 

The cadmium and lead results have me reconsidering my regular consumption of dark chocolate, I've always known about it but seeing these results for 'exceeding safe daily doses' is quite discouraging. 


  • Informative x 4

#2 pamojja

  • Registered User
  • 1,069 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Austria

Posted 14 February 2017 - 08:26 AM

 

Labdoor have done an analysis of dark chocolate!

 

Pretty disappointing that they all failed tests for safe levels of cadmium and lead.

 

Eat about 1 serving of 90% chocolate (40g Lindt) additional to about half of it as pure cocoa powder in my daily muesli since about 8 years. And have done yearly hair mineral analysis since 7 years. Though HTMAs aren't really accurate for detecting past exposures, however ongoing present would show up in hair.

 

Basically mercury, lead, cadmium and arsenic all remained at the same low and save levels sufficiently below the upper normal limit. Mercury decreased to a quarter, cadmium halved, lead stayed the same, and arsenic increased by 1/3 (0.11 ug/g, <0.2 range).

 

But everyones detoxification works differently, and even without chocolate it's worthwhile to test for ongoing exposures, these days.

 


  • Informative x 3
  • Needs references x 1
  • Cheerful x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for NUTRITION to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 ta5

  • Registered User
  • 726 posts
  • 172
  • Location: 

Posted 16 February 2017 - 03:44 AM

I wonder if there could be a class action lawsuit? I recall Biocalth calcium supplements were sued because of high levels of lead in their tablets. 

 

Why isn't the FDA isn't involved? Are the heavy metals not above FDA (or USDA?) regulations? Oh, I see here, "Neither the USDA nor the FDA have set any limits on heavy metals in foods and organic foods, meaning that products can contain extremely toxic levels of mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic, copper and even tungsten while still being legally sold across the USA." I'm surprised. I didn't know that.


  • like x 2

#4 joelcairo

  • Registered User
  • 411 posts
  • 114
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  • NO

Posted 16 February 2017 - 08:35 PM

See the preceding post. I have looked for studies showing that high chocolate consumption can cause increased levels of such toxic metals and found none. If anyone is aware of such evidence, please post a link. Maybe things like cadmium are bioavailable and remain in the body's tissues, or maybe they are not absorbed and/or are chelated right back out by the catechins in the chocolate.

 

Added: What I did find a few months ago when I looked into this was that levels of toxins such as cadmium were perhaps 4X as high as in some staple grains, for example. High, but not exactly a toxic brew. The troubling thing for me is the fact that levels can vary quite a lot, so there can be a considerable variance from product to product, and presumably also from batch to batch of the same product.

 


Edited by joelcairo, 16 February 2017 - 08:39 PM.

  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#5 timar

  • Registered User
  • 764 posts
  • 292
  • Location:Germany

Posted 04 March 2017 - 08:41 PM

I'm not worried at all about those trace levels of lead and cadmium that naturally occur in cocoa. After all, chocolate is not a dietary staple. At least it shouldn't be one ;)

 

What's most interesting to me here is the flavonoid analysis, as it confirms what I always suspected from its very dark color and mild taste: Lindt chocolate has very little flavonoids relative to the cocao content. Lindt acchieves the characteristic, mild taste many people seem to love by heavy dutch processing. So if you eat chocolate as a health food, don't choose Lindt, but watch for brands that offer a brighter color, and a more acidic and adstrigent taste, which is indicative of a lesser degree of dutch processing and therefore a higher flavonoid content.

 


Edited by timar, 04 March 2017 - 08:42 PM.

  • Informative x 2
  • Disagree x 1

#6 aconita

  • Registered User
  • 1,005 posts
  • 129
  • Location:Italy
  • NO

Posted 05 March 2017 - 12:28 AM

Which is VERY difficult since almost all cacao is dutch processed and even more so with chocolate, actually I would be quite surprised if there is any non dutch alkalinized chocolate at all on the market.  

 

If one isn't used to it natural 100% cacao doesn't taste very appealing, it is quite difficult to find and usually very expensive due to the very small market niche.

 

I am quite lucky with my favorite supermarket carrying organic non dutch cacao at 12 euro/kg, especially considering that likely I am the only customer buying it... :)


  • Informative x 1
  • Agree x 1

#7 timar

  • Registered User
  • 764 posts
  • 292
  • Location:Germany

Posted 05 March 2017 - 04:37 PM

True, but fortunately dutch processing is not something binary - although most, if not all, companies alkalize their cocoa, the degree varies considerable between brands. It is part of creating a unique taste profile, just like blending and roasting the cocao beans. In Germany at least, we have had a real dark chocolate boom in the last couple of years, so that my local supermarket now carries at least 10 different brands of dark chocolate (>= 70%), half of them fair trade and organic. In my experience as well, the least alkaline cocoa and chocolate is to be found among the organic brands. For the German readers: my favorite brand of dark chocolate is GEPA Grand Noir 85%, which has a more acidic and adstringent taste than almost any other brand I have tried, which is why some people who unsually enjoy dark chocolate didn't particularly like the taste when I offered it to them. So I'm pretty sure this chocolate is exceptionally high in polyphenols. And the taste is really good, if you are a bitter aficionado like me.


Edited by timar, 05 March 2017 - 04:39 PM.


#8 aza

  • Registered User
  • 103 posts
  • 14
  • Location:aus
  • NO

Posted 09 March 2017 - 01:58 AM

I personally like green and blacks 85%, pretty sure it isn't alkalized. For some reason i never liked the taste of Lindt dark chocolate.


  • Agree x 1

#9 mccoy

  • Registered User
  • 62 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Italy

Posted 09 March 2017 - 01:10 PM

Interesting thread. I'm an heavy chocolate+cocoa user, I really suspect that the hi-polyphenols content is to me just an excuse to justify an addiction to the taste. 

 

Now I'll have to re-evaluate my outlook and change my habits, since most cocoas (pure powder) I use are of the mild taste, hence under suspicion of intense dutch processing. And probably in my area there are no un-processed chocolate brands.

Any opinions about zinc being able to decrease the absorption of cadmium?

 

 


Edited by mccoy, 09 March 2017 - 01:39 PM.


#10 aconita

  • Registered User
  • 1,005 posts
  • 129
  • Location:Italy
  • NO

Posted 09 March 2017 - 02:31 PM

Since you are from Italy Esselunga supermarkets do carry in the stand "mercato equo e solidale" 150g boxes of cacao powder brand "Cacao el Ceibo", from Bolivia, it is bio and not dutch processed (a rarity) and at about 2,10 euro it's a deal.

 

I know Equador has a bad name for heavy metals in the soil (which the cacao tree absorbs), not sure about Bolivia.

 

The dutch process makes cacao less or not acidic but alone doesn't make it tasting mild which is mostly due by added sugar. 

 

Now that I am used to it I actually prefer by far the acidic taste of the not dutched cacao, it seems one develops a taste for it with time.



#11 mccoy

  • Registered User
  • 62 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Italy

Posted 10 March 2017 - 08:48 PM

Thanks aconita for the tip, as a coincidence, even before reading your answer, I went to the health food store and bought the El Ceibo cocoa (2.50 Euro per box) , which I had previously tried, remembering its terrible flavour! If you developed a taste to it though, I'm going to do the same. Where I live there are no Esselunga, but the 40 cent overprice is far less than the train ticket to Milano or other northern city.

 

I also saw (in a pharmacy) a brand of cocoa labelled as 'raw', totally unprocessed, at 11 euros per 100 g. I'm just wondering if it's worth the money, taken as a medicine, one teaspoon per day. Raw cocoa= high amounts of flavanols?

 

A couple of commercial brands of cocoa powder which I tried: Lindt and Bellarom (a LIDL chain brand), which are unsweetened, have so little acidity that they really need small amounts of sweetener (I use honey) when taken with hot water. Sometimes when I'm at home I even mix honey and cocoa (sometimes adding a little pure whipped cream), no water, to have a paste which is better than chocolate.

 

Such low acidity and high palatability according to what said in previous posts would come at the expense of lesser flavanols and flavonols. I'm going to post some material for a better quantification of such issue.

 

 


Edited by mccoy, 10 March 2017 - 08:49 PM.


#12 mccoy

  • Registered User
  • 62 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Italy

Posted 10 March 2017 - 09:42 PM

J Agric Food Chem. 2008 May 14;56(9):3111-7. doi: 10.1021/jf0728754. Epub 2008 Apr 16.
Flavanol and flavonol contents of cocoa powder products: influence of the manufacturing process.
 

 

Flavonoids present in cocoa include flavanols, anthocyanins, flavonols, and flavones (4–9). Flavanols, the most abundant flavonoids in cocoa, comprise the monomeric flavanols, (+)-catechin and (-)- epicatechin, and their oligomeric and polymeric forms (procyanidins). (-)-Epicatechin has been reported as the major monomeric flavanol in cocoa, representing ca. 35% of the total phenolic content (4).

 

 

Polyphenols in the cocoa beans are stored in the cotyledons. Once fermented and dried, the nib of the cocoa bean is roasted and ground, resulting in the cocoa liquor, which is the basis for chocolate manufacture. Cocoa powder is made by removing part of the cocoa butter from the cocoa liquor. Alkalinization (or Dutching) of the nibs, liquor, or powder can also be applied to change the color of the product, in particular, for the production of cocoa powder products (21). All of these steps, particularly fermentation and alkalinization, are assumed to lead to considerable losses of cocoa polyphenol, but scientific data in relation to this issue are still limited (4, 22–24).

 

 

A decrease in the concentration of all flavonoids studied was registered as a consequence of the alkalinization treatment, resulting in a 60% loss of the mean total flavonoid content (Table 2). Among flavanols, (-)-epicatechin presented a larger decline (67%, as a mean percentage difference) than (+)- catechin (38%), resulting in a change of the original monomeric flavanol profile. Because (-)-epicatechin possesses a higher absorption than (+)-catechin, the alkalinization treatment could affect the bioavailability of flavanols from cocoa products (29).

 

 

CONCLUSIONS This paper provides for the first time quantitative data of individualized flavonol derivatives in cocoa powder products in a wide range of commercial products available in the Spanish market. Together with the monomeric flavanol content also given, this data is very useful for the calculation of daily flavonoid intake and its correlation with disease incidence or early markers in epidemiologic and clinical studies. The results found herein in relation to the alkalinization process indicate that the dramatically decrease found in the flavonoid content of natural cocoa powder together with the observed change in the monomeric flavanol profile negatively affect the content of antioxidant polyphenols of cocoa and probably their bioavailability. Considering that cocoa powder products have a lower level of saturated fats than chocolate bars, it seems necessary to establish a compromise between color and phenolic content, especially for cocoa powder products derived from alkalinized cocoa powder, which is a more expensive raw material but markedly reduced in polyphenol content.

 



#13 mccoy

  • Registered User
  • 62 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Italy

Posted 10 March 2017 - 10:04 PM

From table 2 of the Andres-Lacueva et al. article, we read the following relevant details:

 

  • Mean Epicatechin concentration in natural cocoa powder (n=10): 1909 ± 95 µg/g
  • Mean Epicatechin concentration in alkalinized cocoa powder (n=10): 623 ± 27 µg/g

 

Which means, on the average, that the alkalinized products have one third the epicatechins of the natural products.

 

Also: 

 

  • Mean Catechin concentration in natural cocoa powder (n=10): 614 ± 20 µg/g
  • Mean Catechin concentration in alkalinized cocoa powder (n=10): 382 ± 30 µg/g

 

Which means, on the average, that the alkalinized products have two thirds the catechins of the natural products.

 

the alkalinization process used by the authors is described in the article and is probably meant to reflect the industrial alkalinization processes.

 

Now, the above may answer to my question: is it worth to spend much money in raw cocoa? Probably not, since by eating three teaspoons of alkalinized cocoa powder I'm going to have probably the same amount of epicatechins and a higner amount of catechins. Of course, other factors might be involved, for example, if the expensive raw cocoa is really raw ground cocoa beans, then I may expect the presence of some compounds which have been degraded by the extraction of the so called cocoa liquor.

 

Actually, the product's specifications are that it is made out of organic unroasted cocoa beans treated at temperatures lower than 47 Celsius. So probably there are some advantages to it and it may be worth to spend some time looking for less expensive brands of raw cocoa powder. 

 

Edit: after 2 minutes of google search I already found that I can order online a very similar product (apparently exactly the same Ecuadorian cultivar with a different brand), at less than a quarter the price: 40 EUro/US$ per kg instead than 100 EUro/US$ per kg. The strategy starts to be feasible...


Edited by mccoy, 10 March 2017 - 10:55 PM.


#14 pamojja

  • Registered User
  • 1,069 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Austria

Posted 10 March 2017 - 10:22 PM

I usually use this http://naturata.com/...4297467380.html non-alkalinized cocoa powder, about € 2 something for 125g. Available in health-food stores.

 

PS: they don't mention alkanization on the website, however the do mention it in small print on the packages, which one has to read to not confuse it with their other cocoa powders, which are alkalinized.


Edited by pamojja, 10 March 2017 - 10:29 PM.


#15 mccoy

  • Registered User
  • 62 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Italy

Posted 10 March 2017 - 11:01 PM

Pamojia, as far as I can uderstand your product and the Bolivian El Ceibo product sold in Italy belong to the 'natural cocoa powder' described in table 2 of Andres-Lacueva et al. article. That is , the cocoa has been roasted but not 'dutched' or alkalinized.

 

Hence (assuming the n=10 sample is representative enough) we may expect an average value of concentration per 10 grams serving of 20 mg epicatechins.

 

10 grams of an alkalinized (dutched) product would yield an average of 6.5 mg of catechins.

 

My next search will be the on the epicathechins concentrations of raw, unroasted cocoa  



#16 mccoy

  • Registered User
  • 62 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Italy

Posted 10 March 2017 - 11:27 PM

This is an article which has already been discussed in an old thread

 

Impact of Fermentation, Drying, Roasting, and Dutch Processing on Epicatechin and Catechin Content of Cacao Beans and Cocoa Ingredients
Hershey Center for Health & Nutrition, Hershey Technical Center, 1025 Reese Avenue, Hershey, Pennsylvania 17033-0805
J. Agric. Food Chem., 201058 (19), pp 10518–10527
DOI: 10.1021/jf102391q
Publication Date (Web): September 15, 2010
 
2 kinds of cocoa beans are analyzed, Ivory coast and Papua New guinea. Roasting only causes a decrease in epicatechins if temperature is above 70°C (Ivory coast) or 80°C (PNG).
Decrease is lesser for PNG beans
Max decrease is 30% of original epicatechin in Ivory coast, 60% in PNG at 120°C.
 
Extrapolation to our practical purpose is that raw cocoa is likely to contain even more epicatechins than roasted cocoa, but we cannot know exactly how much more, being that a function of cultivar and temperature. Also, epicatechins content in raw beans varied a lot in this study: 1.7 mg/g in Ivory coast beans, 0.8 mg/g in PNG beans, meaning more than 100% difference.

Attached File  epicatechins.JPG   76.16KB   1 downloads



#17 mccoy

  • Registered User
  • 62 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Italy

Posted 10 March 2017 - 11:46 PM

Nutrients 20135(10), 3854-3870; doi:10.3390/nu5103854

An interesting detail in this review is the daily consumption of (total) cocoa flavonoids of the Kuna indians in the San Blas island, Panama (population with a very low prevalence of CV disease).
It is reported as 900 mg per day. I hope that's a mistake, otherwise it would mean that, to reach the same amount, we need to consume about 350 grams of undutched cocoa powder per day or one kilo of dutched cocoa powder per day!!! :blink:  :blink:  :blink:
 
A more likely interpretation is that flavanols + flavonols in Lacueva's article are only a part of total flavonoids. 

Edited by mccoy, 10 March 2017 - 11:59 PM.


#18 pamojja

  • Registered User
  • 1,069 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Austria

Posted 10 March 2017 - 11:47 PM

Basically mercury, lead, cadmium and arsenic all remained at the same low and save levels sufficiently below the upper normal limit. Mercury decreased to a quarter, cadmium halved, lead stayed the same, and arsenic increased by 1/3 (0.11 ug/g, <0.2 range).

 

Any opinions about zinc being able to decrease the absorption of cadmium?

 

Considering that my hair cadmium halved in the 8 years of heavy cocoa consumption, with in average of 44 mg/d of supplemented zinc, this seems plausible. Though wouldn't recommend supplementing in this range long term without being tested. Personally been low in serum, whole blood and hair, which all normalized since.


  • Informative x 1

#19 mccoy

  • Registered User
  • 62 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Italy

Posted 11 March 2017 - 09:34 AM

 

Basically mercury, lead, cadmium and arsenic all remained at the same low and save levels sufficiently below the upper normal limit. Mercury decreased to a quarter, cadmium halved, lead stayed the same, and arsenic increased by 1/3 (0.11 ug/g, <0.2 range).

 

Any opinions about zinc being able to decrease the absorption of cadmium?

 

Considering that my hair cadmium halved in the 8 years of heavy cocoa consumption, with in average of 44 mg/d of supplemented zinc, this seems plausible. Though wouldn't recommend supplementing in this range long term without being tested. Personally been low in serum, whole blood and hair, which all normalized since.

 

 

Thanks for your reassuring data, pamojja. I'm taking 11.5 mg of zinc supplements per day, maybe I'm going to increase it to 23. The amounts of cocoa I'm taking are similar to yours.



#20 mccoy

  • Registered User
  • 62 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Italy

Posted 11 March 2017 - 09:48 AM

Since you are from Italy Esselunga supermarkets do carry in the stand "mercato equo e solidale" 150g boxes of cacao powder brand "Cacao el Ceibo", from Bolivia, it is bio and not dutch processed (a rarity) and at about 2,10 euro it's a deal.

...

Now that I am used to it I actually prefer by far the acidic taste of the not dutched cacao, it seems one develops a taste for it with time.

 

Aconita, after these discussions, this morning I opened the El Ceibo cocoa box and had it. Guess what, knowing that it contains three times the epicatechins contained in processed cocoa, it didn't taste bad at all! I can witness to the power of the mind, that's not a clicheè. I believe our minds are trained to make us like what we believe (with reason) to be healthy. I also put a little more honey into my cup, just to help the transition.

 

Consuming unprocessed cacao like El Ceibo or Naturata has a distinct advantage:

  • We can have the same dose of epicatechin reducing total consumption of cocoa of one third. This may help if we suspect a cadmium pollution, or if we want to avoid excessivecocoa alkaloids (theobromine, caffeine).
  • We can treble our intake of epicatechin by simply leaving unvaried our total cocoa consumption. 

In lieu of a reccomended daily intake of epicatechin, I really can't say which strategy is best.

 

Next step may be to order some unroasted cocoa brands like Iswari, in Italy, which comes at 40 €/US$ per kilo. In lieu of precise data on epicatechin contents, though, since  El ceibo comes at about 15 €/US$ per kilo, I would stick to the latter.



#21 mccoy

  • Registered User
  • 62 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Italy

Posted 11 March 2017 - 10:05 PM

It took a while but I came across what seems to be a reliable source for kuna indians chocolate recipe

 

The Kuna indians use ground cocoa beans so there is no way we can know the epicatechin (epicat) content without lab analyses. A crude estimate may be had by using the following adaptation from Hazel Lee:

 

60 grams of unprocessed cacao powder per 400 grams of water and one banana. they take 3 to 4 cups per day of this drink, meaning up to 1 liter and 150 grams of cacao powder.

 

According to the Andres-Lacueva et al. article, and assuming a similar epicat content of 200 mg/100g, a not-too-distant from the ground beans epicat content, the Kuna Indians may ingest about 300 mg of epicat per day.

 

It may even be more...

 

 

 

 


Edited by mccoy, 11 March 2017 - 10:14 PM.

  • like x 1

#22 timar

  • Registered User
  • 764 posts
  • 292
  • Location:Germany

Posted 12 March 2017 - 11:06 AM

The free (monomeric) epicatechin content of cocoa is a poor indicator of both its bioactivity and total polyphenol content, as the degree of catechin polymerization varies widely between different cultivars and environmental conditions. For example, one type of cocoa may be particularly rich in highly bioactive di- and trimers but low monomers. By looking only at the monomeric epicatechin content, one would significantly underestimate the bioactive potential of that cocoa.

 

A better indicator is the content of monomoric flavonoids plus oligomeric proantocyanidins (OPC) with a degree of polymerization <= 10 (as polymers with a larger chain length have a poor bioavailability, although they are still likely to have beneficial effects on the gut flora). The USDA Database for the Proanthocyanidin Content of Selected Foods lists the avarage OPC (2-10mers) content for dutched and non-dutched cocoa as 2% and 4%, respectively.


  • like x 1

#23 orion602

  • Registered User
  • 76 posts
  • 55

Posted 12 March 2017 - 12:30 PM

 Sometimes when I'm at home I even mix honey and cocoa (sometimes adding a little pure whipped cream), no water, to have a paste which is better than chocolate.

Thats exactly what I have been trying for last month or two. Bought very good quality honey while on on Tenerife last december, and now i started using it to make a paste with cocoa powder. tastes great and the amount of honey needed is not too high. But I am still unsure whether its better [health benefit-wise] than say 80 % chocolate- perhaps it depends whats int that remaining 20%. [?]

So far i've tried few normal retail cocoa powders with only 22% cocoa butter left, but will definitely test more and better quality powders as was discussed above.

 

I

60 grams of unprocessed cacao powder per 400 grams of water and one banana. they take 3 to 4 cups per day of this drink, meaning up to 1 liter and 150 grams of cacao powder.

..

Another interesting recipe to try, thanks :)


Edited by orion602, 12 March 2017 - 12:30 PM.


#24 mccoy

  • Registered User
  • 62 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Italy

Posted 13 March 2017 - 06:27 AM

The free (monomeric) epicatechin content of cocoa is a poor indicator of both its bioactivity and total polyphenol content, as the degree of catechin polymerization varies widely between different cultivars and environmental conditions. For example, one type of cocoa may be particularly rich in highly bioactive di- and trimers but low monomers. By looking only at the monomeric epicatechin content, one would significantly underestimate the bioactive potential of that cocoa.

 

A better indicator is the content of monomoric flavonoids plus oligomeric proantocyanidins (OPC) with a degree of polymerization <= 10 (as polymers with a larger chain length have a poor bioavailability, although they are still likely to have beneficial effects on the gut flora). The USDA Database for the Proanthocyanidin Content of Selected Foods lists the avarage OPC (2-10mers) content for dutched and non-dutched cocoa as 2% and 4%, respectively.

 

Thanks timar for the very intersting link to the PAs database. I'm in the process of cross-interpreting data.

 

If non-monomeric <=10 PAs is the quantity of flavonoids usually used to express the dose of the Kuna indians flavonoids, then 100 mg of average undutched cocoa powder per day according to the database yields about the same (1000 to 2000 mgrams PAs per day).

 

If polymeric PAs are counted, then 50 grams of average unprocessed cocoa per day should do the trick. 

 

I also wonder if the monomeric stereoisomer (-) epicatechin has particular benefits, since in all food cocoa appears to have the highest content (average of 200 mg per 100 grams).

 

The variability issue is a serious one and I'm going to post about it.



#25 mccoy

  • Registered User
  • 62 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Italy

Posted 13 March 2017 - 03:08 PM

 

 Sometimes when I'm at home I even mix honey and cocoa (sometimes adding a little pure whipped cream), no water, to have a paste which is better than chocolate.

Thats exactly what I have been trying for last month or two. Bought very good quality honey while on on Tenerife last december, and now i started using it to make a paste with cocoa powder. tastes great and the amount of honey needed is not too high. But I am still unsure whether its better [health benefit-wise] than say 80 % chocolate- perhaps it depends whats int that remaining 20%. [?]

So far i've tried few normal retail cocoa powders with only 22% cocoa butter left, but will definitely test more and better quality powders as was discussed above.

 

 

Orion, it's great to know that there are other people around having the same idea and experimenting independently!

 

Chocolate: now there are quite a few brands offering 85%, 90%, 92% and even 99% chocolate. I would strive to eat at least a 90% content. I wonder why the Labdoor analyses have not been carried out on the higher chocolate contents.

 

I'm consulting now the contents of Lindt Excellence 90%, which is 55% in weight fats (30% SAFAs). I estimate about  5 % added sugar, since total sugars content is 7% .

 

Lindt excellence 99% (noir absolu) has 49% fats and only 2% sugars (probably natural cocoa sugars).

 

The great difference from our home-made concoction (no fats added) is fat content, which is more than double. Chocolate is great for those who wish to gain weight or who need calories, but those who are on caloric restriction absolutely cannot indulge. And I can testifiy that it is very easy to indulge, a 100-grams bar dissolves like nothing!

 

Besides, it may be hard to find a very dark chocolate made from unprocessed cocoa. Even if once I tasted a raw-cocoa chocolate, taken at the health food store. It was exquisite but I do not remember the cocoa content.


  • Agree x 1

#26 mccoy

  • Registered User
  • 62 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Italy

Posted 14 March 2017 - 09:33 PM

Now, I don't know if I'm missing something, but from the PAs database the total PAs content (from dimers to polymers) amounts to 4200 mg/10 g.

 

Epicat and catechin are monomers, so they should be ruled out from the above. If so, that makes 260 more mg/100 gm.

 

We have an average total of about 4.6 grams /100 grams.

 

This compares pretty well with the value on the  phenol-explorer database (Europe-based):

 

5.6 grams /100 grams.

 

Estimated consumption of flavanols + PAs for Kuna Indians as been reported, for example, as 1880 mg/d = 2 g/d (source: Flavanols, the Kuna, Cocoa Consumption, and Nitric Oxide)

 

If we can take the above as reference, than on the average 40 grams of unsweetened, unprocessed cocoa powder per day should equal the flavonoids consumption of the Kuna Indians.

 

8 tablespoons are about 44 grams.

 

Now, I don't know if the above quantity may entail some collateral effects (Cadmium toxicity? Excess of caffeine and theobromine?).

 

We sure know the benefits.

 

 

Edited by mccoy, 14 March 2017 - 09:34 PM.

  • WellResearched x 1
  • like x 1

#27 ceridwen

  • Member
  • 980 posts
  • 88

Member Away
  • Location:UK

Posted 15 March 2017 - 07:00 AM

@McCoy Lint Exceex dllence definitely contains lead and cadmium. Read the list

#28 pamojja

  • Registered User
  • 1,069 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Austria

Posted 15 March 2017 - 09:25 AM

@McCoy Lint Erxceex dllence definitely contains lead and cadmium. Read the list

 

Ceridwen, so does your body. But do you know how much?

 

As I do, by testing yearly for heavy metals since consuming 40 g/d of Lindt 90% chocolate since 8 years. See post #2.
 


Edited by pamojja, 15 March 2017 - 09:27 AM.


#29 mccoy

  • Registered User
  • 62 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Italy

Posted 15 March 2017 - 01:08 PM

@McCoy Lint Exceex dllence definitely contains lead and cadmium. Read the list

 

Ceriwden, that's true, but after the above discussion we might  conclude that:

 

  • Lindt's cocoa and chocolate appear to have been heavily processed (like many other commercial brands) so have not many flavonoids and (-) epicatechins
  • The flavonoids results in chocoalte arerelatively poor. About 200 mg per serving, it would take 10 servings per day (about 350 grams of an high cocoa content chocolate) to reach the Kuna Indians threshold. I would never adventure on such a route, considering the 175 gr of mainly saturated fats which would come with the flavonoids and the significant amount of caffeine, not to mention the carbs. Better off 7 tablespoons (40 grams) of unprocessed cocoa powder
  • It's obvious that our selected unprocessed cocoa powder may contain heavy metals and we cannot possibly trace it all the time. At this point pamojja's strategy of regular hair analysis which yields an estimate of the actual cumulative ingestion of toxic metals in the body is pretty sensible. I'll start to enquire about nearby labs...

Edited by mccoy, 15 March 2017 - 01:11 PM.

  • like x 2

#30 sthira

  • Member
  • 1,534 posts
  • 270

Posted 15 March 2017 - 03:50 PM

I like Righteously Raw because it's sooooo decadent, especially their chocolate-acai bars, so expensive for only 66/g shots of the stuff, which is heady and spaz-making and like cocaine for my body, really revs me up, there's more chemical in these than just the caffeine and sugar hopping me up (maybe it's the phenylethlamine, tryptophan, anandamide “feel good” chemicals):

https://www.righteou...colate.com/faq/

I'll eat one 66/g bar before a rehearsal, and wow the light-footed energy magic; but RR doesnt list their heavy metal content, which I'm sure is just as poor as the others listed here.

I view chocolate eating as eating candy -- that's what it is - junk food imho unless you're going with the straight up raw beans unprocessed, which is really too much speed for my delicate system. Eat some beans; stay up all night flying around without my head still attached to its base.

Edited by sthira, 15 March 2017 - 04:10 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users