Is Xocai everything it's made out to be?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by cybele on August 3, 2008 at 2:04am

I've resisted reviewing it on my blog, merely because I get so much spam from the company's minions as it is. (I've banned all mention of it in the comments on the blog since I had a nasty incident two years ago when I first reviewed Dove of all things.)

I've tried other fortified chocolates and find them chalky or waxy or simply lacking the chocolate qualities I love.

Like you, chocolate is for enjoying. If I need something extra in my diet I'll eat it or take it as a pill.

I'm still curious about it, because I do believe that you can create healthy snacks. (I might just need to adjust my thinking that it's not chocolate, just some confection.)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alessandra on August 3, 2008 at 11:11pm

It's interesting that this should come up now. I was just contacted by one of their reps a couple of days ago. I've been so busy with work that I didn't do anything about it. Now I'm glad I didn't. I really don't know much about the chocolate, but I don't like being bombarded by any company, no matter how good their product is.

But I agree with the other poster, I really don't care about the health benefits of chocolate. I want to enjoy it.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeff on August 13, 2008 at 8:31pm

Oh god. This is scam, has always been a scam and reeked of scam the moment it went up. I have had so many laughs at these people expense over the last two years it pains t me to think people actually buy into this garbage.

First of all, like you said clay, any health benefits chocolate may have are a bonus--NOT the selling point. It is all part of this delusional "raw chocolate' movement. If one more company starts exploiting people for "raw chocolate' and the health benefits I am going postal.

There is no such thing as RAW CHOCOLATE. In order to make chocolate the beans must first be fermented---that is a cooking process. All these raw food folks are nut jobs if they think that buying nibs is raw chocolate. The stuff has been fermented and then roasted. truly raw and dried cacao beans are friggin nasty and are basically inedible. 'nuff siad.

PT Barnum was right.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Samantha Madell on August 14, 2008 at 2:47am

Hey Clay, I'm not sure if every visitor to this site sees the same Ads by Google in the right-hand sidebar, but I've noticed that 3 or 4 out of the 5 ads I'm seeing on The Chocolate Life are typically promoting Xocai. I guess this is one of life's little ironies!

---

Jeff, we (at Tava) get a lot of inquiries about "raw" cocoa from raw food enthusiasts, so I've had to learn a bit about this subject.

Most raw foodies will quite happily consume fermented foods, including things like kombucha tea, kimchi, sauerkraut ... and cocoa beans.

I don't see how you could argue that fermentation is a form of "cooking". The word "cooking" means to transform food by the application of heat. Of course, fermentation does create some heat, but heat is not the cause of the transformations that take place in foods during fermentation. Furthermore, one of the major roles of cooking is to kill microorganisms (such as bacteria) which actually play a central role in fermentation.

Typically, raw foodies will define food as being "raw" as long as it hasn't been heated above a certain temperature. That temperature varies depending on who you ask, but the upper limit seems to be 50C (122F).

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeff on August 14, 2008 at 9:35am

Ok....lest play semantics..........

So the upper limit for raw food is 122F?......well then that leaves out cacao. The fermentation process for cacao often reaches into the 160's and above. It is a cooking process no matter how you slice it. yes the heat is caused by the fermentation which is used to break down the thick skin through an enzymatic process, but it is cooking the innards of the bean. Stick your hand in 160 degree water and see if you dont cook.

You say one of the major roles of cooking is to kill organisms; as a life long chef I disgaree. The major role of cooking for me is to make food taste good. I like raw foods too but a pan seared mahi mahi with a ginger sesame crust is a thing of beauty. A quickly grilled lamb chop --still bleeding rare(118F) and mewling if possible- is ambrosia. Cooking is an art form elevated by humans to not just kill the mold and mildew of spoiled food but too enhance and transform and elevate.

Cacao that has not been 'cooked" through fermentation tastes aweful and even then the nibs need to be roasted to have any intrinsic flavor. That alcoholic/winey purple bean is just unpalatable for me. a nice slow roast to bring out the nuances of the bean are what I dig.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Samantha Madell on August 14, 2008 at 10:11pm

Jeff, "fermenting" cocoa would only reach 160F (71C) if it was being handled incorrectly, and, since you want to argue about semantics, such cocoa wouldn't technically be "fermenting" at all, because the fermenting microorganisms (yeasts and bacteria) would have been killed by the heat by the time they reach 140F (60C).

On this subject, it's interesting to note that some growers "ferment" cocoa under black plastic in the sunshine. That's a classic recipe for disaster, because heat will kill yeasts and bacteria at or below a temp of 60C, and will actually prevent proper fermentation from taking place.

(As many members of this forum will know, it is actually the sugary pulp encasing the cocoa bean that ferments. The fermentation of the pulp produces acid which penetrates the bean, causing (or allowing) many different enzymatic reactions to take place, resulting in correctly "fermented" cocoa. Hence, no fermentation actually takes place within the flesh of the bean).

Cooking is about creating chemical reactions as a direct result of applying heat to the food product. On the contrary, the transformations that take place within the flesh of the cocoa bean during "fermentation" are largely enzymatic. If you'd like me to list and explain a bunch of these enzymatic reactions, just let me know.

As for your bleeding, mewling piece of lamb, Jeff - it's "cooked" on the outside, but still technically "raw" on the inside. Incidentally, if you would serve pork to your customers that had been "cooked" at 118F (48C) then, frankly, you would be endangering their health.

And while we're at this debate, shall we add some etymology to the semantics? The term that you used to describe your lamb was "bleeding rare". The word "rare" comes from the Old English word "hreaw" which means ... raw.

The important point is that for cooking to kill almost all organisms, the food must be heated through to a temperature of 140F (60C). Whether all methods of cooking achieve this outcome is of no particular interest to me.

---

By the way, doesn't calling people delusional "nut jobs" constitute a breach of rule 5:

5) RESPECT other members: Flaming of any sort is not appropriate.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Samantha Madell on August 15, 2008 at 3:05am

In case anyone else is interested, I've checked a few reference books regarding the temperatures associated with cocoa fermentation:

Knapp (1920) on p.42 of "Cocoa and Chocolate" states that, on day three of fermentation, the cocoa reaches 47C (115F), and that "after the third day, the heat is maintained, but the temperature rises very little".

Minifie (1999) on p.15 of "Chocolate, Cocoa, and Confectionery" states that "During the first two days of fermentation [...] the temperature rises to about 45C (113F). For the remaining period of fermentation, the temperature is maintained between 45C and 50C"

Wood and Lass (1985) on pages 454 and 455 of "Cocoa" present 12 tables showing temperature profiles of fermenting cocoa in boxes and in heaps. In each of the 12 examples, the maximum temperature reached is 50C (122F).

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeff on August 15, 2008 at 10:23am

Sorry to have offended you.

We are headed down this path

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Eric Durtschi on August 15, 2008 at 10:37am

One of the things that truly separates great chocolate from good chocolate is this fermentation process. Just like Samantha said, if the temperature gets too high during fermentation it can actually "cook out" some of the intrinsic nuances in each bean. This is why most, great, chocolatiers actually go to the plantations so they can confirm that the fermentation meets their exact specifications, coaxing out the maximum potential in the beans.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by brian horsley on July 23, 2010 at 3:50pm

You are correct in my experience Samantha, I've never had beans get above 52C, and the average batch achieves between 49C and 51C. this will certainly vary with variety and climate but 70C for fermentation i would not believe if I didn't see it personally
bh

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Clay Gordon on September 4, 2008 at 9:10am

Sam:

There is a reason for the ads showing up. Google "knows" the contents of this page and because Xocai is mentioned it serves up ads for Xocai. At some point I will get rid of the Google ads so it will go away as an issue.

I also have heard that 120-125F/50C is the upper limit for temperature before things are cooked. One challenge I have with this is that pathogens on the outside of the beans are not killed at these temperatures. I've heard that some raw chocolate companies wash their beans in hydrogen peroxide but I have no idea what the risks/benefits are to this. Recently, I've become interested in UVC light as a means to kill the pathogens effectively and safely. There are companies here in the US that make equipment that seems perfect for this use.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Randy Compton on August 16, 2008 at 5:03pm

I am so glad you brought this up. I just discovered Xocai and was impressed by their claims and other claims by scientists in the community. Unlike you, I really like the taste of their chocolate. However, like you I am wary of MLMs and found that money seems to often bias people to the honest truth. If it is so good, why doesn't Xocai just sell it to retailers?

I do remain curious about the health benefits of chocolate in moderate dosages. Isn't there a reason to drink a glass of red wine if it is good for you? Sounds like a win-win situation that could be the same for chocolate, no? And if so, why not get the best quality chocolate that has the best taste and the best health benefits?

Personally, I would rather eat a moderate amount of chocolate than take a pill. Either way, I'm still wondering about Xocai...

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page