The Benefits of Chocolate - Amazing If Yer Think About It

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Most of us have probably seen the new data on the benefits of chocolate. Eating

just 7.5g a day has been found to almost halve the risk of stroke, for example.

But how much of that 7.5g is the active ingredient that is responsible for the

benefit? Here is a report on the paper making the benefit claims:

http://www.theheart.org/article/1064261.do

This appears to be the PubMed reference:

" Chocolate consumption in relation to blood pressure and risk of cardiovascular

disease in German adults. "

Buijsse B, Weikert C, Drogan D, Bergmann M, Boeing H.

Eur Heart J. 2010 Mar 30.

PMID: 20354055

And a hint about how much of the product may be the active ingredient can be

seen here, at the Hershey website. (Yes, bear in mind that Hershey is not a

disinterested party, but it is likely their data for ORAC scores and polyphenol

values are accurate since the source of the data is referenced):

http://www.hersheys.com/nutrition-professionals/cocoa-powder/composition/antioxi\

dants.aspx

http://snipurl.com/vb6nf

So, rather like tea which is a 'food' containing negligible quantities of

anything except water, cocoa also appears to contain very small amounts of - but

enough - highly beneficial substances to have large demonstrable health

benefits.

But bear in mind also that these benefits come despite what look like large

amounts of substances that either have no benefit or are almost certainly

actively harmful: According to Nutritiondata.com, 100g of even *dark* chocolate

with 70% to 85% cacao, contain 24 grams sugar, and 42.7g of fats - so 64% of the

calories come from fat. And of those fats only 3% are the beneficial

polyunsaturated kind.

It will be nice when 'they' have eventually determined - for sure - what these

active ingredients are and we can supplement them in appropriate quantities

without the accompanying sugar and fat. Given the extraordinarily rapid rate of

advance in nutrition science, I suspect this will be known soon enough to

benefit people extending their lifespans via CR.

Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Rodney,

If you want to avoid the sugar, you can try eating unsweetened baking chocolate

(NDB No: 19078). I have tried it, and it tastes really nasty. I think that the

sugar and the milk that are traditionally used to modify the perception of the

bitter chocolate taste improve the sensory experience, although at the expense

of adding calories.

You can also try Cacao Nibs which are sold through Amazon.com

Tony

>

> Hi folks:

>

> Most of us have probably seen the new data on the benefits of chocolate.

Eating just 7.5g a day has been found to almost halve the risk of stroke, for

example. But how much of that 7.5g is the active ingredient that is responsible

for the benefit? Here is a report on the paper making the benefit claims:

>

> http://www.theheart.org/article/1064261.do

>

> This appears to be the PubMed reference:

>

> " Chocolate consumption in relation to blood pressure and risk of

cardiovascular disease in German adults. "

>

> Buijsse B, Weikert C, Drogan D, Bergmann M, Boeing H.

>

> Eur Heart J. 2010 Mar 30.

>

> PMID: 20354055

>

> And a hint about how much of the product may be the active ingredient can be

seen here, at the Hershey website. (Yes, bear in mind that Hershey is not a

disinterested party, but it is likely their data for ORAC scores and polyphenol

values are accurate since the source of the data is referenced):

>

>

http://www.hersheys.com/nutrition-professionals/cocoa-powder/composition/antioxi\

dants.aspx

>

> http://snipurl.com/vb6nf

>

> So, rather like tea which is a 'food' containing negligible quantities of

anything except water, cocoa also appears to contain very small amounts of - but

enough - highly beneficial substances to have large demonstrable health

benefits.

>

> But bear in mind also that these benefits come despite what look like large

amounts of substances that either have no benefit or are almost certainly

actively harmful: According to Nutritiondata.com, 100g of even *dark* chocolate

with 70% to 85% cacao, contain 24 grams sugar, and 42.7g of fats - so 64% of the

calories come from fat. And of those fats only 3% are the beneficial

polyunsaturated kind.

>

> It will be nice when 'they' have eventually determined - for sure - what these

active ingredients are and we can supplement them in appropriate quantities

without the accompanying sugar and fat. Given the extraordinarily rapid rate of

advance in nutrition science, I suspect this will be known soon enough to

benefit people extending their lifespans via CR.

>

> Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

I buy the grain sweetened chocolate chips sold by Whole Foods (made by Sunspire). Ingredients: whole grain malted barley and corn, unsweetened chocolate, cocoa butter, soy lecithin, vanilla. 2 TBS= 70 calories.

Or I mix pure cocoa with a few drops of hot water and add a few drops of stevia to sweeten.

On 4/8/10 10:09 AM, " citpeks " <citpeks@...> wrote:

Rodney,

If you want to avoid the sugar, you can try eating unsweetened baking chocolate (NDB No: 19078). I have tried it, and it tastes really nasty. I think that the sugar and the milk that are traditionally used to modify the perception of the bitter chocolate taste improve the sensory experience, although at the expense of adding calories.

You can also try Cacao Nibs which are sold through Amazon.com

Tony

>

> Hi folks:

>

> Most of us have probably seen the new data on the benefits of chocolate. Eating just 7.5g a day has been found to almost halve the risk of stroke, for example. But how much of that 7.5g is the active ingredient that is responsible for the benefit? Here is a report on the paper making the benefit claims:

>

> http://www.theheart.org/article/1064261.do

>

> This appears to be the PubMed reference:

>

> " Chocolate consumption in relation to blood pressure and risk of cardiovascular disease in German adults. "

>

> Buijsse B, Weikert C, Drogan D, Bergmann M, Boeing H.

>

> Eur Heart J. 2010 Mar 30.

>

> PMID: 20354055

>

> And a hint about how much of the product may be the active ingredient can be seen here, at the Hershey website. (Yes, bear in mind that Hershey is not a disinterested party, but it is likely their data for ORAC scores and polyphenol values are accurate since the source of the data is referenced):

>

> http://www.hersheys.com/nutrition-professionals/cocoa-powder/composition/antioxidants.aspx

>

> http://snipurl.com/vb6nf

>

> So, rather like tea which is a 'food' containing negligible quantities of anything except water, cocoa also appears to contain very small amounts of - but enough - highly beneficial substances to have large demonstrable health benefits.

>

> But bear in mind also that these benefits come despite what look like large amounts of substances that either have no benefit or are almost certainly actively harmful: According to Nutritiondata.com, 100g of even *dark* chocolate with 70% to 85% cacao, contain 24 grams sugar, and 42.7g of fats - so 64% of the calories come from fat. And of those fats only 3% are the beneficial polyunsaturated kind.

>

> It will be nice when 'they' have eventually determined - for sure - what these active ingredients are and we can supplement them in appropriate quantities without the accompanying sugar and fat. Given the extraordinarily rapid rate of advance in nutrition science, I suspect this will be known soon enough to benefit people extending their lifespans via CR.

>

> Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

Since tea is mentioned also, one of the common ingredients in them both, and

coffee I also believe, is theophylline, which effects smooth muscle activity in

the circulatory system, and oxygen uptake.

Don

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony:

Or, in order to obtain the health benefits, another possibility might be to find

unsweetened, de-fatted cocoa and consume it, not as chocolate, but as an

additive to recipes where its taste characteristics can be disguised?

Rodney.

> >

> > Hi folks:

> >

> > Most of us have probably seen the new data on the benefits of chocolate.

Eating just 7.5g a day has been found to almost halve the risk of stroke, for

example. But how much of that 7.5g is the active ingredient that is responsible

for the benefit? Here is a report on the paper making the benefit claims:

> >

> > http://www.theheart.org/article/1064261.do

> >

> > This appears to be the PubMed reference:

> >

> > " Chocolate consumption in relation to blood pressure and risk of

cardiovascular disease in German adults. "

> >

> > Buijsse B, Weikert C, Drogan D, Bergmann M, Boeing H.

> >

> > Eur Heart J. 2010 Mar 30.

> >

> > PMID: 20354055

> >

> > And a hint about how much of the product may be the active ingredient can be

seen here, at the Hershey website. (Yes, bear in mind that Hershey is not a

disinterested party, but it is likely their data for ORAC scores and polyphenol

values are accurate since the source of the data is referenced):

> >

> >

http://www.hersheys.com/nutrition-professionals/cocoa-powder/composition/antioxi\

dants.aspx

> >

> > http://snipurl.com/vb6nf

> >

> > So, rather like tea which is a 'food' containing negligible quantities of

anything except water, cocoa also appears to contain very small amounts of - but

enough - highly beneficial substances to have large demonstrable health

benefits.

> >

> > But bear in mind also that these benefits come despite what look like large

amounts of substances that either have no benefit or are almost certainly

actively harmful: According to Nutritiondata.com, 100g of even *dark* chocolate

with 70% to 85% cacao, contain 24 grams sugar, and 42.7g of fats - so 64% of the

calories come from fat. And of those fats only 3% are the beneficial

polyunsaturated kind.

> >

> > It will be nice when 'they' have eventually determined - for sure - what

these active ingredients are and we can supplement them in appropriate

quantities without the accompanying sugar and fat. Given the extraordinarily

rapid rate of advance in nutrition science, I suspect this will be known soon

enough to benefit people extending their lifespans via CR.

> >

> > Rodney.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Yes, for example a really delicious raw brownie can be made in a food processor

using raw cacao, dates, and walnuts.

> > >

> > > Hi folks:

> > >

> > > Most of us have probably seen the new data on the benefits of chocolate.

Eating just 7.5g a day has been found to almost halve the risk of stroke, for

example. But how much of that 7.5g is the active ingredient that is responsible

for the benefit? Here is a report on the paper making the benefit claims:

> > >

> > > http://www.theheart.org/article/1064261.do

> > >

> > > This appears to be the PubMed reference:

> > >

> > > " Chocolate consumption in relation to blood pressure and risk of

cardiovascular disease in German adults. "

> > >

> > > Buijsse B, Weikert C, Drogan D, Bergmann M, Boeing H.

> > >

> > > Eur Heart J. 2010 Mar 30.

> > >

> > > PMID: 20354055

> > >

> > > And a hint about how much of the product may be the active ingredient can

be seen here, at the Hershey website. (Yes, bear in mind that Hershey is not a

disinterested party, but it is likely their data for ORAC scores and polyphenol

values are accurate since the source of the data is referenced):

> > >

> > >

http://www.hersheys.com/nutrition-professionals/cocoa-powder/composition/antioxi\

dants.aspx

> > >

> > > http://snipurl.com/vb6nf

> > >

> > > So, rather like tea which is a 'food' containing negligible quantities of

anything except water, cocoa also appears to contain very small amounts of - but

enough - highly beneficial substances to have large demonstrable health

benefits.

> > >

> > > But bear in mind also that these benefits come despite what look like

large amounts of substances that either have no benefit or are almost certainly

actively harmful: According to Nutritiondata.com, 100g of even *dark* chocolate

with 70% to 85% cacao, contain 24 grams sugar, and 42.7g of fats - so 64% of the

calories come from fat. And of those fats only 3% are the beneficial

polyunsaturated kind.

> > >

> > > It will be nice when 'they' have eventually determined - for sure - what

these active ingredients are and we can supplement them in appropriate

quantities without the accompanying sugar and fat. Given the extraordinarily

rapid rate of advance in nutrition science, I suspect this will be known soon

enough to benefit people extending their lifespans via CR.

> > >

> > > Rodney.

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi :

YUM. Can we have the recipe ......... PLEASE!

Rodney.

> > >

> > > Rodney,

> > >

> > > If you want to avoid the sugar, you can try eating unsweetened baking

chocolate (NDB No: 19078). I have tried it, and it tastes really nasty. I

think that the sugar and the milk that are traditionally used to modify the

perception of the bitter chocolate taste improve the sensory experience,

although at the expense of adding calories.

> > >

> > > You can also try Cacao Nibs which are sold through Amazon.com

> > >

> > > Tony

> > >

> > > --- In , " perspect1111 " <perspect1111@>

wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Hi folks:

> > > >

> > > > Most of us have probably seen the new data on the benefits of chocolate.

Eating just 7.5g a day has been found to almost halve the risk of stroke, for

example. But how much of that 7.5g is the active ingredient that is responsible

for the benefit? Here is a report on the paper making the benefit claims:

> > > >

> > > > http://www.theheart.org/article/1064261.do

> > > >

> > > > This appears to be the PubMed reference:

> > > >

> > > > " Chocolate consumption in relation to blood pressure and risk of

cardiovascular disease in German adults. "

> > > >

> > > > Buijsse B, Weikert C, Drogan D, Bergmann M, Boeing H.

> > > >

> > > > Eur Heart J. 2010 Mar 30.

> > > >

> > > > PMID: 20354055

> > > >

> > > > And a hint about how much of the product may be the active ingredient

can be seen here, at the Hershey website. (Yes, bear in mind that Hershey is

not a disinterested party, but it is likely their data for ORAC scores and

polyphenol values are accurate since the source of the data is referenced):

> > > >

> > > >

http://www.hersheys.com/nutrition-professionals/cocoa-powder/composition/antioxi\

dants.aspx

> > > >

> > > > http://snipurl.com/vb6nf

> > > >

> > > > So, rather like tea which is a 'food' containing negligible quantities

of anything except water, cocoa also appears to contain very small amounts of -

but enough - highly beneficial substances to have large demonstrable health

benefits.

> > > >

> > > > But bear in mind also that these benefits come despite what look like

large amounts of substances that either have no benefit or are almost certainly

actively harmful: According to Nutritiondata.com, 100g of even *dark* chocolate

with 70% to 85% cacao, contain 24 grams sugar, and 42.7g of fats - so 64% of the

calories come from fat. And of those fats only 3% are the beneficial

polyunsaturated kind.

> > > >

> > > > It will be nice when 'they' have eventually determined - for sure - what

these active ingredients are and we can supplement them in appropriate

quantities without the accompanying sugar and fat. Given the extraordinarily

rapid rate of advance in nutrition science, I suspect this will be known soon

enough to benefit people extending their lifespans via CR.

> > > >

> > > > Rodney.

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Why not Raw chocolate (as in nib form)? It will help you avoid sugar but also

provide fibre/

the unsweetened chocolate you mention is processed. And " raw " chocolate bars may

be roasted but are also processed and often have agave in them.

Cheers!

alex metral

[Guest guest]

Hi :

You ask " why not ..... ? "

Well according to the following website, a 28g serving of cacao nibs contains

108 fat calories out of a total 130 calories. That is 83% fat:

http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-navitas-naturals-organic-raw-cacao-i13216\

6

I wouldn't mind that so much if it weren't for the fact that even in dark

chocolate the fat content is only 3% polyunsaturated - the least harmful,

perhaps actively beneficial, type:

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/sweets/10638/2

I am personally not afraid of things being 'processed'. It depends on the type

of processing and what gets added/subtracted. I chop things up and cook them

myself and do not worry about it, for example. But that fat quantity and

profile suggests to me it is likely to be preferable to use a de-fatted version.

However, for those adhering to an Atkins diet, raw chocolate - with its huge

artery-clogging fat content and no added sugar - must be considered a 'wonder

food'.

Of course this further emphasizes how powerful the beneficial component of cacao

must be, if it can halve the incidence of stroke with that kind of fat profile.

Just my take, based on what the data in the sources noted above seem to show.

Rodney.

>

> Why not Raw chocolate (as in nib form)? It will help you avoid sugar but also

provide fibre/

> the unsweetened chocolate you mention is processed. And " raw " chocolate bars

may be roasted but are also processed and often have agave in them.

> Cheers!

> alex metral

>

[Guest guest]

I hate to be the devil's advocate, but what if you need to eat the whole food to

obtain the benefit, due to some unknown interaction between the individual

substances in chocolate or cacao?

IMO, reductionist science does not always rule, and we would need to see a study

comparing the consumption of sweetened chocolate, to pure cacao, to de-fatted

cacao, to pure polyphenols, etc...

Who knows? Perhaps extracting what we perceive as beneficial from the whole food

could actually transform that beneficial substance or render it useless for

improving our health in any meaningful way.

Regards,

>

> Hi Tony:

>

> Or, in order to obtain the health benefits, another possibility might be to

find unsweetened, de-fatted cocoa and consume it, not as chocolate, but as an

additive to recipes where its taste characteristics can be disguised?

>

> Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

Doesn't drinking red wine have the same (or similar) benefit as dark chocolate?

From: citpeks <citpeks@...>Subject: [ ] Re: The Benefits of Chocolate - Amazing If Yer Think About It Date: Thursday, April 8, 2010, 10:09 AM

Rodney,If you want to avoid the sugar, you can try eating unsweetened baking chocolate (NDB No: 19078). I have tried it, and it tastes really nasty. I think that the sugar and the milk that are traditionally used to modify the perception of the bitter chocolate taste improve the sensory experience, although at the expense of adding calories.You can also try Cacao Nibs which are sold through Amazon.comTony>> Hi folks:> > Most of us have probably seen the new data on the benefits of chocolate. Eating just 7.5g a day has been found to almost halve the risk of stroke, for example. But how much of that 7.5g is the active ingredient that is

responsible for the benefit? Here is a report on the paper making the benefit claims:> > http://www.theheart .org/article/ 1064261.do> > This appears to be the PubMed reference: > > "Chocolate consumption in relation to blood pressure and risk of cardiovascular disease in German adults."> > Buijsse B, Weikert C, Drogan D, Bergmann M, Boeing H.> > Eur Heart J. 2010 Mar 30.> > PMID: 20354055> > And a hint about how much of the product may be the active ingredient can be seen here, at the Hershey website. (Yes, bear in mind that Hershey is not a disinterested party, but it is likely their data for ORAC scores and polyphenol values are accurate since the source of the data is referenced):> > http://www.hersheys .com/nutrition- professionals/ cocoa-powder/ composition/ antioxidants. aspx> > http://snipurl. com/vb6nf> > So, rather like tea which is a 'food' containing negligible quantities of anything except water, cocoa also appears to contain very small amounts of - but enough - highly beneficial substances to have large demonstrable health benefits.> > But bear in mind also that these benefits come despite what look like large amounts of substances that either have no benefit or are almost certainly actively harmful: According to Nutritiondata. com, 100g of even *dark* chocolate with 70% to 85% cacao, contain 24 grams sugar, and 42.7g of fats - so 64% of the calories come from fat. And of those fats only 3%

are the beneficial polyunsaturated kind.> > It will be nice when 'they' have eventually determined - for sure - what these active ingredients are and we can supplement them in appropriate quantities without the accompanying sugar and fat. Given the extraordinarily rapid rate of advance in nutrition science, I suspect this will be known soon enough to benefit people extending their lifespans via CR.> > Rodney.>

[Guest guest]

Here you go, Rodney. I use raw cacao powder instead of processed cocoa. You can

also substitute pecans, or probably any other nut you like. You can add more

dates if the mixture is too crumbly. You can also add extracts.

1 cup raw walnuts

1 cup dates

1/4 cup cocoa powder

Processed in a food processor until everything comes together but there are

still flecks of nuts and pressed into a pan then cut. Or you can roll them into

balls.

> > > >

> > > > Rodney,

> > > >

> > > > If you want to avoid the sugar, you can try eating unsweetened baking

chocolate (NDB No: 19078). I have tried it, and it tastes really nasty. I

think that the sugar and the milk that are traditionally used to modify the

perception of the bitter chocolate taste improve the sensory experience,

although at the expense of adding calories.

> > > >

> > > > You can also try Cacao Nibs which are sold through Amazon.com

> > > >

> > > > Tony

> > > >

> > > > --- In , " perspect1111 " <perspect1111@>

wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Hi folks:

> > > > >

> > > > > Most of us have probably seen the new data on the benefits of

chocolate. Eating just 7.5g a day has been found to almost halve the risk of

stroke, for example. But how much of that 7.5g is the active ingredient that is

responsible for the benefit? Here is a report on the paper making the benefit

claims:

> > > > >

> > > > > http://www.theheart.org/article/1064261.do

> > > > >

> > > > > This appears to be the PubMed reference:

> > > > >

> > > > > " Chocolate consumption in relation to blood pressure and risk of

cardiovascular disease in German adults. "

> > > > >

> > > > > Buijsse B, Weikert C, Drogan D, Bergmann M, Boeing H.

> > > > >

> > > > > Eur Heart J. 2010 Mar 30.

> > > > >

> > > > > PMID: 20354055

> > > > >

> > > > > And a hint about how much of the product may be the active ingredient

can be seen here, at the Hershey website. (Yes, bear in mind that Hershey is

not a disinterested party, but it is likely their data for ORAC scores and

polyphenol values are accurate since the source of the data is referenced):

> > > > >

> > > > >

http://www.hersheys.com/nutrition-professionals/cocoa-powder/composition/antioxi\

dants.aspx

> > > > >

> > > > > http://snipurl.com/vb6nf

> > > > >

> > > > > So, rather like tea which is a 'food' containing negligible quantities

of anything except water, cocoa also appears to contain very small amounts of -

but enough - highly beneficial substances to have large demonstrable health

benefits.

> > > > >

> > > > > But bear in mind also that these benefits come despite what look like

large amounts of substances that either have no benefit or are almost certainly

actively harmful: According to Nutritiondata.com, 100g of even *dark* chocolate

with 70% to 85% cacao, contain 24 grams sugar, and 42.7g of fats - so 64% of the

calories come from fat. And of those fats only 3% are the beneficial

polyunsaturated kind.

> > > > >

> > > > > It will be nice when 'they' have eventually determined - for sure -

what these active ingredients are and we can supplement them in appropriate

quantities without the accompanying sugar and fat. Given the extraordinarily

rapid rate of advance in nutrition science, I suspect this will be known soon

enough to benefit people extending their lifespans via CR.

> > > > >

> > > > > Rodney.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>