Re: Re: Low Fat Low Sugar Cocoa

[Guest guest]

Well, here's the No Added Sugar version:

Calories 50 calories

Calories From Fat 0 calories

Total Fat 0 g 0 %

Saturated Fat 0 g 0 %

Sodium 180 g 8 %

Carbohydrates 10 g 3 %

Dietary Fiber < 1 g 3 %

Sugars 8 g**

Protein 2 g

Calcium 30 %

Iron 2 %

Percent Daily Values are based on a 2000 calorie diet

Ingredients: Dairy Product Solids, Nonfat Milk, Cocoa Processed with

Alkali, Calcium Carbonate, Cellulose Gum, Partially Hydrogenated

Canola Oil, Salt, Sodium Aluminosilicate, Artificial Flavor, Sodium

Caseinate (From Milk), Sucralose, Sodium Phosphate, Acesulfame

Potassium (Non-Nutritive Sweetener).

On 4/13/05, Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote:

>

>

> Hi :

>

> Not sure about the salt and maltodextrin. But here are the

> nutritiondata data for 100g of three varieties of hot chocolate:

>

> Brand - A --- B --- C -

> ------ --- - --- - ---

> Fat --- 3g -- 4g -- 4g

> Carb - 56g - 85g - 87g

> Prot - 29g -- 6g -- 5g

> Other- 12g -- 5g -- 4g

> ----- ---- ----- -----

> Total 100g -100g -100g

> ===== ==== ===== =====

>

> Can you tell which is the " no sugar added " version? (!) And these

> are not the most extreme cases of added sugar I have found in

> chocolate products. The highest carb:protein ratio there is 17.4:1.

> I have seen a ratio of 40:1 and my study was by no means exhaustive.

> The no-sugar-added version above is 1.93:1.

>

> If my algebra is correct, in order to get the carbs percentage up

> from 56% to 86% they would need to add 214.3g of carbs (sugar?) to

> the 100g of no-sugar-added cocoa they started with. (Check that

> number if you like). Amazing!

>

> Rodney.

>

>

> > >

> > >

> > > Hi folks:

> > >

> > > Today I checked to find the low fat cocoa that appears in the USDA

> > > database, and appears to be quite healthy.

> > >

> > > Its fat calories are 5.5% of total, and the carbohydrate content

> is

> > > two times the protein content. The latter is a measure indicating

> > > the amount of added sugar. The 2:1 ratio of this product is

> about as

> > > low as one can find. With zero added sugar cocoa does contain

> carbs,

> > > of course. I have seen one with a 40:1 carb:protein ratio!!!

> > >

> > > The product name is: " Carnation Hot Chocolate, Light Hot

> Chocolate " .

> > > For certain it is available in Walmart here. The UPC # is:

> > > 6500036852.

> > >

> > > fwiw

> > >

> > > Rodney.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

I buy Hershey's (plain) unsweetened Cocoa :

Calories: 20

total fat: .5g

Sodium: 0

total carb: 3g

dietary fiber: 1g

protein: 1g

iron: 4%

ingredients: cocoa

on 4/13/2005 8:06 AM, Dowling at christopher.a.dowling@...

wrote:

> Well, here's the No Added Sugar version:

>

>

>

> Calories 50 calories

>

>

> Calories From Fat 0 calories

>

>

> Total Fat 0 g 0 %

>

>

> Saturated Fat 0 g 0 %

>

>

> Sodium 180 g 8 %

>

>

> Carbohydrates 10 g 3 %

>

>

> Dietary Fiber < 1 g 3 %

>

>

> Sugars 8 g**

>

>

> Protein 2 g

>

>

> Calcium 30 %

>

>

> Iron 2 %

>

> Percent Daily Values are based on a 2000 calorie diet

>

>

> Ingredients: Dairy Product Solids, Nonfat Milk, Cocoa Processed with

> Alkali, Calcium Carbonate, Cellulose Gum, Partially Hydrogenated

> Canola Oil, Salt, Sodium Aluminosilicate, Artificial Flavor, Sodium

> Caseinate (From Milk), Sucralose, Sodium Phosphate, Acesulfame

> Potassium (Non-Nutritive Sweetener).

>

> On 4/13/05, Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote:

>>

>>

>> Hi :

>>

>> Not sure about the salt and maltodextrin. But here are the

>> nutritiondata data for 100g of three varieties of hot chocolate:

>>

>> Brand - A --- B --- C -

>> ------ --- - --- - ---

>> Fat --- 3g -- 4g -- 4g

>> Carb - 56g - 85g - 87g

>> Prot - 29g -- 6g -- 5g

>> Other- 12g -- 5g -- 4g

>> ----- ---- ----- -----

>> Total 100g -100g -100g

>> ===== ==== ===== =====

>>

>> Can you tell which is the " no sugar added " version? (!) And these

>> are not the most extreme cases of added sugar I have found in

>> chocolate products. The highest carb:protein ratio there is 17.4:1.

>> I have seen a ratio of 40:1 and my study was by no means exhaustive.

>> The no-sugar-added version above is 1.93:1.

>>

>> If my algebra is correct, in order to get the carbs percentage up

>> from 56% to 86% they would need to add 214.3g of carbs (sugar?) to

>> the 100g of no-sugar-added cocoa they started with. (Check that

>> number if you like). Amazing!

>>

>> Rodney.

>>

>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Hi folks:

>>>>

>>>> Today I checked to find the low fat cocoa that appears in the USDA

>>>> database, and appears to be quite healthy.

>>>>

>>>> Its fat calories are 5.5% of total, and the carbohydrate content

>> is

>>>> two times the protein content. The latter is a measure indicating

>>>> the amount of added sugar. The 2:1 ratio of this product is

>> about as

>>>> low as one can find. With zero added sugar cocoa does contain

>> carbs,

>>>> of course. I have seen one with a 40:1 carb:protein ratio!!!

>>>>

>>>> The product name is: " Carnation Hot Chocolate, Light Hot

>> Chocolate " .

>>>> For certain it is available in Walmart here. The UPC # is:

>>>> 6500036852.

>>>>

>>>> fwiw

>>>>

>>>> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

According to the reports I've read, the flavinoid content of regular

(non- " dutched " ) cocoa is superior to that of alkaline treated/dutched

cocoas, such as those used in most prepared cocoa products, including

the Carnation products.

On 4/13/05, Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...> wrote:

>

> I buy Hershey's (plain) unsweetened Cocoa :

>

> Calories: 20

> total fat: .5g

> Sodium: 0

> total carb: 3g

> dietary fiber: 1g

> protein: 1g

> iron: 4%

>

> ingredients: cocoa

>

> on 4/13/2005 8:06 AM, Dowling at christopher.a.dowling@...

> wrote:

>

> > Well, here's the No Added Sugar version:

> >

> >

> >

> > Calories 50 calories

> >

> >

> > Calories From Fat 0 calories

> >

> >

> > Total Fat 0 g 0 %

> >

> >

> > Saturated Fat 0 g 0 %

> >

> >

> > Sodium 180 g 8 %

> >

> >

> > Carbohydrates 10 g 3 %

> >

> >

> > Dietary Fiber < 1 g 3 %

> >

> >

> > Sugars 8 g**

> >

> >

> > Protein 2 g

> >

> >

> > Calcium 30 %

> >

> >

> > Iron 2 %

> >

> > Percent Daily Values are based on a 2000 calorie diet

> >

> >

> > Ingredients: Dairy Product Solids, Nonfat Milk, Cocoa Processed with

> > Alkali, Calcium Carbonate, Cellulose Gum, Partially Hydrogenated

> > Canola Oil, Salt, Sodium Aluminosilicate, Artificial Flavor, Sodium

> > Caseinate (From Milk), Sucralose, Sodium Phosphate, Acesulfame

> > Potassium (Non-Nutritive Sweetener).

> >

> > On 4/13/05, Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote:

> >>

> >>

> >> Hi :

> >>

> >> Not sure about the salt and maltodextrin. But here are the

> >> nutritiondata data for 100g of three varieties of hot chocolate:

> >>

> >> Brand - A --- B --- C -

> >> ------ --- - --- - ---

> >> Fat --- 3g -- 4g -- 4g

> >> Carb - 56g - 85g - 87g

> >> Prot - 29g -- 6g -- 5g

> >> Other- 12g -- 5g -- 4g

> >> ----- ---- ----- -----

> >> Total 100g -100g -100g

> >> ===== ==== ===== =====

> >>

> >> Can you tell which is the " no sugar added " version? (!) And these

> >> are not the most extreme cases of added sugar I have found in

> >> chocolate products. The highest carb:protein ratio there is 17.4:1.

> >> I have seen a ratio of 40:1 and my study was by no means exhaustive.

> >> The no-sugar-added version above is 1.93:1.

> >>

> >> If my algebra is correct, in order to get the carbs percentage up

> >> from 56% to 86% they would need to add 214.3g of carbs (sugar?) to

> >> the 100g of no-sugar-added cocoa they started with. (Check that

> >> number if you like). Amazing!

> >>

> >> Rodney.

> >>

> >>

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>> Hi folks:

> >>>>

> >>>> Today I checked to find the low fat cocoa that appears in the USDA

> >>>> database, and appears to be quite healthy.

> >>>>

> >>>> Its fat calories are 5.5% of total, and the carbohydrate content

> >> is

> >>>> two times the protein content. The latter is a measure indicating

> >>>> the amount of added sugar. The 2:1 ratio of this product is

> >> about as

> >>>> low as one can find. With zero added sugar cocoa does contain

> >> carbs,

> >>>> of course. I have seen one with a 40:1 carb:protein ratio!!!

> >>>>

> >>>> The product name is: " Carnation Hot Chocolate, Light Hot

> >> Chocolate " .

> >>>> For certain it is available in Walmart here. The UPC # is:

> >>>> 6500036852.

> >>>>

> >>>> fwiw

> >>>>

> >>>> Rodney.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

That's also a Carnation brand product.

On 4/13/05, Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote:

>

>

> Hi :

>

> So that one has a 5:1 carb/protein ratio, and zero fat. Do we know

> which brand it is? The Carnation product has a 1.93:1 carbs/protein

> ratio and 5.5% of calories from fat. I haven't been able to find its

> ingredient list.

>

> Rodney.

>

>

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Hi folks:

> > > > >

> > > > > Today I checked to find the low fat cocoa that appears in the

> USDA

> > > > > database, and appears to be quite healthy.

> > > > >

> > > > > Its fat calories are 5.5% of total, and the carbohydrate

> content

> > > is

> > > > > two times the protein content. The latter is a measure

> indicating

> > > > > the amount of added sugar. The 2:1 ratio of this product is

> > > about as

> > > > > low as one can find. With zero added sugar cocoa does contain

> > > carbs,

> > > > > of course. I have seen one with a 40:1 carb:protein ratio!!!

> > > > >

> > > > > The product name is: " Carnation Hot Chocolate, Light Hot

> > > Chocolate " .

> > > > > For certain it is available in Walmart here. The UPC # is:

> > > > > 6500036852.

> > > > >

> > > > > fwiw

> > > > >

> > > > > Rodney.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

[Guest guest]

Agreed. so why are you using " alkaloid " cocoa?

on 4/13/2005 8:52 AM, Dowling at christopher.a.dowling@...

wrote:

> According to the reports I've read, the flavinoid content of regular

> (non- " dutched " ) cocoa is superior to that of alkaline treated/dutched

> cocoas, such as those used in most prepared cocoa products, including

> the Carnation products.

[Guest guest]

Serving size: 1 TBS (5 g). Calories from fat: 5

on 4/13/2005 9:00 AM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

>

> Hi Francesca:

>

> So it looks like that one has 22% of the calories from fat and a 3:1

> carb/protein ratio. But it would be nice if they had given the data

> to a couple of decimal places when the sample size - five or six

> grams? - is so small.

>

> Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

The only brand I've ever found that was non-dutch processed was Chatfield's

that I bought from Whole Foods. There was only one ingredient: unsweetened

cocoa. If anyone knows of others with similar claim, please post.

Tony pointed out that the total calories for the Chatfield's brand are understated.

In the end, I'm not sure that it matters for me since I only use 1 Tbs.

4 times per week. I don't have a problem with small numbers of fat (e.g.

1g) from a plant source.

Rodney wrote:

So what we need is an inexpensive, non-alkali-processed, near zero fat, low carb:protein ratio product! Any suggestions?

I can tolerate 5.5% fat calories, but I don't know about the alkali status of these products.

Rodney.

Agreed. so why are you using "alkaloid" cocoa?

on 4/13/2005 8:52 AM, Dowling at

christopher.a.dowling@g...

wrote:

According to the reports I've read, the flavinoid content of

regular

(non-"dutched") cocoa is superior to that of alkaline

treated/dutched

cocoas, such as those used in most prepared cocoa products,

including

the Carnation products.

[Guest guest]

As stated earlier, Nestles unsweetened cocoa has only one ingredient: cocoa.

Note this is not the Dutch Alkali cocoa which is another product that Nestle

makes.

on 4/13/2005 8:50 PM, apricot85 at apricot85@... wrote:

> The only brand I've ever found that was non-dutch processed was Chatfield's

> that I bought from Whole Foods. There was only one ingredient: unsweetened

> cocoa. If anyone knows of others with similar claim, please post.

>

> Tony pointed out that the total calories for the Chatfield's brand are

> understated. In the end, I'm not sure that it matters for me since I only use

> 1 Tbs. 4 times per week. I don't have a problem with small numbers of fat

> (e.g. 1g) from a plant source.

[Guest guest]

Ye olde Wondercocoa, again:

http://www.shopbydiet.com/info.php?id=1909 & category= & diet_info=0

On 4/13/05, citpeks <citpeks@...> wrote:

>

>

> ,

>

> I don't think that you got the correct nutrition information. As far

> as I know, vegetable products DO NOT have cholesterol.

>

> http://www.health-alliance.com/nn/hheguide/intro_4.html

> " Dietary Cholesterol is present in ALL foods of animal origin such as

> meat, fish, poultry, egg yolks and high fat dairy products. There is

> no cholesterol in vegetables, fruits, nuts or grains. "

>

> Tony

>

> ====

> From: " cronzen " <truepatriot@...>

> Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:47 pm

> Subject: Re: Low Fat Low Sugar Cocoa

>

> FYI -

>

> For comparison, a bag of raw cacao beans I recently purchased

> had the following nutrition information (upon request):

>

> per 28 g: 160 calories, 11 g total fat, 4 g sat fat,

> 25 mg cholesterol, 30 mg sodium, 14 g total carbs,

> 9 g fiber, 3 g sugars, 1 g protein, 42 mg vit C

>

> -

>

>

>