Flavinols being removed from dark chocolate

I have read from several different sources that the flavinols (sources of antioxidant and heart health) create a bitter taste and are therefore usually mostly removed in the chocolate making process. There is a Mars product, Cocoavia, as well as a Barry Callebaut product that claim to retain more flavinols. Are these two really the only "healthy" dark chocolates?

The Mars product looks particularly unappetizing. They have put blueberries and soy in for the extra nutrition! Yuck.

I'm sure glad that I eat chocolate for pleasure.

Tags: antioxidants, barry, callebaut, cocoavia, flavinols, health, mars

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by cybele on February 21, 2008 at 9:33pm

Well, yes, some flavinols can create a bitter taste, but carefully choosing and blending beans can often mitigate this without losing the beneficial antioxidant profile of chocolate.

I've tried most of the Cocoavia line and yes, I find it tastes too much like an effort and isn't really satisfying enough for me to waste my discretionary calories on it.

I'd say that any 65% cacao or higher chocolate is going to have a good amount of antioxidants. Heck, a study in Germany found that eating an ounce of Ritter's basic dark was beneficial to heart health. (I think they're a 50%).

The Amano bars (I like the Ocumare) are 70% and exceptionally munchable.

If you want a really edible high cacao chocolate, I've been enjoying the Guittard Nocturne 91% (it has overwhelming vanilla notes). You might also like the Quetzalcoatl, which is a "whole bean" bar, made without the addition of cocoa butter, just that inherent in the bean. At 72% it's still very mild.

Michel Cluizel even has a 99% bar. (I also tried a Bonnat 100% bar recently but found it far too acrid to be edible.)

I think sticking to the 70-80% range should provide a good balance of pleasure and benefits.