• 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

#31 mccoy

  • Guest
  • 162 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Italy

Posted 15 March 2017 - 07:28 PM

MMmm, I'm fortunate enough that in my country there aren't any RR shops, I'll just avoid the temptation.

 

 

I have a good alternative though, something I just experimented (and probably other people have already tried).

 

The KUNANA: Kuna-Indians banana, is a chocolate substitute. Instead of mixing honey and cacao powder like previously discussed, I tried to mix a mashed banana with cacao powder (with a simple fork).

Half a banana, one to two tablespoons of cocoa (the latter called kunana-dark), according to taste and bitterness wished. A word of caution: resistance to this recipe is futile, so maybe it's better to prepare the exact amoutn of food you'd like to ingest, absolutely no more.

 

A large KUNANA portion, made up of 2 medium bananas (200 grams) and 8 5-grams tablespoons of unprocessed cacao powder allows to hit the Kuna indians daily dose, which brings about all the known benefits.

 

Such a portion can make up a meal, having a quantitative and qualitative nutritional value. Not for the low-carbers, obviously.

Pls. Note, on cronometer I took as a reference the excellent lindt powder, which is unfortuantely processed though, instead unprocessed varietes should be used to reach the Kuna Indians polyphenols thresholds.

 

Attached File  Kunana 1.JPG   38.21KB   2 downloads

Attached File  kunana 2.JPG   63.63KB   1 downloads

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by mccoy, 15 March 2017 - 07:31 PM.

  • like x 2

#32 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 15 March 2017 - 08:16 PM

...mix a mashed banana with cacao powder (with a simple fork).
Half a banana, one to two tablespoons of cocoa (the latter called kunana-dark), according to taste and bitterness wished. A word of caution: resistance to this recipe is futile, so maybe it's better to prepare the exact amoutn of food you'd like to ingest, absolutely no more.


OMG sounds flipping amazing, I'd lose my mind on this. 25/g sugar isn't too outrageous for such decadence. Banana is so sweet, though, I wonder about mixing a less sweet fruit like avocado that might be easier on BG?

And bananas they keep saying are about to go extinct: https://www.wired.co...tm_medium=email

sponsored ad

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

#33 normalizing

  • Guest
  • 2,692 posts
  • -104
  • Location:Warm Greetings
  • NO

Posted 16 March 2017 - 01:21 AM

i see people concentrating a lot on various brands of chocolate makers and their quality but wouldnt it be wiser to concentrate on areas which produce the least heavy metal cocoa?

 

from what i gathered in the past, africa is a huge offender, especially ivory coast and from south america, i have seen ecuador ranking high on lead and other metals i believe.

 

anyway, i just cannot find the article i read few years back, i think i saw that the best cocoa with cleanest sheet is made in indonesia, not south america or africa. but as i cannot find the source now, i guess thats just speculative of my memory



#34 joelcairo

  • Guest
  • 586 posts
  • 156
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  • NO

Posted 16 March 2017 - 01:57 AM

I was just looking for such a study and stumbled upon this hopefully accurate factoid instead...

 

"According to ConsumerLab.com, dark chocolate seems to be a “cleaner” source of flavanols [sic] than cocoa powders. As Tod Cooperman, the company’s president, explained, flavanols are about four times more concentrated in dark chocolate than in cocoa powder—so to get an equal amount of flavanols, you’d consume about four times more cadmium from cocoa pow­der than from dark chocolate."

 

http://www.berkeleyw...mium-your-cocoa



#35 joelcairo

  • Guest
  • 586 posts
  • 156
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  • NO

Posted 16 March 2017 - 02:14 AM

With respect cadmium levels by region, it appears African cocoa is superior to locations in South American. I didn't find any testing to indicate where Asian producers such as Indonesia rank in comparison.



#36 normalizing

  • Guest
  • 2,692 posts
  • -104
  • Location:Warm Greetings
  • NO

Posted 16 March 2017 - 08:25 PM

hmm african cocoa is better than south american? thats surprising as in the past they always lagged back in control and quality but maybe they took past stats serious and peaked up

 

about asian cocoa, i think it was the island of Java that produced it, same as tea. they have good tea over there



#37 mccoy

  • Guest
  • 162 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Italy

Posted 16 March 2017 - 11:13 PM

I was just looking for such a study and stumbled upon this hopefully accurate factoid instead...

 

"According to ConsumerLab.com, dark chocolate seems to be a “cleaner” source of flavanols [sic] than cocoa powders. As Tod Cooperman, the company’s president, explained, flavanols are about four times more concentrated in dark chocolate than in cocoa powder—so to get an equal amount of flavanols, you’d consume about four times more cadmium from cocoa pow­der than from dark chocolate."

 

http://www.berkeleyw...mium-your-cocoa

 

According to the following source:

Determination of Catechin and Epicatechin Content in Chocolates by High-Performance Liquid Chromatography

 

Epicat + catechins in Lindt Excellence 90% = 58 mg/100 gr

 

From the previously posted Andres-lacueva et al. study, 

 

Epicat + catechins in average unprocessed cocoa pwder = 250 mg/100 gr

 

23 grams (about 4-5 tablespoons) of average unprocessed cocoa powder= 58 mg Epicat + catechins + 3 gr fats

100 grams of 90% Lindt excellence = 58 mg Epicat + catechins + 55 gr fats

 
Now, if at equal amounts of Epicat + catechins (58 mg) we just need all that additional (good tasting) fat (for example, we are strength athletes or american football players or long distance swimmers), then the chocolate is the best choice.
 
However, we might wish to avoid 52 grams of additional fat, mostly saturated, choosing as fat sources EVOO or nuts or avocados.
Then the cocoa powder is undoubtedly the best choice.

  • Good Point x 1
  • like x 1

#38 mccoy

  • Guest
  • 162 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Italy

Posted 16 March 2017 - 11:25 PM

 

...mix a mashed banana with cacao powder (with a simple fork).
Half a banana, one to two tablespoons of cocoa (the latter called kunana-dark), according to taste and bitterness wished. A word of caution: resistance to this recipe is futile, so maybe it's better to prepare the exact amoutn of food you'd like to ingest, absolutely no more.


OMG sounds flipping amazing, I'd lose my mind on this. 25/g sugar isn't too outrageous for such decadence. Banana is so sweet, though, I wonder about mixing a less sweet fruit like avocado that might be easier on BG?

And bananas they keep saying are about to go extinct: https://www.wired.co...tm_medium=email

 

 

sthira, this morning I used green bananas and a bitterish unprocessed cacao. The green banana is not sweet at all and has purportedly resistant starch.

 

The result was amazing. Contrary to my expectancy, two astringent foods combined together made up such an exquisitely refreshing and primordial tasting combination that I remained in awe for a while.

This combination has some incredible vibrations, never experienced before. I must exercise all my self control not to overindulge in this recipe. I'm already an addict and right now I'm living for the next dose. 

 

re: raw chocolate, I bought some 100% raw chocolate this morning at the obscene price of 10 US$ per 100 grams. Good but probably not worth the expense, until some overwhelming health benefit is proved.



#39 mccoy

  • Guest
  • 162 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Italy

Posted 16 March 2017 - 11:52 PM

I read the article on bananas plantations. Well, let's indulge until they are around!



#40 aconita

  • Guest
  • 1,389 posts
  • 290
  • Location:Italy
  • NO

Posted 17 March 2017 - 01:10 AM

Likely getting more harm from the pesticides in bananas than from the cadmium in cacao....



#41 normalizing

  • Guest
  • 2,692 posts
  • -104
  • Location:Warm Greetings
  • NO

Posted 17 March 2017 - 05:50 AM

this article is related to the chocolate addicts on this thread; http://www.medicalne...cles/316357.php



#42 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,837 posts
  • 720
  • Location:Austria

Posted 17 March 2017 - 01:22 PM

23 grams (about 4-5 tablespoons) of average unprocessed cocoa powder= 58 mg Epicat + catechins + 3 gr fats

100 grams of 90% Lindt excellence = 58 mg Epicat + catechins + 55 gr fats

 
However, we might wish to avoid 52 grams of additional fat, mostly saturated, choosing as fat sources EVOO or nuts or avocados.
Then the cocoa powder is undoubtedly the best choice.

 

The advantage of chocolate it's more portable. Whenever in social interactions things are indulged which I shouldn't because of pre-diabetes, I've got some 90% to offer in my pocket (not that many would take it..). And the powder when at home.

 

I read the article on bananas plantations. Well, let's indulge until they are around!

 

The difficulties in mono-cultures of banana plantations only affect the main species sold in super-markets, with all their pesticides. There are countless other banana species unaffected. And hopefully this will bring the unhealthy mono-cultures down.



#43 mccoy

  • Guest
  • 162 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Italy

Posted 17 March 2017 - 02:47 PM

Likely getting more harm from the pesticides in bananas than from the cadmium in cacao....

 

Unfortunately it sounds true. I just clicked into one main portal on bananas are read this:

 

 

 

Bananas produced for the international trade are the among the most pesticide-intensive food crops. 

 

Apparently, the workers in the plantations are very exposed to such pollutants and the surrounding environmnent suffers too. Whereas the peeled banana has allegedly but limited amounts of pesticides. The new disease is called the Panama disease. I just didn't know that all commercial Cavendish bananas are clones. Incredible. I know there are so many other delicious varieties in the tropical countries, I wonder if they started to crop some of these yet.

 

From: http://www.ewg.org/e...2014/04/bananas

 

Peeled bananas are generally tainted with very few pesticide residues, according to USDA analyses, probably because those tested are peeled first. In 2012 USDA scientists found just four fungicides on bananas they analyzed, compared to 10 on plums (USDA 2012b).

However, industrial banana farming is pesticide-intensive because bananas are grown in massive monocultures, without crop rotation. These ill-advised methods render the plants vulnerable to insect pests and fungal diseases. Some experts estimate that banana cultivators use 35 pounds of pesticide per acre (van Wendel de Joode 2012, citing Wesseling 2001 and Ramírez 2009), dramatically more than for other produce crops.

To prevent pest damage, each bunch of bananas on a tree is enclosed in a large plastic bag into which pesticides are inserted. Few of these applications reach the edible tissue of the fruit, but they still pose a risk to workers and the surrounding environment.

One toxic insecticide widely used in banana production is chlorpyrifos, a potent neurotoxicant member of the organophosphate insecticide family. Chlorpyrifos can harm workers, communities and the environment but is not generally detected on peeled bananas. Children are especially sensitive to chlorpyrifos toxicity. The chemical can disrupt brain development and impair cognitive functions, measured by intelligence tests, when the child is exposed during pregnancy and early childhood (Rauh 2011). Costa Rican researchers found that children living near banana fields where pesticides were used had much higher concentrations of chlorpyrifos in their bodies than children living where only 12 percent of farmers reported using pesticides. (van Wendel del Joode 2012). Farm workers who apply pesticides directly or work in fields where they are used would almost certainly test positive for even higher levels of chemicals.

One recent study found that spectacled caimans, fish-eating crocodiles native to Costa Rica, had higher concentrations of pesticides in their blood if they lived near banana fields than caimans in wilderness (Grant 2013).



#44 mccoy

  • Guest
  • 162 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Italy

Posted 17 March 2017 - 02:49 PM

 

The advantage of chocolate it's more portable. Whenever in social interactions things are indulged which I shouldn't because of pre-diabetes, I've got some 90% to offer in my pocket (not that many would take it..). And the powder when at home.

 

 

True.

By the way, and I apologize for the OT question, because of pre-diabetes, are you following a low-carb regime, a low-fat one, or other?


  • Off-Topic x 1

#45 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,837 posts
  • 720
  • Location:Austria

Posted 17 March 2017 - 03:07 PM

 

The advantage of chocolate it's more portable. Whenever in social interactions things are indulged which I shouldn't because of pre-diabetes, I've got some 90% to offer in my pocket (not that many would take it..). And the powder when at home.

 

True.

By the way, and I apologize for the OT question, because of pre-diabetes, are you following a low-carb regime, a low-fat one, or other?

 

Armored with a blood-glucose meter I singled out each food that contributed to postprandial blood glucose spikes since many years. That caused me to become moderate low-carb (~50g), equal protein and high fat.

 

 


Edited by pamojja, 17 March 2017 - 03:08 PM.


#46 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 17 March 2017 - 05:07 PM

When discussing chocolate, I think any mention of pre-diabetes and blood sugar is entirely on topic (it's disappointing how the negative feedback buttons discourage freedom to let a conversation follow its natural flow).

From my local farmer's collective, I've been buying 100% organic cocoa powder that's evidently grown in Peru. I get the stuff that's reduced saturated fat (I'm not convinced by the "saturated-fat-is-healthy" crowd -- there's so much epidemiological tilted against saturated fat, but agree it's hard to know what's what in nutrition science.

What amazes me about 100% cocoa powder is the amount of dietary fiber -- it's 9/g fiber per 25/g -- which should blunt blood sugar rises, no?

I mix cocoa powder with blueberries, cherries, avocado -- it's delicious. I recently added a tablespoon of cocoa powder to a can of bland adzuki beans and some olive oil and it was surprisingly alright.
  • unsure x 1

#47 bosharpe

  • Guest
  • 239 posts
  • 10
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 18 March 2017 - 05:01 PM

If you mash a banana and avocado together, add Cacao powder and a pinch of sea salt it tastes really good.

 

I have a little bit of an addition to Cacao nibs also (Coffee & chocolate are my smokes & booze) but eating too many are probably bad.


  • Off-Topic x 1

#48 bosharpe

  • Guest
  • 239 posts
  • 10
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 18 March 2017 - 06:09 PM

Continued..

 

ODing on theobromine aside, Cacao contains Aflatoxin, which is harmful. Roasting cannot remove mycotoxins either (although it increases flavanol availability). Solution: I don't know.. I'd like to know!

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC3712181/

 

  • Informative x 1

#49 joelcairo

  • Guest
  • 586 posts
  • 156
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  • NO

Posted 18 March 2017 - 08:51 PM

It's detectable, but at first glance the concentration appears to be well under 1 nanogram per gram, less than 1 part in a billion. That's much less than peanuts or lots of other foods.


  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#50 normalizing

  • Guest
  • 2,692 posts
  • -104
  • Location:Warm Greetings
  • NO

Posted 18 March 2017 - 09:13 PM

as far as i know, there is very strict control on aflatoxin in peanuts, at least in US. again, getting cacao from third world countries with no control, there must be a lot of aflatoxin and heavy metals ending up in final products



#51 mccoy

  • Guest
  • 162 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Italy

Posted 18 March 2017 - 09:22 PM

 

....Armored with a blood-glucose meter I singled out each food that contributed to postprandial blood glucose spikes since many years. That caused me to become moderate low-carb (~50g), equal protein and high fat.

 

 

Well then dark chocolate fits in pretty nicely, carbs are not many especially if very high in cocoa and you checked their effects in your own system anyway...

 

On my side though, chocolate is a main contributor of saturated fats and, even though I seem to tolerate SAFAs pretty well, I decided to cut them, just in case. Since I'm a lover of the healthy fats of all kinds (including dairy fats), I can easily overindulge in them and then digestion is slowed down significantly.

 

So now it's mainly cocoa powder form me.



#52 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 18 March 2017 - 09:39 PM

I would balance the negatives of possible toxins with the incredible volume of epidemiological evidence that dark chocolate consumption correlates with good health. Dutch processing has been around since the early 1800s and so I would venture to guess that most of the positive studies on dark chocolate were conducted with dutch-processed cocoa.

 

That being said, I would much rather have the natural stuff. The bitterness does not bother me. I like the nibs.


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.

 

The FDA is too busy sending paramilitary goon squads after people selling raw natural food.


  • Good Point x 1
  • like x 1

#53 joelcairo

  • Guest
  • 586 posts
  • 156
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  • NO

Posted 19 March 2017 - 01:12 AM

as far as i know, there is very strict control on aflatoxin in peanuts, at least in US. again, getting cacao from third world countries with no control, there must be a lot of aflatoxin and heavy metals ending up in final products

 

 

Since little or no cocoa is grown in the US and almost all of it is grown in what might be termed Third World countries, I don't see any basis for this opinion. The testing cited above shows low levels of aflatoxin.


  • unsure x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#54 normalizing

  • Guest
  • 2,692 posts
  • -104
  • Location:Warm Greetings
  • NO

Posted 19 March 2017 - 03:43 AM

dunno about this, im not very trusting of african cocoa since i read several cases of peanuts poisoning with aflatoxin, from african countries that also produce cocoa. im very skeptical anyone cares to invest and bother the extra step to test and remove any aflatoxins left overs



#55 mccoy

  • Guest
  • 162 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Italy

Posted 19 March 2017 - 09:31 AM

The FDA action level for aflatoxins in nuts and generic foods for human consumption is 20 ppb = 20 ng/g.

 

Now, from table 5 of the cited Turcotte et al. article  the means in unprocessed cocoa remain in the region of 1/20 of that, even less in processed cocoa. The maxima never hit the same threshold, remaining below 1/4 of the action values.

 

Attached File  aflatoxins.JPG   45.11KB   1 downloads

 

Evidently, dutching the cacao destroys half the aflatoxins or more.

 

The Ochratoxins (OTA) is another bad beast. One very interesting review from Leszkowicz & MAnderville, 1999,  describes how significant leveles of OTA were found in various crops of Eastern Europe and especially in organic farms. They consulde like this:

 

The Virtually safe dose (VSD) of 1.8 ng/kg bw/day proposed by Kuiper-Goodman and Scott [202] that considers tumour formation by OTA as an endpoint would be a more prudent safety level to set for OTA intake.

 

 

 

The European Commission reccomendations go like this:

 

 

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has, on a request from the Commission, adopted an updated scientific opinion relating to ochratoxin A in food on 4 April 2006 (6), taking into account new scientific information and derived a tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of 120 ng/kg bw.

 

A 65 kg individual would be virtually safe with 117 ng OTA day-1, whereas according to the European Commission the same 65 kg individual would tolerate an aount of 1114 ng d-1, about then times as much.

 

If we want to ingest 40 g-d of unprocessed cocoa, equivalent estimate of the PAs in the Kuna Indians dose, then we woul ingest the following OTAs according to the Turcotte et al. sample:

  • 47 ng d-1 average value
  • 189 ng d-1 maximum value

So, we should be just unlucky to consume a contaminated stock and in that case we'll be just anyway well below the EC reccomendations.

 

Also, Aflatoxin B1 oral LD50 for monkeys is 2.2 mg kg-1 = 2.2 billions ng kg-1 and that means that lethal acute toxicity is caused by really  huge doses or extremely contaminated samples, almost equivalent to ingest small amounts of the pure toxin.

 


  • WellResearched x 2
  • like x 2

#56 aconita

  • Guest
  • 1,389 posts
  • 290
  • Location:Italy
  • NO

Posted 19 March 2017 - 03:50 PM

If it was so bad the Kuna would not exist anymore....instead scientists do research why they are so healthy.

 

Theory is cool but practice is what really matters.

 

Maybe one day we'll find that small doses of what we now consider toxic are actually good to our health, 

 

 



#57 normalizing

  • Guest
  • 2,692 posts
  • -104
  • Location:Warm Greetings
  • NO

Posted 19 March 2017 - 07:09 PM

excuse me to ask, i checked Kuna on wikipedia but it never mentions their consumption of cacao. now, they are located in colombia as far as i read? so they consume colombian cacao, do you think colombian cacao is what makes it special then??



#58 orion602

  • Guest
  • 83 posts
  • 57

Posted 19 March 2017 - 07:51 PM

Actualy it says mostly Panama, Colombia only several villages.I checked and you are right, cacao is not mentioned there, but kuna people are mentioned on cocoa bean wiki site in health benefits section: https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Cocoa_bean

check the bracket with refferences linking to studies click on them and and you are there ;) [68][69][70][71]

 

btw, I neeed to buy more bananas for the next week :-D  I can confirm now, that cacao powder with banana tastes really great


Edited by orion602, 19 March 2017 - 08:00 PM.


#59 normalizing

  • Guest
  • 2,692 posts
  • -104
  • Location:Warm Greetings
  • NO

Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:41 AM

so is there no direct connect to their exported cacao? i think those people live off some kind of trade, maybe they export their cacao and perhaps its of good quality?



#60 mccoy

  • Guest
  • 162 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Italy

Posted 20 March 2017 - 03:08 PM

so is there no direct connect to their exported cacao? i think those people live off some kind of trade, maybe they export their cacao and perhaps its of good quality?

 

From the material I read, it would appear that they eat the cacao they crop plus some imported Colombian cacao.

 

The suspicion that their cacao is exceptionally rich in epicats and phlavonoids is legitimate but has never been confirmed AFAIK, probably it's the sheer quantity they ingest.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users