Cocoa or Cocoa Powder
- Thread starter Beau
- Start date
Renew1
Legend
I've seen some advertised (haven't used). But they seemed a little pricey to me.
sns8778
Board Sponsor
That's a touchy subject in general because there are some patent conflicts that are going around on that subject; some of those patents are owned by Mars Foods.
Another thing is that there can be a variance in the makeup of the flavanols.
I'm mostly familiar with Cocoabuterol myself, which we use in a couple products and are going to be doing a single ingredient product of very soon.
Beau
Well-known member
Thanks - that is what I have seen as well. The few that show a high flavanol content (like CocoaVia) are not inexpensive.
Beau
Well-known member
Thank you. I have been using a Trader Joe's cocoa powder for a long time, just as an adjunct to all the other stuff I am doing, but I have to assume its flavanol content is low. So, it looks like I will wait on your product ....
sns8778
Board Sponsor
I think its fine to use Cocoa powder for that purpose. Just when you get into brands claiming to offer high flavanol contents, they are either expensive or they are brands no one has ever heard of, which is bc they are fly by nights usually hoping to make a quick buck without getting in trouble over the patent situation. It's been awhile since I read up on the patent situation, but I read enough on it to know I wasn't interested in doing anything that in that particular segment.
Cocoabuterol has some patents and studies of its own and they don't use flavanol patents. It's a good ingredient for a lot of things. It gets stereotyped as being for fat loss and recomp bc it does help with those, but it also helps maintain muscle tissue and has a wide variety of general health benefits.
BCseacow83
Well-known member
Do we know roughly what the average cocoa contents/breakdown would be? For example in this thread
Invalid Link Removed
we all sort of settled on 4-7% or 5-8% PA content of lecithin. Is there a rough breakdown for cocoa? Thank you.
Beau
Well-known member
According to a summary of a Consumer Reports article that I read (i) a tablespoon (5 grams) of cocoa powder provides from 37 to 130 milligrams of cocoa flavanols, and (ii) a 40 gram serving of dark chocolate provides from 136 mg to 440 mg of flavanols depending on the brand - with the same amount of unsweetened baking chocolate providing 592 mg of flavanols.
One serving of CocoaVia (a Mars product) has 500 Mg of cocoa flavanols.
sns8778
Board Sponsor
The estimate that I've seen is approximately 3.5% on average which would be 35 mg. flavanols per 1 gram of powder.
There have been brands that claimed higher but there's also been lawsuits for patent infringement against brands that have stated higher percentages and some have been shown not to meet those percentages.
Also, I think the average % that some people decided upon for the phosphatidic acid content in soy lecithin was very optimistic and opportunistic bc many were going off of brands that were claiming to have that % as an estimate and conveniently disregarding the brands that acknowledged that the amount per their testing was too low to even declare consistently.
Last edited:
Madevilz
Member
Thanks for the info, was unaware and just googled it.
Ive been eating 10g of Lindt 100% dark chocolate everyday for weeks, can that amount lead to dangerous levels of heavy metals?
sns8778
Board Sponsor
I wouldn't worry about that with brand like that. Companies like that are required by law to meet certain FDA guidelines for heavy metals testing.
NegativeMass
Member
If you're after flavonoids you want raw "cacao" powder or nibs. "Cocoa" is processed "cacao" and has a lot less flavonoids. It's confusing because the spelling is similar. I like cacao powder because it's easy to mix with things. The nibs have to be chewed.
NegativeMass
Member
I like that brand. I've been eating dark chocolate and raw cacao for many years. I like to try and get as much nutrition from food as possible then add supplements. Cacao is packed with health benefits!
ironkill
Well-known member
I use that one also
Beau
Well-known member
It is hard to say (for the reasons Steve describes above). Studies have shown that 500Mg of flavanols is effective for certain purposes (some other studies show up to 900Mg for other purposes), but the challenge is that few products state the percentage of flavanols per gram (or percentage). So, I take 3 tablespoons - understanding that I am probably getting more like 200Mg to 250Mg, thinking that this amount (while less than ideal) is better than zero. There are a few (highly priced) options that claim to have 500Mg to 900Mg of flavanols per serving.
Last edited:
Madevilz
Member
In case you are interested, I've been using Hershey's lately and saw this on their website.
"HERSHEY'S Natural Cocoa Powder contains about 210mg flavanols in one tablespoon (5g)."
Invalid Link Removed
It's in their Q&A.
Seems like a pretty high amount, I mix about 20g every morning with just a bit of water to make a sludge, tastes pretty good to me and gives me 800mg+ of flavanols it seems.
Falco1098
Member
Hah! But the FDA doesn't monitor...so you think anyone got in trouble after this
Invalid Link Removed
Beau
Well-known member
Thank you.
sns8778
Board Sponsor
I'll explain something important about the context of that article - but I want to first explain that its not anything directed negatively towards you at all. Most people wouldn't realize this, which is unfortunately why click bait articles like this exist.
You ever see the Prop 65 warnings on a lot of things? Everything from supplements to food to toys to even lumber?
That's because California has some absolutely insane regulations under Prop 65 that call for lower levels of heavy metals than have been deemed safe by not only the FDA but basically any other safety body in the world.
Most people regard Prop 65 as a way that lawyers in California can sue and basically extort companies across various industries. (I mean seriously - who is going to lick on their lumber they build their deck with?)
Anyway, here is important context of that article:
We tested 28 dark chocolate bars for lead and cadmium. To determine the risk posed by the chocolates in CR’s test, we used California's maximum allowable dose level (MADL) for lead (0.5 micrograms) and cadmium (4.1mcg). Shown are the percentages of the MADL supplied in an ounce of each chocolate. Our results indicate which products had comparatively higher levels and are not assessments of whether a product exceeds a legal standard. We used those levels because there are no federal limits for the amount of lead and cadmium most foods can contain, and CR’s scientists believe that California’s levels are the most protective available. While both cadmium and lead pose serious health risks, products within each category are listed in order of lead level, because that heavy metal poses particular concerns and no amount of it is considered safe.
Now, let's expand on that a little bit:
Here's the next big issue:
- a lot of people wanting Cocoa want organic right? They want unadulterated, natural, straight as from plant possible Cocoa?
^^^ well, the issue with that is that the companies are not adding heavy metals, they are naturally in the Cocoa.
So, this is a great example of the 'law of unintended consequences' in that if you want natural, unadulterated, straight from the plant Cocoa, then that may come along with a certain amount of heavy metals - but not above legal FDA permissible limits.
Important Note:
I'm not defending the companies or this subject at all - I'm just hoping to explain it in a way that people can understand.
I guarantee I post about heavy metals testing and the dangers of not doing heavy metals testing on supplements more than any other person ever in the history of AM. I talk about it and emphasize it all the time - and most of the time it seems to fall on deaf ears.
In this thread, we're discussing heavy metals in Cocoa - but what gets overlooked very commonly is the level of heavy metals in brands of supplements, especially the ones that do zero testing at all to ensure that their products meet legal limits. When I talk about supplement safety, I'm not just talking about whether ingredients are safe, I'm talking about how some brands just do zero testing on microbial or heavy metals testing.
If someone takes a supplement by a brand that doesn't do this type of testing, then I think its highly likely that the naturally occurring heavy metals content in Cocoa is probably the least of their problems on the subject.
Falco1098
Member
Thank you for the great detail - as always you add insight few could!
That said, this is in no way clickbait. And since the FDA doesn't have levels for lead and cadmium 1) how the hell can we trust the FDA and 2) using CA numbers is a legitimate item to test against.
In the end, as you point out, heavy metals are likley to be high in cocoa(cacao) and even CA limit assume normal consumption which is low for most people. So using it as a supplement as we want to is dangerous give we will take in a week amounts most people take in many months.
Hence why you need heavy metal testing in cocoa(cacao).
sns8778
Board Sponsor
We'll just have to agree to disagree then - because to me, I consider anything clickbait that uses a title to sensationalize something in order to get clicks to it, and especially ones that only tell part of the story.
Here is a great example - the article said, and you said (likely because you believe what the article said) that the FDA does not have allowable levels for lead and cadmium in foods - but that is simply not true.
If they wanted to paint an accurate picture and give appropriate context, they would have explained that the FDA has been heavily focused on reducing heavy metals in both foods and dietary supplements for several years now; but in certain types of foods, it is a very complex subject because some of the levels in foods can vary from geographical region - so they are hesitant to enact specific laws that for example would be easily adhered to by a farmer in South Dakota but may put one in Georgia out of business, because of varying concentrations in the soil.
I could post you a dozen different things from the FDA website about allowable levels, but here is one for example:
Invalid Link Removed
Also, FDA CFR 21 mentions allowable levels of lead in foods.
Also, I can very much assure you that as someone who spends tens of thousands of dollars a year on quality testing, including heavy metals and microbial testing - that there very much are numbers in place that are deemed acceptable and unacceptable in the eyes of the FDA in terms of heavy metals in both foods and supplements.
As for going by CA numbers related to Prop 65, I'm sorry, but if you haven't looked into how ridiculous Prop 65 is, just look it up and do some research on it. They didn't base a lot of that law on sound science - they based in on extremes and use that law to try to extort businesses to meet those guidelines or be fined. For example, they could threaten to fine a lumberyard in Maryland if a reseller sold wood in California that didn't have a Prop 65 disclaimer on it.
My final point in relation to why I feel the article doesn't paint a fair picture of things is that it implies that these brands don't do heavy metals testing on their products - which would be false in most cases. Most of those brands are decent size to big brands, and they are required by law to do heavy metals and microbial testing.
They have guidelines that they have to meet, but those guidelines may not be as low as the California guidelines - and its unfair to act like they're doing something wrong if they are testing and meeting legally required guidelines.
That's my point about the 'law of unintended consequences' - the more natural and less refined it is, the higher the concentrations may be in some cases.
These companies are in a no win situation in a way - because yes, there is the side of things where they should do everything they can to bring levels down, but then there's also the customer base that wants everything as natural and unprocessed and unrefined as possible. I mean let's be honest, the more processed and refined versions which would lead to lower levels would be cheaper on the companies, so its not like they're being negligent - they're simply trying to please a customer base.
I can relate to their to having to choose which customer base to please because a big part of my life is - customer group A complaining about product xyz being in a colored capsule, and then when we change it, customer group B complains that everything is in white capsules and it all looks alike.
I talk about the risks of heavy metals more than any other poster here.
Sure, I think that companies should do everything in their power to get the amount of heavy metals down in every food that they possibly can - but I think that a much bigger issue than the amount of it in an organic chocolate bar is the amounts of it in supplements from companies that don't even bother to do any heavy metals or microbial testing to begin with.
That's all I have to say on this. I'm not going to debate the subject - if people want to bash the chocolate companies, have at it. I was just trying to help.
Last edited:
Beau
Well-known member
As always.