Working and selling our confections in the Bay Area I get a lot of people coming up to me and asking if my chocolate is raw. Mostly these types are more interested in the health benefits of chocolate- taste is secondary. When I tell them, no it is roasted, they would seem to assume that it is less heathy.Generally I would, feeling a little slighted, compare chocolate to coffee - you really wouldn't want to drink a cup of coffee made from unroasted beans, I say. But I believe, and I am in the process of comparing controlled batches of similar beans roasted and unroasted, that there might not be such a difference in flavor between 'raw' and roasted cacao beans as there is in coffee.Recently, at a San Francisco chocolate event, I overheard the people at the Xocai booth telling the public that the heathful anti-oxidants in chocolate are destroyed by roasting, which is clearly not the case when you look at ORAC ratings. However I would be very interested to hear any thoughts on actually how much of a change roasting makes, and any references to studies on this. Raw chocolate has not been cooked past 114 degreesF I believe, does it taste as good?......
updated by @clive-brown: 04/09/15 08:23:34

Well, I have just finished reading all the fascinating posts, fallacious and fact-filled on the 'Raw chocolate-- what is it really?' and Xocai fora and much of my curiousity is now sated!Health benefits have been explored in great detail - what a great site this is.I conclude that terminology and semantic differences will extend this discussion. But I would still love to see a controlled study on chemical contents and changes made using different methods of bean processing, from fermenting and drying to roasting and grinding.I appreciate what Steve is trying to do at Sacred Chocolate as much as I value the issues raised by questioning skeptics.Glad to be part of such an informed group.Clive

When you say "Raw chocolate has not been cooked past 114 degreesF," are you talking about fermentation or roasting?

Having read more about the subject it seems that the accepted temp limit, in order to be considered raw, is below from 114 degreesF to 122. Some people will argue, and I tend to agree, that the fermentation needed to bring out the best flavors will take the beans up to as much as 160 degreesF. Then roasting of course will take it to a temp. that the raw foodists believe destroys some health benefits.Here you have to weigh the apparent loss in health value with the potential inability to develop the best taste.To many gourmet 'tasteurs' the 'Raw' label has become a marketing tool.

Personally, I wouldn't touch "raw" chocolate with a 10 foot pole. Cacau comes from third world countries, and in those countries salmonella and ecoli are rampant. Pathogens such a Salmonella and Ecoli require temperatures in excess of 165 degrees F to kill them, and while the cacau is a dry product which in itself does not promote growth of the bacteria, it certainly doesn't stop the bacteria from resting on the outside or being transferred to the beans by way of cross contamination.All it takes is one single incident for the health department to come in and close your business down until the problem is fixed. However in the public's eyes the problem is NEVER fixed.I know there are factories that steam clean the beans before processing them further, but if I remember correctly in the literature I've read, they also roast them after cleaning them.I don't know.... As far as I'm concerned when it comes to public safety, in my opinion there simply isn't any compromise.

Just thought I would post this recent article by a modern expert on the subject of raw foods. This is the reason I STRIVE to keep Sacred Chocolate as RAW as possible...The Energy of Live Foods by Dr Sir Gabriel Cousens M.D., M.D. (H) D.D.There is a tremendous amount of extra levels of energy in live foods. One of the studies that most demonstrates this was done in Russia by Dr. Israel Breckman. The experiment was simple. He fed the same mice cooked food and live-food at different times. This was the exact same food and the exact same mice, the only difference was, the food was either cooked or uncooked. He measured the amount of energy and endurance the mice had when they were eating only live foods, and when eating the exact same amounts of food in its cooked state. The mice had three times more energy and endurance on the live-food than when they were eating cooked food. If nutrition were a simple matter of calories, there should not be any difference in endurance and power between eating the live and the cooked food. However, there clearly was a difference in the effect. This is because foods are not simply calories. This calorie paradigm, developed in 1789, is completely out of date, even though it is still being used by people in the nutritional sciences. What is the difference?Food has subtle nutrients, general nutrients, electrical energies, phytonutrients, enzymes, vitamins, and minerals. The electrical potential for our tissues and cells is a direct result of the liveliness of our cells. Live foods enhance the electrical potential in our cells, between the cells, at the interface of the cell membranes, and at the interface of the cells with the microcapulary electrical charges. When cells have the proper microelectrical potential, they have the power to rid themselves of toxins and maintain their selective capacity to bring appropriate nutrients, oxygen, and hydrogen into the cell, into the nucleus of the cell, as well as to feed the mitochondria. This helps to maintain, repair, and activate the DNA. Professor Hans Eppinger, who was the chief medical director of the first medical clinic at the University of Vienna, found that a live-food diet specifically raised the microelectrical potential throughout the body. He discovered that a live-food diet increases selective capacity of the cells by increasing their electrical potential between the tissue cells and the capillary cells. He saw that live-food significantly improves the intra and extracellular excretion of toxins, as well as absorption of nutrients. He and his co-workers concluded that live foods were the only type of food that could restore microelectrical potential to the tissues. In essence we can say that by restoring electrical potential to cells, live-food rejuvenates the life force and health of the organism.

Hi Samantha, As you may recall, I already defined the difference between raw and live in another post in a different thread. If you email Dr. Cousens at www.TreeOfLife.nu and ask him the bio-electrical differences between raw and live food he most likely will tell you that live food is higher in bio-electrical potency than raw food, and in the same breath, he will most likely tell you that raw food is more bio-electrically potent than cooked or roasted food. In other words, Raw Broccoli is more potent than cooked Broccoli for example. In my post above, I did not make any claim that Sacred Chocolate is in any way live. The claim that Sacred Chocolate is making is that it is raw, which in my case is defined as chocolate that is produced by NOT cooking or roasting the cacao bean in any way and then turning that raw cacao bean into raw chocolate at low temperature, which in our case is about 115 degrees Fahrenheit. This is sort of the hierarchy: LIVE-RAW-COOKED. Hope that clarifies things.Hearts!Sacred Steve

I am not sure how others are defining these terms, but for the record, when I say "cooked" I am referring to "roasting". I am using the terms "cooked" and "roasting" as synonyms through out this entire forum. In my educated opinion, the antioxidant properties are pretty stable in the cacao bean through fermentation temperatures as high as 150 to 160 degrees Fahrenheit.Hearts!Sacred Steve

Steve:When was this article ORIGINALLY published? I can't find any reference to this article in any search.On the subject of energy/food/nutrition, Cousens also supports Tachyon Holistic Healing - kinda fringe "science" there, IMO.

"This Tachyon breakthrough is tremendously exciting because it not only supports the energetic model of nutrition, but is a powerful self-healing and youthing tool," world renowned author of Spiritual Nutrition, Sevenfold Peace and Conscious Eating, Gabriel Cousens, M.D. wrote ...

No date on this article but nothing more recent than 1991 is cited.:: Clay


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

He just published it in one of his newsletters.He supported Tahyon Sciences for many years. I am not sure if he still does, but I did go to a seminar of his about 10 years ago, where he showed evidence with his own experiments on Plant Growth proving the validity of Tachyon Science. It was quite impressive. This guy is quite a scientist and clinician. I know him personally. He is very hesitant to make claims he can't substantiate. He is also considered to be at the leading edge of his field, so I am sure he will be professing things that skeptics will have fun with at times.

Steve:You're an engineer by training, by your own admission. Rather than cite references that point to research that in turn does not cite its references - how about doing some homework and getting us the references, from peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals?Specifically, " Professor Hans Eppinger, who was the chief medical director of the first medical clinic at the University of Vienna, found that a live-food diet specifically raised the microelectrical potential throughout the body. He discovered that a live-food diet increases selective capacity of the cells by increasing their electrical potential between the tissue cells and the capillary cells. He saw that live-food significantly improves the intra and extracellular excretion of toxins, as well as absorption of nutrients. " Was this research ever published and/or peer reviewed? If not, it's of dubious value. Like cold fusion experiments that aren't repeatable.I am going to suggest that we adopt the following - external - definition of raw foodism and try very hard to distinguish between hard science and mysticism. Although there are flaws in the Wikipedia article (as the article itself points out), after considerable research on the subject it's the most balanced article on the topic I have found. If anyone knows of another, please refer to it here so I can review.:: Clay:: Clay


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to spend doing the immense amount of research and backing to support this forum's needs. I am here to contribute what I can. I leave it to others to do more digging if and when they need to. I do the best I can, with what very limited time I have. If you REALLY want to see IMMENSE amounts of scientific published data, just pick up a recent book of Dr. Cousen's and look at the bibliography. Or, do the same thing with a recent book of David Wolfe's. The research IS impressive. I can't afford to do everybody's homework in this regard. I am here to lead people to water. People then have to do a little work for themselves and "drink". That is one of my personal roles in this lifetime.

Samantha,We are striving. I guess you just don't get it, which is fine.Matt Monarch just interviewed Gabriel Cousens on Youtube (6 or 7 part series or so). At around part 5 or 6 Dr. Cousens SPECIFICALLY talks about RAW chocolate and even SACRED CHOCOLATE. I will leave it to you to google. You will find what he says interesting I think. Dr. Cousens did some special energy tests on certain flavors of Sacred Chocolate and was very impressed. You will need to contact him directly to find out the nature of those tests. As a result, he contracted with us to make several very specially formulated chocolates just for his Rejuvenation Center. All of the Sacred Chocolate we are curently supplying his center either has Inulin and/or Stevia and/or Erythritol as a sweetener.It's amusing how "against" raw chocolate you are! I don't have to defend Dr. Cousens in any way. His amazing career as a doctor and scientist speaks for itself.Hearts!Sacred Steve

I have since clarified that. Thanks for being vigilant!My claim is that RAW chocolate is significantly higher in antioxidants than traditionally cooked or roasted chocolate. I also claim that it is PROBABLY higher in naturally occuring ENZYMES as well. Hearts!Sacred Steve

Steve:Again - PLEASE cite your references and INCLUDE them in your posts rather than forcing us to do the homework. You found the YouTube videos ... make it easy for us to see them, too. DON'T LEAVE IT TO US TO GOOGLE. I personally find it to be inconsiderate and disrespectful of our time. (Please note that the videos are unavailable - the videos have been removed by Matt for some unstated reason.)As an engineer, I think you'd be interested in the nature of the energy tests you say Cousens has performed on your chocolate. Plus, I think that it's incumbent upon you to substantiate the claims you are making, rather than forcing us to follow up for you. I find this approach of yours to be the single most frustrating aspect of your contributions and it is one of the reasons that people continue to be skeptical. Assume that I want to learn the science and engineering of this and that I am sympathetic to the basic stance that there is some value in a diet that includes raw and minimally processed foods. I want to understand and because you are making some specific claims I want you to help me understand, not force me to re-do the research you've already done.A question about the erythritol you use. While erythritol is a naturally occurring sugar alcohol, most that is available commercially is produced by fermenting glucose with the yeast Moniliella pollinis . Does your producer certify that this meets raw temperature standards? Overall, I am interested in claims for any sweetener that claims to be raw (or for which claims for being raw are made) - most are not.:: Clay


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

I am not claiming that any sweetener we are using is raw. Although in theory it is possible, there are currently no commercially available raw sweeteners except honey. Even low temperature processed Agave makers use enzymes to strip the naturally occuring enzymes present that would cause it to ferment, which sort of defeats one of the main purposes of raw--enzyme retention. Also, you don't need to continue to say that I am an engineer. It sounds manipulating to me.Clay, I hear your frustration. Please accept my apology for not taking the time to hand everything to everybody on a platter. I know you are sympathetic since you are doing an event with another Raw Chocolate Maker in Belize. I appreciate that. I just don't have the time. I contribute where I can. But, i can't make this a full or part time job, unless you want to pay me for it? Can you at least acknowledge me for probably contributing more on the subject of raw chocolate than most? Hearts!Sacred Steve

Steve:With respect to the sweetener not being raw, then we can say that your chocolate hearts consist of a mix of raw and non-raw ingredients. Correct?Why is this important? Because at some point the product might end up containing a high proportion of non-raw ingredients. So - instead of being "Raw Chocolate" it might more accurately be described as "'Chocolate made with X% Raw Cacao' and processed at low temperature with Y% non-raw ingredients added." This would be consistent with organic labeling and the labeling requirements for other forms of certifications (e.g., fair trade). It makes sense to follow those guidelines, no?With respect to my referring to your being an engineer, it is manipulative in the sense that I want to remind you that one tenet of being an engineer is that it is important to document your work and follow through. I am sure that the engineering leads at NASA needed lots of documentation to support bills of materials to build things (and probably demanded detailed assays of new batches of the same materials); they didn't accept "trust me, I read some books by this dude who's really well respected," or, "this batch should have all the same physical charactersits as the last one because we made it the same way - there's no need to test it."I ask that you please consider the following:If you were to spend just a few more moments providing us with documentation (or at least some references more specific than "go look it up for yourself on Google" for your statements before you posted them, you might find that you'd spend far less time in rebuttal defending yourself. For example, if you'd looked for the Matt Monarch videos with Dr Cousens you might have noticed that they were no longer available and not cited them because their content could not be verified. This is a standard I hold myself to - I don't cite a reference that can't be found when I cite it. Because you are making the claims it is incumbent upon you to back them up. Or just don't make the claims in the first place. Otherwise people are going to call you on them.Finally, I can acknowledge that you have contributed more than any other raw chocolate maker to these discussions.At the same time, through my work with another raw chocolate company (Gnosis), I am very aware of the issues involved not only with raw chocolate specifically but with raw foodism in general (I had my first contact with raw foodists and juice-ists in Portland, OR in 1977-8 or thereabouts).The upshot is that I believe the entire raw foods industry needs an independent raw certification program that uses a part of the money that it collects to perform some of the basic scientific research needed to support some of its claims. This certifier cannot be run by David Wolfe, Shazzie, Matt Monarch, Dr Cousens, you, or anyone else in the raw foods world and it needs to work with an outside lab (e.g., Brunswick) to do the testing.


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

Samantha:I said the Wikipedia article was imperfect but it's a start. It's also something that could be used to form the basis of a definition of raw chocolate. My supposition is that anything that's not based on some accepted external definition will be ignored by the more hard-core members of the raw foods community because it does not serve their needs.:: Clay


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

Hi Clay,In general as a career, I am no longer in engineering mode. And, I am definitely not in engineering mode for this forum. I am only in engineering mode on occassion in regards to our own proprietary processes.I claim that we don't cook or roast our cacao. Because of our process, we realize a much higher antioxidant rating than normal, per our independent lab analysis. Many other ingredients we use are in the raw state. Some ingredients we use are not. Similarly to coffee, it is impossible to get a vanilla flavor from a bean that has been cured at what is considered below raw temperatures. I can't disclose much beyond what I already do, since I would be disclosing our exact recipes. Our recipes are proprietary. Our process is propriety. In the spirit of educating, I have disclosed as much as I can.THE CLAIM I HAVE MADE ON THIS FORUM I HAVE ACTUALLY ALREADY BACKED UP SCIENTIFICALLY WITH INDEPENDENT LAB ANALYSIS as you already know.I am not interested in creating a perfect research paper with full bibliography worthy of an A+ for this forum. I will leave that to the other academics on this forum. As the forum owner, your motivation is just that for many reasons, which I understand, and which I don't feel is necessary to go into I support everybody doing as much of their own independent research as they want.Hearts!Sacred Steve

FYI...Sacred Chocolate does make a 100% Organic, 100% RAW (Defined as using only UNROASTED CACAO and keeping grinding temperatures below 115 degrees Fahrenheit from start to finish), 100% VEGAN, 100% Kosher, 100% Halal, 100% CACAO CONTENT chocolate bar for anybody who may be interested? It is called "Heart of Cacao". Maybe this should be the START of a "RAW CHOCOLATE DEFINITION" ??Hearts!SS

Hi Samantha,Like I said before and posted before I have scientific proof that I posted on this forum that raw chocolate is higher in antioxidants than cooked or roasted chocolate. Perhaps you didn't see the labe report from Brunswick Labs on our Ginger chocolate?? I have scientifically proven it. You have yet to scientifically refute the fact. BTW, aren't you in the business of selling cooked chocolate? Are you going to use this platform to promote your idea that cooked chocolate is as healthy as raw chocolate since you are in the cooked chocolate business? As Jesus said, when you point the finger, there are always a few pointing back at you.Hearts!SS
updated by @sacred-steve: 09/08/15 12:08:17

Samantha,What do you think? The answer is: nope. It is just a suggestion, since it appears people concerned are grasping for a definition. I am happy to supply one if necessary as a starting point. Hearts!SS

Sam:You are not wrong - but if we are to lead on this we need to do more than just publish a definition for raw chocolate. The larger questions are buy-in, certification, and compliance. Without them a definition alone is not going to be useful to anyone but ourselves.:: Clay


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

Steve:I am not asking you to do an A+ research paper for the members of this forum or to disclose any proprietary processes. I am asking you to do it for everyone who is interested in raw chocolate everywhere. If you can convince us, well, we're a tough bunch so it might mean something.What you may wish to consider, though, is the creation of an A+ research paper that helps everyone in the raw food and raw chocolate worlds truly understand the challenges of producing a raw chocolate - and the benefits.To create such a report, however, it will be necessary to cite sources outside the raw world. Just pointing to Howell, Cousens, Wolfe, et al, presents only one side of the argument. Though Sam has pointed out flaws in the Wikipedia article on raw foodism (I would like to know your thoughts on it) it's well cited on both sides of the question.With respect to your ORAC analysis. It was run on beans harvested what, 3 years ago? 5? Are you claiming that the ORAC analysis is still valid? How can it be - the chemical composition of harvested beans changes from month to month? You are using exactly the same beans processed (or not processed) exactly the same way with no changes to the equipment or process since the last ORAC analysis?If anything has changed the ORAC analysis may no longer be valid. I am not saying that a new ORAC test won't reveal that your ORAC scores are higher than chocolate processed using "regular" techniques - just that you may be over-reporting (or even under-reporting, you never know) your scores.


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

My claim is substantiated by scientific data provided by a reputable independent lab the results of which I have posted in this forum. Sorry to hear that you think my response is "asinine".I rest my case. Hearts!Sacred Steve

Oops...forgot to repost this, since obviously, Samantha, you did not see it...Here is our ORAC lab report on our Ginger Recipe. This recipe is only 57% cacao content and the ORAC score is reported on a per gram basis. Please provide a similar report on some cooked or roasted chocolate so we can compare. Please provide the roasting temperature and time, so that can be factored in.

Most of the Raw Community that may be following along appreciate the other certifications, so that is why I list them. As far as I know, other than the typical, there are no strict relevance rules on this forum, and the moderator is free to delete whatever he wants to based on his own discretion.Like I explained before, which you did not read obviously from your current question, the raw world has a variance of anywhere from 105 to 125 degrees F -- max typical surface temperatures to be found on the planet at any location. I feel comfortable with the mean of 115.I don't really care if people believe my claim of 115. I have been a reputable leader in the raw food community since 1993 and so has my partner David Wolfe. If people don't want to believe what we are saying, they are free to make that choice of course. I did this for MY PERSONAL BELIEF, not others! That is the crux of the issue you have with me Samantha...you believe I am in this and claiming what i am claiming JUST to sell, sell, sell and placate the beliefs of others. That would be a WRONG assumption on your part if you think that, and would be the basis of the energy you have "against" me. I personally built the machines. I have to sleep well at night knowing I am telling the truth on temperature. Otherwise, i would not be in this. If it is just about money, I would be doing something else guaranteed!Hearts!Sacred Steve

Samantha, your put downs like "what planet are you on" in the prior post really don't behoove you. Like I explaind in a prior post, ORAC is a measurement of Antioxident levels present in a food...please do your own research to determine this for yourself. The lab report provided proves that our raw ginger chocolate has a higher antioxidant level than cooked/roasted chocolate at the same cacao solids content. Our Ginger chocolate was tested at below a 57% cacao solids content.

it sure seems like you are threatened by this, since you are now calling a scientific report spam. You should review the definition of spam

again, and again, and again, huh? hmmm...to my count it is only twice in two separate but related threads.... Hearts!SS

Hi Samantha,I am responding to your post ABOVE since you must have replies turned off or something?Anyway, I am glad to hear that you believe we are making progress on this point!Unfortunately, due to the fact that we are holding on to proprietary processes and information, I can't disclose everything you want me to, so I won't be as strong a candidate for an "INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY ON RAW CHOCOLATE" as you wish me to be. That being said, I can disclose this document. They key to keeping our loose definition of RAW chocolate as high in antioxidants as possible is not so much worrying about whether or not fermentation is taking place at 122 or 125 or 130 degrees F, but in the LENGTH of the fermentation process.

Steve:Sorry, but you do not have scientific proof that all raw chocolates are higher in antioxidants than all roasted/cooked chocolates.What you have is a lab test that says that one specific sample of your chocolate has a specific ORAC level that appears to be higher than the reference standard for chocolate posted by the USDA as shown in this online database for ORAC scores.Please help me understand the Brunswick Lab report, which reports a combined water/fat ORAC count at 343 micromole Trolox Equivalents per gram. If I multiply by 100 (which is to put it in the same scale as all the rest of foods listed), I get 34,300 micromole Trolox Equivalents per 100 grams. This puts your ginger chocolate below the value for unsweetened baking chocolate and dutched cocoa powder on the list. Am I missing something or misinterpreting something in the report?From OracValues.com:"The ORAC (Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity) unit, ORAC value, or "ORAC score" is a method of measuring the antioxidant capacity of different foods and supplements. It was developed by scientists at the National Institutes of Health. While the exact relationship between the ORAC value of a food and its health benefit has not been established , it is believed that foods higher on the ORAC scale will more effectively neutralize free radicals. According to the free-radical theory of aging, this will slow the oxidative processes and free radical damage that can contribute to age-related degeneration and disease." (Emphasis added by me.)


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

Clay,Sorry, but we do have scientific proof.I already explained this in a prior post. Take note that everything is measured on a per WEIGHT basis! Cocoa Powder is DEVOID (or has perhaps 5% only on a per weight basis) of fat, which has virtually no antioxidants. Most 100% cacao content dark chocolate is about 60% fat. So, REMEMBER to SUBTRACT THAT OUT on a per WEIGHT basis. Therefore, if you want to do a rough APPLES TO APPLES comarison of our 57% Cacao Content Ginger Chocolate to USDA COCOA POWDER, Take our number of 34,300 and DIVIDE it by (.57 x .4) and you will have a rough number to compare head to head with the USDA value reported for COCOA POWDER.Hope that helps!:-)Hearts!SS

Commercial cocoa powder generally falls into the range of 10-12% residual fat (low-fat) or 20-24% residual fat (high fat), not 5%.The fat content of cocoa beans tends to be in the range ~ 47-53% but can vary outside these norms.Other than sites selling raw foods I have never heard a number as low as 40% (and one, Detox Your World, proposes a range of 12-50%). If someone can point to a more authoritative reference with these lower numbers, please let us know.One of the challenges with comparing ORAC values head-to-head is that of comparing apples with oranges. Does anyone else see the logical fallacies in Steve's approach?Steve's equation (34,300 / .57*.4) = ~150,438 ORAC per 100 grams of non-fat cocoa powder (because there are negligible amounts of antioxidants in the fat he is only considering the non-fat solids in the chocolate). However, to make the comparison fairer, we have to apply the same logic to the non-alkalized unsweetened cocoa powder (or any other chocolate to consider only the non-fat solid component).Thus, we need to divide the base ORAC score (80,933) by the non-fat solids component (.78 avg for high-fat cocoa powder and .89 for a low-fat powder) for a value of ~103,760 (high fat) or 90,935 for low-fat). Thus Steve's claim for relative high antioxidant levels for the non-fat powder in his chocolate holds true.BUT - and this is a big but - when someone purchases the 57% Ginger chocolate, they are buying and eating a product with an ORAC of 34,300 per 100 grams - not the "pure" non-fat cocoa powder. However, when someone purchases non-alkalized unsweetened cocoa powder they are getting the full 80,933 ORAC per 100 grams. Thus, on a straight gram per gram comparison of what you're actually buying, unsweetened cocoa powder would seem to have a higher ORAC (809 versus 343).Unless I am totally missing something here again - so please feel free to tell me where the logical fallacies in my arguments are.Now, all of this said and done, there is an unquantifiable aspect to consider, which is the raw food community's belief that there are other aspects of raw foods - including but not limited to the higher levels and higher vitality of the enzymes that are consumed - that need to be factored into the efficacy equation; that there is more going on than the raw numbers reveal. This makes sense on an intuitive level but, from what I have discovered, there is a lot of difference in opinion about the true value and efficacy of these non-quantifiable (or at the very least, difficult to quantify) factors.Another way to think of the comparison between the ORAC level of Sacred Ginger Chocolate and non-alkalized unsweetened cocoa powder (or any set of foods) is, "How much do I need to ingest to consume a specific ORAC level?"When asking this question it's important to note that although there are DRIs (Dietary Reference Intakes) and RDAs (Recommended Daily Allowances) for many antioxidants (e.g., Vitamin C, beta-carotene), to the best of my knowledge (and if anyone knows a specific reference please cite) there is neither a DRI nor an RDA for ORAC. Nonetheless, the ORAC "community" has set a recommended minimum daily ORAC intake at 5000, and assumes that all components of the ORAC score have the same value.At an ORAC of 34,300 per 100 grams, it is necessary to eat about 14.5 grams (a little over a half-ounce) of the Sacred Chocolate Ginger recipe to hit the magic number of 5000. Assuming that 40% of 57% of those 14 grams are fat (Steve's figures), that's about 27 calories from fat.At an ORAC level of 80,933 per 100 grams, it is necessary to eat about 6.2 grams of non-alkalized unsweetened cocoa powder less than one-quarter ounce) to reach the same ORAC level. At a residual fat level of 22% (high fat cocoa powder), calories from fat are about 12, for low-fat cocoa powder, calories from fat are half that.In reality, there's not a whole lot of difference here (other than cost) based on the known, quantifiable factors. I can eat a half-ounce of Sacred Chocolate Ginger chocolate or find some way to add a quarter-ounce (about a teaspoon) of non-alkalized cocoa powder into what I eat every day. Either way, it's not a bad thing to have chocolate and cocoa in your diet.The difference in preference has much to do with what each of us believes to be the value of "living foods" - whatever that means with respect to cocoa beans that have been processed into chocolate at any temperature.


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/

Forgot to mention something else...the .57 is our total CACAO content, not CACAO SOLIDS content. And since we add some cacao BUTTER to the Ginger Chocolate, that .57 number is actually REDUCED in the equation 34,300 / (.57 x .4). However, the exact amount of reduction I am not at liberty to tell! The effect of this, though, is that the ORAC value that Clay computes would be a little higher. Also, I am sure that the USDA probably used something like HERSHEY'S COCOA POWDER to run its test. Hershey reports .5 gram fat in a 5 gram serving or 10%, so my .4 figure should be .5 which would reduce the number. It is probably a close wash!Hearts!

Okay. Time to close this discussion for a while. Things are getting a little out of hand. It's Friday, November 6th and this will be closed for at least the next 10 days.:: Clay


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clay - http://www.thechocolatelife.com/clay/