Raw Cacao Beans vs 100% Dark Chocolate
Posted in:
Opinion
@joe-john, I'd like to weigh in on this. First, some of the nutritional info you post there is reasonable, some is not -- and that's not unusual. The standout is the fiber content. There is fiber in both raw and 100% dark chocolate. My guess is that whatever lab the packagers used probably had a database for raw beans that was a bit outdated. Cocoa beans are not a common item. Sometimes labs to the analysis themselves, sometimes (more often) they use a standard database and these don't always contain data on all possible nutrients. For the 100% dark chocolate, that's a more common item (think "baking chocolate").
The saturated fat of the raw beans is listed as "0 gms". That' s not plausible, but the database used probably doesn't include data on sat fat, so it gets listed as "0". It should probably say "n/a". The roasted beans list sat fat as about 55-60% of the total fat content. That's realistic -- and the processing didn't magically "make" saturated fat.
As for roasting being a "nutritional kill", it really depends. Roasting or "cooking" can also release nutrients from inside cell walls. It's why cooked tomato products have more available lycopene than raw tomatoes.
Roasting does reduce the antioxidant content of cocoa beans, but it doesn't wipe it out completely. Research has demonstrated health benefits of dark chocolate, even if that won't qualify it as a "health food". The best benefits seem to happen in people undergoing higher levels of "oxidative stress". That is, the worse your diet is, the more improvement you'll see from more antioxidants. A healthy person eating a diet that includes lots of fruits, vegetables, whole grains and nuts (this doesn't require a vegetarian or vegan eating style), will see less dramatic benefits.
As for sat fat, not all sat fats are the same and this is a problem in the nutrition research literature. The sat fat in cocoa is largely stearic acid, which seems to have a neutral impact on total cholesterol and cardiovascular disease. Moreover, sat fats that are bound into a food matrix -- the most research has been done on dairy foods like full-fat cheese, milk, and yogurt -- has shown that the body handles the sat fat differently when compared with the sat fat in butter. These are all dairy fats, so it's a good comparison, but butter is unbound, and can raise CV risk, whereas the sat fat in cheese and full-fat yogurt are in a matrix, and don't seem to raise risk. The evidence is still emerging, but these were well-done studies. No similar studies on cocoa vs cocoa butter have taken place, to my knowledge, so I can't comment there.
I've had a long career in the "nutrition space", and the above is based on the available evidence to my knowledge, as both a health professional and also someone who is fascinated by the science of cocoa & chocolate, and who does my best to stay current with the research. I hope this sheds a little light on your question, including that we don't have all the pieces to this puzzle yet.
Best,
Keith
and in great condition. (The only thing: When it shipped to me from Europe, the cord insulation is rubbed during shipping. Then FBM company sent me a spare cord just in case. But it might never need to replace.)
