Does anyone here know about cacao mass? I presume it is processed somehow. Is there any way to tell if it has been alkali processed or otherwise made unhealthy? Lindt has a dark chocolate bar which is 99% cacao mass with a smidgen of sugar. It is eminently tasty. Meiji has a 99% cacao mass bar with no sugar (some emulsifier, I think). Lotte has a 99% cacao bar, but they cheated and added a bit of sucralose. For Valentines Day, I gently melted some pure cacao mass, added a bit of stevia with coconut and almonds, and set aside half the batch, to which I added a 70% cacao mass bar for people unaccustomed to unsweetened chocolate. Then I poured it all into heart-shaped molds. I gave some to everyone I met that day. They raved. Word has gotten out in Japan that dark, high cacao mass chocolate is healthy and can help control weight. My experience is that a little piece (10 g) in the afternoon satisfies my appetite nicely.

Yet another great example of the food industry taking what could be healthy and ruining it with cheap ingredients, dishonest marketing and over-processing. Most American chocolate is a joke - not really chocolate at all, but an addictive, deadly blend of trans fat, sugar, chemicals and, oh yes...a little bit of cheap cocoa powder or flavoring. True chocolate is so decadent, you really only need a bit, and you can feel its effects. In fact, I'd recommend chocolate over wine for people looking to boost antioxidant intake - chocolate doesn't have the addictive nature, toxicity and high simple carbohydrate/glycemic impact of alcohol. It's nice to finally see the kind of chocolate one can enjoy in Europe making its way to U.S. shelves. And Nestle, Mars, et al are in a panic (as they should be for shamelessly shilling junk at us for so many years and billing it as "chocolate). For a fun rant check out the Fuming Fuji's expose of the latest panicked marketing attempt by Nestle

To see just how manipulative and Pavlovian food marketing gets, visit www.foodprocessing.com.

Cheers from the gang at Mark's Daily Apple! Stay healthy!

Yes it is true the study is funded by Mars.  And most of the studies about resveratrol are funded by pharmaceuticals.  Most of what we know about disease processes of diabetes, cancer, heart disease,  Alzheimers, and  body processes like inflammation, bone loss, hormonal imbalances, etc.. are funded by the medical or pharmaceutical industry.  And most of what we know about the beneficial effects of so many foods are funded by the food industry.

It seems we are happy to learn from their research and quick to bash them.  Why paint everything with one brush?  Why not take it all on face value, instead?  If they weren't funding these studies, we would know very little.  We don't have to buy their products.

Certainly, be aware that the funding source possibly biases the data.  But others will come along and look deeper, happy to expand on or refute the data.  Since the data is made public, open to scrutiny, it is a good thing.

I say don't look a gift horse in the mouth.  They have a profit incentive, to be sure, but at least in a free market it is a two way transaction.  No one is forcing you to buy their product - EXCEPT WHEN GOVERNMENT GETS INVOLVED.

Just my opinion.
Duane

Naturally occurring fats and oils (olive oil, nut oils, un-messed-with plant oils) are GOOD FOR YOU.

Representations that domestic pesticide laden, genetically modified, partially or wholly hydrogenated, crookedly lobbied change of legal names (rapeseed to Canola) are OK to consumer is NOT TRUE.

Dr. Mercola is correct in his proven assertion the body KNOWS how to properly utilize and metabolize coconut fat, which was heavily lobbied against, through a ma$$ive PR campaign that went on for decades to bad mouth it in America by domestic corn, sunflower, rapeseed (canola), lard, and other chemically modified producers.

Cocoabutter, the naturally occurring fat in chocolate and cocoa, is very high in LDL, or bad cholesterol, REDUCING stearic acid.

Yes, chocolate products are caloric, but particularly lower sweetened versions are indeed beneficial to a balance and wholesome nutritional intake. 

Remember, there is NO SUCH THING as "sugar free real chocolate", even the US Chocolate Manufacturer's Association ran away from and demanded FDA ban in the legal definition of 'chocolate' all polyol and sugar alcohol sweeteners (sorbitol, mannitol, maltitol, HSH, polydextrose, lactitol, xylitol, erythritol, d-tagatose, etc.) because they are diarrhea inducing, at very low ingestion levels, and maltitol in particular was DENIED Generally Recognize As Safe (GRAS) status from FDA, because it was proven to be CANER CAUSING).

Cocoabutter is also an excellent skin and dermal rejuvenating, and anti oxidative, and regularly used in burn victim wards for therapeutic  restoration.

Like the T-Shirt suggests: "Chocolate - It's Not Just For Breakfast Anymore."

Hi, MS people love chocolate. I could be the magnesium in it, endomorphs, increased blood flow to the brain, copper in it , antioxidant etc. My MS kicked in when I ate a chocolate covered pretzel and orange juice. The hydrogenated fat may have been the problem. Also alot of chocolate may have wheat in it which I also cannot have due to celiac. I I have not had chocolate for 17 years with fears of my MS kicking in. I would like to find a nonfat, no wheat source of it.