Update: Hershey's Extra Dark 60%

Alex Rast said:

About a month ago I got asked on Hershey's Extra Dark 60%. At that point I
hadn't tried it so my response was only able to be conjectural at best. So
now, the actual results.

Hershey's Extra Dark 60% is really quite good, borderline excellent,
indeed. Considering its manufacturer's past results, it's a spectacular
success. They've managed to extract considerable fruity flavour - cherry in
the initial taste, not to mention blueberry in the aroma, and it's got a
nice chocolatey main flavour to it. The only disappointment is a very flat
finish, and without this negative the bar would *definitely* be excellent
if not great. Texture, too, is on a par with high-end chocolatiers, very
smooth and creamy. I note that they're also using natural vanilla and in
general the ingredient label contains nothing commonly seen as suspect
among the chocoscenti. "Extra Dark" is perhaps a misnomer (typically that
would be more of an 85%-class bar) but we may pardon them for that label in
view of the chocolate's appeal. Good value considering it's $1.99 for a
100g bar, although I have to note that there are cheaper chocolates for the
same size, some of them with equivalent quality. All indications are that
Hershey's is taking the quality chocolate market seriously.

In a larger sense, indeed, the whole chocolate industry is moving upscale.
Commodity brands like Hershey's and Lindt are producing excellent chocolate
and boutique brands are exploring new sources and showing off single
varietals.

I wonder how much of this is being driven by the political instabilities
and infamous work conditions now so publicly exposed in the Ivory Coast,
the traditional major cocoa source for large producers?

Alex, Thank you. I am the one who asked you about the new Hershey's
Extra Dark 60% chocolate. Since then I also tasted it, but unlike you
I did not like it.

As you pointed out to me at a previous time, it is the fruitiness that
I do not like and which seems to give me nothing but an unpleasant
taste sensation, as was the case with Scharffen Berger. I have been
using the "new" 60% Ghirardelli and I like it very much. So much so,
that I have a problem not "tasting" too much of it, while I prepare
the batter for the oven. :o( You are the one who suggested to stick
to Ghirardelli for all my day-to-day baking and I want to thank you
for that suggestion.

Most of all, your pointing me to Guittard chocolates for special
desserts and for eating has proven invaluable to me. Thank you, I
wish their products were more easily available in New York City.

Happy New Year and once more, thank you for your help and advice which
you so generously give me, Margaret

Alex Rast said:

About a month ago I got asked on Hershey's Extra Dark 60%. At that

point I

Quoted message said:

hadn't tried it so my response was only able to be conjectural at

best. So

Quoted message said:

now, the actual results.

Hershey's Extra Dark 60% is really quite good, borderline excellent,
indeed. Considering its manufacturer's past results, it's a

spectacular

Quoted message said:

success. They've managed to extract considerable fruity flavour -

cherry in

Quoted message said:

the initial taste, not to mention blueberry in the aroma, and it's

got a

Quoted message said:

nice chocolatey main flavour to it. The only disappointment is a

very flat

Quoted message said:

finish, and without this negative the bar would *definitely* be

excellent

Quoted message said:

if not great. Texture, too, is on a par with high-end chocolatiers,

very

Quoted message said:

smooth and creamy. I note that they're also using natural vanilla

and in

Quoted message said:

general the ingredient label contains nothing commonly seen as suspect
among the chocoscenti. "Extra Dark" is perhaps a misnomer

(typically that

Quoted message said:

would be more of an 85%-class bar) but we may pardon them for that

label in

Quoted message said:

view of the chocolate's appeal. Good value considering it's $1.99

for a

Quoted message said:

100g bar, although I have to note that there are cheaper chocolates

for the

Quoted message said:

same size, some of them with equivalent quality. All indications

are that

Quoted message said:

Hershey's is taking the quality chocolate market seriously.

In a larger sense, indeed, the whole chocolate industry is moving

upscale.

Quoted message said:

Commodity brands like Hershey's and Lindt are producing excellent

chocolate

Quoted message said:

and boutique brands are exploring new sources and showing off single
varietals.

I wonder how much of this is being driven by the political

instabilities

Quoted message said:

and infamous work conditions now so publicly exposed in the Ivory

Coast,

Quoted message said:

the traditional major cocoa source for large producers?

I noticed something else. Some of the large Chain Drug Stores, Rite
Aid in this particular case, are starting to carry more dark chocolate
items. Dove used to be the only ones until now, but yesterday I saw a
whole bin filled with packages of Dark Chocolate Hershey Kisses for
Valentine's Day. Hershey's Special, their dark chocolate is available
in all the stores now, something that was not so just a short time ago.

Is this happening only in the New York City area or did others notice
it in their stores?

"Margaret Suran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Alex Rast said:

About a month ago I got asked on Hershey's Extra Dark 60%. At that point
I hadn't tried it so my response was only able to be conjectural at best.
So now, the actual results.

Hershey's Extra Dark 60% is really quite good, borderline excellent,
indeed. Considering its manufacturer's past results, it's a spectacular
success. They've managed to extract considerable fruity flavour - cherry
in the initial taste, not to mention blueberry in the aroma, and it's got
a nice chocolatey main flavour to it. The only disappointment is a very
flat finish, and without this negative the bar would *definitely* be
excellent if not great. Texture, too, is on a par with high-end
chocolatiers, very smooth and creamy. I note that they're also using
natural vanilla and in general the ingredient label contains nothing
commonly seen as suspect among the chocoscenti. "Extra Dark" is perhaps a
misnomer (typically that would be more of an 85%-class bar) but we may
pardon them for that label in view of the chocolate's appeal. Good value
considering it's $1.99 for a 100g bar, although I have to note that there
are cheaper chocolates for the same size, some of them with equivalent
quality. All indications are that Hershey's is taking the quality
chocolate market seriously. In a larger sense, indeed, the whole
chocolate industry is moving upscale. Commodity brands like Hershey's and
Lindt are producing excellent chocolate
and boutique brands are exploring new sources and showing off single
varietals. I wonder how much of this is being driven by the political
instabilities and infamous work conditions now so publicly exposed in the
Ivory Coast, the traditional major cocoa source for large producers?

Alex, Thank you. I am the one who asked you about the new Hershey's Extra
Dark 60% chocolate. Since then I also tasted it, but unlike you I did not
like it.

As you pointed out to me at a previous time, it is the fruitiness that I
do not like and which seems to give me nothing but an unpleasant taste
sensation, as was the case with Scharffen Berger. I have been using the
"new" 60% Ghirardelli and I like it very much. So much so, that I have a
problem not "tasting" too much of it, while I prepare the batter for the
oven. :o( You are the one who suggested to stick to Ghirardelli for all
my day-to-day baking and I want to thank you for that suggestion.

I, too, don't care for Scharffen Berger chocolate (too fruity and
unpleasant) but their cocoa is A-1 tasting for me, but it is not always
readily available and the price is outrageous.

For chocolate-bar type chocolate for eating I have been cutting a piece of
semi-dark Ghiradelli chocolate. A little is very satisfying after dinner.
The milk chocolate Ghiradelli is too sweet for eating and leaves me ill. DH
and I both dislike it.

I bought an 8 oz. container of "Organic Trader Joe's Cocoa Poweder for
drinking and baking USDA Organic" "USDA Organic." The price seemed right
for organic. I've not tried it yet. On the label it says, "This organic
cocoa powder is made from South American beans that grow within the Peruvian
jungle along the Andean Mountains. A high percentage of criollo and
trinitario beans create a low acidity and distinct flavor characteristic
that makes this cocoa powder perfect for all applications." "This is
non-alkalized, gluten-free product." Has anyone tried it yet?
Thanks,
Dee Dee

Margaret Suran said:

Quoted message said:

I noticed something else. Some of the large Chain Drug Stores, Rite
Aid in this particular case, are starting to carry more dark chocolate
items. Dove used to be the only ones until now, but yesterday I saw a
whole bin filled with packages of Dark Chocolate Hershey Kisses for
Valentine's Day. Hershey's Special, their dark chocolate is available
in all the stores now, something that was not so just a short time ago.

Is this happening only in the New York City area or did others notice
it in their stores?

Margaret,

The same thing is happening here in CA as well. I imagine it is in
part due to the increased findings on the benefits of anti-oxidants
available in dark chocolates. I put together a dark chocolate "gift
box" for my wife for Christmas, and neither of us were particularly
impressed with the Hershey's 60%. With Hachez, Vahlrona and others to
choose from, it didn't get a great deal of consideration past the
initial sampling.

Jason

Margaret Suran said:

I noticed something else. Some of the large Chain Drug Stores, Rite
Aid in this particular case, are starting to carry more dark chocolate
items. Dove used to be the only ones until now, but yesterday I saw a
whole bin filled with packages of Dark Chocolate Hershey Kisses for
Valentine's Day. Hershey's Special, their dark chocolate is available
in all the stores now, something that was not so just a short time ago.

Is this happening only in the New York City area or did others notice
it in their stores?

It is available in more areas, according to my travels. Granted, I am
not traveling to the hinterlands much, just the major metros.

I think part of it is driven by the broad success of higher priced
brands such as Dove & Scharffenberger in groceries and partly by the
Atkins craze, as darker chocolates have less sugar & seem to be the
"sneak treat" of low-carbers.

Boron

Dee Randall said:

I, too, don't care for Scharffen Berger chocolate (too fruity and
unpleasant) but their cocoa is A-1 tasting for me, but it is not always
readily available and the price is outrageous.

For chocolate-bar type chocolate for eating I have been cutting a piece of
semi-dark Ghiradelli chocolate. A little is very satisfying after dinner.
The milk chocolate Ghiradelli is too sweet for eating and leaves me ill. DH
and I both dislike it.

I bought an 8 oz. container of "Organic Trader Joe's Cocoa Poweder for
drinking and baking USDA Organic" "USDA Organic." The price seemed right
for organic. I've not tried it yet. On the label it says, "This organic
cocoa powder is made from South American beans that grow within the Peruvian
jungle along the Andean Mountains. A high percentage of criollo and
trinitario beans create a low acidity and distinct flavor characteristic
that makes this cocoa powder perfect for all applications." "This is
non-alkalized, gluten-free product." Has anyone tried it yet?
Thanks,
Dee Dee

I do not know the TJ Cocoa Powder, there are none of those stores in
New York City. Alex Rast may be able to tell you, he is the rfc
Chocolate Guru.

I seldom drink hot chocolate (nor cold one), but I always have a
container of Ghirardelli unsweetened cocoa powder at hand for baking.

It costs either $2.99 or $3.99 for a 10 oz. can, depending on where I
buy it. Finding a store with the lower price has become quite rare
now. It is a very nice cocoa powder.

On the rare occasion when I would like to drink a cup of hot
chocolate, I would want to go to one of Jacques Torres places. It is
a wonderful, fragrant chocolate served with a generous topping of
freshly whipped heavy cream. Heisse Schokolade Mit Schlag. :o)

Jason Tinling said:

The same thing is happening here in CA as well. I imagine it is in
part due to the increased findings on the benefits of anti-oxidants
available in dark chocolates. I put together a dark chocolate "gift
box" for my wife for Christmas, and neither of us were particularly
impressed with the Hershey's 60%. With Hachez, Vahlrona and others to
choose from, it didn't get a great deal of consideration past the
initial sampling.

My coworker will not eat milk chocolate, only dark, because of the
cholesterol. I don't know how a trace of milk in milk chocolate could
possibly throw off the cholesterol numbers myself. She will pass up
chocolate if there's no dark chocolate choice.

Karen

"Boron Elgar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Margaret Suran said:

I noticed something else. Some of the large Chain Drug Stores, Rite
Aid in this particular case, are starting to carry more dark chocolate
items. Dove used to be the only ones until now, but yesterday I saw a
whole bin filled with packages of Dark Chocolate Hershey Kisses for
Valentine's Day. Hershey's Special, their dark chocolate is available
in all the stores now, something that was not so just a short time ago.

Is this happening only in the New York City area or did others notice
it in their stores?

It is available in more areas, according to my travels. Granted, I am
not traveling to the hinterlands much, just the major metros.

I think part of it is driven by the broad success of higher priced
brands such as Dove & Scharffenberger in groceries and partly by the
Atkins craze, as darker chocolates have less sugar & seem to be the
"sneak treat" of low-carbers.

Boron

I'm not a low-carber, and I don't sneak for my treats, but I think 'sneak
treat' is a cute phrase. Over a certain percentage of chocolate makes me
just as ill as the milk chocolate of about 58% to 64%. Certainly there must
be something in the processing. I can't figure it out.

Margaret, I buy from Costco or BJ's Ghiradelli's cocoa (unsweetened) in a
28oz size can. I agree it is delicious. As I recall, it is around $4.99 or
thereabouts.
Dee Dee

Dee Randall said:

I bought an 8 oz. container of "Organic Trader Joe's Cocoa Poweder for
drinking and baking USDA Organic" "USDA Organic." The price seemed right
for organic. I've not tried it yet. On the label it says, "This organic
cocoa powder is made from South American beans that grow within the Peruvian
jungle along the Andean Mountains. A high percentage of criollo and
trinitario beans create a low acidity and distinct flavor characteristic
that makes this cocoa powder perfect for all applications." "This is
non-alkalized, gluten-free product." Has anyone tried it yet?

No, but I think it would be fun to be a buyer working for TJ's.

Karen

"Alex Rast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

About a month ago I got asked on Hershey's Extra Dark 60%. At that point I
hadn't tried it so my response was only able to be conjectural at best. So
now, the actual results.

Hershey's Extra Dark 60% is really quite good, borderline excellent,
indeed. Considering its manufacturer's past results, it's a spectacular
success. They've managed to extract considerable fruity flavour - cherry

in

Quoted message said:

the initial taste, not to mention blueberry in the aroma, and it's got a
nice chocolatey main flavour to it. The only disappointment is a very flat
finish, and without this negative the bar would *definitely* be excellent
if not great. Texture, too, is on a par with high-end chocolatiers, very
smooth and creamy. I note that they're also using natural vanilla and in
general the ingredient label contains nothing commonly seen as suspect
among the chocoscenti. "Extra Dark" is perhaps a misnomer (typically that
would be more of an 85%-class bar) but we may pardon them for that label

in

Quoted message said:

view of the chocolate's appeal. Good value considering it's $1.99 for a
100g bar, although I have to note that there are cheaper chocolates for

the

Quoted message said:

same size, some of them with equivalent quality. All indications are that
Hershey's is taking the quality chocolate market seriously.

In a larger sense, indeed, the whole chocolate industry is moving upscale.
Commodity brands like Hershey's and Lindt are producing excellent

chocolate

Quoted message said:

and boutique brands are exploring new sources and showing off single
varietals.

I wonder how much of this is being driven by the political instabilities
and infamous work conditions now so publicly exposed in the Ivory Coast,
the traditional major cocoa source for large producers?

Likley more driven by that recent study that dark chocolate had health
benefits, and they are readying their products accordingly.

Quoted message said:

--
Alex Rast
[email hidden]
(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

Dee Randall said:

For chocolate-bar type chocolate for eating I have been cutting a piece of
semi-dark Ghiradelli chocolate. A little is very satisfying after dinner.
The milk chocolate Ghiradelli is too sweet for eating and leaves me ill. DH
and I both dislike it.

We just bought a tin of Ghirardelli chocolates and I was really happy
with the 60% cocoa dark chocolate ones. The acidic taste you get in
some cheaper dark chocolates is almost completely gone, it's very smooth
and has a good consistency. The only problem is that the individual
squares are too big, it's too much to just nibble on.

Stacia

Dee Randall said:

I bought an 8 oz. container of "Organic Trader Joe's Cocoa Poweder for
drinking and baking USDA Organic" "USDA Organic." The price seemed right
for organic. I've not tried it yet. On the label it says, "This organic
cocoa powder is made from South American beans that grow within the Peruvian
jungle along the Andean Mountains. A high percentage of criollo and
trinitario beans create a low acidity and distinct flavor characteristic
that makes this cocoa powder perfect for all applications." "This is
non-alkalized, gluten-free product." Has anyone tried it yet?
Thanks,
Dee Dee

I like it, but I like my chocolate a little on the dark side (not too
dark). The 80% dark chocolates are too bitter for me - I like most
everything I have tasted in the 60-70% range excpet for Lindt. I have
used it for hot cocoa and brownies (which I only tasted but DH's
coworkers scarfed them up). I would be interested in what you think
about it. Oh, and I also make my hot cocoa with whole milk, a tad of
cream, and vanilla bean, so that will affect the chocolate flavors.
-L

at Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:15:51 GMT in <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (Dee Randall) wrote :

Quoted message said:

"Boron Elgar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Margaret Suran said:

I noticed something else. Some of the large Chain Drug Stores, Rite
Aid in this particular case, are starting to carry more dark chocolate
items. ...

Is this happening only in the New York City area or did others notice
it in their stores?

....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think part of it is driven by the broad success of higher priced
brands such as Dove & Scharffenberger in groceries and partly by the
Atkins craze, as darker chocolates have less sugar & seem to be the
"sneak treat" of low-carbers.

It's been pointed out also that there is the antioxidant "discovery". But
really, I think this is semi-marketing after the fact. The wave of dark
chocolates hitting the market actually started to happen before Atkins, and
before the determination of the better antioxidant properties, and I
suspect the research was in part carried out and indeed possibly even
funded in order to justify scientifically a market for dark chocolate. It's
a not-very-well-kept secret of science that much if not most of it is
marketing in disguise, going something like this: Large Company A has a new
product or line that they want to sell. As it stands there's no
particularly good reason why people might buy it, or perhaps there are
particularly good reasons *not* to buy it (e.g. possible health impacts,
environmental problems, resource overuse, whatever). So what the company
does is fund a lot of studies at various institutions in order to, in the
first place, come up with a good reason why the product should be used, or
in the second case, to refute the negatives. Then when the scientific
studies come out, these results naturally get high press, often in part
because the companies themselves prime the media, people catch on to the
findings, and it doesn't take long before you've got a new trend, backed by
scientific evidence. Now, the science itself isn't flawed, nor are the
investigators themselves carrying out their research in anything other than
an impartial manner. But it must be understood that the *motivation* for
that research is strongly biassed and has predecided conclusions in mind.
(This is coming from the companies, not from the scientists). Thus it's
usually no coincidence that scientific study, not to mention popular
appeal, often seems to coincide with new availabilities. Sometimes it's the
discoveries that drive the production, but more often than not it's the
other way round. It is therefore important to take such findings with a
very strong grain of salt.

Anyway, a lot of the recent increase in dark chocolate availability in the
USA I think has to do with what was starting to happen about 10 years ago -
the beginning of more widespread distribution of quality chocolate in the
country. With this new exposure, people started to appreciate how good
chocolate could be, stopped treating it as a commodity, and bought more
quality chocolate, increasing the size of the market, which brought still
more companies in... and you have the beginning of a strong upward spiral.

Quoted message said:

I'm not a low-carber, and I don't sneak for my treats, but I think
'sneak treat' is a cute phrase. Over a certain percentage of chocolate
makes me just as ill as the milk chocolate of about 58% to 64%.

High-percentage chocolate has more of the mood-altering chemicals
theobromine, phenyethanine, and caffeine. Like any strong stimulant these
lead to a quick high and a precipitous crash. In severe cases it will make
you dizzy, spacey, and paranoid. Unless you have a strong tolerance from
repeated high-percentage consumption, it's likely that in anything more
than relatively small amounts, the drugs will send you into orbit. It
doesn't help that most high-percentage chocolates are sold in 100g bars,
which, for the average person, is far too much. A new 50g size that's
becoming popular is more realistic. In any case, this is probably what's
making you sick.

--
Alex Rast
[email hidden]
(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

Alex Rast said:

In a larger sense, indeed, the whole chocolate industry is moving upscale.
Commodity brands like Hershey's and Lindt are producing excellent chocolate
and boutique brands are exploring new sources and showing off single
varietals.

Lindt at least has had some pretty good dark chocolate for some time,
unlike Hershey's.

I guess I'm a little spoiled because there are enough stores around here
that carry really good chocolate that I don't have to settle for any of
the waxy generic [censored] that Hershey's, Nestles, and Girardelli sell for
the most part.

"ferret" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Alex Rast said:

In a larger sense, indeed, the whole chocolate industry is moving
upscale. Commodity brands like Hershey's and Lindt are producing
excellent chocolate
and boutique brands are exploring new sources and showing off single
varietals.

Lindt at least has had some pretty good dark chocolate for some time,
unlike Hershey's.

I guess I'm a little spoiled because there are enough stores around here
that carry really good chocolate that I don't have to settle for any of
the waxy generic [censored] that Hershey's, Nestles, and Girardelli sell for the
most part.

Chocolate by-the-pound by Ghiradelli is pretty good IMO for the price of
$3.49#; particularly the semi-sweet; not the milk chocolate. I think it is
good value. If I am wrong, I would prefer an expert's opinion as to where
and how I am wrong.
Dee Dee

at Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:56:32 GMT in <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (ferret) wrote :

Quoted message said:

Alex Rast said:

In a larger sense, indeed, the whole chocolate industry is moving
upscale. Commodity brands like Hershey's and Lindt are producing
excellent chocolate and boutique brands are exploring new sources and
showing off single varietals.

Lindt at least has had some pretty good dark chocolate for some time,
unlike Hershey's.

Well, for a while Lindt was merely average for the most part. I do agree
that Excellence 70% (which has been out now for several years) was pretty
good, although not exactly the best of the 70%'s, but it was with the
introduction of the Excellence 85% that they really started to get serious.
Hershey's 60% is better than Excellence 70% by some margin but not the
equal of the awe-inspiring 85%. Lindt also has brought out some new
varietal chocolates which look very interesting. It's that new angle to
Lindt that shows they're moving in a different direction.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I guess I'm a little spoiled because there are enough stores around here

that carry really good chocolate that I don't have to settle for any of
the waxy generic [censored] that Hershey's, Nestles, and Girardelli sell for
the most part.

Ghirardelli has been excellent for many, many years - one of the better
chocolate manufacturers all round. Their bittersweet has consistently been
better than Hershey's, or Lindt - on a par with companies like Callebaut.
It's worth mentioning too that Nestle produces a superb bittersweet - Noir
Intense 74%, although it's hard to find.

I'll also say, however, that your description "waxy" suggests a texture
focus, so your idea of a good chocolate may depend a lot more on the
texture qualities than mine does. Not that Ghirardelli has ever had poor
texture, though - but it may be a factor. Ghirardelli is an interesting
company that many people seem inclined to be prejudicial against simply
because they're large and American. However, neither size nor nationality
has IME an absolute correlation with quality. In the limit, a large company
might not be able to produce as good a chocolate as a smaller company,
simply because the smaller company can use rarer ultra-quality beans that
the large company wouldn't be able to use simply because not enough is
produced to meet the supply they would need. However, beyond that limit,
it's very much all over the map.

Now, of course, Lindt owns Ghirardelli anyway, so wherever their quality
has been in the past we can probably expect (with Lindt's current focus),
if anything, still more improvement.

--
Alex Rast
[email hidden]
(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

Alex Rast said:

It's
a not-very-well-kept secret of science that much if not most of it is
marketing in disguise, ... Now, the science itself isn't flawed, nor are the
investigators themselves carrying out their research in anything other than
an impartial manner. But it must be understood that the *motivation* for
that research is strongly biassed and has predecided conclusions in mind.
(This is coming from the companies, not from the scientists). Thus it's
usually no coincidence that scientific study, not to mention popular
appeal, often seems to coincide with new availabilities. Sometimes it's the
discoveries that drive the production, but more often than not it's the
other way round. It is therefore important to take such findings with a
very strong grain of salt.

That's a good point, something I hadn't considered but which makes a lot
of sense. Thanks.

Quoted message said:

High-percentage chocolate has more of the mood-altering chemicals
theobromine, phenyethanine, and caffeine. Like any strong stimulant these
lead to a quick high and a precipitous crash. In severe cases it will make
you dizzy, spacey, and paranoid. Unless you have a strong tolerance from
repeated high-percentage consumption, it's likely that in anything more
than relatively small amounts, the drugs will send you into orbit. It
doesn't help that most high-percentage chocolates are sold in 100g bars,
which, for the average person, is far too much. A new 50g size that's
becoming popular is more realistic. In any case, this is probably what's
making you sick.

I would have thought that the high-percentage chocolates were being sold
in large bars because people were using them as an ingredient in
cooking and baking everything from mousse, chocolate chip cookies,
brownies, etc. So they're buying in big bars because it is less
expensive and more convenient that way same as they buy flour in several
pound bags. They're not necessarily eating it all at once. (Anyone
have a comment on this? Does anyone here buy large bars of chocolate to
eat at one sitting or know anyone who does?)

I can see that high-percentage chocolate would have to have more of the
mood altering chemicals, but I'm not sure how this works and would like
more information. I'll use myself as an example. I want to understand
more about my chocolate cravings.

First, chocolate is the only caffiene containing substance that I like.
I drink no coffee, drink tea only in that odd social situation when I
feel the need to accept a hot drink (and then get herb tea if it is
available), don't like caffienated soft drinks (and have been amused to
discover that I don't have to know there's caffiene in it not to like
it. I've hated Mountain Dew from early childhood and only recently
learned that it had caffiene in it. I've always hated coke and other
cola drinks too.) So I don't think it is the caffiene in chocolate that
I'm going after. If that were the case, I'd crave coke or coffee instead.

But I like chocolate. At times, I crave it. (Generally
pre-menstrually, sometimes other times.) I've wondered about this.
When I get the craving, it is pretty strong. I'll feel like I'll die
without it. I'm exaggerating, but I want to make the point that I've
been known to get up out of a warm house, put on a coat and run down to
the convenience store feeling a little like a drug addict while doing
it. Or I'll make a batch of brownies in the middle of the night.

But then once I've got the chocolate, it takes very little to satisfy
the craving. Only a few ounces. Maybe one of those 1.5 ounce Hershey
bars. Milk chocolate is fine so maybe there's something in the sugar
too. When I bake brownies, I'm nearly always left with 3/4 of the pan
left over which either goes stale or into the freezer. I'm no addict.
Once the brownies are in the freezer, I can forget they're there for a
month.

It happened at work the other day. I felt desperate for chocolate and
bought a 3.5 ounce bar of Dolfin dark chocolate with ginger for $3.50.
I nibbled at it. When it was half gone, I couldn't face the rest and
felt stupid for buying an expensive bar and letting the rest go to
waste. At that point, I felt like eating more would upset my stomach.
(Granted I wasn't feeling well to start. That's the point.)

So what gives? I wouldn't say the drug was putting me into orbit. It
just relieves the craving. I can't explain the feeling any better than
to say that I feel better after getting the chocolate. There's no quick
high and precipitous crash. I just feel better, and the craving doesn't
return in a stronger form. I've been at the 2 ounce stage for my entire
adult life. (It might be 2 ounces/day for 3 days, then none for the
rest of the month.) (I do get more chocolate than that in the form of a
nice dessert here and there. I'm talking about the cravings.)

I'm surely NOT a severe case. No dizzy, spacy, paranoia here, just
cravings. And no strong tolerance from repeated high consumption. If I
crave it more, I'm sure that's because now, in my late 40s, the hormone
swings are more pronounced. I have no scientific basis for this, but
I'd say that the chocolate does have a medicinal effect and a beneficial
one. I can say that because I can feel it. It doesn't seem to hurt me,
and it makes me feel much better. Any insight?

--Li

"Julia Altshuler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Alex Rast said:

It's a not-very-well-kept secret of science that much if not most of it
is marketing in disguise, ... Now, the science itself isn't flawed, nor
are the investigators themselves carrying out their research in anything
other than an impartial manner. But it must be understood that the
*motivation* for that research is strongly biassed and has predecided
conclusions in mind. (This is coming from the companies, not from the
scientists). Thus it's usually no coincidence that scientific study, not
to mention popular appeal, often seems to coincide with new
availabilities. Sometimes it's the discoveries that drive the production,
but more often than not it's the other way round. It is therefore
important to take such findings with a very strong grain of salt.

That's a good point, something I hadn't considered but which makes a lot
of sense. Thanks.

Quoted message said:

High-percentage chocolate has more of the mood-altering chemicals
theobromine, phenyethanine, and caffeine. Like any strong stimulant these
lead to a quick high and a precipitous crash. In severe cases it will
make you dizzy, spacey, and paranoid. Unless you have a strong tolerance
from repeated high-percentage consumption, it's likely that in anything
more than relatively small amounts, the drugs will send you into orbit.
It doesn't help that most high-percentage chocolates are sold in 100g
bars, which, for the average person, is far too much. A new 50g size
that's becoming popular is more realistic. In any case, this is probably
what's making you sick.

I would have thought that the high-percentage chocolates were being sold
in large bars because people were using them as an ingredient in cooking
and baking everything from mousse, chocolate chip cookies, brownies, etc.
So they're buying in big bars because it is less expensive and more
convenient that way same as they buy flour in several pound bags. They're
not necessarily eating it all at once. (Anyone have a comment on this?
Does anyone here buy large bars of chocolate to eat at one sitting or know
anyone who does?)

I buy chunks of Ghiradelli, El Ray, Callebaut or whatever-brand chocolate in
chunks. I cut off a small chunk for eating. This way I don't have to have
THE candy bar. Price is probably less or close to the same as a candy bar.
Right now I am eating semi-sweet chocolate Ghiradelli for $3.49 a lb. It is
completely satisfactory to me and probably too hard for others, but I like
it as well because it doesn't melt too fast in my mouth, and is not waxy.

It must be a state of mind, because you mention flour in several pound bags.
I buy flour and rice in 20-50# bags. I don't like going to the grocery store
often, but when I do, I want it to be an outing, a hunt.
Good luck with your chocolate.
Dee Dee

at Wed, 11 Jan 2006 22:24:38 GMT in <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (Julia Altshuler) wrote :

Quoted message said:

Alex Rast wrote:

<deletia>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

High-percentage chocolate has more of the mood-altering chemicals
theobromine, phenyethanine, and caffeine....

I would have thought that the high-percentage chocolates were being sold
in large bars because people were using them as an ingredient in
cooking and baking everything from mousse, chocolate chip cookies,
brownies, etc.... Does anyone here buy large bars of chocolate to
eat at one sitting or know anyone who does?)

Not really, because the 100g bars are generally designed for straight
eating. Furthermore, many people who would use chocolate for baking are
actually *confused* with the bar format, having become accustomed to the
little-block format of Baker's brand (which, let me say it again, should
really never be used for anything, not baking and certainly not eating).

I actually do eat 100g at a sitting - that's typical for me and extreme for
me would be more like 1000g. 200g is fairly commonplace. But I'm an
exception. I have both the unusual metabolism on hyperdrive and the
addiction at high tolerance that can take in this much at a time.

....

Quoted message said:

First, chocolate is the only caffiene containing substance that I like.

.... So I don't think it is the caffiene in chocolate that

Quoted message said:

I'm going after. If that were the case, I'd crave coke or coffee
instead.

Well, caffeine itself is odourless and tasteless. So the fact that you're
not keen on other caffeine-containing products doesn't necessarily say
anything about any addiction you might have to it, only that you don't like
perhaps the taste of those other products.

Quoted message said:

But I like chocolate. At times, I crave it. (Generally
pre-menstrually, sometimes other times.) I've wondered about this.
When I get the craving, it is pretty strong. I'll feel like I'll die
without it. I'm exaggerating, but I want to make the point that I've
been known to get up out of a warm house, put on a coat and run down to
the convenience store feeling a little like a drug addict while doing
it. Or I'll make a batch of brownies in the middle of the night.

Generally speaking that kind of craving-oriented addiction is the result of
phenyethanine, a neurotransmitter-mimic that among other things is said to
emulate the feeling of being in love. In any case, if you can associate
your cravings with hormonal swings, which also create changes in
neurotransmitters, then that further strenghtens the case.

Quoted message said:

...
It happened at work the other day. I felt desperate for chocolate and
bought a 3.5 ounce bar of Dolfin dark chocolate with ginger for $3.50.
I nibbled at it. When it was half gone, I couldn't face the rest and
felt stupid for buying an expensive bar and letting the rest go to
waste.

As I pointed out earlier, that 100g size is really too much for most
people. You aren't to be blamed if after 50g you reached saturation. That's
typical. In theory, if chocolate manufacturers made their wrappers
resealable this problem could be circumvented. But it's difficult, not to
mention expensive, to develop a resealable package that could maintain
chocolate under optimum storage conditions.

--
Alex Rast
[email hidden]
(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)