70% Cacao good enough

Options
JeromeBarry1
JeromeBarry1 Posts: 10,182 Member
in Food and Nutrition
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180424133628.htm

New research shows there might be health benefits to eating certain types of dark chocolate. Findings from two studies being presented today at the Experimental Biology 2018 annual meeting in San Diego show that consuming dark chocolate that has a high concentration of cacao (minimally 70% cacao, 30% organic cane sugar) has positive effects on stress levels, inflammation, mood, memory and immunity. While it is well known that cacao is a major source of flavonoids, this is the first time the effect has been studied in human subjects to determine how it can support cognitive, endocrine and cardiovascular health.

Replies

  • NovusDies
    NovusDies Posts: 8,940 Member
    Options
    This can't be the first time this has been studied. I read most of this information more than 5 years ago. Red wine and dark chocolate were the 'in' thing then.
  • JuliBiGoolee
    JuliBiGoolee Posts: 204 Member
    Options
    You had me at cacao.
  • CarvedTones
    CarvedTones Posts: 2,340 Member
    Options
    I don't get why it has to be concentrated; wouldn't twice as much of 35% be the same? Don't get me wrong; I like cacao. It's just that statement that leaves me scratching my head.
  • JeromeBarry1
    JeromeBarry1 Posts: 10,182 Member
    Options
    NovusDies wrote: »
    This can't be the first time this has been studied. I read most of this information more than 5 years ago. Red wine and dark chocolate were the 'in' thing then.

    I had read before that the ratio of cacao had to be 85% for the benefits, and recently read that sugar agonistically reduces the benefit of the flavonoids.
    In this report, the 70% cacao with 30% sugar demonstrated benefit, so the big new thing might be the non-harm of the higher sugar ratio.
  • nooshi713
    nooshi713 Posts: 4,877 Member
    Options
    I love dark chocolate. 70% is good for me.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    Happiness.
  • NovusDies
    NovusDies Posts: 8,940 Member
    Options
    JeromeBarry1 wrote: »

    I had read before that the ratio of cacao had to be 85% for the benefits, and recently read that sugar agonistically reduces the benefit of the flavonoids.
    In this report, the 70% cacao with 30% sugar demonstrated benefit, so the big new thing might be the non-harm of the higher sugar ratio.

    You are right. I remember the 85 percent thing now.
  • NovusDies
    NovusDies Posts: 8,940 Member
    edited April 2018
    Options
    Oh and fun fact for those of you who don't know dark chocolate something that people age (some are very passionate about it). For a few years there my wife aged dark chocolate in a cedar box just like you would a cigar. She wasn't super serious about it.
  • JeromeBarry1
    JeromeBarry1 Posts: 10,182 Member
    Options
    NovusDies wrote: »
    Oh and fun fact for those of you who don't know dark chocolate something that people age (some are very passionate about it). For a few years there my wife aged dark chocolate in a cedar box just like you would a cigar. She wasn't super serious about it.

    The only aged chocolate I've ever seen was milk chocolate. It looked altogether unappetizing and even as that was during my careless years of obesity I didn't attempt to eat it.
  • workinonit1956
    workinonit1956 Posts: 1,043 Member
    Options
    I always thought (and I could be wrong) that the higher the cacao the better. I love dark chocolate and have a square or two of Endangered Species 88% every day. 28 calories each.
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    Options
    This study dovetails nicely with other studies that support the benefits of 85% dark chocolate, and a lot of people (myself included) prefer the 70% over the bitterness of the 85%. If it turns out to be repeatable (and there's no reason to think it wouldn't) it could widen the pool of people who would enjoy eating the chocolate and get the benefits.

    My musings with studies like this is the amount used to determine results. 48 grams of 70% cocoa is 288 calories - fitting that into a 1500 net calorie budget is problematical. I don't think there is much in the way of studies on the minimum amount that would bestow these same benefits (understandable, those studies would be more complex and expensive) so I would wonder if a more reasonable amount calorie-wise would have the same benefits. Not that it ever stops me from eating dark chocolate guilt-free :)

Categories