Beware Headlines Saying Chocolate Is Good For You 224
BarbaraHudson writes: Many news organizations ran stories last fall extolling certain health benefits of chocolate. But it turns out the studies that the articles were based on didn't go quite so far. The CBC is running a pair of stories debunking chocolate's benefits to the average consumer: "Scientists have zeroed in on a family of fragile molecules known as cocoa flavanols. Research suggests they can relax blood vessels, improve blood flow and, as Small found in his study, even increase activity in a part of the brain involved with age related memory loss. But those flavanols largely disappear once the cocoa bean is heated, fermented and processed into chocolate. In other words, making chocolate destroys the very ingredient that is supposed to make it healthy.
That’s why Small’s memory study used a highly concentrated powder prepared exclusively for research by Mars Inc., the chocolate company, which also partially funded the study. ... There are lots of foods that contain potentially healthy flavanols, along with other bioactive compounds in complex combinations. So the question is: Would academic scientists in publicly funded institutions be so interested in the cocoa bean if the chocolate industry wasn't supporting so much of the research?"
That’s why Small’s memory study used a highly concentrated powder prepared exclusively for research by Mars Inc., the chocolate company, which also partially funded the study. ... There are lots of foods that contain potentially healthy flavanols, along with other bioactive compounds in complex combinations. So the question is: Would academic scientists in publicly funded institutions be so interested in the cocoa bean if the chocolate industry wasn't supporting so much of the research?"
WHAT! (Score:2, Funny)
Industries supporting research that supports their products! SAY IT AIN'T SO CRUSTY
Re:WHAT! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's FUCKING CHOCOLATE.
Just enjoy it and shit can this stupid "corporations are evil" garbage.
Holy Fuck, does there have to be some evil conspiracy behind everything?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
By eating chocolate you're supporting slavery in the Ivory Coast, Ebola in Ghana, and the shade of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Still worth it.
Re: (Score:3)
And when teabaggers say that scientists shouldn't be allowed to testify before Congress about climate change, because they're being paid to study it, that's the gospel truth, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently only if they are trying to sell chocolate.
Re:WHAT! (Score:4, Funny)
Holy Fuck, does there have to be some evil conspiracy behind everything?
On Slashdot, yes.
Re:WHAT! (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not claiming there is zero corruption in Science but if (reputable) scientific results were as easy to buy as many slashdotter's seem to believe then the Koch brothers would already own the IPCC.
Re: (Score:2)
The Koch brothers? I doubt they'd get the chance, there are plenty of people ahead of them in line.
Out of the $128 million spent by the top 10 individual donors to outside groups, Democrats hauled in $91 million or 71% of donations. ....
The libertarian Koch Brothers came in tied for the 23rd spot of largest spenders, according to the Associated Press. -- source [breitbart.com]
Still useful research (Score:5, Interesting)
If cocoa flavanols prove medically beneficial, we can figure out how to synthetically produce them in a dosed format. You might not be able to get health benefits by eating a chocolate bar, but perhaps one day your doctor will prescribe two flavanol pills every morning to treat your condition. This is how much of medicine functions. First, we notice something (in nature or lab produced) that has a beneficial effect. Next, we refine that substance and figure out a dosing system for it to maximize the effect and minimize any side effects.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If a raw cacao pod last only a week after harvesting, how do you obtain, store and eat a cacao pod within one week?
Re:Still useful research (Score:5, Informative)
Roasting is important to not only bring out the chocolate flavor but to kill all the nasties that came from the farm, from the cocoa processing center (or co-op), from the warehousing, from the shipping on the boat in open jute bags, from the transport on the semi to the chocolate factory in the US, etc. There are a million ways that even clean cocoa beans can get contaminated even if they left the farm in great condition. While I've made raw chocolate as an experiment for myself (and it is part of my job afterall), there is no way that I'd ever release the chocolate on a commercial basis without having each and every batch go through extensive microbial testing something that few raw chocolate companies do.
Re: Still useful research (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's bitter, isn't it? A bit too bitter for me, I generally go for 85%, but that is already up from 70% a year or two ago, which I now find too sweet. But interesting that the beneficial flavanols and flavonols are said to be bitter. Bitter = better?
Speaking of high percentage, there seems to be a high percentage of loose science in this bit of clickbait journalism. Failing to note that cocoa beans are roasted at relatively low temperatures and for a relatively short time, for one thing. And that heat may t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Supposedly their new capsules [cocoavia.com] contain 375mg of coacoa flavanols.
The supplements are a follow on to their previous research and another product. The first "CocoaVia" product was a small dark chocolate bar made with their proprietary Coacoapro process [marscocoascience.com] which they claim significantly boosts the level of retained flavanols in chocolate.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, we can already assume that most of the chocolate research will simply tell us that we eat too much of it and it is making us fat. People don't like inconvenient truths, as is found with AGW data. If your job is to basically find out the nitty gritty details about why people should stop doing something they like, you might not have a job for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
If selling cocoa flavanols proves financially beneficial, Monsanto's lawyers can figure out how to sting you big time.
Speak for yourself (Score:5, Interesting)
The cocoa content of a chocolate bar is very, very small. And, it has been decreasing over time.
But what has also been INCREASING over time, is consumption of dark chocolate - sometimes very dark. These usually do have a lot more deal cocoa powder than the "traditional" chocolate bar ever did.
Any more I will not even bother with "chocolate" below 85%...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Speak for yourself (Score:4, Informative)
Lindt, Baker's, Ghirardelli's...
Re: (Score:3)
Lindt, Baker's, Ghirardelli's...
So, not Mars Brands [wikipedia.org]. Also, I love how the Mars Our Brands [mars.com] page is almost completely useless compared to the Wikipedia page of the same theme.
FYI, you should be buying Green & Blacks 85% [amazon.com] if you want a small slice of heaven.
Re: (Score:2)
Why, do you BUY Mars bars for chocolate often? Who cars what Mars, Inc. does. That doesn't change the fact that there are many chocolate sources now with which cocoa content, and that the consumption of them is growing rapidly.
I do have to say the actual Mars Bar you can buy in Europe is pretty tasty, but I buy it more for the coconut.
Re:Still useful research (Score:5, Informative)
To be fair, what you're talking about is American "chocolate", which lacks regulation, and as such is mostly just oil with a tiny amount of chocolate flavouring. In Europe, the amount of cocoa content of a chocolate bar is regulated, and isn't dropping. That's why europeans tend to baulk the first time they taste a hershey bar - it doesn't taste of chocolate.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wasn't it the EU who didn't want Cadbury's chocolate to be labeled real chocolate? This sounds like just more "Europe is better than America" crap. People like what they like, no need to act superior about it. Guess what, American beers and wines are winning contests in Europe.
You're probably talking about Hershey's, which is net the entirety of American chocolate. The thing with Hersheys is that it had a process that was not highly sensitive to milk quality which was important to the time it was inven
Re:Still useful research (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Still useful research (Score:4, Insightful)
Guess what, American beers and wines are winning contests in Europe.
Yes, but not the beers and wines that Americans in general actually consumes.
Sure, you can go to a craft microbrew bar in San Francisco and drink a beer the equal of anything coming from Europe's best breweries. But in 99% of the country and at the price range that 80% of the country can afford you can only get Budweiser, Miller or Coors.
Compare this to any country in Europe where you can be in the most backwards, rural town and get something good served to you just by walking to the bar and asking for "beer".
America is a huge and populous country and it stands to reason that there will be a little bit of everything happening there. But nobody cares what you and your hipster friends are drinking and it doesn't change the fact that American beer is shit.
Re: (Score:2)
You can get good beer in many many places in the US. Good microbrews come from big cities and tiny towns. I'm actually surprised at some of the places good beer comes from, not hipster central but from farming and working class towns. You don't even need a good microbrew beer as there is decent large market stuff like Sierra Nevada or Samuel Adams. Which is better than some of the mass market beer I've had in parts of Europe. We import stuff too, at least in larger cities and college towns. Coors and Bud a
Re:Still useful research (Score:5, Insightful)
"Wasn't it the EU who didn't want Cadbury's chocolate to be labeled real chocolate?"
If by the EU you mean a handful of vested interests in countries like France and Belgium lobbying a handful of EU representatives and failing in the EU as a whole then yes. Otherwise, if you mean what most people would assume to be the EU, as in, the political organisation as a majority or whole, then no.
"You're probably talking about Hershey's, which is net the entirety of American chocolate."
No, even Cadburys and Nestle chocolate tastes shit in America - Dairy Milk bars, Smarties, M&Ms and so on, they're all just awful in the US. They use different recipes. All American main-brand chocolate is just plain terrible. It tastes like wax with chocolate flavouring as someone else said. Letting it melt in your mouth feels like you've just slurped up part of an oil slick with a bit of flavouring added to it. I was told too this is because the ingredients they use are less likely to melt in the heat of America's hottest states whereas the bars would turn to liquid if they used Cadbury's UK recipe and they were shipped to Florida or whatever, but I don't think it was added sugar that was the recipe. What I do know is that chocolate in America (and Canada) just tastes awful though compared to equivalent bars in Europe. Last I checked orange Smarties don't even taste of orange chocolate in North America either, which is a crime worthy of your death penalty, so find who is responsible and deal with it please.
If you start going upmarket to places where you can get real chocolate like Hotel Chocolat, Thorntons, or proper Belgian chocolatiers then the disparity between European and America chocolate becomes even more embarassing.
It isn't just "Europe is better than America crap", and the fact you said that implies to me that you don't have the benefit of experience and are just speculating. I'm British and my partner is Canadian, we travel between both continents regularly and the sheer amount of British confectionary we're asked to cart over with us for friends and family (and the complete lack on the way back - though we do cart back other things; maple syrup, various steak spices and so forth) is a fine example of how much people realise European chocolate really is just so much nicer. It's not about childhood memories, it's simply that when you've had both people seem to consistently opt for the European versions where they can.
There are a lot of areas where North America has it's advantages, and there are areas where Europe has it's advantages (you still get films, and games before us, and get most things at much more reasonable prices). For example, until the Smartphone wars starting in 2007 North America looked practically prehistoric in terms of cellphones, Europe (and Japan) were clearly superior in this area for a decade or so - I was like a guy from the future back in 2004 when I went over with my colour screen Nokia that could play MP3s, install apps including games like Doom, take photos and so on and so forth. This is in fact why the first iPhone wasn't even released in Europe - a phone with no MMS, no GPS, no mapping, no apps, no 3G and so on and so forth was always a joke in the European market and the fancy touch interface just couldn't make up for those glaring deficiencies. It was only really by the 3rd iteration that it even began to matter in Europe where it finally began to catch up on having the bare minimum required feature set (the second iteration didn't even outsell Nokia's non-touch screen flagship at the time).
I think what you're really saying when you say "This sounds like just more "Europe is better than America" crap" is that you can't stand the idea that some places might actually be better than America at some things. Tough shit, American exceptionalism is nonsense, it's not superior at everything in every way - chocolate is one of those ways in which it simply does a terrible job. Don't let it upset you though, you get awesome other things, like meat products. Tr
Re: (Score:3)
Yes the bog standard chocolate in America is really bad. But you can get pretty good stuff too, most Whole Foods have more upmarket chocolate bars, some of which are pretty good. And there are independent places, in SF and Portland there were some pretty good ones. There was a Hotel Chocolat shop in Boston, but they were closing down when we visited, so I guess the market for really good stuff just isn't there... not the same way as in Europe, where the bog standard chocolate is pretty acceptable, and the g
Re: (Score:2)
Okay sure they probably weren't the best example as they do do a lot of cheaper low quality stuff as well because it seemed that that's what the market wanted, but their premium products are still decent quality.
Re: (Score:2)
I reviewed the parent post and don't find that insulting at all... I thought he was quite polite.
Cadbury, for their part, aren't timeless traditionalists. Famously, they had to revert oil its substitution of cocoa butter by palm oil in Australia:
http://www.news.com.au/finance... [news.com.au]
Re: (Score:2)
A recent workaround by the US confection industry has been to reduce the amount of cocoa butter in candy bars without using vegetable fats by adding polyglycerol polyricinoleate (PGPR), which is an artificial castor oil-derived emulsifier that simulates the mouthfeel of fat. Up to 0.3% PGPR may be added to chocolate for this purpose
Bleargh.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hershey's is the Walmart of chocolate. There are plenty of small companies making high quality chocolates.
Re: (Score:2)
I get my 90% Lindt, and 100% Baker's or Ghirardelli's, at Walmart, you insensitive clod.
American chocolate (Score:2)
Yes hershey milk chocolate is about 11% cocoa. However Hersheys dark chocolate bar is 45% cocoa solids which is almost identical to lindt dark choclate truffles at 43%.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The main problem with the EU is the artificial scarcity of money, which isn't working anyway because the dollar, even with the trillions created over a matter of weeks by the Fed, is stronger against the Euro.
Austerity has not worked in Europe.
Re:Still useful research (Score:5, Informative)
I own a chocolate factory so I know just a bit about this subject.
Re:Still useful research (Score:4, Informative)
Right, the key is in the fact that they only mandate 10% cocoa liquor content. While the EU mandate 15% cocoa butter, and 27.5% cocoa solids (42.5% cocoa liquor). White chocolate in europe actually contains more cocoa than milk chocolate needs to in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Now there is excellent chocolate in the Netherlands and Belgium, but there's also a whole lot of horrible chocolate, and you have to try a lot of different shops to find really good stuff (it's not Godiva, and for that matter Lindt isn't all that great either).
If you want really good chocolate, and truly care about
Re:Still useful research (Score:5, Informative)
Did you try those Kit Kats?
This is the problem, even well known big brand chocolate tastes better in Europe than the US, the brand may well be the same but the recipe is different.
American Dairy Milk bars are awful compared to the UK versions for example.
"So don't you Europeans talk about 'fine chocolate' until at least you've tasted a fine batch made from single-plantation source in Madagascar. You don't know what you're talking about until then."
Why? we can already one up you on that quite trivially. Succesful chains like Hotel Chocolat let us have single-plantation source chocolate of our choice -
http://www.hotelchocolat.com/u... [hotelchocolat.com]
But it's better than that. Their flagships contain three things, a shop, a bar, and a restaurant. So you can experience everything from chocolate liqueurs to cocoa gravy there. You can experience proper cocoa usage from just about every worthwhile source in just about all it's incarnations - whether in chocolate bars, drinks, or meals.
So we know exactly what we're talking about by fine chocolate- the issue seems to be that you're wholly unaware of what actual chocolatiers we do have here in Europe given your completely false suggestion that it's hard to find. Even here in the UK which is normally frowned upon as one of the poorest quality chocolate producers in Europe we have major high quality chocolatiers in just about every high street that even slightly matters, and most have high quality independents too.
Re: (Score:2)
Hershey's produces chocolates with as much as 60% cocoa, other brands have more, including Dante Confections 98% cocoa "Stevia".
It's added ingredients - particularly in Hershey's milk chocolates - which make mass produced American market chocolates taste like, well, almost nothing, or perhaps vomit.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why europeans tend to baulk the first time they taste a hershey bar....
Well it isn't exactly fair to compare a military ration to a sweet delicacy.
Re: (Score:3)
It is fairly easy to find high-end chocolate bars made by Lindt, Godiva, Green&Black, etc. where the cocoa content is shown prominently on the label:
http://www.lindtusa.com/shop/c... [lindtusa.com]
http://www.thefind.com/food/in... [thefind.com]
If you're serious about consuming "healthy" chocolate, you'll want 85% cocoa content or better. Be warned: like black coffee, it's an acquired taste -- you might want to work your way up to it. :-) Also like coffee, once you get used to the good bitter stuff you'll find it hard to have any
Re: (Score:2)
Except if you read the article, it's not "healthy" chocolate once the cocoa has been processed, no matter how much you cram in.
Re: (Score:2)
There are other properties of very dark chocolate that potentially make it healthy, other than the heat-sensitive flavanols. From U Michigan Med:
http://www.med.umich.edu/umim/... [umich.edu]
Re:Still useful research (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, if you get your "chocolate bar" from a bus terminal vending machine.
Otherwise, "these days", you can get more high quality chocolate than ever before, at supermarkets, chocolatiers, coffee shops, and tons of other places.
Re: (Score:2)
Nutella isn't chocolate you fool. It started out as pastries in Northern Italy couldn't import the cocoa they needed and some guy started selling hazelnut paste as a substitute.
Just like chocolate the hazelnut paste has a lot of magnesium. When you consider that a lot of people are nutritionally deficient in magnesium this anti-chocolate campaign smacks of nothing but ridicule.
W00t? (Score:2, Insightful)
Researchers do sketchy science to shill for corporations?
That unpossible.
And that, kids, is precisely why there is not, and never will be, a free market.
Because buying your own science is so much more lucrative, and the populace is so damned gullible.
Re: (Score:2)
luckly the heavily regulated market we currently have makes sure stuff like this doesn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be a bit confused about the meaning of "free market". In a free market, people are free to choose who to listen to and what to buy. Yes, that means that gullible people buy crap. It also means that smart people aren't forced to buy crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that means that gullible people buy crap.
It also means that smart people aren't forced to buy crap.
I think the whole point was that, with this so-called "research", even the smart people buy crap.
Re: (Score:2)
A free market is predicated on the lie that people will have open information, and that people will not be gaming the system by buying laws and science.
If there is no available information, and the players are lying about the information, there can be no free market.
Because then it's not set by supply and demand, it's set by the players who will lie, cheat, and steal to come out ahead.
And then it isn't a free market. It's the usual broken bullshit which capitalists seem to both think is normal, and claim w
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, free speech means that people can lie, including people who happen to run businesses. That's the nature of free speech; apparently, you don't like free speech.
Stupid lawsuits aren't a problem with the free market, they are a problem with a broken legal system.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you point out anywhere where Mars or the researchers have claimed that Mars chocolate has significant health benefits? No? Science funded by industry is still science as long as the results are repeatable as part of a valid study. If you can't actually show that the science is bogus, perhaps you should just shut the fuck up with your whining.
Not everything is a nefarious scheme.
Is this guy good enough for you:"Harold Schmitz, Ph.D., Group Research Manager, Mars, Incorporated" [eurekalert.org] at an American Association for the Advancement of Science symposium, February 2000
"We are very encouraged by the findings presented during this symposium," said Harold Schmitz, Ph.D., Group Research Manager, Mars, Incorporated. "The clinical study results, together with those of earlier in vitro research findings, are very promising, and suggest that additional research is needed to further assess the potential cardiovascular health benefits of chocolate."
Their press release the same day [prnewswire.com]
This is where the whole "Chocolate may be good for you" craze started 15 years agi - studies funded by Mars Inc. and talked up by one or their own employees.
Lead (Score:2)
Don't blame science for this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Bring it on! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That just shows how little integrity you have. I sure hope you never do research.
Lucky Charms is a health food! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sugar and calories (Score:2)
"In other words, making chocolate destroys the very ingredient that is supposed to make it healthy."
But you still get all the healthy sugar and calories!
Some scientists would still be very interested... (Score:3)
Chocolate/wine/dogs/etc. are not always the best things to research in scientific terms, but they are some of the very best ways for a mediocre scientist in an obscure field to get his name in the paper.
Why bother finding a cure for cancer (which is really fucking hard), when you can feed half your friends from your chocolate stash for three months, measure the hell out of them once a week, then massage the data into something click-baitable, and *poof* you now meet Wikipedia's standards for notability.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Silly you. You have apparently read the article and not the summary. This is slashdot. We skim the summary while ignoring the article, and if we're lucky we understand half of the summary. I have no clue what the article says, but the last sentence of the summary was "Would academic scientists in publicly funded institutions be so interested in the cocoa bean if the chocolate industry wasn't supporting so much of the research?" And my answer to that question is hell yes, even if the science isn't.
"Feeding h
But... but... but... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please! (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that we let a bunch of pinko commie academics decide what to study with public money instead? By using funding from the Mars Corporation, research is channeled into what is important to more of us. Lets be honest, far more of our lives revolve around chocolate than they do the tse tse fly of of Northen Tanzania.
surprise, surprise, surprise (Score:2)
The reigning rule of thumb is if it tastes really good, it's bad for you.
If it's good for you, it doesn't taste really good.
Re:surprise, surprise, surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you explain vegetables? They're good for you, but taste terrible.
Some actually like the taste of vegetables. However, you actually make a great point here. 10,000 years ago like bears, people ate mostly grubs, edible plants/fruits (nasty compared to what we get today). We lived on that crap & when lucky we got meat/honey to fatten us up to prepare for when there was little to nothing to gather. What we lived on as staples might be good for us but what really tastes great fattens us up to survive the winter.
oh noes... the chocolate industry (Score:4, Insightful)
Would academic scientists in publicly funded institutions be so interested in the cocoa bean if the chocolate industry wasn't supporting so much of the research?"
I love the idea that this somehow invalidates the research. The researchers investigated what they could get funding to investigate, there's no allegations that the research was non-rigorous or of any other improper practice. Presumably the results are valid and therefore valuable. Further, presumably this research wouldn't have been done otherwise so we've got some additional research we wouldn't have done otherwise. So what if it supports someone's interests? We all benefit because now we know more about the world around us and what is, and isn't, good for our bodies. Now go and take your ad hominems elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to judge how good the research was because neither tfs nor any of the 3 tfas actually linked to the research paper.
And I don't think you read my comment either. I never said the work was rigorous, I said there's no allegations that the research was non-rigorous or of any other improper practice (emphasis added). I was responding to the AC who seemed to think that the source of funding magically altered the quality of the research without providing any evidence. And you haven't refuted me just by
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
dark chocolate hazelnut truffles (Score:4, Funny)
Is there any question of chocolate's benefits? I mean, really?
Jesus wept. Chocolate has been one of mankind's go-to pantydroppers for centuries. Some guys get beer goggles, I get chocolate goggles. Three truffles with >72% cocoa content and I'm yours for the asking.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any question of chocolate's benefits? I mean, really?
Jesus wept. Chocolate has been one of mankind's go-to pantydroppers for centuries. Some guys get beer goggles, I get chocolate goggles. Three truffles with >72% cocoa content and I'm yours for the asking.
True. But you make it sound like centuries are a long time.
If we've learned anything... (Score:2)
... It is scientists will agree with whomever pays them.
And least we forget... Someone is always paying the scientist. There is no side that can be trusted sight unseen.
Science has earned the credibility it has today because when push came to shove it created a framework by which bullshit could be told from truth.
Some scientists tell lies. Some do not. This is true of scientists from all factions and sides.
How do you tell the difference? Personally evaluate the results. Short of that you're getting it all s
The latest UK headlines... (Score:2)
Cultural geographer (Score:3)
I know it is unfashionable to RTFA, but if you do you will see that the story is about the non peer reviewed non research of a "cultural geographer" who did not have anything to say about the health effects of cocoa, but raised a question about whether one tribe being studied sourced its cocoa beans locally or not. Excuse me, but the headline made me think this was about the health effects of cocoa, not whether there is something magical about some particular strain of bean. Is there a story here? Is there even a researcher here?
As if the problems of chocolate were cooking cocoa (Score:2)
Doesn't change the clinical effects (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Aaaaand unfortunately the sugar and corn industries don't have deep, scrumdiddlyumptious pockets like Mars Inc: http://www.reuters.com/article... [reuters.com]
Re:Cocoa is also disgusting without sugar (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, and the reason that tastes great is because when you cook a steak properly, you get the mailliard reaction going, and produce a bunch of sugars on the surface of the meat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The point being made was that cocoa doesn't taste good unless you pair it with sugar. By putting cocoa on meat, and then frying/grilling that meat, you pair it with sugar. Your counter example is not a counter example (no matter how delicious it is).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And if you keep repeating the same thing over and over again, people will believe you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that repetition is doing nothing to support your point, and that it wastes your time.
I also am averse to adding anything to food for the sake of "color."
Re: (Score:2)
I thought savoury chocolate sauce was the national condiment of Mexico?
Re: (Score:2)
Deny:Cocoa is also disgusting without sugar (Score:2)
Speak for your own tastes.
I find cocoa powder + non-fat powered milk + hot water delicious. Also cocoa powder + coffee. My wife also likes the first, but not the second. OTOH, she likes to take unflavored non-fat yoghurt and mix it with cocoa powder.
Please note that these are just our most common ways to enjoy cocoa powder. There are many others that work quite well, and none of them require sugar.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking about the Cocoa that goes into the lovely rich flavoured bars like the Lindt Excellence 99% Dark Noir bar? Or are you talking about that rubbish that people put into their baking?
As always there are many different qualities of material out there.
Re: (Score:3)
After sanitary water (chlorination, et al), cooking food reigns supreme as the alpha contributor to human longevity.