Softpaw wrote:JeffN wrote:"Cocoa is 54% fat and 31% saturated fat. So, about 60% of the fat is saturated fat. "
I'm not sure that is accurate.
Thanks for bringing this up and yes, it is accurate.
The quote you are referring to is giving the numbers by weight. So, for 100 grams of cocoa powder, there should be about 10-12 grams of fat.
If we go the USDA database, we find that 100 grams of cocoa powder has 13.7 grams of fat per 100 grams of cocoa powder. So, technically, it is 13.7% fat by weight but these are all averages.
When we do the math, by calories, which is what my numbers refer to, this equals 54% fat and 31% saturated fat. So, about 60% of the fat is saturated fat. That was my original comment and still stands.
Softpaw wrote:According to Wikipedia
The studies you are discussing are mostly observational and were done earlier than the studies I have discussed. Therefore, they are nothing new and (as you will see) were taken into consideration when I made my above comments in this thread. So, while interesting, it does not done prove or change anything that has been said here.
It is important to understand that observational studies can only show associations and point in certain directions but they can not prove cause and effect. So, while they are interesting, they only make associations but do not prove anything.
It is randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that take the associations that were seen in the observational studies and try to prove direct cause and effect. Therefore, RCTs are of a much higher standard.
The last study I referenced and quoted in this thread was a recent randomized double blind controlled study, which is the gold standard. As noted, the effect was minimal at best even with larger amounts used.
More specifically in regard to the information you posted...
Softpaw wrote:A 15-year study of elderly men published in the Archives of Internal Medicine in 2006 found a 50 percent reduction in cardiovascular mortality and a 47 percent reduction in all-cause mortality[/b] for the men regularly consuming the most cocoa, compared to those consuming the least cocoa from all sources"
According to the study, the median cocoa intake among the users was 2.11 g/d in 1985, 2.30 g/d in 1990, and 2.36 g/d in 1995. This is about .4 TB to .47 TB which is way below the amounts used that were later shown to have an effect. So, to attribute such a large effect to such a small amount of cocoa is questionable right from the start.
These authors also cautioned against the results because of the inherent problems in observational studies (as I mentioned above) and said..
"A major concern in observational studies is the possibility of residual confounding. In our study, cocoa users consumed less meat and coffee;..."
"..cocoa intake was positively associated with calorie intake. However, we did not observe a positive association of cocoa intake with BMI or physical activity. Because BMI was measured accurately, we cannot rule out that residual confounding by physical activity, and by dietary factors, may partly explain our results."
"We considered the possibility of reverse causation, ie, that healthy subjects consume more chocolate confectionery than those who are not healthy" (and not the reverse)
"Also, the association between cocoa intake and cardiovascular mortality did not differ between subjects with a high and low level of physical activity"The authors also acknowledge in reviewing other studies..
"However, daily consumption of 46 g of dark chocolate did not affect blood pressure after 2 weeks in healthy subjects."So, to think that the 2.5 grams consumed in this study had such a large favorable effect, is highly questionable, which the authors also agreed with in discussing the overall body of work..
"In summary, these studies suggest that large amounts of dark chocolate lower blood pressure, whereas a smaller amount appears to have no effect."However, as we have seen, these "large" amounts are not so large after all.
Softpaw wrote:Hollenberg and colleagues of Harvard Medical School studied the effects of cocoa and flavanols on Panama's Kuna Indian population, who are heavy consumers of cocoa. The researchers found that the Kuna Indians living on the islands had significantly lower rates of heart disease and cancer compared to those on the mainland who do not drink cocoa as on the islands. It is believed that the improved blood flow after consumption of flavonol-rich cocoa may help to achieve health benefits in hearts and other organs. In particular, the benefits may extend to the brain and have important implications for learning and memory.
Observational and so again interesting, but controlled studies have not proven it to be so.
Softpaw wrote:Prolonged intake of flavonol-rich cocoa has been linked to cardiovascular health benefits.
Again, observational...
Softpaw wrote:"though it should be noted that this refers to raw cocoa and to a lesser extent, dark chocolate, since flavonoids degrade during cooking and alkalizing processes. Milk chocolate's addition of whole milk reduces the overall cocoa content per ounce while increasing saturated fat levels, possibly negating some of cocoa's heart-healthy potential benefits. Nevertheless, studies have still found short term benefits in LDL cholesterol levels from dark chocolate consumption."
I agree with the comments about cocoa and purer or "dark" chocolate vs milk chocolate and made similar comments above earlier in this thread.
JeffN wrote:If someone wanted to include some cocoa, the safest way might be to find some pure cocoa powder that is not processed with alkali
There was one study cited that did show a reduction in LDL of about 10% (from mid 100's to mid 90s). However, the subjects in the study referred to consumed about 400 calories worth of chocolate to get this effect, which is a substantial amount. In addition, these results are in direct contrast with those of a similar study Wan et al. (2001), and other studies (Mathur et al. 2002).
Lastly, all the subjects consumed 400 calories worth of chocolate yet maintained their weight over the 14 days. This means that they had to remove 400 calories of other foods which, would could possible have had a huge contributing effect. Therefore, without knowing what these foods were that the cocoa ended up being substituted for and what their nutritional composition was, it is really difficult to make any concrete conclusions on the effect of chocolate on LDL.
For the record, published data has shown that following the guidelines recommended here can result in decreases in LDL from 30% on average to over 50% in just 14 days.
Softpaw wrote:Chocolate and cocoa contain a high level of flavonoids, specifically epicatechin, which may have beneficial cardiovascular effects on health. The ingestion of flavonol-rich cocoa is associated with acute elevation of circulating nitric oxide, enhanced flow-mediated vasodilation, and augmented microcirculation.
Softpaw wrote:Cocoa also contains large amounts of antioxidants such as epicatechins and polyphenols. According to research at Cornell University, cocoa powder has nearly twice the antioxidants of red wine, and up to three times the antioxidants found in green tea. Cocoa also contains magnesium, iron, chromium, vitamin C, zinc and others.
Interesting information but does not prove or really mean anything. Red wine and green tea are also not required or essential to this program, so to show that something is better than them, means nothing to my recommendations.
Also, cocoa comes from a bean and all beans are good sources of nutrients so to show that the cocoa bean is rich in many nutrients is nothing special.
However, as I always say, we must look at the total package of the food and what other components it has (good and bad) and any other factors that may come into play.
The program recommended here has more than enough antioxidants, magnesium, iron, chromium, vit C, zinc etc, and, more above and beyond that which we get from food, is not always better. This program also elevates circulating nitric oxide, enhances flow-mediated vasodilation, and augments micro-circulation in and of itself, to levels that reverse heart disease, "as-is", and greater than any isolated component of any food (or substance) can do on its own.
In regard to the antioxidant (and flavanoid) theory, while they are interesting, neither has been proven out in studies to matter in regard to any endpoints. Therefore, they may only be markers of certain healthy foods. So, again, evaluating a food by any one aspect, even antioxidant content, is not the way to choose or recommend food as discussed here on many occasions. Food must be evaluated from its total picture.
Recommended foods here are not recommended because they are high (or low) in any one component but because they are an excellent food as evaluated from the standpoint of their total food package.
Softpaw wrote:Foods rich in cocoa appear to reduce blood pressure but drinking green and black tea may not, according to an analysis of previously published research in the April 9, 2007 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, one of the JAMA/Archives journals.
This was a review of randomized controlled trials, which, as mentioned, is a much better measure than observational studies, so lets look closer at the results.
They found 5 studies to review.
Of the 5 cocoa studies, 4 reported a reduction of SBP and DBP after cocoa consumption. Compared with the cocoa-free control, the average decrease in the 5 studies was –4.7 mm Hg in SBP and –2.8 mm Hg in DBP for cocoa intake.
These numbers represent virtually the same effect I was referring to earlier, so again, this is not new news.
JeffN wrote:The benefit you most hear in the news, and the one shown in a few studies, is that cocoa has been shown to lower blood pressure though the effect is very small (an average of 5 points for systolic and an average of 2 points for diastolic blood pressure).
In addition, the authors agreed with me and said..
"Their results cannot simply be translated into long-term outcomes, that is, the prediction of beneficial treatment effects. In particular, it has to be considered that the short-term administration and the calorie-balanced study design prevented a potential weight gain with the high-caloric cocoa diets;however, a concurrent increase in body weight may reverse any blood pressure reductions during long-term habitual intake of cocoa products."So, having to consume that many calories from chocolate to get the small reduction in BP may be soon overcome if the chocolate results in an increase in weight.
And they then concluded..
"The findings of favorable hypotensive cocoa actions should, however, not encourage common recommendations to consume more cocoa. We believe that any dietary advice must account for the high sugar, fat, and calorie intake with most cocoa products."I agree.
So, in the end, nothing has changed and my comments still stand and my recommendations still apply.
In Health
Jeff
PS For those who want, I have added a chocolate recipe to my Facebook page under the "Photo's" tab under the "my simple recipes" album.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater