A case for chocolate for Arioch

[SteelWeaver]

You were right! A case CAN be made for chocolate, even if not necessarily anabolism

Harvard Women's Health Watch
February 2002

Bring On the Chocolates, Valentine!

Often reviled as no more than a fattening indulgence and cause of adolescent
acne, chocolate is getting a healthier reputation, thanks to recent nutrition
research.

Cocoa and chocolate, produced from cacao beans, contain high amounts of
polyphenols and other flavonoids, naturally occurring antioxidants whose effects
are associated with reduced cardiovascular risk. Similar chemicals are found in
tea, vegetables, fruits, and red wine. A study in the American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition (November 2001) found that a diet supplemented with cocoa powder and
dark chocolate slowed the oxidation of low-density lipoprotein (LDL, or "bad")
cholesterol and slightly increased the level of high-density lipoprotein (HDL, or
"good") cholesterol. Other research suggests that high levels of certain flavonoids
found especially in dark chocolate may slow blood platelet aggregation, another
heart-health benefit. Chocolate also contains several important minerals. And it
doesn't cause acne.

Most of the fat in chocolate occurs as cocoa butter, principally composed of oleic
and stearic acids, which don't raise cholesterol. But gram for gram, fat of any kind
packs twice as many calories as carbohydrate or protein. Scientists at the Nestlé
Research Center in Switzerland have made progress on that front. Last year, they
reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that they reduced the
absorption of fat from chocolate in study volunteers who ate two chocolate bars per
day along with their regular diet. The secret? Calcium. Over a two-week period,
those who ate chocolate laced with calcium absorbed 13% less chocolate-derived
fat (and 9% fewer calories) than those who ate plain chocolate. At the same time,
their LDL (but not HDL) cholesterol fell 15%.

Apparently, calcium binds with the fatty acids in chocolate, making them more
difficult for the body to absorb. Nestlé researchers won't comment on the long-term
goals of this research, but stay tuned.

 

[Arioch]

Wonder what kind of studies you will now be volunteering for?

Not to be insensitive (not me, never) but I bet there would be a line of women out the gate for 5-7 days a month if they put up a sign that they were looking for volunteers to study the effects of chocolate consumption.

Rather easier than finding biopsy protocol volunteers.

I also wonder how much calcium a person would have to load up on to eliminate the fat entirely. Perhaps there is some sort of sliding scale.

 

[Gladiola]

but I bet there would be a line of women out the gate for 5-7 days a month

Hey, I resent that.

To imply that women are at the mercy of hormones during their premenstrual cycle time & act in absurd irrational ways to obtain chocolate - ridiculous.

I crave chocolate ALL month long!

 

[MS]

Hahahahah I love this shit. So they're saying that milk chocolate is less fattening than dark chocolate? I'd love to see the data on THAT one.

What they also failed to mention was that calcium (or magnesium or other divalent cations) have this affect on absorption of plant sterols from any source (not just cocoa butter). There is nothing special about cocoa fat. Thecalcium inhibist the activity of bile acids needed to digest the fats. The converse is also true....foods high in stearic and oleic acid reduce calcium magnesium, and phosphorous absorption! Did anyone mention how much sugar is in your average piece of chocolate!!!!? Ummm. let's see what else we can say...the Nestle's study was only done in males. That's a crime against humanity IMHO. Ummmm the reduction in energy intake was 9% which would get a 300 calorie chocolate bar down to 273 cals. Big whoopy. So Joe Smith reads that article and now thinks he can eat 2 choco bars instead of one as long as he takes some calcium with it!

Ahhh do I sound like a cynic?

 

[muskles]

guess i better double the milk with my chocolate chip cookies from now on yeh right.

 

[makedah]

Oh this is funny. I'm sure there is good stuff in chocolate -- there's good stuff in most (nonpoisonous) plant foods. But the funny part about this is praising milk chocolate. That would fit with industry needs because from what I understand, the cheap chocolate on the market actually has some of the cocoa butter removed and replaced with cheaper oil.

BTW -- the first study in that post from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition was funded by the American Cocoa Institute.

 

[MS]

I don't think anyone in their right mind would seriously praise milk chocolate for anything other than it's 'mood enhancing' effects LOL. I was joking about the milk chocolate. A therapeutic amount of elemental calcium (in the form of CaCO3) at 0.9% is what the Nestle's study used. They did NOT use milk!!!

And if you really want the beneficial phytonutrients from cocoa I suggest you try to gag down some straight, unsweetened cocoa powder every day. Either that or just eat the "tea, vegetables, fruits, and red wine" that are also beneficial and a lot lower in calories, sugar AND fat than commercial chocolates.

 

[SteelWeaver]

<puts down chocolate bar, backs away slowly, guilt, disappointment, fear flashing across features>


Maybe if we add nuts it'll make it healthier? lol. Mmm, cashew nuts ...

I'm with Gladi, forget 5-7 days, how about 31 days a month! Just show me where to sign for the study. This sucks - I never used to have a chocolate problem. I had a beer problem. Now that's gone and my brain has stuck on chocolate. Sigh.

Ha ha, speaking of entertainment MS - I think I'm gonna start putting up studies more often - you sure know how to rip them apart. Those Nestle folks sure wouldn't want you around, lol.

This part is the funniest: "Nestlé researchers won't comment on the long-term goals of this research, but stay tuned."

Now, I WONDER what their goals could POSSIBLY be? (dripping sarcasm)

 

[MS]

OK more chocolate trivia for SteelWeaver to mull over!

J Gen Psychol 2002 Jan;129(1):49-66


Maintenance of self-imposed delay of gratification by four chimpanzees and an
orangutan.

Delay maintenance, which is the continuance over time of the choice to forgo an immediate, less preferred reward for a future, more preferred reward, was examined in 4 chimpanzees and 1 orangutan . In the 1st experiment, the apes were presented with 20 chocolate pieces that were placed, one at a time, into a bowl that was within their reach. The apes could consume the available chocolate pieces at any time during a trial, but no additional pieces would be given. The total length of time taken to place the 20 items into the bowl ranged from 60 s to 180 s. All 5 apes delayed gratification on a majority of trials until all 20 chocolate pieces were presented. Unlike in most experiments with human children using this test situation, attention by the apes to the reward was not detrimental to delay maintenance………………………..

Curr Opin Lipidol 2002 Feb;13(1):41-9

Evidence that the antioxidant flavonoids in tea and cocoa are beneficial for cardiovascular health.

……………………………Flavanols and procyanidins isolated from cocoa exhibit strong antioxidant properties in-vitro. In acute feeding studies, flavanol-rich cocoa and chocolate increased plasma antioxidant capacity and reduced platelet reactivity. Based on limited data, approximately 150 mg of flavonoids is needed to trigger a rapid antioxidant effect and changes in prostacyclin. Some dose-response evidence demonstrates an antioxidant effect with approximately 500 mg flavonoids……………... Chocolate is variable with some products containing essentially no flavonoids (0.09 mg procyanidin/g), whereas others are high in flavonoids (4 mg procyanidin/g). Thus, approximate estimates of flavonoid rich chocolate needed to exert acute and chronic effects are 38 and 125 g, respectively.

Brain 2001 Sep;124(Pt 9):1720-33

Changes in brain activity related to eating chocolate: from pleasure to aversion.

We performed successive scans on volunteers as they ate chocolate to beyond satiety. Thus, the sensory stimulus and act (eating) were held constant while the reward value of the chocolate and motivation of the subject to eat were manipulated by feeding. Non-specific effects of satiety (such as feelings of fullness and autonomic changes) were also present and probably contributed to the modulation of brain activity. After eating each piece of chocolate, subjects gave ratings of how pleasant/unpleasant the chocolate was and of how much they did or did not want another piece of chocolate. Regional cerebral blood flow was then regressed against subjects' ratings. Different groups of structures were recruited selectively depending on whether subjects were eating chocolate when they were highly motivated to eat and rated the chocolate as very pleasant or whether they ate chocolate despite being satiated. …………………….Therefore, these results support the hypothesis that there are two separate motivational systems: one orchestrating approach and another avoidance.


Positively brilliant research!!!

 

[SteelWeaver]

OK more chocolate trivia for SteelWeaver to mull over!

Maintenance of self-imposed delay of gratification by four chimpanzees and an
orangutan.

VERY FUNNY!!!