Raw chocolate, how raw is it really?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Samantha Madell on November 4, 2009 at 6:51pm

Clay,

If raw foodies "need" to believe things that are either untrue, or simply unsubstantiated, then that's their business - but I don't think it's in any way necessary (nor do I think it's a good idea) to pander to their beliefs and propaganda.

Keep in mind that the loudest advocates of all of these "live enzyme" theories (etc, etc) are people like Steve Adler and Gabriel Cousens who are busy selling books, workshops, and related products, and hence are profiting from the general confusion amongst consumers.

I think there's a great opportunity here for The Chocolate Life to lead and educate in relation to the subject of raw cacao and chocolate.

Steve has demonstrated time and time again that he's incapable of producing facts and evidence to support most of his claims - but why would he even want to? He's selling a product! (He can call it "education" all he likes, but I'm quite certain that you don't really want this forum to become a marketing platform for Steve Adler and Sacred Chocolate.)

My experience is that, when I explain the facts to interested consumers, they are generally very receptive, and often very grateful for the information.

Most people don't like being fed misinformation - but if no one stands up and clearly states the facts, then many people never even realise that they've been misled!

So, why not lead on this, rather than be led by people who either don't know what they're talking about, or who are intentionally misleading their customers?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sacred Steve on November 4, 2009 at 7:03pm

Hi Samantha,
Like I said before and posted before I have scientific proof that I posted on this forum that raw chocolate is higher in antioxidants than cooked or roasted chocolate. Perhaps you didn't see the labe report from Brunswick Labs on our Ginger chocolate?? I have scientifically proven it. You have yet to scientifically refute the fact. BTW, aren't you in the business of selling cooked chocolate? Are you going to use this platform to promote your idea that cooked chocolate is as healthy as raw chocolate since you are in the cooked chocolate business? As Jesus said, when you point the finger, there are always a few pointing back at you.
Hearts!
SS

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Samantha Madell on November 5, 2009 at 5:15pm

Steve, your latest response is even more asinine than usual.

Steve wrote: "Are you going to use this platform to promote your idea that cooked chocolate is as healthy as raw chocolate"

For the benefit of the people Steve is trying to mislead: I do not have any such idea, and I have never made any such claim.

As I have stated before on this forum, where I come from, it is illegal to make unsubstantiated health claims about food products.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sacred Steve on November 5, 2009 at 5:52pm

My claim is substantiated by scientific data provided by a reputable independent lab the results of which I have posted in this forum. Sorry to hear that you think my response is "asinine".

I rest my case. :-)

Hearts!
Sacred Steve

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sacred Steve on November 5, 2009 at 5:56pm

Oops...forgot to repost this, since obviously, Samantha, you did not see it...

Here is our ORAC lab report on our Ginger Recipe. This recipe is only 57% cacao content and the ORAC score is reported on a per gram basis. Please provide a similar report on some cooked or roasted chocolate so we can compare. Please provide the roasting temperature and time, so that can be factored in.

Attachments:

• GINGER_ORAC.tif, 29 KB

Permalink Reply by Samantha Madell on November 5, 2009 at 6:51pm

Steve, what planet are you on?

ORAC stands for "Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity".

"Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity" does not equal "good health".

An ORAC score (no matter how high) is not proof of any health outcome.

Permalink Reply by Clay Gordon on November 5, 2009 at 8:28pm

Steve:

Sorry, but you do not have scientific proof that all raw chocolates are higher in antioxidants than all roasted/cooked chocolates.

What you have is a lab test that says that one specific sample of your chocolate has a specific ORAC level that appears to be higher than the reference standard for chocolate posted by the USDA as shown in this online database for ORAC scores.

Please help me understand the Brunswick Lab report, which reports a combined water/fat ORAC count at 343 micromole Trolox Equivalents per gram. If I multiply by 100 (which is to put it in the same scale as all the rest of foods listed), I get 34,300 micromole Trolox Equivalents per 100 grams. This puts your ginger chocolate below the value for unsweetened baking chocolate and dutched cocoa powder on the list. Am I missing something or misinterpreting something in the report?

From OracValues.com:

"The ORAC (Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity) unit, ORAC value, or "ORAC score" is a method of measuring the antioxidant capacity of different foods and supplements. It was developed by scientists at the National Institutes of Health. While the exact relationship between the ORAC value of a food and its health benefit has not been established, it is believed that foods higher on the ORAC scale will more effectively neutralize free radicals. According to the free-radical theory of aging, this will slow the oxidative processes and free radical damage that can contribute to age-related degeneration and disease." (Emphasis added by me.)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sacred Steve on November 6, 2009 at 11:00am

Clay,
Sorry, but we do have scientific proof.
I already explained this in a prior post. Take note that everything is measured on a per WEIGHT basis! Cocoa Powder is DEVOID (or has perhaps 5% only on a per weight basis) of fat, which has virtually no antioxidants. Most 100% cacao content dark chocolate is about 60% fat. So, REMEMBER to SUBTRACT THAT OUT on a per WEIGHT basis. Therefore, if you want to do a rough APPLES TO APPLES comarison of our 57% Cacao Content Ginger Chocolate to USDA COCOA POWDER, Take our number of 34,300 and DIVIDE it by (.57 x .4) and you will have a rough number to compare head to head with the USDA value reported for COCOA POWDER.
Hope that helps!
:-)
Hearts!
SS

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Clay Gordon on November 6, 2009 at 4:22pm

Commercial cocoa powder generally falls into the range of 10-12% residual fat (low-fat) or 20-24% residual fat (high fat), not 5%.

The fat content of cocoa beans tends to be in the range ~ 47-53% but can vary outside these norms.

Other than sites selling raw foods I have never heard a number as low as 40% (and one, Detox Your World, proposes a range of 12-50%). If someone can point to a more authoritative reference with these lower numbers, please let us know.

One of the challenges with comparing ORAC values head-to-head is that of comparing apples with oranges. Does anyone else see the logical fallacies in Steve's approach?

Steve's equation (34,300 / .57*.4) = ~150,438 ORAC per 100 grams of non-fat cocoa powder (because there are negligible amounts of antioxidants in the fat he is only considering the non-fat solids in the chocolate). However, to make the comparison fairer, we have to apply the same logic to the non-alkalized unsweetened cocoa powder (or any other chocolate to consider only the non-fat solid component).

Thus, we need to divide the base ORAC score (80,933) by the non-fat solids component (.78 avg for high-fat cocoa powder and .89 for a low-fat powder) for a value of ~103,760 (high fat) or 90,935 for low-fat). Thus Steve's claim for relative high antioxidant levels for the non-fat powder in his chocolate holds true.

BUT - and this is a big but - when someone purchases the 57% Ginger chocolate, they are buying and eating a product with an ORAC of 34,300 per 100 grams - not the "pure" non-fat cocoa powder. However, when someone purchases non-alkalized unsweetened cocoa powder they are getting the full 80,933 ORAC per 100 grams. Thus, on a straight gram per gram comparison of what you're actually buying, unsweetened cocoa powder would seem to have a higher ORAC (809 versus 343).

Unless I am totally missing something here again - so please feel free to tell me where the logical fallacies in my arguments are.

Now, all of this said and done, there is an unquantifiable aspect to consider, which is the raw food community's belief that there are other aspects of raw foods - including but not limited to the higher levels and higher vitality of the enzymes that are consumed - that need to be factored into the efficacy equation; that there is more going on than the raw numbers reveal. This makes sense on an intuitive level but, from what I have discovered, there is a lot of difference in opinion about the true value and efficacy of these non-quantifiable (or at the very least, difficult to quantify) factors.

Another way to think of the comparison between the ORAC level of Sacred Ginger Chocolate and non-alkalized unsweetened cocoa powder (or any set of foods) is, "How much do I need to ingest to consume a specific ORAC level?"

When asking this question it's important to note that although there are DRIs (Dietary Reference Intakes) and RDAs (Recommended Daily Allowances) for many antioxidants (e.g., Vitamin C, beta-carotene), to the best of my knowledge (and if anyone knows a specific reference please cite) there is neither a DRI nor an RDA for ORAC. Nonetheless, the ORAC "community" has set a recommended minimum daily ORAC intake at 5000, and assumes that all components of the ORAC score have the same value.

At an ORAC of 34,300 per 100 grams, it is necessary to eat about 14.5 grams (a little over a half-ounce) of the Sacred Chocolate Ginger recipe to hit the magic number of 5000. Assuming that 40% of 57% of those 14 grams are fat (Steve's figures), that's about 27 calories from fat.

At an ORAC level of 80,933 per 100 grams, it is necessary to eat about 6.2 grams of non-alkalized unsweetened cocoa powder less than one-quarter ounce) to reach the same ORAC level. At a residual fat level of 22% (high fat cocoa powder), calories from fat are about 12, for low-fat cocoa powder, calories from fat are half that.

In reality, there's not a whole lot of difference here (other than cost) based on the known, quantifiable factors. I can eat a half-ounce of Sacred Chocolate Ginger chocolate or find some way to add a quarter-ounce (about a teaspoon) of non-alkalized cocoa powder into what I eat every day. Either way, it's not a bad thing to have chocolate and cocoa in your diet.

The difference in preference has much to do with what each of us believes to be the value of "living foods" - whatever that means with respect to cocoa beans that have been processed into chocolate at any temperature.

Permalink Reply by Sacred Steve on November 6, 2009 at 4:39pm

Forgot to mention something else...the .57 is our total CACAO content, not CACAO SOLIDS content. And since we add some cacao BUTTER to the Ginger Chocolate, that .57 number is actually REDUCED in the equation 34,300 / (.57 x .4). However, the exact amount of reduction I am not at liberty to tell! The effect of this, though, is that the ORAC value that Clay computes would be a little higher. Also, I am sure that the USDA probably used something like HERSHEY'S COCOA POWDER to run its test. Hershey reports .5 gram fat in a 5 gram serving or 10%, so my .4 figure should be .5 which would reduce the number. It is probably a close wash!

Hearts!

Permalink Reply by Clay Gordon on November 5, 2009 at 8:51am

Sam:

You are not wrong - but if we are to lead on this we need to do more than just publish a definition for raw chocolate. The larger questions are buy-in, certification, and compliance. Without them a definition alone is not going to be useful to anyone but ourselves.

:: Clay

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Samantha Madell on November 5, 2009 at 5:01pm

Clay,

I basically agree with you - but surely there's nothing wrong with creating something that's useful to ourselves?

My feeling is that, if The Chocolate Life has a definition for raw chocolate, and it clearly sets out the known facts about raw chocolate, then it becomes relatively easy to shut down the endless unsubstantiated health-related claims made by people like Steve.

If there's no definition, then we just have this endless loop of Steve claiming to have proof, and you pointing out that he has provided no proof, etc etc, ad infinitum.

Besides which, I'm certain that a lot of consumers would be genuinely grateful for a clear presentation of the facts.

The issue of certification is way beyond the scope of what I'm suggesting, but who knows? If The Chocolate Life builds the foundation of providing a useful definition, then it could be very valuable to someone down the track who has the resources and the inclination to create a raw certification program.

For now, it seems helpful to point out to consumers that there is currently no certification of "rawness" (nor any of the raw-related claims) in the chocolate industry.

In the absence of any fact-based definitions, chances are pretty good that the raw industry will one day start certifying itself, with predictable consequences.

▶ Reply to This

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