spring for some of the more raw chocolate varieties (or make it yourself at home). Taza is pretty good, so is scharffen berger
Hi! In some stores I am able to get the Lindt 90%. I like the taste and could eat it versus the 85% (which has more sugar). The only problem I have with it is that its processed with alkali. I read online that this process causes the chocolate to lose some of its antioxidants. What would you guys do, eat the chocolate with more sugar, more antioxidants or less antioxidants, less sugar. Thoughts?
personally, i would go with the lindt, despite the processing query. to be honest, i don't really know the ins & outs of chocolate making nor alkali processing. i'm skeptical that it would actually eliminate all of the antioxidants though. the other interesting thing about cacao is that it's extremely high in phytic acid, an antinutrient.
basically, all in all, i wouldn't really consume chocolate for the antioxidant benefits, i'd do it for the flavor. i'm sure you'll still get some antioxidants, although along with some phytic acid.
since i view it as more purely an indulgence, i would just try to limit damage by going low sugar. plus i actually really dig the flavor of the 90%!
Last edited by jakey; 11-07-2011 at 01:39 PM. Reason: spelling
I used to eat Scharffen Berger but now they make it with soy! :-( Chocolate is the one vice I cannot seem to get rid of, but at least its not cake!...lol
We're talking about 5%. It's not going to kill you.
I'm very happy with my Endangered and Dagoba dark chocolate, which are around 88%. Nom! (Or will be nom, when I'm done with Whole 30...)