Does anyone else feel like eating candy after reading all the comments?
And that photo!
1
Fat being bad for you has been debunked. What *is* bad for you is the sugar in chocolate. It's just ridiculous to say that eating a pound of chocolate is healthier for you than eating a pound of chicken.
"...but stearic acid does not raise cholesterol..." NO food's cholesterol raised cholesterol in the body--fact.
1
@Joe stearic acid is not cholesterol, it’s a form of saturated fat. Saturated fat does raise cholesterol
1
According to the article, the fat in chocolate comes from cocoa butter. That's how it should be. There are places where this is required by government regulation, like e.g. the EU. In the US you can replace some or all of the cocoa butter with - say - hydrogenated cotton seed oil. Or any other cheap shortening.
Because its been hydrogenated, it won't spoil, and has little or no nutritional value, apart from the calories.
Check the ingredients. Life is too short to eat bad chocolate.
4
The LW cites that the chocolate being consumed is between 75-90% cocoa content, but it's important to realize that those figures apply to percentages from which the chocolate in hand is derived. "Cocoa content" therefore includes both cocoa solids and cocoa butter, i.e., the fat. Unless one compares the percentages of fat in each bar, it is difficult to understand what the actual fat content is. The non-cocoa percentage is composed of everything else: sugar, emulsifiers, flavorings (vanilla, nuts, coffee, salt, etc).
1
Diet fad of the week. Backed-up by nutrition pseudo-science.
1
The article is three years old, so it is a repeat fad of the week.
5
Why does that headline imply that fat in meat is inherently bad, which has been debunked? Maybe with factory meat, sure. Let’s start with the right fundamentals, folks…
4
Stating the obvious.
Your sub headline reminds me of saying 30 seconds of exercise is better than none.
Thirty seconds of exercise or eating more than a tiny piece of fat meat or chocolate is bad for you.
Period.
1
UGH. Calories are old dogma! At a minimum, they don't tell the whole story. PLEASE quit using that as a measure. 200 calories of broccoli, 200 calories of almonds and 200 calories of sugar all do different things in our bodies, with different health outcomes. Same with fats. There are healthy and unhealthy fats - even in the saturated category. Our bodies are not simple energy machines.
Sugar and simple carbs are evil and addictive. They hijack our brains and spike our insulin and over time with elevated insulin, we develop resistance (chronic inflammation) which becomes diabetes, fatty liver, dementia, etc, etc. It's the insulin baby - eat that dark chocolate 70% or higher (30% or less sugar), avoid the other added crap in the chocolate (palm oil, lecithin, vanillin) and enjoy it within reason.
7
1) we should recall that much, if not most, fat "leaks" out of the meat as it's cooked. So, if we're comparing fat/100 g food, it must be determined from cooked meat.
2) Let's all just eat according to a balanced diet, rather than looking for magic bullets (aka superfoods).
3
Chocolate and cocoa aren't quite the same.
Unsweetened cocoa is verging on a health food. Zero added sugar. Even all unsweetened cocoa ain't the same.
I use organic cocoa chips from Trader Joe's. The calorie count adds up even if the fats are healthy. 120 calories per tablespoon. A bit of fiber and protein in addition to those phytonutrients. Good source of iron too.
I use organic cocoa powder. The calorie count is so low as to be almost ignorable. Twenty calories per tablespoon. A bit lower per serving on the fiber, protein, iron and potassium. Much higher on a per calorie basis. You don't need much of it.
If you're getting good exercise and not concerned about losing weight and counting calories, I wouldn't worry about cocoa one bit. The difference with chocolate, even the highest 85% dark chocolates that tend to come with trendy packaging, is the added sugar which I consider the real poison in our modern diets. I concern myself with the calories and saturated fats from cocoa chips the same way I do with nuts- almost not at all. With the caveat that moderation is the key to everything.
7
@Doctor Ganja
Exactly. Organic, unsweetened cocoa powder (some people know it as 'baking cocoa') is a healthy low-cal
food. The fat has been removed and no sugar has been
added. It has a pleasant, slightly bitter taste. Try a spoonful in coffee for a taste treat. If you need a bit of
sweetness, add just a dab of ginger syrup. Yummy !
fat is not the problem with red meat though there are better fats for your system. nor is it cholesterol. your body makes 8x more of it naturally on a daily basis than you need.
no, its 2 different compounds, the worst is TMAO. if you limit but dont eliminate red meat you'll also cut your inflammatory markers several of which you can easily get tested for cheap anymore.
if you stay under 150 total and keep your LDL under 70 and inflammatory markers (I'll pick hsCRP under 0.1) you will prob be pretty good as long as you walk alot, sleep well and do *some* strenuous exercise 3-4x/week. its easy.
Oh my god, who cares? Eat the chocolate, preferably with a glass of red wine, and enjoy a conversation with a friend or a great movie. I promise your health will be better than if you spend the same amount of time worrying over a piece of chocolate or a bite of steak. Enjoy your life!
27
@Yes Please
If you haven't noticed, there's an obesity epidemic in this country. The numbers are worse than the percentage of adults who used to smoke back in the Mad Men era.
With the attendant chronic diseases that obesity causes like diabetes, hypertension, osteoarthritis, sleep apnea, fatty liver disease, poor exercise tolerance, and more- it's going to end up costing us more than tobacco ever did. In fact there's a good chance it can do tremendous damage to our economy unless one thinks that paying more than 20% of GDP on health care is, well, healthy not to mention sustainable.
I haven't even mentioned the heart disease and procedures like CABG and stenting, the strokes, the failing kidneys, the operations for knee and hip replacements, the hospitalizations from all manner of complications from all the above.
So this one needs a glass of wine, red thank you, to enjoy conversation or a great movie. They could just make a red wine infused chocolate, or instead of caramel, a bit of wine in the center of every piece. Probably cause a whole lot of stains so avoid wearing white shirts. And do let us know when you encounter a restaurant or home cooked meal where one only enjoys a bite of steak. It's a bit like telling a smoker it's okay as long as you only have one cigarette a day. It just doesn't work for hardly anyone.
4
@Doctor Ganja Do you really believe that if no American ate any chocolate anymore, the "obesity epidemic" would resolve itself? Or even improve?
I don't.
My theory is that the "obesity epidemic" would be more apt to subside if nobody drank any sweetened beverages, because those beverages do not sate. Not that I find my suggestion realistic - I even have milk and a teaspoon of sugar in my tea once a day.
Another suggestion would be to eliminate "Drive Thru" access to fast food. Make it a little less convenient to eat for comfort or out of boredom.
I'd have a lot more suggestions - but what would be the purpose? But implying that chocolate consumption plays a large role in the "obesity epidemic" is IMHO a little ... misplaced.
Full disclosure: BMI 21 at 69 years old.
8
Processed fruit juice packs are a fact of life for most of our children. Just the beginning of the road to obesity and diabetes.
5
The saturated fats in meat is not harmful to most persons. The whole diatribe against red meat and processed meats typically involved only a few people per thousand dying over their lifetime. Meantime they may avoid diabetes and 990 of them enjoy some of the best tasting foods available.
ps - if someone is particularly vulnerable they should avoid those meats. Otherwise eat what you like.
5
@Rob - agree 100%! I had some testing done (Zoe Nutrition Study) and my body takes 6-8 hours to process fat, which is longer than most people. So for me, I need to watch the amount and time of day for optimal processing and energy. So I focus on healthy fats and watch my LDL particle size (bigger is better) triglycerides, and then I don't concern myself with the other measures. Diabetes is caused by simple carbohydrates spiking insulin over years. Saturated fat is fat, not a carb.
1
Well, I try to consume products which are the least processed /modified, meaning no such things as industrial chocolate but raw powder. Next time you pick a box of such chocolate, read the label to check ALL the ingredients.
3
Well, that is good to know. Certainly lightens life's rowboat, does it not?
4
Consuming antioxidents initially looked like a very promising way to good health. That reputation has stuck, despite extensive research on the topic coming up empty. The benefits of antioxidents are now an inextinguishable urban legend.
Here is a massive study that finds no benefit:
https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/antioxidants-in-depth
It's kind of like the entrenched belief that sugar makes kids hyperactive. It's a completely false, but enduringly believed idea.
1
@Biji Basi - sugar spikes insulin. Whether or not that makes you hyperactive, your body is getting a glucose surge which if not used, the liver turns into fat.
Polyphenols is the updated term for antioxidants. Try searching on that. Looks like some benefits and yet more research to be done. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6160559/
@YReader An insulin surge is not the same thing as hyperactivity. Sugar consumption does not cause hyperactivity.
Interesting article, but per that article, Polypenois is not an updated term for antioxidents. From the article:
"...various polyphenols have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties ".
So they are different from antioxidants but share some of their properties, as well as being anti-inflammatory.
Headlines decrying the saturated fat in meat feel woefully 1980s to me. There is so much recent scientific research debunking old claims about fats, cholesterol, and meat, and more and more evidence that people eating whole food animal products--which we evolved on--are healthy and much less prone to metabolic disorders. Our brains are made of cholesterol. Fat is a basic human fuel. Read some studies from the past decade instead of repeating dubious claims.
13
raw cacao powder still has all the health without the fat and tastes good on berries
10
@Leonardo Garcia - yes, true. Also fat is actually necessary and good for you. Eat healthy fats - not that manmade stuff. Cocoa butter, in chocolate, is a healthy fat. Low-fat/non-fat is old dogma and has been debunked. We need fat (and protein, and fiber) to stay full and satiated.
2
There is no such thing as "a small to moderate amount" of chocolate. Once the taste buds get going ...
39
Its chocolate for God's sake, no one is seriously motivated by health concerns when indulging in it. It's what we call dessert and in moderation, its part of enjoying life. I'm not sure another word ever needs to be written on the subject.
23
@Elvis
Chocolates are a kind of dessert to be enjoyed after a meal or at any time when one likes to indulge in it. Health benefits of dark chocolates is well established now. Although, these contain some saturated fats in small quantity which is not harmful to health, unlike the saturated fat found in meat products . The trend now days is to consume plant based foods for reasons of health or ethics..However, moderation is the key in following nutritional advice to protect one's health.
2
For all of the benefit with next to no fat, use cocoa. I add it to shakes and mint tea, for example.
Choose cocoa that is not "dutched," since that kills some of the beneficial nutrients. Delicious!
7
Regarding chocolate: watch out for palm oil, trans fats, etc.
They have now been introduced into many (yes even Lindt, Ritter, Godiva, etc) brands---you guessed, because it's cheap.
I always read food labels...hint: the length of time it takes to read one is a good barometer of the "goodness" of the product. The small print, endless list of unrecognizable ingredients, unpronounceable additives & chemicals are a good warning sign. Don't be fooled by loud package statements, "all natural," "100% whole wheat" & other luring proclamations. Looking at that label will reveal what the manufacturer will definitely not advertise on the front of the box. Even if you buy something "reliable" for years, a manufacturer can alter the ingredients overnight.
26
Fat is not the problem - it's sugar that is the problem.
29
@adicicco
There isn't much sugar in a chocolate bar that is 85% chocolate.
7
@Dr. Phil
A serving of Lindt 85% cocoa contains almost as much carbs (15 g) as fat (18 g)
2
@Dr. Phil 85% cacao = 15% sugar. 70% cacao = 30% sugar...
3
The fat profile of properly grazed meat is actually quite healthy and much closer to fatty fish.
13
@pi
Important distinction. The scale of production probably determines health outcomes more than the qualities of individual products. If they have to compare apples to oranges, they should all be organic and local.
4
I think it's more about the processed fats and foods we have now. Our ancestors from thousands of years ago were already eating fresh meat with no deficits. It's the quality of the fat.
9
@Thomas They also ran around s lot more, chasing animals for food, or being chased. They slso didn't live to be 80, 90 or 100...
"Chocolate and sugar, I wish I knew how to quit you!"
21
First step: Don’t buy it. If you don’t have it at home, you don’t eat it at home.
11
Meat and chocolate do not really compete with each other. You are pretty unlikely to sit down for a dinner of chocolate, however dark, and a baked potato. Even less likely are you to turn on a nice movie and snack on a plate of ribs. There's a time and a place for everything.
21
The sugar in chocolate could also be a drawback. But an ancient Spartan maxim is still the best advice: Meden Agan. Nothing too much.
9
@JSutton Everything in moderation including moderation.
With all due respect to the quoted nutritionist, to claim that a serving of low -sugar dark- chocolate ( 70% +) is equivalent, nutritionally to those cheap milk /sugar confections, full of preservatives , emulsifiers and refine sugar, are the same.
21
Can we please note that the fat in meat is not bad? And there is some saturated fat in almost all sources of fat. More recent studies have disputed the idea that saturated fat is linked to heart disease.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/types-of-fat/
21
@Leila Thank you!! I made the same point above but did not go through the trouble to link one of the (many) recent studies.
2
Are we seriously still discussing those old tropes about fat begin bad bad bad? Have a steak, a glass of red wine, followed up with your chocolate. Have it all.
19
@Jay Strickler Yes, have it all...plus a heart attack.
8
Oh stop. Joie de vivre is a great life extender. Just ask my nana, who cooked and ate divine things her whole live and lived to nearly 100.
3
@Yes Please My grandfather lived as a widower for at least 20 years. As far as I know his diet consisted mainly of eggs, which he ate daily, fried potatoes and peas. He was never fat, never seriously ill and died at age 97, in his own home.
1
I quit added sugar and sweeteners last year. The impact on my health has been profoundly positive. I had been suffering for years from chronic pain which is now gone and I have dropped most of my excessive weight because cravings are gone. How I taste things has changed. Fruit tastes like candy. Chocolate, it turns out, doesn’t taste like anything without added sugar. I might have some chocolate sweetened with dates but I’ve discovered so many foods that taste good on their own and are easier to obtain, it hardly seems worthwhile.
43
I enjoy dark chocolate with almonds followed by a ice cold milk chaser.
10
I prefer the French outlook to that of the Americans re: chocolate. “He showed the words “chocolate cake” to a group of Americans and recorded their word associations. “Guilt” was the top response. If that strikes you as unexceptional, consider the response of French eaters to the same prompt: “celebration.” Michael Pollan, In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto.
32
These comments gave me the best laugh that I have had in a long time. That is why I subscribe to the NYT.
14
@Marisol Is that laughter friendly? No, I think it is a finger pointing laughter.
1
@JSutton There are many funny comments here that engender friendly laughter.
11
The elephant in the room is: sugar. No amount of refined sugar is 'safe', and in fact--according to endocrinologists--dietary sugar is actually the culprit in metabolic disease, not dietary fat.
But fat as the driver of metabolic disease is what has been making the processed foods industry rich for the last fifty years, and it seems to be the story that the FDA and health columnists are sticking with.
Eat chocolate if you believe it works to keep you healthy and you enjoy it, but there's no such thing as a free ride on sugar.
29
@Comp Oh, so valid. There is actually a herd of elephants in the room. Fats are not all alike and should be distributed in the diet by classification. Animal fats and omega-6 oils are way over sold in the American diet because the food industry is managed this way. Grain fed cattle and grain/soy/palm oils are pushed way too much. Processed foods are stripped of nutrients and too often laden with sodium and preservatives. Yet these line the grocery shelves in boxes of pretty colors. Speaking of preservatives this is a whole other Pandora's box. The list continues...
23
To quote Michael Pollan, "Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much."
Chocolate is from plants.
You're welcome.
29
@Ellen Tabor Chocolate is high in oxalates, too much can cause kidney stones
2
@Franklin Most people won't / basically can't get kidney stones. If you've ever had a kidney stone, you need to take doctors orders on which foods have oxalates seriously to avoid getting another one. But most people have kidneys that dissolve normal amounts of oxalates just fine and will never get a kidney stone.
10
I put cocoa nibs in oatmeal, steel cut of course, and heat to soften. Add some fruit and a few walnuts. Better than wheaties.
9
@Barbara Snider I put raw cacao powder in my overnight oats, along with frozen berries and a little dried fruit. Chocolate for breakfast!
4
@Zeke, try to avoid Dutch processed cacao. The processing depletes the chocolate of most of what is beneficial.
1
@Zeke i dump it on a mirror on the coffee table, nudge it into lines and whip out and roll up a double sawbuck and go for it. the book on the couch on the other side of the cat is The Art of The Chocolatier by Ewald Notter. delicious browsing. https://www.amazon.com/Art-Chocolatier-Confections-Sensational-Showpieces/dp/0470398841/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2R2N6FGAI6L82&keywords=the+art+of+the+chocolatier&qid=1662589706&sprefix=the+art+of+the+choco%2Caps%2C90&sr=8-1
and never forget what Kramer said to George, "you'll always return to your dark master, the cacao bean.'
Food X has compounds that are good for you, but you can’t really eat enough of that food to obtain the beneficial effect.
Haven’t seen that in awhile. Statements of that form seemed omnipresent in this sort of article during the last couple of decades of the 20th Century, and they rarely rang true to me back then.
Perhaps they often meant to say that you can’t eat enough to get the sort of therapeutic effect you get from a pharmaceutical. But I’m not so sure that’s the right way to think about beneficial effects.
Andrew Weill wrote some interesting stuff about this idea decades ago as I recall. I remember him writing about the difference between people in South America who chew coca during a work party in the forest and Americans doing cocaine at a different sort of party.
7
This is the best comment thread! I’m just starting to read it and I hope it keeps being hilarious. I can’t stop laughing.
Thanks!
14
@Chocolat I was not terribly enthused about reading these comments until I hit yours, which encouraged me, so I kept reading. Thank you! I needed a good laugh. :)
6
Not so fast... “Fifty-one percent of the fat (in a Porterhouse steak) is monounsaturated, of which 90 percent is oleic acid. Saturated fat constitutes 45 percent of the total fat, but a third of that is stearic acid, which will increase HDL cholesterol while having no effect on LDL. (Stearic acid is metabolized in the body to oleic acid, according to Grundy’s research.) The remaining 4 percent of the fat is polyunsaturated, which lowers LDL cholesterol but has no meaningful effect on HDL.” 70% of the fat in a steak will this contribute to better HDL/LDL ratio and 30% will raise both HDL and LDL equally. -Taubes, Good Calories Bad Calories ( plus, vey hard to argue that chocolate is somehow better nutrition than a steak.
9
@Randy
Indeed.
Not even adding the healthy effects of medium and short chain fatty acids in steak (and not in chocolate) and the countervailing small amounts of trans-fats in red meat (and not chocolate). Turns out: nutrition is complicated!
11
There is a credibility issue with this study since it’s sponsored by Mars. Of course, the results will favor chocolate and it just coincidently gets reported right before Halloween. I am tired of “studies” sponsored by financially interested parties. What’s next? Maybe a Starbucks sponsored study of the health benefits of caffeine.
19
I don't eat chocolate for the health benefits, I eat it for the chocolate.
147
I thought chocolate was one of the four major food groups - along with red wine, bacon, and potato chips. Was I mistaken?
121
@Dennis Menzenski It's well known that the four food groups are chocolate, butter, sugar, and cream.
24
@Dennis Menzenski
Not at all. You hit it right on the noggin!
7
@Observer1 chocolate ice cream?
4
There is a reason chocolate was included for many years in liferaft or tropical survival rations. If it were motor fuel, it would power your car across town.
21
@CATango Military (i.e., 'survival' chocolate) was engineered by Hershey to military spec for the Second World War--extra fat, extra protein, extra vitamins. The Hershey bar my father ate in the ETO is not the Hershey bar you (used to) buy for a dime at the candy store.
10
Dark chocolate often tastes like a punishment, not so much like a delicious treat. Gravel, ash, and an old leather shoe come to mind. And no, Covid hasn’t altered my sense of taste or smell.
A little bit of milk chocolate is ok. Even a lot on some odd days of the year! Before I started drinking coffee at the age of 33, I would eat half of a small milk chocolate bar when I woke up in the morning, to get me out of bed. I was in far better shape then.
This reminds me of stories I read about people in the Middle Ages consuming too much mustard thinking it had some beneficial properties and going crazy. Perhaps they were prone to insanity before the mustard, but still. Moderation.
15
Chocolate, like sugar is still by and large the product of child and slave labor, so is it better to eat hat or murder a cow?
9
@ john Wallis Good point. It's important to check the source of the cocoa used to make the chocolate. Do some internet research if need be. Our NZ Whittaker's chocolate, available in North America, buys cocoa from ethical sources in Ghana. If ethical chocolate seems expensive, eat less of it and use it as a treat. Cheap chocolate produced by child labour should leave a bitter taste in our mouths.
20
I’m sure Mars conducts first class science demonstrating the health benefits of candy they sell to the public.
40
FYI Godiva now uses GMOs.
2
Oh no! Not GMOs!
4
I buy Francois Pralus 100% dark chocolate bars. Very creamy and you just need a small bit to be satisfied. You can order them through Amazon or buy them in Paris!
8
I'm made the mistake of buying chocolate in Paris and now can't be bothered to eat any chocolate that is not Debauve & Gallis or La Maison Du Chocolat.
20
@Clyde Benke what about Gibaud or Mere de la Famille?
.... but truly, New York's Li-Lac is excellent.
7
milk chocolate is just as good for you as dark.. note the last line of the article. Who expected chocolate not to have fats?
5
@Mary M Some of us find milk chocolate too sweet and not deeply "chocolatey". I prefer very dark chocolate (try the Endangered Species brand).
8
Just get Hershey's cocoa powder, use stevia for sweetening and make cocoa ( with lowfat milk). Two cups of cocoa daily will keep your blood pressure in line. Hershey's did a study that they helpful cachetins and flavonols were plentiful in their regular baking cocoa. Add cinnamon and cloves for futher health benefits. I do not suffer from high blood pressure because I drink cocoa every day.
9
Did you know Hershey makes Extra Dark cocoa powder? Heavenly.
6
@Diane Hershey's cocoa has significant amounts of lead.
1
@Comp
That would be ALL chocolate.
""The average lead concentration of cocoa beans was ≤ 0.5 ng/g, which is one of the lowest reported values for a natural food," they wrote. "In contrast, lead concentrations of manufactured cocoa and chocolate products were as high as 230 and 70 ng/g, respectively, which are consistent with market-basket surveys that have repeatedly listed lead concentrations in chocolate products among the highest reported for all foods. One source of contamination of the finished products is tentatively attributed to atmospheric emissions of leaded gasoline, which is still being used in Nigeria." WaPo
4
In comparing chocolate as food to meat as food, one cannot ignore the fact that chocolate is better -- for any individual being eaten.
19
Not really...sad to say, the dairy industry is just as cruel as the meat industry, and laborers (even children?) are exploited to harvest chocolate.
1
Just now I threw together about a cup of confectioner's sugar, a bunch of Hershey's cocoa powder, a tablespoon (maybe) of heavy whipping cream and some peanuts. I'm eating this now. I thinking it's maybe a snack. Apologies to Jane Brody but 1/2 cut of low fat yogurt doesn't work for me. Does Hershey's cocoa powder count for the flavanols?
6
I try to balance chocolate and meat intake so neither one gets to jealous of the other. Just need to exercise in between
29
Eating meat contributes, in a big way, to global warming. One of the most effective steps an individual can take to counter climate change is to eliminate meat from your diet. For anyone screaming, I have not done it, although I have cut back to eating meat no more than a few times a week.
Chocolate, on the other hand, may become a victim of climate change.
So, one more reason to eat chocolate over meat while you can.
Everyone, regardless of political party, needs to be taking reasonable steps now to do things to counter climate change. Wondering what that guy in West Virginia is doing. Cutting back his meat intake, and eating chocolate, I hope.
34
I don't eat meat anymore, and eat a lot less chocolate. It tastes better if it's a rare treat. I'm fat anyway, so it really doesn't make a difference what I eat, but I feel queasy about all the cruelty to animals and exploitation of people that is behind all agriculture. It ruins my appetite, so I don't eat as much of anything anymore.
8
This article mentions both "cocoa" and "cacao" but fails to make the important distinction between the two terms (when used correctly: "cacao: is the powdered fruit closer to its natural state than "cocoa" which has undergone much more processing including high heat, as a result losing some of its nutritional value.
So to get the maximum benefit, health experts advise using cacao, provided you can find it, not usually in ordinary supermarkets. Go to a health food store or get in online.
Note: tastewise, cacao is more bitter than cocoa.
10
can anyone unpack this sentence for me:
"Unlike dark chocolate, milk chocolate has little of one crucial flavanol, epicatechin, left in it after processing."
Does that mean dark chocolate does not have little of one crucial flavonal, epicatechin, left in it after processing?
If so, what does that mean?
3
@grymttrs I'm pretty sure it means that there is much more of the beneficial flavanol, epicatechin, in dark chocolate than in milk chocolate.
14
@grymttrs
Dark chocolate has flavanol(s). In milk chocolate, they're almost processed entirely out.
10
Just enjoy life and quit worrying.
Bring me a steak and some chocolate. Oh, and a few beers.
28
@ChallengeTheNarrative
Well, add a shot of bourbon and then a few cigars.
9
@m & j I'll take a few shots of bourbon with my dark chocolate and skip the cigars, please.
3
Oh, let’s just ruin chocolate ... really!!!!?????
15
Most people are going to die someday - just each the chocolate.
35
I would like to thank all of the commenters who took time from their days to share their knowledge on this topic. Many of you appear to have put in much more effort, and have more knowledge, than the articles author.
25
Be aware that Nestle, Hershey, Mars and others knowingly buy their cocao beans from West African growers who use child slave labor.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/12/mars-nestle-and-hershey-to-face-landmark-child-slavery-lawsuit-in-us
The lawsuit was thrown out by the US Supreme Court because the labor practice did not take place in the US. This did nothing to change the use of child slave labor.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57522186
Buy chocolate responsibly.
45
Equal Exchange is an excellent source for responsible fair trade chocolate.
2
I eat alter eco's Total Blackout bar, available at WF. 100% cocoa and no sugar. Ghirardelli's Baking bar (100%) is good too, although harder to break into small pieces. Definitely an acquired taste. I worked my way up from 78% to 95% (Lindt's). Then my store stopped carrying the 95% and the 90% now tasted way too sweet. So nowhere to go but up. Once you get used to it "bitter" is a much more interesting taste than sweet. Sweet is sweet but "bitter" has phases of different tastes.
39
@jpo I thought I was the only one who ate unsweetened baking chocolate. I don't do this to punish myself - I really like it. I haven't told anyone for fear they would think I was daft. I have to be careful about any kind of chocolate, though - it accelerates my heart rate.
7
"older adults consumed the equivalent of 300 grams of dark chocolate a day"
300 grams? Is there a follow-up study? I want to be part of that. Oh, yes, I do.
79
I say, who is the maker of the chocolates seen in that photo?
We want to know......
12
@JOHN,
Asking for a friend
6
@JOHN Looks like a Whitman's Sampler
5
@JOHN Looks like Whitman's.
4
Whatever else happens: chocolate tastes a lot better.
22
I enjoy cacao nibs with blackstrap molasses drizzled over the top. I hope I'm getting a hit of flavanols with less sugar and fat than even dark chocolate (and more minerals, too). Of course, I don't eat my chocolate this way just because I think it's healthier. I do it because I love it! Cacao nibs are crunchy and chocolatey and delicious! They are the best on ice cream, too (instead of chocolate chips).
5
@H.
Nibs are the best. Yuck but not with molasses; you lose the flavor of the dark chocolate.
4
In a country that mesmerizes consumers into eating some of the worst processed foods in the world—with one manufacturer boasting (right here in The New York Times) they had devised a chemical that actually stimulates the addiction centers in the brain (so you’ll “never eat just one”)—trying to find nutritional value in processed chocolate is just as futile as recent, conclusive studies that consumption of alcoholic beverages yields absolulety no health benefits (also written about in The Times.
Until I radically changed my eating habits, chocolate was by far the most addictive—hopelessly—and ultimately the most harmful. Once I stopped chocolate, my 2 day migraines were cut in half. After more harmful foods were eliminated over time, migraines are rare.
8
Sounds like you were addicted to sugar and probably have a caffeine allergy.
Chocolate is not addictive. SUGAR is addictive. That's why there Are studies about sugar and non about chocolate... It's irrelevant.
11
@Nonorexia
Chocolate is not addictive. You were eating milk or dark chocolate? Both milk and dark chocolate can bring on migraines. Also, you might have a caffeine problem.. You may have been addicted to the sugar.
5
@A
There is no proof that sugar is addictive. It may become an unhealthy habit but there is nothing inherently addictive about it.
1
Fatty acids are not forms of fat. They are utilized in the synthesis of fat. If a fatty acid (such as palmitic) is saturated, the fat in which it is found is to some degree saturated. A fat in which 3 palmitic acids are utilized is completely saturated.
Most readers probably know that the liver is the primary synthesizer of palmitic acid, which it incorporates into synthesized saturated fat that is subsequently exported into the bloodstream, and largely removed by fat cells; in between meals and during longer fasts, the palmitic acid is released by fat cells, and is a major source of fuel for the body. Indeed , much of the saturated fat found in meat resides in the white fat, not the red muscle.
Readers who have not fallen asleep while reading this comment may also know that the palmitic acid synthesized by the liver is largely derived from excess carbohydrate. That is, the more carbohydrate consumed in excess of daily needs, the more palmitic acid synthesized. Perhaps the dieticians amongst us can tell us how much palmitic acid is synthesized from one extra donut, compared to how much is ingested in one extra square of dark chocolate or ingested in one extra forkful of meat.
13
"If somebody enjoys chocolate, they should eat a small to moderate amount of whatever chocolate they prefer."
Replace "chocolate" with pretty much any food, and that sounds to me a like a healthy relationship with eating!
30
Moderation has always been the key to health and health is not an end in itself but a means to a happy life.
13
I wish this was true, but I eat a lot less now and I've gotten fatter anyway. It isn't hypothyroid, either. I don't eat meat or eggs and eat a lot less chocolate. Go figure.
3
I simply eat small to moderate portions of whatever I like.
11
Apparently, if you compare the rates of dark chocolate consumption with the number of Nobel prizes won, on a per-country basis, there is almost an exact correlation, and the winner is Switzerland.
47
@Clive, I knew there was a reason why I moved over here!
14
@Clive See? Chocolate makes you more smart-like.
1
How about a little common sense here? Dark chocolate has less sugar. You are generally better off eating less sugar. Dark choc also has beneficial flavonoids that milk choc does not have. Seems like a pretty easy decision, despite what Dr. Lichtenstein says.
25
Is dark chocolate less sugar or less milk?
1
Dark chocolate has No Milk because then it would become Milk Chocolate? And Dark chocolate generally has less sugar because it needs less to balance the flavors. It depends on the quality and purity of the chocolate though. So cheap chocolates are usually filler, which means more sugar.
If you want a high quality delicious dark Chocolate I recommend Amano Bars.
6
@James
Agree with you all around; eat less sugar, and, eat dark chocolate, with its lower sugar content and flavonoids. And I’d go one more and say not only “despite what Dr Lichtenstein says”, but that we’d all be better off just ignoring what Dr Lichtenstein says. Why? Read - carefully - Chapter 10 in “The Big Fat Surprise” by Teicholz, and you’ll read some rather startling things about Dr Lichtenstein that never seem to get into articles like this one in the Times. If I could ask the esteemed Dr L one question, it would be this: “How do you explain that obesity rates in the US began their measurable rise at the same time that the USDA recommended that we all should eat a low-fat and high-carb diet?”
1
"but don't go overboard" Is that necessary? Besides, there is no amount of chocolate that is bad for you, whatever "bad for you" means. The longest living human in history lived to be 120. She claimed that she ate a kilogram of chocolate per week. Is that going overboard?
If you use cocoa, the most concentrated source of chocolate flavanols, stay away from "dutched" or alkali processed cocoa.
12
@J.I.M. According to the calculation of calories in the article, a kilo of dark chocolate a week is 833 calories of chocolate every day. If we're thinking of the caloric requirements of a 120-year-old lady, that does not leave room for much of anything else. But I'm glad she enjoyed her life! Living to 120 is license to go overboard :)
9
@J.I.M. Nothing wrong with dutch chocolate - you just might need to drink a bit more to get the same amount of flavonols and such.
2
@J.I.M. If you asked a bunch of centenarians the question, half at least would say “I don’t eat chocolate”! Lol!
1
Just before Halloween, Christmas, Easter, Valentines Day, and any other candy coated holiday, the sugar industry PR team releases some variant of the chocolate is healthy research study.
Before we all justify our over indulgency in candy with this fig leaf of research, please remember all the research that clearly shows that overconsumption of sugar is toxic to humans and that sugar is addictive.
Enjoy your sweets in extreme moderation.
14
@Ben P - I sprinkle a bit of organic cocoa on top of my morning espressos. It adds a little something-something but the amount is so small that it would not show up on anything but a psychological evaluation. No sugar and only 3 g of carbs per tablespoon which is more than I would use in a week.
The last chocolate bar I had in the house was a Ghirardelli 100% cacao baking bar - no sugar. And recently, I popped into a different place looking for an espresso only to have the lovely lady let me sample their high-end 100% cacao bars.
3
Recently I've been enjoying the new beef which is raised on a high-cocoa bean diet. I'm surprised this was not thought of long ago.
25
@bill Why don't you just eat stuff made from cocoa beans and let the bovines live their lives?
18
After reading the article and comments, it's clear what the answer is on the health benefits of dark chocolate. The answer is yes, no, maybe.
6
I have made my choices: 3.17 oz of 86% or 92% dark chocolate (Ghirar.)/day, nothing else processed, lots of vegetables, rarely red meat, grains, all kinds of dairy, one glass of red wine/day
No blood pressure, no cholesterol, no meds, and no spring chicken. Know thyself.
16
@Juin If you knew yourself a little better, you'd ditch the "all kinds of" dairy; milk does not do a body good.
https://plantpowered.info/why-milk-doesnt-do-a-body-good/
9
Dry baking cocoa powder has none of these components. Moistened with olive oil, it is an excellent dessert.
4
@Jonathan Katz Disgusting. There is no other word for the kinds of things that food fanatics will put in their bodies and claim that it's wonderful.
32
@Ceilidth Please don't tell me about any of your "disgusting" food habits either; I don't want to know!
4
@Ceilidth Legit outloud chuckle, thank you.
8
A very informative article. Health is very important these days. People have a lot of diseases because of high body fats. People you have requested to follow the proper 5.2 diets https://www.fastingup.com/7-new-5-2-diet-meal-ideas/ to make your body fit and healthy.
Which is why our ancient ancestors survived by foraging for chocolate rather than hunting for animals.
66
@MikeR My wife while pursuing dark chocolate while in a deprived state: killer instinct!
11
@MikeR I have read that our early ancestors mostly ate nuts and berries. It was hard to catch animals and it was only an occasional part of their diet. Also, those animals were much leaner than what is raised by ranchers today.
1
It's gotten to the point that with these Times articles on diet, I skip the article and go straight to the Readers' Comments. They are more informative and way more entertaining.
437
@dwalker
So true!
22
@dwalker entertainng yes, informative not so much....more like watching cage fighting or crusader movies...
5
@dwalker - Definitely :)
6
My momma always said, “NYTimes heath reporting is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.”
(That's why I always pick the dark chocolate ones.)
75
@SRP
This comment wins.
Seriously though, they’re not taking into account what people like. I don’t care for dark chocolate, even lower percentage and high quality ones. I only like milk or white (which isn’t true chocolate). I’m ok with that since I don’t eat it often. Everything in moderation.
6
Exactly this. I can’t stand the taste of dark chocolate. Health benefits or no, I’m not eating the stuff. I’d rather occasionally enjoy milk chocolate, the taste of which I actually like.
6
The idea that stearic and palmitic acids are somehow related to increased heart disease should be quantified in this case, because the hazard ratio was only about 1.25 which is categorically negligible. When studies demonstrate this small of an effect it might as well not be published, because it is rubbish to think the effect is statistically significant and real, not being caused by some other confounding factor.
9
Very bad stereotypical headline!! Check your facts on meat. Besides, what is “meat?” Bottom end hot dogs or grass fed beef? It’s like calling Ripple and a fine Chardonnay the same wine. Both get the job done and even taste ok but few would argue that made them identical. I hate it when my most favorite news producer is careless with the facts!
18
Dr. LIchtenstein suggests one eats, in moderate amounts, whatever chocolate they prefer, milk or dark chocolate.
Milk chocolate is loaded with sugar and far less of the beneficial elements of dark chocolate. So, again, the advice
loses validity when we're advised to...eat whatever you want.
I've started eating the dark, 90%. I loved milk chocolate, filled
with the flavor of sugar. I acquired a taste for dark, and now love that and feel that I'm getting a health benefit from it.
13
@Gloria Utopia I think you missed the point. In the quantities that chocolate should be eaten, which chocolate you choose is irrelevant to your health. And just because you actually like that 90% sawdust tasting and believe that it is good for you doesn't mean it is.
9
@Gloria Utopia
I agree with the doctor that people should eat what they like, in moderation if it’s not healthy, and not pretend any type of chocolate is a health food.
6
Everything in moderation. Stay active. Enjoy your life. You're going to die anyway.
149
@J. Thank you. I needed that today.
11
@J
The way I heard it it was "Everything in moderatiion, including moderation." You gotta cut loose every now and then, just don't overdo it.
6
Are the fats in meat bad for you again? I can't keep up.
16
@Asher they have always been and continue so. My late parents are testimony to that - heart disease, clogged arteries, heart attacks, stents, you name it. Don't be fooled by the latest meat guru. There's a ton of profit in meat production. Why do you think it's everywhere you look. A burger joint at every corner, even in Brooklyn. Better dining needs foot traffic and has added it to their menus because it's the cheapest thing they can serve at a pretty profit. And you know what drives business, easy profit. Each cow (substitute any animal here) eats virtually trash (weeds, junk corn) and fattened on additives, is docile and easy to breed - there you go.
3
“Is this as harmful as the saturated fat in meat?” Right there, one sees that this article is based on an unexamined premise that many of us do not accept, thanks in part to extensive reporting in NYT and elsewhere. Even if the principals here support the old conventional “wisdom,” they must at least acknowledge the controversy.
12
The oft mentioned "death by chocolate" may not be the case,even for Miss Marple!
3
@Carlyle T.
Death by chocolate might b e a highly desireable alternative to many other choices.
49
@Carlyle T.
It's in my Living Will.
20
This is fully ignorant of the increasing evidence that proves saturated fat, yes from animals, is no danger at all for a healthy diet. A headline about 'bad animal fats' is dangerous and wrong.
A NY Times bestseller, 'Big Fat Surprise' chronicles the completely fraudulent science that started the myth of saturated fat as a health problem. That gave us high carbs/sugar that has given us Type II diabetes and obesity at epidemic levels.
This has to end
31
@steve Coronary heart disease was a epidemic in most of the 20th Century, according to the American Journal of Medicine, and other sources. Insistence on changing our diet to less animal fats have improved the odds for many, along with medicines and earlier detection. However, blaming obesity on others may not be a solution. I never ate reduced -fat foods because I read labels and knew that the natural fat was supplemented by an imitation fat (which caused other problems) and, of course, more sugar. Obesity may be linked to many things, among them overeating, as seems to be the American way, as of course, eating processed and fast food (which is really processed food), being a
major contributor to obesity, and accompanying issue of Metabolic Syndrome. The controversy continues, but I think statistics are saying, a lower animal-fat diet has benefits. The Mediterranean diet
is touted as the healthiest, and it's low in animal fats, preferring fish and a large variety of plant-based foods. Meat is not a large part of the diet. Elimination of fats is not desirable, but limiting fats seems to be the goal.
The controversy continues, but the proof seems to be in the reduction of consumption of animal fats, with better survival rates regarding heart disease.
20
@steve
If saturated fat has been proven to be benign or (beneficial as Nina Teicholz claims) in larger amounts, why is it that only people like Teicholz, a non-scientist, have access to this proof? Where is this proof?
Current dietary guidelines recommend limiting saturated fat intake to 10% of calories. In a 2000-calorie diet, one cup of whole milk, one chicken thigh, 3 oz of salmon, and two eggs have in total about 70% of this allowance; consuming a large quantity of fruits and vegetables in addition would still put one under the limit.
Dietary guidelines have all included recommendations to limit the consumption of added fats and added sugars. Despite the claims of Teicholz, Taubes and like-minded conspiracy theorists, there was never a recommendation to follow a low-fat diet. Reducing fat consumption is not the same as eating a low-fat diet. It's a moot point anyway, because fat consumption increased steadily throughout the 20th century. Sugar consumption, however has been declining for twenty years in the U.S.
Obesity and diabetes are/were much less common among groups of people consuming diets higher in carbohydrates and lower in fats than the American diet. This does not mean that dietary fat causes metabolic disease, but it does present a problem for those who claim that carbohydrates are the culprit.
8
@Gloria Utopia
Over the course of epidemic coronary heart disease, Americans were dropping the saturated fat in favor of plant fats -- margarines, soy oils, seed oils.
A high(er) fat diet consisting of natural fatty foods has already been demonstrated to treat metabolic syndrome and obesity, in randomized clinical trials, with human subjects.
3
I eat Montezuma's 100% Cocoa Solids Dark Chocolate Absolute Black with Cocoa Nibs (Trader Joe's.) It has zero sugar and it is an acquired taste. I ate small amounts in the beginning and now I really like it. I break it up and put the chunks in my plain nonfat yogurt with fresh fruit. I eat about 1/6 of a bar per day (about 17 grams.) It does seem to enhance my overall well being. Even if it is a placebo, it is the best tasting placebo there is!
15
Information is like chocolate, you can have too much of a good thing.
7
@Sutter Oh, Hi. I got some of that too and found it tastes like dirt. I mean it brought back a memory of being age 2 and biting into a clump of clay dirt while playing in the yard. Now I blend it up dry to refine the bits into a powder and add it to a protein milk shake with either 2% milk or soy milk and whey powder. I will try it with frozen milk cubes in the summer. Since I read that chocolate and protein helps recovery after endurance exercise, this is why I am including it in my diet.
1
@mrmckind
Out of curiosity why not just get cocoa powder rather than turn a bar into powder?
4
This answer leaves out an important health benefit of dark chocolate—why do you eat vegetables and fruits and whole grains? Dietary fiber! Dark chocolate is high in dietary fiber with Godiva dark chocolate containing 26% daily value per 230 calories. Caveat is not all dark chocolate has as high amount as Godiva so check the back of the bar.
6
Talk about first world problems!! Almost every time I read a NYT article on diet, I am amazed. Do some of you really research and follow all these strange nutritional theories? If so, what do you hope to achieve? Most of your longevity is based on your genes. You can tweak it a bit with a good diet and exercise, but the experts can't even agree on what constitutes a good diet. We are all going to die and no diet is going to prevent that fact of life.
19
@Sandi while I agree that we are all going to die, some avenues to death are more horrible than others. Ask anyone who has watched someone die of a chronic disease brought on by poor diet, no access to healthcare, and no support system.
18
I buy Callebaut 70.4% bittersweet chocolate in either 5kg (11 lb.) blocks or 10kg (22 lb.) callets (chips) just for snacking. I am not at all overweight and it is good for my mental health. I would give up a lot of other foods before I would stop eating my bittersweet chocolate. Highly recommend pricing and availability at Pike Global Foods in PA.
4
Andrew Lessman, for whom I do not work and who does not know me, manufactures chocolate squares (in varying concentrations, I get the 90 percent but that is admittedly an acquired taste) substituting plant sterols for the cocoa fat. It is exceptionally delicious, and has a much better "mouth feel" and better melting point than regular dark chocolate of this concentration. In theory it would lower your cholesterol if you substituted it for the usual chocolate you eat. Or added it to your diet perhaps. I have been eating it since he first made it and it is while not La Maison du Chocolat, very good for the afternoon chocolate I eat every single day. Also breakfast.
1
@Nancy
I eat Taza chocolate, 87% plain and 85% w/ginger. YUMMY!
You will pry my chocolate from my cold, dead Hands.
Seriously.
143
@Phyliss Dalmatian Same!
12
I do not care what anyone else says, chocolate is health food. Mental health that is. I just feel better after eating chocolate.
234
So there have not been any studies on the health benefits of cacao since this Mars study was published in 2014? Really?
2
@F. St. Louis- read my comments below listing a link to a Harvard study done.
2
This is good news. I have several dozen Cadbury Creme Eggs left to eat.
23
First, what is "healthy"? Living long? Living long as a vegetable?
Second, don't we as Westerners lack credibility when it comes to "health"? We have never been able to keep a diet for more than a generation. No one eats what their parents ate, but alas "we have the science that correctly guides us to the one true food." This delusion is what drove author Gwen Steege to lambast the Aztecs as primitive because their chocolate lacked sugar like their European counterparts.
Third, these "chocolate is healthy" articles are the result of research from the chocolate maker Mars' funded Mars Center for Cocoa Science at UC Davis. No one likes dark chocolate. In 1980, no one ever said " I wish my chocolate had less sugar." Which is why the founder of Green&Black had to beg Lindt to expand its dark chocolate sells outside of Spain where their dark chocolate was simply an homage to the early Aztec style chocolate - btw Lindt refused, hence Green and Black.
Seems like the search for health is more about the ever-futile attempt by rich nations to prove that we are more intelligent than other people/nations in sometimes contradictory ways by paying them non-negotiable poverty wages for their crops.
9
@Dukie Bravo
RE: No one likes dark chocolate.
Speak for yourself, but not for me, please.
I LOVE dark chocolate. It's the milk chocolate I can't stand anymore.
84
@Dukie Bravo No one likes dark chocolate? I like dark chocolate much better than (greasy) milk chocolate.
22
@Dukie Bravo
"No one likes dark chocolate." Are you serious?
To quote Woody Allen, love is too weak a word -- I lurve it, I luff it, I love it. I'll eat 100% unsweetened cacao. Milk chocolate can taste like paste in comparison.....
14
American chocolate is not chocolate, according to the rest of the world.
11
@Gió- the "rest of the world" more specifically Asia "Kit Kat" chocolate bars are the biggest sellers/most popular. So much for your assertion. In Italy your chocolate isn't so great, so sorry, most chocolates sold there contain sugar as it's #1 ingredient. In this country particularly in the last 15 years or so, the rave has been "Bean-to Bar" chocolates, with chocolate solids content of 60% or more which is called "Dark Chocolate", usually organic and usually from a single source country such as Venezuela, Costa Rica, Grenada. Much more expensive but well worth it and often can be found with a little effort for a much lower price. Perugina used to be on one of my favorites list but not anymore.
4
@lou andrews
Anyone who has lived in Piemonte would strongly disagree with your assessment of Italian chocolate. Just try gianduiotti or cremini made by Caffarel or Baratti & Milano, or practically any chocolate from Cuneo. Wonderful.
6
!!!
2
What a strange article.
The fat in meat is good for you. The demonisation of that fat has caused obesity and shortened lives. Look at pictures of people who lived before the demonisation is one way of checking.
Teasing out fat in a sugary food like most of what passes as chocolate is misleading, presumably deliberately misleading. If I were to test for actual measurable damage to humans from chocolate consumption I'd make sure I had the full range of sugar levels covered. If I didn't do that I'd be doing junk science.
Disappointed in this article.
13
@MJG- what you're claiming to be "Chocolate" isn't chocolate but instead contain more than 50% sugar usually higher and very little cocoa powder and then milk powder like in KIt Kat bars, Hershey's milk or even "dark" chocolate(it really isn't dark), Cadbury etc. They've been the staple for generations of candy eaters in the U.S., fortunately the last 10 years things have been changing. The chocolates with more than 60% chocolate solids are the true dark chocolates and are indeed healthy for you(read my comments below and attached link from a Harvard study done in 2011).
6
To all those who come up with problems with fat, calories etc periodically my answer ‘its one man or one woman’s opinion, period
1
I find it ironic that while dissing dark chocolate here, on the front Science page Gina Kolata, a great health journalist, is exploring the frustrations and lack of medical progress on the treatments for and prevention of Alzheimer’s and vascular dementia: “The Diagnosis Is Alzheimer’s. But That’s Probably Not the Only Problem.”
According to the article:
“Dr. Hofman is convinced that the precipitating factor is diminished blood flow to the brain. “Alzheimer’s disease is a vascular disease,” he said. …[and]
Dr. Seth Love, professor of pathology at the University of Bristol in England, noted that a core feature of Alzheimer’s is a reduction in blood flow through the cerebrum of the brain.”
Well, what chemicals do we KNOW increase blood flow in the brain?
Cocoa flavanols. (See prior cites.)
And what chemicals do we KNOW increase the cognitive capacity of the aged?
Cocoa flavanols. (See prior cites.)
Hmmm. It is all starting to make sense now…
3
@SRP
Alzheimer’s is an infectious disease... wait and see. The amount of knowledge we have about our own biology and pathology is minuscule.
1
With all due respect... Can I die in peace? Pass the chocolate.
27
The chocolates shown in the picture are very unhealthy. Why did the Times post it? A dark chocolate bar perhaps a bar with a chocolate solids content of 60% or higher would have been a much better choice. The piece of chocoalte shown is obviously milk chocolate with caramel, far from being healthy. As far as cocoa butter, the fat in chocolate, the dangers are far outweighed by the artery -healthy bioflavonoids. The editors could have done a way better job. https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/dark-chocolate-protects-arteries
16
I eat chocolate, chocolate cake, and chocolate ice cream, because I like them.
18
I'm old enough to remember when a typical man ate a couple of fried eggs and 3-4 slices of bacon everyday for breakfast. At lunch, he dined at a men's grill or club and often had a 2nd hot meal, often an open-faced meat sandwich of some sort, swimming in melted cheese. For dinner that night, there was a roast (beef/pork) or chicken and two sides - one a green veggie and one a starchy one. He also might well have had a martini or two at lunch and another couple before dinner.
None of this was considered "excessive" at that time. It was the normal diet of a middle/upper middle class male. Yes, many did die of a heart attack or had a stroke, but many also lived well into their 80's - even 90's. A woman did not typically eat that much.
I think if we all just use the mantra "moderation in all things", we'll be fine. I don't want to eat meat, red or otherwise, every single night. Perhaps once a week or even every two weeks. Chicken once or twice a week. I do love potatoes and eat them. I only eat fast food if my cooler gave out while on a long highway trip and I am desperate.
But I do love my chocolate! I'm a dark chocolate fan all the way - have been since I was a young girl. I have a little nearly every single day. I rarely drink but I do like my chocolate "fix". I'm 75 - no high blood pressure, no heart disease. Just my danged pulmonary problems which are inherited and also caused by multiple childhood illnesses.
17
@India, Impossible. Dark chocolate was not widely available until the mid-2000's in the US. I anticipate some backtracking and added details to your original post. Either you are young or you did not eat true dark chocolate, which is it please?
@Dukie Bravo. Are you not familiar with Russell Stover candy? The “Assorted” box contained pices in both dark and milk chocolate. One could easily get a bag of ones with dark chocolate in and of their retail stores. My favorite as a 10 yr old (1953) was their “Roman Nouget” covered in dark chocolate.
This was in the Midwest - the company started in Kansas City.
17
@Dukie Bravo No way. My father loved dark chocolate his whole life and he was born in the 1920s. You just didn't know where to get it. There was always dark chocolate -- I always avoided it. lol
7
Whatever you eat, it's going to kill you. The only solution is, don't eat anything.
36
"The fat in chocolate is not as harmful as the fat in meat, said Alice Lichtenstein"
Got it, I'll double my chocolate intake and slash meat by a half.
16
@Rob Vukovic
Since surface-to-volume ratio goes down with size, if you always wrap your chocolate in meat, like bacon, you should be fine no matter how big of a piece you got.
8
Any one who tries to keep up with and conform to the latest reports, studies, trials, scientific opinions, general advice, and whatever else is relevant to healthy eating....won't have time to eat.
15
@Rodgerlodger
What? The indoctrination synergy of eating and reading is well know to the writers for cereal boxes.
11
Or live an actual life.
3
Why don't I get asked to participate in studies requiring the subjects to eat over half a pound of chocolate daily?
Wait ….. I guess they want a change from your normal diet.
121
@KJ very funny! Thank you for the chuckle, KJ.
12
@KJ
Ha! I did participate in a Harvard study for the potential benefit to blood flow to the kidneys from a certain kind of South American cocoa. No sugar with the cocoa so no benefit to my tongue. There are a ton of studies out there…Google it!
4
Many commenters who seem familiar with the literature on saturated fat intake seem certain there is no proof it is harmful.
They seem unaware that in most of those studies, people who ate less saturated fat often replaced those calories with simple carbohydrates and sugars, which have their own deleterious effects on lipid metabolism, because of their impact on insulin release.
Complexities like that make dietary studies difficult to perform in a way that provides definitive results.
57
My cardiologist limits me to 15 g. of saturated fat per day which is probably not a bad idea for most people.
5
@jimi99 How much does he eat himself?
9
@jimi99 Mine recommends 8 to 10 g. of saturated fat per day. My bid lifestyle change is very little cheese. It seems to be going okay. A lobster roll once in a while is okay he says.
1
The problem is *sugar*, not fat. Occasional dark chocolate is totally fine, and there is no problem with eating saturated fats in meat. Meat is not good for the environment but unfortunately it is very good for us as individuals.
12
@Claudia Gold
As a heart specialist, I would like to disabuse you of the notion that meat is "very good for us."
That statement is completely false.
Aside from the established association between red meat and an increased incidence of cardiovascular disease, there are still unquantified risks associated with the hormones and antibiotics in cattle feed, which meat-eaters then consume.
When you add the environmental destruction caused by feed lots, and the greenhouse gas methane that cattle emit, there is nothing positive to be said for eating beef.
217
@Charley Darwin I only eat organic, whether meat or vegetables. I have lost 25 pounds and moved from prediabetes to very low blood sugar on a strict paleo diet and that was after spending 10+ years as a pescatarian. My body can't seem to handle grains and sugar, but it does much better on a paleo meat-based and non-processed diet.
27
@Charley Darwin, can you point to the science that shows a causal link between saturated fat and heart disease? I'm aware that there is an established correlation, but that correlation was not made in the absence of a carbohydrate-rich diet, at least from the studies I've seen.
Personally, I have been eating a low-carb, high healthy-fat diet for over 2 years, and have seen all of my markers for heart disease improve, from an HDL > 70, Triglycerides of 58, LDL of 90 (with almost exclusively pattern A particles), Total cholesterol of 166, HBA1C of 4.9, a zero calcium score, no blockages detected in my carotid artery scans and a blood pressure of 109/68. I've also lost 37 lbs, and have dropped to about 19% body fat at 5ft 8", 158lbs. All from dietary changes. I do exercise, mostly walking a few miles a day, but I eat plenty of red meat, mostly grass fed, and don't seem to be seeing any deleterious effects.
Are there other markers I should be looking for...because my Doctor hasn't indicated any.
31
The question these days: is saturated fat actually unhealthy? The scientific thinking is definitely changing despite the cultural narrative -as reflected in the comments- about saturated fat's unquestionably assumed badness. If cardio-vascular health is important excise the sugars and refined carbohydrates.
24
Yes! After seeing Dr. Atkins- his diet’s most ardent practioner-on YouTube, I said that’s the diet for me.
3
American chocolate is too sweet. Too much sugar. The best chocolate is Belgian chocolate like Marcolini and Wittamer.
33
@AV Look for high-quality bean to bar dark chocolate at 70% or higher. It shouldn't be very sweet at that point. Nestles, Twix bars, and all that nonsense are truly disgusting and not food, and no one should eat that.
16
@AV Jacques Torres- made in Brooklyn
3
@AV, Marcolini's violet and rose chocolates are the best!
The answer for those who are smart about their portion control is that "it doesn't matter."
For everybody else, I don't know what to say other than to watch your portion size.
12
Chocolate is like red wine, very good for you but eat/drink in extreme moderation.
Good luck in doing that.
68
@Paul And eating chocolate WHILE DRINKING RED WINE--does wonders for one's mental health.
10
Another issue the article doesn't discuss, besides the dangers of all saturated fats for people with cardiovascular conditions, is that calories aren't the only health problem when it comes to eating chocolate. Many commercial chocolates contain residues of unhealthy mineral oils. Perhaps it might be good to devote a separate article to this health issue.
10
This article is not helpful at all, in the sense that it never explains that a healthy adult is not supposed to eat more than 20-22 grams of saturated fats per day! That means spread out over all the foods you eat...Take a look at your dark chocolate bar. Mine, 99 percent chocolate, contains a whopping 40 grams of saturated fat! Do the same with coconut oil and coconut milk. You'll be amazed.
Where does it say in health advisories that we can go ahead and eat saturated fats coming from cocoa butter because they would be less harmful than those from meats? It doesn't. Until we know more, we need to be careful with the intake of saturated fats, especially people with cardiovascular conditions.
17
@Writer yes writer. My experience was smoking plus morning dairy plus high fat meat which when combined with over exertion when swimming produced a stroke. Reading Dr Roy Swank's book on MS showed me how fat clumps in the small brain capillaries cause swelling under pressure and leak into the brain and depending where they leak, produce many different symptoms. It's a mechanical model and simple to understand. But as you know, you can't make money telling people to not eat saturated fats!
7
@mike r
"But as you know, you can't make money telling people to not eat saturated fats!"
In the word's of John McEnroe, you have got to be kidding me!
4
@Steel Actually, McEnroe said: You cannot be serious!
2
Use cacao nibs, sprinkle them on your yogurt to add flavor and crunch. No sugar. The flavor is subtle, but delicious.
54
@Dfkinjer As a dark chocolate lover, I've tried cocao nibs. To my palate, they tasted like bitter, burnt bits of nastiness. I try them again every now and then to see if my taste towards them has changed. Unfortunately, it has not.
12
@Dfkinjer I sprinkle ground cacao in my morning coffee to get some magnesium and flavonoids. Yum.
4
Despite decades and hundreds of millions of dollars spent trying to justify the low fat dietary guidelines, no actual harm from saturated fat in particular or naturally fatty foods in general has ever been discovered.
Numerous recent meta-analyses have found no links between sat fat consumption and heart disease. Numerous controlled trials, with human subjects, find high(er) fat diets either neutral or _beneficial_ for weight loss and metabolic health.
64
@The Pooch This has been my personal experience. A LCHF diet has actually reversed all of my markers for heart disease, and has helped me lean out quite nicely. Plus, my doctor is involved every step of the way and has encouraged me to continue after seeing the test results over the past couple years.
8
@David LCHF= low carb high fat. Had to look it up.
2
According to this article: “One study that garnered a lot of attention, sponsored in part by the candy company Mars, found that older adults who consumed a drink rich in cocoa flavanols for three months performed better on a memory test than others who drank a low-flavanol mix.”
Let’s evaluate whether this is fairly presenting the evidence—or biasedly damning with faint praise?
First, it was not a “study,” but a trial, a randomized controlled trial, the “gold standard” of medical evidence.
Second, it was not one, but rather TWO, two separate trials, done with different populations and done years apart. Google “PMID 22892813” & “PMID 25733639”. Read at least their abstracts.
Third, it was not “a” memory test, but three tests in each study, cognition-testing more than just memory.
Four, the resulting effects—in each case—were demonstrated in a dose-dependent fashion.
(And the effect confirmed in an independent prospective study: PMID 27163823.)
And five—very importantly—explained by a slew of studies indicating that dark chocolate increases blood flow in the brain (as it does in the body): google PMID 25344629, 16794461, 25344629, 18728792, 26047963, 27088635, 30413065, 30060538, or 29502273.
Now, how am I expected to trust this writer or her source in the future when they appear to deliberately misrepresent the evidence?
148
@SRP Haven’t we recently heard a lot about problems with scientists conducting studies or trials sponsored by corporations with vested interests in the results?
27
@SRP
The problem is the "sponsored in part by the candy company Mars..." Hardly a disinterested party in a study that purports to show health benefits for their own product. That doesn't necessarily invalidate it, but neither should it be glossed over.
53
@SRP
I find the author's description of this study, involving two, related clinical trials (for experimental scientists, such trials are are not even the "bronze standard" of empiricism), to be responsible and conservative in reporting the study's results. The first trial showed positive effects in TWO of three measures (NOT dose-dependent, based on three treatment groups) in 90 elderly subjects with mental impairment over an 8 week period. Their follow-up trial was basically the same design, but with elderly subjects that showed no indications of cognitive decline. Effects of cocoa flavanol consumption was detected in, again, two of the three measures (but in dose-dependant manners). This lab's study published in two, nonremarkable medical journals is one of many interesting and suggestive clinical investigations of dietary compounds and cognitive function. The NYT writer here gave it the appropriate attention. The comment by SRP, on the other hand, appears to be strongly biased in favor of these two, very typical clinical studies offering correlational support (to a popular trending hypothesis.)
15
Wowza. Given the tons of datasets available, it sure takes chutzpah to try to demonize dark chocolate consumption: “But don’t eat chocolate thinking it's a health food, Dr. Lichtenstein said. … “It’s unlikely that someone could consume enough dark chocolate on a regular basis to have a biological effect and still have an adequate diet,” said Dr. Lichtenstein…“I don’t think we have adequate evidence,” she said.”
“Unlikely…to have a biological effect”? Not enough evidence?
For meta-analysis compilations of over 50 (yes over 50), randomized controlled feeding trials measuring the beneficial insulin, lipid, inflammation, & blood pressure effects of chocolate, see: PMID: 27683874, 20584271, 22301923, 27683874, & 28439881.
Very important are cocoa flavanols’ beneficial effects on endothelial health, increasing flow-modulated dilation, FMD, reversing “hardening of the arteries”. See, e.g., PMID 26348767 or https://vimeo.com/138675927.
“Unlikely…to have a biological effect”? Not enough evidence?
How about the CVD event and mortality results of the Zutphen Study? Google “PMID 16505260.”
Or the Stockholm study? PMID 19711504.
Or the the NHLBI study? PMID 20858571 & 20655129.
Or EPIC-Potsdam? PMID 20354055.
Or the Swedish Men and Mammography Study? PMID 26936339.
(Also PMID 24990275, PLUS all the brain-effects studies cited elsewhere here.)
The evidence CLEARLY says that the more DARK chocolate you consume, the more cocoa flavanols, the better health you will have.
So—go overboard.
63
@SRP
I thought that Dr. Lichtenstein's statement was the best sentence of the article! "It’s unlikely that someone could consume enough dark chocolate on a regular basis to have a biological effect and still have an adequate diet." It's very important to be able to put the droves of low-level, medical studies (mostly correlational) into perspective based on biological relevance and other factors at play. Her statement gets at the undesireable trade-offs associated with the real-life application of some of these dietary study results. It's easy to loose perspective in this sea of research that produces results that may indeed be empirically solid and worthy of publication (and career advancement), but is often irrelevant and/or insignificant. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of training and esoteric knowledge to be able to have this perspective and, at that point, the scientist is NOT in a good position to be objectively critical and not be self-serving. There are few capable watchdogs in specialized fields where there's a lot of money at stake.
12
@carl bumba -
OK, let's look at real-life application then.
How do you explain the results of the Zutphen Elder Study? Google “PMID 16505260.”
“Results: Compared with the lowest tertile of cocoa intake, the adjusted relative risk for men in the highest tertile was 0.50 for cardiovascular mortality.”
—That is an unheard-of 50% reduction.
Or the StockholmHeart Epidemiology Program? PMID 19711504.
“Results: Chocolate consumption had a strong inverse association with cardiac mortality. When compared with those never eating chocolate, the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios were…0.34 for those consuming chocolate…twice or more per week.”
—That is an unheard-of 66% reduction.
Or the the NHLBI study? PMID 20858571 & 20655129.
“Results: Compared to subjects who did not report any chocolate intake, odds ratios for coronary heart disease were 0.74 and 0.43 for subjects consuming 1-4 times/week, and 5+ times/week.
—That is an unheard-of 57% reduction.
Or EPIC-Potsdam? PMID 20354055.
“Results: The relative risk of the combined outcome of MI [heart attack] and stroke for top vs. bottom [chocolate] quartiles was 0.61.
—That is an unheard-of 40% reduction.
Or the Swedish Men and Mammography Study? PMID 26936339.
“Results: Compared with non-consumers, the multivariable relative risk for those who consumed ≥3-4 servings/week of chocolate was 0.87.”
—Or a 13% reduction.
We are talking about thousands of real people followed many, many years here. Not "unlikely"—this IS real life!
7
Wowza. Given the scores of datasets available, it takes chutzpah to try to demonize dark chocolate consumption: “But don’t eat chocolate thinking it's a health food, Dr. Lichtenstein said. … “It’s unlikely that someone could consume enough dark chocolate on a regular basis to have a biological effect and still have an adequate diet,” said Dr. Lichtenstein…“I don’t think we have adequate evidence,” she said.”
“Unlikely…to have a biological effect”? Not enough evidence?
For meta-analysis compilations of over 50 (yes over 50), randomized controlled feeding trials measuring the beneficial insulin, lipid, inflammation, & blood pressure effects of chocolate, see: PMID: 27683874, 20584271, 22301923, 27683874, & 28439881.
Very important are cocoa flavanols’ beneficial effects on endothelial health, increasing flow-modulated dilation, FMD, reversing “hardening of the arteries”. See, e.g., PMID 26348767 or https://vimeo.com/138675927.
“Unlikely…to have a biological effect”? Not enough evidence?
How about the CVD event and mortality results of the Zutphen Study? Google “PMID 16505260.”
Or the Stockholm study? PMID 19711504.
Or the the NHLBI study? PMID 20858571 & 20655129.
Or EPIC-Potsdam? PMID 20354055.
Or the Swedish Men and Mammography Study? PMID 26936339.
(Also PMID 24990275, PLUS all the brain-effects studies cited elsewhere here.)
The evidence CLEARLY says that the more DARK chocolate you consume, the more cocoa flavanols, the better health you will have.
So—go overboard.
6
I wonder if there's any sugar in chocolates. /sarcasm
10
@Steel
Crio Bru. The best way to consume chocolate. No sugar, yet still delicious. You brew it in a french press much the same way you would coffee, except it seeps for longer.
3
@Still Waiting for a NBA Title I had to look it up. https://criobru.com/
No there aren’t. It added sugar. Double sarcasm.
Isn’t Dr. Lichtenstein from the generation of nutritionists who gave us our nation’s obesity crisis?
I find HER BOSS’S marshaling of evidence for the un-demonization of fats—and saturated fats—to be much more compelling. See: www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2DaqrKq6e0
(Skip to 9:50 & 15:45 if you haven’t the time to watch the whole thing…)
16
According to this article: “The benefits in it [dark chocolate], known as phytochemicals, are present in many plant foods.”
Are we supposed to take this seriously?
Look up the definition of “phytochemicals”: any of various biologically active compounds found in plants.
But the word SOUNDS so scientific! And ALL plants have them!
No, the benefit in dark chocolate is from epicatechin and catechin (possibly also with polymerized catechin and theobromide), which are found in almost NO other foods.
Nice try.
To get the benefits of cocoa flavanols, you pretty much have to eat dark chocolate (or its concentrate).
60
@SRP
But "epicatechin and catechin" also sounds so scientific. These phytochemicals can likely be beneficial to human health... along with an ever-expanding epirically-supported list of compounds that now probably is in the thousands....perspective.
4
@carl bumba -
I challenge you to provide a single other “phytochemical” with as much empirical backing as cocoa flavanols.
(OK, maybe alcohol, but that is not technically a phytochemical and it has downsides for many people...)
We’ll do a simple “stack test.” Print out each of the many studies I have cited here, which are not near a complete list. Then print out your stack. Compare their quantity and quality.
Do you really think that you are being an “honest analyst”?
1
As Dr. Christopher Gardner of Stanford and numerous other clinical researchers have repeatedly demonstrated, diets with higher proportions of calories from saturated fat lead to a reliably beneficial reduction in triglycerides, weight circumference, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, lower levels of inflammation (measured by CRP), and most importantly, improvements in HDL cholesterol, the strongest predictor of first-time heart disease (not LDL). The oversimplified concept that saturated fat “raises cholesterol” highlights the lack of understanding on behalf of many individuals making such over-simplified recommendations. Saturated fat does raise LDL, but the favorable composition of LDL that is less susceptible to oxidation. As another reader commented, the Cochrane Review’s meta-analysis of 70,000 participants failed to show an improvement in mortality with reductions in dietary saturated fat. These were all randomized controlled trials, the highest quality of clinical experiment. And so, here we are, reading the recommendation that the consumption of sugar and chocolate is a healthier choice than animal-based foods.
88
@Kevin MD MBA
Here's some counter evidence for your claim. My LDL dropped more than 50 points once I started counting my intake of saturated fats. I have normal LDL levels thanks to restricting my intake of saturated fats to 20 grams a day. That's the only thing I changed in my diet and it worked. I can only recommend it to other people. Try it out and see if it works for you.
14
@Writer
I think what he was trying to emphasize in his comment was that saturated fats do raise LDL but it is the more nonharmful varierty. Oxidized LDL is what we should avoid.
15
@Kevin MD MBA
Weight circumference?
So oxidized LDL is the new evil? Probably so, but there will surely be an infinite regress of subtypes, derivatives, cofactors, binding partners and other compunds (worthy of medical publication) that will arise and alter sound medical advice. Reading primary literature from biology and medicine of the past century puts the latest sage advice in needed perspective.
Rather than continously embracing the latest pearls of wisdom from legitimate representatives of the medical establishment, maybe we should shoot for diets and lifestyles similar to those seen in traditional cultures today and likey to have occurred in our evolutionary past. There also seems to be many indirect and undesirable consequences of gobbling up everything coming down the "best medical" pipeline.
4
The unproven assumption being made in the first place is that saturated fats in meats are bad. Even the Cochrane Collaboration, reviewing more than 50 years of intense study on the subject with hundreds of thousands of subjects, concluded that no link had been established between saturated fat and disease. Ironically, given the advice we've been receiving all this time, it appears that the omega 6 in seed oils is far more problematic in excess. There is no "French paradox". There is only a failed hypothesis that refuses to die.
143
@Richard -
Absolutely!
Where are all the randomized trials that indicate increased morbidity and mortality with increased saturated fat consumption? Answer: even today there aren’t any.
Certainly not the WHI, PMID 16467234, or Predimed, PMID 29897866! (Pretty tough to explain these…)
Indeed, meta-analyses of observational studies uniformly indicate no significant deleterious hard-outcome effects from increased saturated fat consumption.
See, e.g., PMID 26268692, 20071648, or 24723079, (and 28526025).
Yet, as you say, this zombie refuses to die.
Perhaps it is as Thomas Kuhn explained, that paradigm shifts in science do not occur when the old guard finally become convinced that they are wrong, but, rather, only when they eventually die off, and younger researchers, un-encumbered with the reputationally-invested-in errors of the past, objectively look at the new and better data available and begin to populate positions of influence.
(Harsh? Maybe yes, but public health effects are too important…)
69
@Richard
A big part of the reason why it won't die is the huge industry that has developed around the "fat is bad" hypothesis.
18
@SRP: I agree with all your points except one. The quote about paradigm shifts is from the physicist Max Planck (from his Nobel Prize oration): "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/max_planck_211830
26