[JosephLark]

> “Dark chocolate probably has some beneficial properties to it,” said Salt Sugar Fat author Michael Moss, “but generally you have to eat so much of it to get any benefit that it’s kind of daunting, or something else in the product counteracts the benefits. In the case of chocolate, it’s probably going to be sugar.”

Interestingly, the chart just below this quotation shows that it takes ~70 calories of straight cocoa powder to get a "heart healthy" dose of flavanols. With dark chocolate, which has less sugar as the cocoa percentage goes up, they don't distinguish the type but you need 750 calories. That's quite a bit.

70% cocoa dark chocolate is somewhat (not entirely) palatable to most people, but getting up to 85% becomes a distinguished taste even for dark chocolate lovers.

Jives with my first thoughts after reading the submitted headline: that even if they could show cocoa was good for you, there is no way that translates into the standard Mars chocolate bars. I can totally see how it benefits Mars though - I've seen people give way more twisted justifications for eating junk food than "cocoa is good for you" as an excuse when eating a chocolate bar.

[gmac]

A really good dark chocolate need not be an acquired taste.

In the UK, Co-op's own brand 85% dark chocolate is excellent. It's rich enough that you'll probably never want more than a square or two at one go (which I count as a point in is favour), but it's fruity and delicious. Also Sainsbury's Organic Santo Domingo 74% gives much fancier bars at several times the price a run for their money.

Green & Black's 70%, on the other hand, which is widely available, is over-priced, chalky, bitter, marketing-led nonsense.

[armandososa]

I am a diabetic (since 2015) and have come to really appreciate 90% dark chocolate. Maybe it's weird coming from me, because I was legit addicted to it, but added sugar is sooooo overrated.

[bitexploder]

85% or better and some no sugar almond butter is really nice. I have come to prefer it, and occasionally Justin's with some sugar (but not a lot, 20g-30g of carbs). It is underrated health food. Easy to travel with, filling, etc.

[QAPereo]

To be fair, “come to appreciate” sounds a lot an “acquired taste” you know? Curious aside though, what brand do you go for? I have a friend who likes similarly dark chocolate and I’m always on the lookout for presents.

[aaron-lebo]

Not really a dark chocolate connoisseur, but your post got me wondering. Hershey's Special Dark (which a lot of people are probably familiar with and is way better than regular Hershey's milk chocolate) is 45%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hershey%27s_Special_Dark

Can't imagine 80%, but it's easy to get on Amazon. Thanks for the extra weight.

[lokerfoi]

75% is pretty standard in Europe. I've tried a couple of 99% cocoa chocolates too, but these are really for the hardcore lovers (gets glued to the teeth and other taste issues).

[pierrec]

>gets glued to your teeth

Because you're not supposed to chew it (I believe that's even written in the "tasting tips" on the Lindt packaging at least). Bite off small bits and let them melt in your mouth. It's kind of like a dark and very tasty coffee, if that sounds good to you, give it a try.

Now if only I could find it in the supermarkets around here... (as is common in France)

[tarsinge]

Thanks for the tip, had my mouth completely glued first time I took a big chunk of 100%

[blackguardx]

I recommend trying Lindt chocolate bars. It is a good, entry-level (sort of cheap) chocolate brand that is pretty wildly available.

Try the 70% and then work your way up to 90%. They make a 99% as well, but it is harder to find.

[ianai]

I think my next crazy taste test will be straight cocoa nibs whole.

[colechristensen]

You can buy them fairly readily. They're good in yogurt.

[armandososa]

crush toasted cocoa nibs with some agave nectar and they are great on spreads.

[jibe]

So take the sugar out of chocolate, then add it back on top?

[jmiserez]

I don’t know how you came to this conclusion, but Lindt is not an entry-level (whatever that means) chocolate brand in my book.

What would you suggest is better?

[blackguardx]

Lindt is entry-level because it is cheap. I actually prefer Lindt to many higher-end brands. There are certainly better chocolate bars, but the price difference is often hard to justify.

[yayana]

Yeah they are king of the 90% price point and seem to use it as an anchor for uniform pricing on their whole bar range in Switzerland.

I think that gives the perception and benefits of being high end to the high volume but lower blends, but means the over 90s seem a bit too poor. But I'm not really sure how the botique 95% blends are and I'm glad lindt's aren't up to the challenge. It is hard enough to travel with a 90% addiction.

[smazga]

Ugh. I hate Lindt. It's like eating a battery.

Look for an Endangered Species Panther bar. They're in almost every grocery store around here (I can only assume they're popular), 88% cacao, and much less bitter/harsh.

[Jedd]

> They're in almost every grocery store around here (I can only assume they're popular), 88% cacao, and much less bitter/harsh.

Evidently you're in Utah, USA.

It's good to mention actual location, rather than 'around here', for people that don't know where you are.

McDonalds are pretty much everywhere - that means they're popular, by definition, however most discerning consumers wouldn't consider them a high quality product.

Some tomatoes are considered acidic, but in practice most tomato varieties have the same acidity - just varying levels of sugars, which makes them taste more / less acidic. Is the 'much less bitter' quality of this bar you're referring to a result of a higher ratio of sugars?

[smazga]

> Evidently you're in Utah, USA.

> It's good to mention actual location, rather than 'around here', for people that don't know where you are.

Why? What difference would that have made? Either the bars exist where the parent lives or they don't. My location has nothing to do with that. I only mention that they're common in my area as a "maybe they're common enough to also be found where you are" data point.

> McDonalds are pretty much everywhere - that means they're popular, by definition, however most discerning consumers wouldn't consider them a high quality product.

What's your point? Are you saying that the Endangered Species bars are low quality because they happen to be popular(-ish) in my area?

> Is the 'much less bitter' quality of this bar you're referring to a result of a higher ratio of sugars?

Possibly. I don't really know enough about the respective bars to really speak to that. I wonder, though, if it's not something in the manufacturing process since all Lindt (even the "sweet" bars) have the same sour/acidic flavor to me.

[athenot]

70%, 85% and even higher are available at the regular grocery store (Publix here in the Southeast). Lindt is one of the available brands.

[surfmike]

The first 100% cocoa bar I've had that was actually pretty good was: Montezuma Absolute Dark Chocolate Black from the UK. I found it once at my Trader Joe's and sadly haven't seen it since. Seriously tempted to order a supply from abroad despite the high shipping cost.

[cstrahan]

For a short while, we had some of those bars on sale at our local Trader Joe’s grocery store in Brooklyn, New York. They were pretty good.

I have a friend that runs a coffee shop, where he also makes chocolate. The 100% chocolate he made was really, really good.

[gilbetron]

My wife has a square or two of Ghirardelli 86% dark chocolate each day - one square being about 60 calories. I can't imagine eating over a dozen per day!

[sn9]

Most large grocery stores carry dark chocolates of anywhere from 60% to 100% dark chocolate. It's not hard to find 100% in my experience.

[bdamm]

82% can be found in common drug stores; at least in SF Bay Area and Portland area.

[dwighttk]

Trader Joe's has a 72% bar that is really good.

[agumonkey]

I had to cut sugar, I tried things with less in it, so I ramped up the dark chocolate %. 70% is my sweet spot.

I hope I can get a little benefits from this (and other nutrients of course). Although dark chocolate also contains bromide derivatives who can be harmful too.

[nobodyorother]

What does 70 calories of chocolate weigh, and what's chocolate's LD50?

...What's the maximum number of heart-healthy flavanol doses?

[thinkharder]

70 Calories of chocolate is about 11-12g of (70-85%) dark chocolate, or 12-13g of Milk Chocolate(1). Chocolate's LD50 is approximately 1000g/Kg(2). So basically your body weight in chocolate. It's the theobromine that kills you, same as dogs, but they're much more sensitive to it. And it strongly depends on the kind of chocolate, pure cocoa is much higher in theobromine than milk chocolate: So 5 oz of Cocoa powder ~= 8.6 oz of Baking chocolate ~= 26 oz of Semi-sweet ~= 27oz of dark chocolate ~= 59 oz of Milk Chocolate ~= 3583 oz of White chocolate.(3) (White chocolate has no cocoa powder in it, just cocoa butter.) Note that these comparisons are of just the theobromine content, not the the 'healthy' stuff in chocolate.

I have personally tested this back when my metabolism was young by eating 2 pounds of Hershey's Kisses in one evening with no ill effects. :)

I don't think we know that much about flavonols, quercetin is the most studied and most of the studies used a 1000 mg/day dose, but I don't find any info about a most effective or maximum dosage.(4)

The reason to eat chocolate is cause it tastes fucking awesome. If you're trying to eat it for your health I feel sad for you. ;-)

1.)http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calories-in-average-all-bra... 2.)http://blogs.plos.org/speakeasyscience/2012/02/14/the-curiou... 3.)http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/10/pets/chocolate-cha... 4.)https://examine.com/supplements/cocoa-extract/

[oliwarner]

"~70 calories of straight cocoa powder" is what the parent comment says, not 70 calories of chocolate.

That's an odd way to measure it though. Maybe they meant grams. If they didn't you have another battle because the calorific content between brands of cocoa powder varies wildly 70kcal may be as little as 17g, or as much as 40g.

Who knows.

[kaybe]

Nowadays I'm eating pure chocolate beans directly. One can even get them in 'nib' form at the supermarket (not cheap but it lasts a while).

It's actually really good, though not a candy anymore, more like nuts. I can recommend mixing with yoghurt and banana.

[lisper]

> I'm eating pure chocolate beans

You probably meant CACAO beans (note: not cocoa, which is a product made from cacao). There are actually products called chocolate beans, but they are typically just pieces of chocolate that have been formed to look like beans.

[jibe]

Jibes with your first thought.