Dark VS Milk

The nutritional value is the same but dark chocolate has more anti-oxidants. Higher cacao dark chocolate supposedly also produces more phenylethylamine which is similar to the feeling of being in love. It makes for a great aphordesiac; you need 80% cacao or higher if I remember correctly.

The nutritional value is the same but dark chocolate has more anti-oxidants. Higher cacao dark chocolate supposedly also produces more phenylethylamine which is similar to the feeling of being in love. It makes for a great aphordesiac; you need 80% cacao or higher if I remember correctly.

macronutrient equality aside. This.

not all dark chocolate is good. Eat what you enjoy OP

So many people say dark chocolate is healthier than milk chocolate. Grab a bar of dark and milk and compare. there almost 99% identical. so were do people get this idea the dark is healthier than milk chocolate?

Identical in what way ? There's no added milk fats in dark for one thing

Dark - Cocoa Solids 36% minimum
Milk - Milk Solids 20% minimum, actual 23% ,Cocoa Solids 20% minimum

(Data comparing Carbury's Dairy Milk with Cadbury's Bournville from tesco.com/groceries)

Bourneville isn't very high in cocoa content... maybe you'd get a better comparison if you compare it to 85% cocoa chocolate. Not that I've ever compared them that closely... just that Bourneville is not the most chocolatey dark chocolate.

Bourneville isn't very high in cocoa content.

indeed, but as it's a common dark chocolate in the UK and has quite a different composition to milk it makes the point adequately.

I use 80, 85 90% personally but you don't see them in the newsagent.

i know! i was juxtapositioning their nutritional values the other day and saw that the milk chocolate was lower in cal, sat fat and carbs per 100g! i was so mind blown, esp since I pledged to switch to dark from now on! But yeah it's the antioxidants thingo

so really, what we're saying here, is a healthy balanced diet should include milk AND dark (and a bit of white, don't wanna be accused of choco-racism ;P )

mmm chocolate!

36% is not dark chocolate for me try one closer to 70% i only eat 83% dark chocolate much better then milk chocolate

I was really hoping that by the year 2013 we would've stopped judging chocolate by it's color.

Shame on all of you.

Dark contains a higher percentage of the natural ingredients (cocoa mainly) which is good for you "in moderation", white is processed and contains milk/sugar and fats in replacement of cocoa for coloring and flavour which is not as good for you.

Basically just like grains/sugars Brown is natural, White is processed.

ofcourse not all dark chocolate is created equal same with white/milk chocolate just like everything else you need to read the label to get a better idea.

Here's what a quick 5 second google search came up wth, take it for face value but seems unbiassed
http://www.fitnessmagazine.com/blogs/fitstop/2012/01/23/healthy-eating/milk-chocolate-or-dark-chocolate/

Dark chocolate is better.

Bitter *


fixed that for ya.

open and shut case johnson.

Black as possible.

I used to be a milk chocolate addict, but after living the 'healthy' lifestyle for 5 months, I find it too sweet and have moved to Dark Chocolate (only 60-65% so far) which I used to find bitter, but now suits my taste. Additionally as people above have said, you need a lot less of it to satisfy, 3 squares of Green and Blacks at 55 cals keeps me happy!

if it's not at least 70% it ain't worth eating IMO

Calorie wise they may be nearly the same. But, dark chocolate 2 squares. Milk chocolate I will eat the whole bar.

This! But with milk chocolate, I could probably manage 2 bars :laugh: