Support for chocolate as a nourishing tradition

[Guest guest]

This does not, of course, support using Nestle Quick in your raw milk, but

here you go:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-02/apc-prs021102.php

[Guest guest]

sorry. as nourishing as chocolate may be, it was neither a tradition

nor a " food of the people " ; dogs fattened on corn beat chocolate --as

well as cocoa-- every time.

allene, trying to make her masters in luso-brazilian and hispanic

literatures good for something

[Guest guest]

e wrote:

> sorry. as nourishing as chocolate may be, it was neither

> a tradition nor a " food of the people " ; dogs fattened on

> corn beat chocolate --as well as cocoa-- every time.

I don't understand your point. Chocolate is severely toxic to

canines...obviously they'd do better on corn. Rats would do better on white

sugar than on warfarin. I understand that it wasn't a food of the

people...at least in certain cultures...food of the warriors and royalty

would be more correct, but what makes it non-traditional? It certainly

predates columbus as a food/beverage. I'm not sure how much more

traditional you can get without moving from traditional to paleo...

[Guest guest]

dog fattened on corn beats chocolate as more traditional: a wider

range of prehispanic people(s) in mesoamerica ate dogs fattened on

corn, and with more frequency, than they drank a cacao beverage. and

i have no knowledge of chocolate's predating columbus, unless

by " chocolate " you mean a cacao beverage.

i think that distinctions should be made between cocoa and

chocolate...and hot chocolate...and unprocessed cacao, for that

matter.

according to _NT_, ancient egyptian nobility refined their grain;

does that make refined flour traditional?

my real point is that i am trying to come up w/a working definition

of " traditional " . i'm also very interested in genetics' role in

nutrition and how that relates to price's observations that his

healthy groups ate *local* fds. i think that those whose ancestors

were from the " new world " probably have a better chance of

assimilating the nutrients of and/or not having allergic reactions

to " new world " fds. i, on the other hand, have a much harder time

with many " new world " fds. conversely, i think that mexicans have a

much harder time with wheat and end up with a very high incidence of

diabetes.

i don't think that 400yrs is enough time for my genes to be able to

deal with something as strong as chocolate/cocoa/cacao. gee, i even

have problems w/tomatoes <g>.

allene, just envious.