I've taken to eating about 2 oz of baking chocolate a day as a double punch caffeine boost and dessert. The ambiguous ingredients list just says 'chocolate', but as far as I understand this just means cocoa liquor and cocoa butter. Because there isn't any soy lecithin or sugar, is this considered 'paleo'? Does anybody else eat the straight-up good stuff?
|
1
|
|
|||
|
|
|
4
|
Well, the marquee paleohacks thread on chocolate is this one: http://paleohacks.com/questions/1089/chocolate-is-it-healthy There are a lot of interesting ideas there. You can also have a look at Melissa's fun "paleo foods" page: http://huntgatherlove.com/paleofoods Note the scare quotes in the title: "Evolutionarily Appropriate, 'Paleo' Foods." I think at this point that Melissa would call paleo-ness into question even more than when that page went up, but if you scroll down to chocolate you can get a good general appraisal of the food. My quick summary of various sources: I'd say: 1. Chocolate is definitely not paleo in the restricted sense in that you have to oxidize it and roast it to eat it. Even cacao nibs have undergone roasting, since you roast the beans to open up the shell to get at the nib. 2. It's definitely not paleo in the wider sense if you are eating it mixed with a lot of sugar, but you are not so ... 3. I think that chocolate is no good for a digestive system, personally. But if you're eating it in moderation and mixed with other foods then this is probably minimized. 4. There are anti-oxidants, but no one really agrees on whether anti-oxidants do any good. (Maybe it's better just to avoid the "oxidants," so to speak.) 5. The fats in chocolate are pretty nice: about 60% saturated and very low in PUFA. I will sometimes have some 90% or 100% chocolate to add a little more fat to a meal. My favorite 99%/100% brand is Scharffenberger. They call it 99% because there might be some traces of sugar left in the chocolate since it is made with the same machinery they use for their other kinds. I think 100% chocolate is OK now and then or in small amounts. I just wouldn't make it a staple food. After all it's not meat or a tuber. |
|||||||||
|
|
1
|
I would venture that it isn't Paleo, but it sure is tasty, especially paired with a heaping tablespoon of coconut butter. :) I buy Baker's unsweetened squares for uber-cheap at the grocer, but when I feel like treating myself, I spring for some Lindt or Scharffenberger and enjoy it thoroughly. |
||
|
1
|
IMO, carob is more paleo. YOu can just eat the pods straight or grind them up. Processing is minimal and it is said they are tasty just eaten raw and plain when they are still young and green. Most likely the plant created the tasty pods to encourage consumption. Carob trees are often 'planted' by animals that have eaten the pods and carried the seeds through their digestive system. The plant probably intends for the pod to be eaten in order to spread the seed. Carob pod has decent nutrition and has good levels of riboflaven, potassium, copper, and manganese. However, it is rather carby, but the sugar source is mostly sucrose and glucose with only a small percentage being fructose. Carob pods can be stored easily and last a long time. Humans can eat them and so can animals. They are talked about in the Bible and the trees are hardy and drought tolerant. THey were probably a very useful food source in regions where they grew. |
||
|
|
|
1
|
Seen strictly, chocolate is not really paleo, scince there's some sophisticated technology involved in producing it in its modern form, i.e. "the bar". But in fact i think that you shouldn't agonize over your favourite treat being "paleo" or not, the first and foremost question is always: "Does it make me sick?" or "By eating this, do i get as much nutrients per calorie as possible?" Other than energy (good ratio of fats btw), theres not much to gain from chocolate than that huge burst of satisfaction :) |
||
|
|
