37 replies to this topic

[TheFountain]

Presumably the dark chocolate most of you eat has added sugar in it. Why do you eat it?

[xispes]

if you eat +70% cocoa content only 30% will be sugar, if you eat a relatively conservative amount, "a few squares" you will be eating a very low portion of sugar.

I eat because it tastes real good to me.

What about you?

[TheFountain]

if you eat +70% cocoa content only 30% will be sugar, if you eat a relatively conservative amount, "a few squares" you will be eating a very low portion of sugar.

I eat because it tastes real good to me.

What about you?

I have tried 100% dark chocolate but the caffeine in it kept me awake for days. In terms of that with added sugar I am thinking about AGEs formation. I am already getting sugar in the form of fructose from eating berries, including a good dose of anti-oxidants. Maybe if 70% dark chocolate were sweetened with stevia or trehalose instead of cane sugar I might eat it.

Edited by TheFountain, 13 June 2009 - 09:16 AM.

[JackChristopher]

100% Cocoa Unsweetened Baker's chocolate — bleck! I've had it a few times; it's the healthiest option, but it needs a sweetener. I think Mind eats it straight up. I admit it's a fun pissing contest to see who eats the highest percentage with no sweetner.

I eat it for the stearic acid. _That_ converts to oleic acid (like in EVOO) in the body. IIRC, stearic is the sat fat that doesn't raise LDL. And it's thermogenic too. But I wouldn't be surprised if dark chocolate has a downside I'm unaware of. I have to read more about phytosterols. Dr. Davis seems to like it, although he doesn't like phytosterols (I read that yesterday, but can't find it on his site). But there's an very old french lady that claims to eat 3 pounds of chocolate at week.

It's easy to find baker's bars in the supermarket. It's literally called Baker's Chocolate. WHfoods sells them straight too. And I find 85% bars everywhere, that's just 12.5g total sugar. The lowest I found was 10g in an Endangered Species bar.

[ajnast4r]

i usually eat lindt 85% because the taste is excellent and the sugar is low. 40g only has 5g of sugar...the benefits of dark chocolate far outweigh and suspected detriment from a few grams of sugar, avoiding a daily serving of dark chocolate because of <5g sugar is just alarmist.

[nameless]

I like the Lindt 85% too. At 2 squares a day, it's not really much sugar at all. 99% Lindt isn't that bad either, but it's hard to find and expensive (if they even still make it).

Have there ever been any polyphenol studies on specific brands of dark chocolate? I wonder sometimes if a certain amount of polyphenols have been removed from some brands due to processing.

And for stearic acid, I know it won't (or shouldn't) negatively affect lipid numbers, but can it worsen Lp(a)? I recall reading it may raise Lp(a), although not certain this is true or what amounts are required. Anyone ever consume lots of dark chocolate and get their Lp(a) tested before and after?

[openeyes]

I like the Lindt 85% too. At 2 squares a day, it's not really much sugar at all. 99% Lindt isn't that bad either, but it's hard to find and expensive (if they even still make it).

I like the 85% and 99% as well. Both are carried at a local foodie store within walking distance of my apartment, A Southern Season. It can also be found online:

http://www.lindtusa..../nm/Excellence/

Apparently there's also a 90% bar in the same Excellence series, for the same price as the 85%, while the 99% is twice as expensive ($3.50 for 1.7 ounces versus 3.5 ounces).

I rarely buy a bar that's less than 70% chocolate. The $4 17.6 ounce 72% cocoa bar by trader joe's is a frequent purchase. With 3 squares having 13 grams of sugar, I have one or two squares per day. Caffeine doesn't bother me. Though I mostly drink tea, I can readily have a large cup of coffee and then take a nap. Even a quad espresso doesn't do much to make me jittery.

Edited by openeyes, 13 June 2009 - 07:01 PM.

[forever freedom]

I eat it because its good.

[kismet]

I like the 85% and 99% as well. Both are carried at a local foodie store within walking distance of my apartment, A Southern Season. It can also be found online:

The 99% Lindt is the most awesome piece of chocolate I've ever eaten! It tastes so much better than any 8x% choclate bar.

Edited by kismet, 13 June 2009 - 07:11 PM.

[Mind]

I have to try some of that 99% stuff. I imagine I can find it online. I enjoy anything over 80% because it tastes good and there is some data to back up the claimed health benefits. Below 80% cocoa and then too much sugar for me. And yes, I eat the Baker's chocolate, and it does not taste "good", more of an acquired taste, driven by sugar avoidance.

I also like the nibs. I make make treats nowadays with 100% cocoa powder, almonds, peanuts, stevia, and coconut oil. Super delicious. I was thinking of using crushed up nibs instead of the powdered cocoa. Do you think that would work?

[TheFountain]

I like the 85% and 99% as well. Both are carried at a local foodie store within walking distance of my apartment, A Southern Season. It can also be found online:

The 99% Lindt is the most awesome piece of chocolate I've ever eaten! It tastes so much better than any 8x% choclate bar.

Is it as bitter as 100% baking chocolate?

[TheFountain]

i usually eat lindt 85% because the taste is excellent and the sugar is low. 40g only has 5g of sugar...the benefits of dark chocolate far outweigh and suspected detriment from a few grams of sugar, avoiding a daily serving of dark chocolate because of <5g sugar is just alarmist.

I think what's inevitable in the near future is that manufacturers will be using alternative sweeteners like stevia instead of cane sugar to dilute dark chocolate. It will be a good thing. Soon as the first company does it, every other will follow.

I was tempted to melt down the 100% chocolate and add some stevia myself but I don't feel like making the effort.

Edited by TheFountain, 13 June 2009 - 09:14 PM.

[openeyes]

I think what's inevitable in the near future is that manufacturers will be using alternative sweeteners like stevia instead of cane sugar to dilute dark chocolate. It will be a good thing. Soon as the first company does it, every other will follow.

I haven't tried it yet, but ...

http://www.melvilles...te-bar-1lb.html

Edited by openeyes, 14 June 2009 - 12:38 AM.

[openeyes]

Is it as bitter as 100% baking chocolate?

I would liken it to how different grades of matcha tea are more or less bitter, with the higher grades being less bitter allowing them to be drunk in greater concentrations. Likewise I've had $5 88% chocolate bars that tasted far smoother than others with barely 60% cocoa. I would not compare the 99% lindt to the bitterness of cheap baking chocolate. A person may need to work up to it if they're not used to such things, but I find it to be rather enjoyable.

[kismet]

Is it as bitter as 100% baking chocolate?

I've never consumed 100% backing chocolate, but other varieties of chocolate. I'm not very good at recalling taste, but there should be some acidic taste to the Lindt 99%; not really bitter (to me anyway).

[nameless]

The Lindt 99% may be somewhat bitter if you aren't used to dark chocolates, but it doesn't really taste like baking chocolate. Baking chocolate just tastes... bleh...

The Lindt 99% needs to be sort of savored, dissolved on your tongue, and then you'll catch the flavors. That said, I probably prefer 85% to the 99%, but I find myself disliking anything below the 80% range now. And the 99% makes a nice change of pace, but unfortunately it's expensive.

And in a way, I hope chocolate makers don't start using Stevia, as they may go overboard, and we'll be getting dark chocolate loaded with Stevia, tasting like Hershey's kisses.

[TheFountain]

I think what's inevitable in the near future is that manufacturers will be using alternative sweeteners like stevia instead of cane sugar to dilute dark chocolate. It will be a good thing. Soon as the first company does it, every other will follow.

I haven't tried it yet, but ...

http://www.melvilles...te-bar-1lb.html

Only 32$ for one bar.

[TheFountain]

The Lindt 99% may be somewhat bitter if you aren't used to dark chocolates, but it doesn't really taste like baking chocolate. Baking chocolate just tastes... bleh...

The Lindt 99% needs to be sort of savored, dissolved on your tongue, and then you'll catch the flavors. That said, I probably prefer 85% to the 99%, but I find myself disliking anything below the 80% range now. And the 99% makes a nice change of pace, but unfortunately it's expensive.

And in a way, I hope chocolate makers don't start using Stevia, as they may go overboard, and we'll be getting dark chocolate loaded with Stevia, tasting like Hershey's kisses.

Anything under 85% dark chocolate tastes like I am eating sugar. I don't really like the taste of sugar. Especially after being inducted into a quasi-paleo diet (everything other paleo dieters do accept I do not eat land animals).

Edited by Matt, 14 June 2009 - 04:19 PM.
text repeated

[openeyes]

I think what's inevitable in the near future is that manufacturers will be using alternative sweeteners like stevia instead of cane sugar to dilute dark chocolate. It will be a good thing. Soon as the first company does it, every other will follow.

I haven't tried it yet, but ...

http://www.melvilles...te-bar-1lb.html

Only 32$ for one bar.

From the description it appears to be $32 for eight 45 gram bars, plus whatever shipping is, about average for a high end chocolate bar. If I saw one at a store for a few dollars I'd likely try it, but I'm not sure I care to buy eight having never tasted it.

Edited by openeyes, 14 June 2009 - 04:51 PM.

[TheFountain]

I think what's inevitable in the near future is that manufacturers will be using alternative sweeteners like stevia instead of cane sugar to dilute dark chocolate. It will be a good thing. Soon as the first company does it, every other will follow.

I haven't tried it yet, but ...

http://www.melvilles...te-bar-1lb.html

Only 32$ for one bar.

From the description it appears to be $32 for eight 45 gram bars, plus whatever shipping is, about average for a high end chocolate bar. If I saw one at a store for a few dollars I'd likely try it, but I'm not sure I care to buy eight having never tasted it.

Oh I must have missed that part of the description. Perhaps it is worth trying after all, at least once. They are still about a dollar more than the standard supermarket bars but not too bad.

[openeyes]

I realize that in all my responses I never actually stated exactly why I eat dark chocolate, so here's a bit of it:

I emphasize foods in my diet that are both enjoyable and likely healthy. I'm both a foodie (with an emphasis on simple foods, Michael Pollan style) and a health nut. Right now I'm eating an ounce of Scharffen Berger 99% cocoa, which is considered high end baking chocolate and is remarkably smooth. The six ounce bar was on sale for $8, and it may soon replace my 72% trader joes bar as I prefer the taste and the price isn't bad. Along with that I'm having a shot glass of pinot noir. Most days I average about half a normal glass, ~3 ounces, which is the current ideal amount. I could drop all alcohol if it were suddenly seen as a significant health issue even in minute quantities, and the same goes for pure cocoa, but for now I'm enjoying both.

[fatboy]

... and it may soon replace my 72% trader joes bar as I prefer the taste and the price isn't bad.

My Trader Joe's has 85% Valhrona at $2.99/100g w/ 12.5g sugar. I also add a tbsp of unsweetened cocoa powder to my daily 4-6 cups of black coffee.

I could drop all alcohol if it were suddenly seen as a significant health issue even in minute quantities, ...

Blasphemer.

[niner]

The Stevia-sweetened 98% bar says this on the website:

The bar is the first bar made with Stevia its a safer sugar substitute than Sweet 'n Low or Splenda, which contain saccharine and chlorine molecules. It's a nicely textured bar with a hint of an aftertaste that is loaded with health benefits.

Is that the chemical taste from the stevia they're talking about? That would be my guess. I've tried using both Splenda and Stevia to sweeten cocoa that is otherwise non-alkalized and unsweetened. The outcome? Splenda tastes good, and Stevia tastes like sweet chemicals. Alas, Great Mother Gaia has boned! I'm going to experiment with mixing the two. For the time being, I've been using Splenda but I don't microwave it. Microwaves can cause otherwise-stable molecules to react if they have a tendency to go in that direction.

To speak to the original topic, worrying about a little sugar in a bit of dark chocolate sounds kind of like orthorexia. We just had a thread about that a couple weeks ago.

[TheFountain]

The Stevia-sweetened 98% bar says this on the website:

The bar is the first bar made with Stevia its a safer sugar substitute than Sweet 'n Low or Splenda, which contain saccharine and chlorine molecules. It's a nicely textured bar with a hint of an aftertaste that is loaded with health benefits.

Is that the chemical taste from the stevia they're talking about? That would be my guess. I've tried using both Splenda and Stevia to sweeten cocoa that is otherwise non-alkalized and unsweetened. The outcome? Splenda tastes good, and Stevia tastes like sweet chemicals. Alas, Great Mother Gaia has boned! I'm going to experiment with mixing the two. For the time being, I've been using Splenda but I don't microwave it. Microwaves can cause otherwise-stable molecules to react if they have a tendency to go in that direction.

To speak to the original topic, worrying about a little sugar in a bit of dark chocolate sounds kind of like orthorexia. We just had a thread about that a couple weeks ago.

I just read the wiki article on 'orthorexia' and I couldn't stop laughing. Here are a couple laughable abstracts..

"The analysis of the physiological characteristics, the social-cultural and the psychological behaviour that characterises subjects suffering from ON shows a higher prevalence in men and in those with a lower level of education."^[10]


Biology of orthorexia nervosa
'There has been no investigation into whether there may be a biological cause specific to orthorexia nervosa. However, Donini et al. link orthorexia to a food-centered manifestation of obsessive compulsive disorder, which is thought to have specific biological causes.'

Suggesting, in some round about fashion, that 'excessive focus on eating healthy foods' can lead to death is just plain irresponsible.

I am just trying to optimize my diet and reduce exogenous AGEs formation. That was my main concern regarding the sugar content of dark chocolate. Otherwise I eat quite a bit and quite frequently.

Edited by TheFountain, 16 June 2009 - 06:05 AM.

[shadowrun]

The 88% Cocoa Endangered Species "Black Panther" chocolate bar is by far the best i've ever tasted
- It Makes the Lindt 85% taste like carboard.

[jhowardall]

I've always preferred dark chocolate to milk chocolate, but there is a limit. The kind of stuff which supposedly is really healthy, the 70, 80, even 85% cocao stuff isn't very good. It reminds me of the times I'd take the blue baker's chocolate from the cupboard and I think I was pulling a really smooth operation, the one sweet used infrequently enough that nobody would notice, but then Oh no, it has zero sugar and tastes just like cocao!

So I'm sure the kind of thing I like would be probably low on the dark chocolate healthy scale, but I'm not a huge chocolate eater. For me, the best chocolate there is, short of the Bernard Calbaut kind of thing where you pay $5 for something you finish in two bites - is Terry's Dark Chocolate Orange, keep in the freezer and it's the best.

[kismet]

The Stevia-sweetened 98% bar says this on the website:

The bar is the first bar made with Stevia its a safer sugar substitute than Sweet 'n Low or Splenda, which contain saccharine and chlorine molecules. It's a nicely textured bar with a hint of an aftertaste that is loaded with health benefits.

I would not recommend buying from them just for this shameless lie. If there are any problems with low dose sweetners (there are none with splenda IIRC) they are unrelated to the chlorine and splenda has its own issues. I despise the chlorine scare-mongering.
More drama! http://www.youtube.c...s...1611&page=5

To speak to the original topic, worrying about a little sugar in a bit of dark chocolate sounds kind of like orthorexia. We just had a thread about that a couple weeks ago.

Indeed, Fountain is right. Why NOT worry? I mean how much do you suffer from actually getting used to real, tasty sugar-free cocoa and 99% chocolate (and I bet most people would enjoy it if they made an attempt to slowly go from 80 to 90 to 99%)? What do you lose?
I'm not even touching anything <99%, it's not that difficult to abstain from eating sweets (most of the time), is it?

"The analysis of the physiological characteristics, the social-cultural and the psychological behaviour that characterises subjects suffering from ON shows a higher prevalence in men and in those with a lower level of education."[10]

Hah, just noticed that the shorthand is ON, ON as in "optimal nutrition". "I'm CRONie I practise calorie restriction and orthorexia nervosa," just hilarious!

Edited by kismet, 17 June 2009 - 12:02 PM.

[unglued]

I like to eat nibs together with a little bit of something sweet, like 70%+ dark chocolate covered nuts or fruit, or even a Tums. I enjoy the crunch and the taste, but I'm also hoping it has health benefits.

There are several brands (e.g. Larabar, Cliff bar) of chocolate bars that contain nothing but organic chocolate, nuts and/or coffee and/or fruit, and organic dates. The sugar comes from the dates (which are the first ingredient), and dates are loaded with antioxidants. But they're not creamy like a good chocolate bar is, since they don't enrich the cocoa butter content. The texture is more like a brownie. I eat those because they're easy to carry, are great with coffee or tea, stave off hunger, and make a healthier between-meal snack than most things I might buy from the coffee house.

[TheFountain]

How do we know that the 5 grams of sugar in an 85% dark chocolate serving is not enough to contribute to significant protein/collagen break down?

Add this to the speculated demineralization effect of caffeine (which dark chocolate also contains) and what you have is a recipe for accelerated skin aging.

And there is no telling whether or not taking supplements like benfotiamine or taurine would slow it down.

Edited by TheFountain, 21 June 2009 - 08:47 PM.

[niner]

How do we know that the 5 grams of sugar in an 85% dark chocolate serving is not enough to contribute to significant protein/collagen break down?

Add this to the speculated demineralization effect of caffeine (which dark chocolate also contains) and what you have is a recipe for accelerated skin aging.

If 5 grams of sugar, particularly in the midst of all that lipid, would contribute to "significant" protein/collagen break down, then what would a cookie do? A milk shake? A donut? A slice of birthday cake? AAAHHHH!!! Everywhere I turn, threats to my perfect beauty abound! Orthorexic much?