• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Another point for chocolate


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 medicineman

  • Guest
  • 750 posts
  • 125
  • Location:Kuwait

Posted 02 April 2010 - 07:47 PM


April 1, 2010 (Nuthetal, Germany) — The largest observational study so far to examine the association between chocolate consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease has found that those who ate the most chocolate--around 7.5 g per day--had a 39% lower risk of MI and stroke than individuals who ate almost no chocolate (1.7 g per day) [1].

Lead author Dr Brian Buijsse (German Institute of Human Nutrition, Nuthetal, Germany) told heartwire : "This shows that habitual consumption of chocolate is related to a lower risk of heart disease and stroke that is partly explained by blood-pressure reduction. The risk reduction is stronger for stroke than for MI, which is logical because it appears that chocolate and cocoa have a pronounced effect on BP, and BP is a higher risk factor for stroke than for MI." Buijsse and colleagues report their findings online March 31, 2010 in the European Heart Journal.

However, Buijsse cautions that only small amounts of chocolate were associated with the benefits and it is too early to give recommendations on chocolate consumption: "Maybe it's a boring message, but it's a little too early to come up with recommendations, because chocolate contains so many calories and sugar, and obesity is already an epidemic. We have to be careful." However, he added, that if people did want to treat themselves, they would be better off choosing small amounts of chocolate, preferably dark chocolate, over other sweet snacks. "We know it is the cocoa content in chocolate that is important, so the higher the cocoa content, the better."

Dr Steffen Desch (University of Leipzig, Heart Center, Germany), who was not involved with this study but who has performed research on the effects of chocolate on blood pressure, told heartwire : "This is an interesting study that adds to the growing body of evidence that flavanol-rich chocolate might be associated with health benefits. Several epidemiological studies (including the Zuphten Elderly Study, by the same first author) and even more physiological trials have been published before."

"What is missing now is a large-scale randomized trial of flavanol-rich chocolate versus control. The most reasonable end point would probably be the change in blood pressure between groups." However, Desch added, "the major problems in designing such a study are the lack of funding and finding an appropriate control substance. To the best of my knowledge, there is no commercially available flavanol-free chocolate that offers the distinct bitter taste and dark color inherent to cocoa-rich chocolate."

Biggest Chocolate Consumers Had Lowest Blood Pressure

Buijsse and colleagues followed 19 357 people, aged between 35 and 65, who were participants in the Potsdam arm of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer (EPIC). They received medical checks, including blood pressure and height and weight measurements at the start of the study (1994–1998), and they also answered questions about their diet, lifestyle, and health, including how frequently they ate 50-g bars of chocolate.

The research was conducted before the health benefits of chocolate and cocoa were recognized, so no differentiation was made between milk, dark, and white chocolate in the study. But in a subset analysis of 1568 participants later asked to recall their chocolate intake over a 24-hour period, 57% ate milk chocolate, 24% dark chocolate, and 2% white chocolate.

Participants were divided into quartiles according to their level of chocolate consumption. Those in the top quartile, eating around 7.5 g of chocolate a day, had blood pressure that was about 1 mm Hg (systolic) and 0.9 mm Hg (diastolic) lower than those in the bottom quartile.

In follow-up questionnaires, sent out every two or three years until December 2006, the participants were asked whether they had had a heart attack or stroke, information that was subsequently verified by medical records from general physicians or hospitals. Death certificates from those who had died were also used to identify MIs and strokes.

"Our hypothesis was that because chocolate appears to have a pronounced effect on blood pressure, chocolate consumption would lower the risk of strokes and heart attacks, with a stronger effect being seen for stroke,” explained Buijsse.

Those Eating Most Chocolate Had Half the Risk of Stroke

During the eight years, there were 166 MIs (24 fatal) and 136 strokes (12 fatal); people in the top quartile had a 27% reduced risk of MI and nearly half the risk (48%) of stroke, compared with those in the lowest quartile. The relative risk of the combined outcome of MI and stroke for top vs bottom quartile was 0.61 (p=0.014).

The researchers found that lower baseline blood pressure explained 12% of the reduced risk of the combined outcome, but even after taking this into account, those in the top quartile still had their risk reduced by a third (32%) compared with those in the bottom quartile over the duration of the study.

To put this in terms of absolute risk, Buijsse said if people in the group eating the least amount of chocolate increased their chocolate intake by 6 g a day, 85 fewer heart attacks and strokes per 10 000 people could be expected to occur over a period of about 10 years.

He says it appears that flavanols in chocolate are responsible for the beneficial effects, causing the release of nitric oxide, which contributes to lower BP and improves platelet function.

Dr Frank Ruschitzka (University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland) agrees. He said in a European Society of Cardiology statement [2]: "Basic science has demonstrated quite convincingly that dark chocolate particularly, with a cocoa content of at least 70%, reduces oxidative stress and improves vascular and platelet function."

Only Small Amounts of Chocolate Beneficial; Don't Eat Too Much

Buissje said this work builds on his earlier small trial--the Zuphten Elderly Study--performed in 500 men in Holland, which showed that chocolate consumption lowered overall cardiovascular mortality. "Due to the small size of this study, we were not able to differentiate between stroke and MI in this, but now we are able to look at stroke and MI separately, so it's a nice addition," he notes.

And the findings are in line with an intervention study that showed that eating around 6 g of chocolate a day--one small square of a 100-g bar--might lower CV disease risk, he says. "So the effects are achieved with very small amounts."

British Heart Foundation dietician Victoria Taylor made the same point: "It's important to read the small print with this study. The amount consumed on average by even the highest consumers was about one square of chocolate a day or half a small chocolate Easter egg in a week, so the benefits were associated with a fairly small amount of chocolate.

"Some people will be tempted to eat more than one square; however, chocolate has high amounts of calories and saturated fat . . . two of the key risk factors for heart disease," she noted in a statement [3].

Ruschitzka similarly urged caution: "Before you rush to add dark chocolate to your diet, be aware that 100 g of dark chocolate contains roughly 500 calories. As such, you may want to subtract an equivalent amount of calories, by cutting back on other foods, to avoid weight gain."

#2 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 02 April 2010 - 08:15 PM

Nice, calories are a key factor heart disease... I guess that's one way to phrase it :D

And who are these people who eat only 7.5 grams of chocolate per day? I have to struggle to keep it under 100 grams.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for NUTRITION to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 medicineman

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 750 posts
  • 125
  • Location:Kuwait

Posted 03 April 2010 - 07:45 AM

Nice, calories are a key factor heart disease... I guess that's one way to phrase it :D

And who are these people who eat only 7.5 grams of chocolate per day? I have to struggle to keep it under 100 grams.


beats me. it takes alot of effort to just eat 7.5 grams a day. but hey, if you are eating dark chocolate, it tastes so nasty, that 7.5 grams is enough :|?

#4 Skötkonung

  • Guest
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 03 April 2010 - 09:00 AM

You really need to make sure your chocolate isn't processed with alkali to realize most if any of these benefits.

#5 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 03 April 2010 - 10:47 AM

but hey, if you are eating dark chocolate, it tastes so nasty, that 7.5 grams is enough  ;)

Yeah, I wish.

#6 Forever21

  • Guest
  • 1,918 posts
  • 122

Posted 03 April 2010 - 11:16 AM

How do you make sure your chocolate is not processed with alkali?

Here's what I use

http://greenharmonyl...acao-powder.jpg
http://integrative-l...e...er&Nibs.jpg
http://www.thenibble...85-dark-270.jpg

#7 Forever21

  • Guest
  • 1,918 posts
  • 122

Posted 03 April 2010 - 12:04 PM

This is the 'official' ImmInst thread on Chocolate by the way.

http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=15007

#8 tunt01

  • Guest
  • 2,308 posts
  • 414
  • Location:NW

Posted 03 April 2010 - 01:12 PM

Nice, calories are a key factor heart disease... I guess that's one way to phrase it :D

And who are these people who eat only 7.5 grams of chocolate per day? I have to struggle to keep it under 100 grams.



I eat only 10 g of dark chocolate per day. I have a little bit after one of my meals as a "dessert".

I put raw cocoa in my coffee though, so i'm probably getting more 10g worth, without the calories...

#9 NDM

  • Guest
  • 343 posts
  • 7
  • Location:North America

Posted 03 April 2010 - 04:07 PM

You really need to make sure your chocolate isn't processed with alkali to realize most if any of these benefits.


I doubt this. Probably the folks in the study were just eating the run-of-the-mill varieties of chocolate available in any food store...

#10 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 03 April 2010 - 04:18 PM

I doubt this. Probably the folks in the study were just eating the run-of-the-mill varieties of chocolate available in any food store...

This is a weak point, though. I don't think shotkung is necessarily wrong. The study shows that, very surprisingly*, extremely small amounts of any (?) chocolate or cocoa are beneficial not that more and better chocolate/cocoa isn't even more beneficial. I hope I get to read the full study sooner than later.

*you cannot necessarily trust doses from epi. studies, it's very possible that people under-report intake of calorie-dense food and "sweets", including chocolate...

Edited by kismet, 03 April 2010 - 04:22 PM.


#11 NDM

  • Guest
  • 343 posts
  • 7
  • Location:North America

Posted 03 April 2010 - 10:08 PM

I doubt this. Probably the folks in the study were just eating the run-of-the-mill varieties of chocolate available in any food store...

This is a weak point, though. I don't think shotkung is necessarily wrong. The study shows that, very surprisingly*, extremely small amounts of any (?) chocolate or cocoa are beneficial not that more and better chocolate/cocoa isn't even more beneficial. I hope I get to read the full study sooner than later.

*you cannot necessarily trust doses from epi. studies, it's very possible that people under-report intake of calorie-dense food and "sweets", including chocolate...


my problem was with his exact wording "most if any of these benefits"

#12 Skötkonung

  • Guest
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 03 April 2010 - 10:40 PM

I doubt this. Probably the folks in the study were just eating the run-of-the-mill varieties of chocolate available in any food store...

This is a weak point, though. I don't think shotkung is necessarily wrong. The study shows that, very surprisingly*, extremely small amounts of any (?) chocolate or cocoa are beneficial not that more and better chocolate/cocoa isn't even more beneficial. I hope I get to read the full study sooner than later.

*you cannot necessarily trust doses from epi. studies, it's very possible that people under-report intake of calorie-dense food and "sweets", including chocolate...


my problem was with his exact wording "most if any of these benefits"

Processed cocoa powder (so called Dutch chocolate), processed with alkali greatly reduces the antioxidant capacity as compared to "raw" cocoa powder. Processing cocoa with alkali destroys most of the flavonoids.

Cocoa antioxidants and cardiovascular health
"Subsequent processing steps, such as roasting and alkali treatment, can also reduce the flavonoid contents.... as much as 90% of the flavonoids can be lost during processing."

If they are realizing any cardiovascular benefits from highly processed chocolate, it is likely due the presence of stearic acid.

However, most of the studies involving chocolate and CVD reduction use dark chocolate (not processed with alkali).

Dark Chocolate Consumption Increases HDL Cholesterol Concentration and Chocolate Fatty Acids May Inhibit Lipid Peroxidation in Healthy Humans
Effects of cocoa powder and dark chocolate on LDL oxidative susceptibility and prostaglandin concentrations in human

Etc, etc.

#13 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 04 April 2010 - 11:28 AM

I am somewhat ambivalent regarding cocoa. The cocoa tree seems very good at absorbing minerals. Including some easy to have a deficiency of, some easy to get to much of, and heavy metals you do not want at all. Some of the health benefits seen in the general population may be due to correcting mineral deficiencies. But the heavy metal absorption may be an increasing problem as the producer nations industrialize.
http://caloriecount....weetened-i19165
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1281277/

On the other hand, cocoa intake may be too low to affect mineral deficiencies. Another possibility is the high proanthocyanidin content. Then alternatives would be, for example, grape seed extract, pine bark extract, or wine.

Or the health effects could be due to something else.

Edited by Blue, 04 April 2010 - 11:37 AM.


#14 xyrox5

  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • 0

Posted 04 April 2010 - 01:52 PM

The cocoa tree seems very good at absorbing minerals. Including some easy to have a deficiency of, some easy to get to much of, and heavy metals you do not want at all.




Cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals?
Source please?

Edited by xyrox5, 04 April 2010 - 01:53 PM.


#15 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 04 April 2010 - 02:48 PM

The cocoa tree seems very good at absorbing minerals. Including some easy to have a deficiency of, some easy to get to much of, and heavy metals you do not want at all.




Cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals?
Source please?

I already gave one
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1281277/

Another
http://www.informawo...c...7629&db=all

Although there is certainly disagreement regarding whether lead and other heavy metals are mainly accumulated during drying and processing after reaping the beans. Also regarding how bioavailable these heavy metals are with some arguing that they are mostly bound to insoluble content.

#16 xyrox5

  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • 0

Posted 04 April 2010 - 02:57 PM

The cocoa tree seems very good at absorbing minerals. Including some easy to have a deficiency of, some easy to get to much of, and heavy metals you do not want at all.




Cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals?
Source please?

I already gave one
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1281277/

Another
http://www.informawo...c...7629&db=all

Although there is certainly disagreement regarding whether lead and other heavy metals are mainly accumulated during drying and processing after reaping the beans. Also regarding how bioavailable these heavy metals are with some arguing that they are mostly bound to insoluble content.



Nowhere in those studies is the slightest suggestion that cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals.
If you insist, provide an excerpt.

#17 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 04 April 2010 - 03:15 PM

The cocoa tree seems very good at absorbing minerals. Including some easy to have a deficiency of, some easy to get to much of, and heavy metals you do not want at all.




Cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals?
Source please?

I already gave one
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1281277/

Another
http://www.informawo...c...7629&db=all

Although there is certainly disagreement regarding whether lead and other heavy metals are mainly accumulated during drying and processing after reaping the beans. Also regarding how bioavailable these heavy metals are with some arguing that they are mostly bound to insoluble content.



Nowhere in those studies is the slightest suggestion that cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals.
If you insist, provide an excerpt.

There is no doubt that cocoa processed products have a high lead content. I already stated that there is disagreement regarding at what stage this contamination occur.

Regading cadmium
The accumulation of toxic metals in beans of the cocoa tree (Theobroma cacao L) has been an issue of increased interest for many years. Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption... ...Information on metal concentrations in cocoa beans is relatively scarce. The available data show highly variable concentrations of Cd and Pb, often exceeding the permissible levels,depending on sample origin. About 80% of cocoa comes from West Africa and Brazil, where low Cd values have been measured (0.3 ¡ 0.1 mg kg). A survey of the Swiss market showed elevated concentrations in Venezuelan (0.86–1.22 mg kg) and Ecuadorian (0.56–0.77 mg kg) cocoa beans. Levels above 1 mg kg have been measured independently in Ecuadorian and Venezuelan varieties, whereas the highest reported values of 3–6.5 mg kg have been reported for those of Colombian origin. The varieties of cocoa farmed in Asia and Oceania show varying concentrations, from within tolerable limits to exceeding them by far (0.07–1.83 mg kg).
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2569084/

#18 mustardseed41

  • Guest
  • 928 posts
  • 38
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 04 April 2010 - 03:16 PM

What's everyone's take on Hershey's Cocoa (non alkalized 100% cocoa)?
It's cheap as hell and easily available. Generic brands even cheaper. I've read about possible lead content but am not convinced about that.

#19 xyrox5

  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • 0

Posted 04 April 2010 - 03:28 PM

The cocoa tree seems very good at absorbing minerals. Including some easy to have a deficiency of, some easy to get to much of, and heavy metals you do not want at all.




Cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals?
Source please?

I already gave one
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1281277/

Another
http://www.informawo...c...7629&db=all

Although there is certainly disagreement regarding whether lead and other heavy metals are mainly accumulated during drying and processing after reaping the beans. Also regarding how bioavailable these heavy metals are with some arguing that they are mostly bound to insoluble content.



Nowhere in those studies is the slightest suggestion that cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals.
If you insist, provide an excerpt.

There is no doubt that cocoa processed products have a high lead content. I already stated that there is disagreement regarding at what stage this contamination occur.

Regading cadmium
The accumulation of toxic metals in beans of the cocoa tree (Theobroma cacao L) has been an issue of increased interest for many years. Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption... ...Information on metal concentrations in cocoa beans is relatively scarce. The available data show highly variable concentrations of Cd and Pb, often exceeding the permissible levels,depending on sample origin. About 80% of cocoa comes from West Africa and Brazil, where low Cd values have been measured (0.3 ¡ 0.1 mg kg). A survey of the Swiss market showed elevated concentrations in Venezuelan (0.86–1.22 mg kg) and Ecuadorian (0.56–0.77 mg kg) cocoa beans. Levels above 1 mg kg have been measured independently in Ecuadorian and Venezuelan varieties, whereas the highest reported values of 3–6.5 mg kg have been reported for those of Colombian origin. The varieties of cocoa farmed in Asia and Oceania show varying concentrations, from within tolerable limits to exceeding them by far (0.07–1.83 mg kg).
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2569084/




Above excerpt is irrelevant to your conjecture that "cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals". If anything, the varyng Cd content in cocoa beans from various origin of the samples only suggests different pesticides have been used. So I take it that your conjecture was a conjecture.

#20 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 04 April 2010 - 03:58 PM

The cocoa tree seems very good at absorbing minerals. Including some easy to have a deficiency of, some easy to get to much of, and heavy metals you do not want at all.




Cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals?
Source please?

I already gave one
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1281277/

Another
http://www.informawo...c...7629&db=all

Although there is certainly disagreement regarding whether lead and other heavy metals are mainly accumulated during drying and processing after reaping the beans. Also regarding how bioavailable these heavy metals are with some arguing that they are mostly bound to insoluble content.



Nowhere in those studies is the slightest suggestion that cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals.
If you insist, provide an excerpt.

There is no doubt that cocoa processed products have a high lead content. I already stated that there is disagreement regarding at what stage this contamination occur.

Regading cadmium
The accumulation of toxic metals in beans of the cocoa tree (Theobroma cacao L) has been an issue of increased interest for many years. Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption... ...Information on metal concentrations in cocoa beans is relatively scarce. The available data show highly variable concentrations of Cd and Pb, often exceeding the permissible levels,depending on sample origin. About 80% of cocoa comes from West Africa and Brazil, where low Cd values have been measured (0.3 ¡ 0.1 mg kg). A survey of the Swiss market showed elevated concentrations in Venezuelan (0.86–1.22 mg kg) and Ecuadorian (0.56–0.77 mg kg) cocoa beans. Levels above 1 mg kg have been measured independently in Ecuadorian and Venezuelan varieties, whereas the highest reported values of 3–6.5 mg kg have been reported for those of Colombian origin. The varieties of cocoa farmed in Asia and Oceania show varying concentrations, from within tolerable limits to exceeding them by far (0.07–1.83 mg kg).
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2569084/




Above excerpt is irrelevant to your conjecture that "cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals". If anything, the varyng Cd content in cocoa beans from various origin of the samples only suggests different pesticides have been used. So I take it that your conjecture was a conjecture.

Eh, read it again "The accumulation of toxic metals in beans of the cocoa tree (Theobroma cacao L) has been an issue of increased interest for many years. Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption." Varying concentrations would more likely be due to varying soil and air pollution than very different pesticides for the same plant. Never heard of pesticide causing cadmium accumulation. If there was one it would be hardly be allowed.

Edited by Blue, 04 April 2010 - 03:59 PM.


#21 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 04 April 2010 - 04:07 PM

Cocoa products seem the be number one food for nickel
http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/2433870
http://www.ncbi.nlm....v/pubmed/676517

But again, human cocoa consumption, after subtracting the added milk and other additives from processed cocoa products, is likely not high so not sure how important the high mineral content per weight unit of cocoa products is.

#22 xyrox5

  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • 0

Posted 04 April 2010 - 04:14 PM

The cocoa tree seems very good at absorbing minerals. Including some easy to have a deficiency of, some easy to get to much of, and heavy metals you do not want at all.




Cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals?
Source please?

I already gave one
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1281277/

Another
http://www.informawo...c...7629&db=all

Although there is certainly disagreement regarding whether lead and other heavy metals are mainly accumulated during drying and processing after reaping the beans. Also regarding how bioavailable these heavy metals are with some arguing that they are mostly bound to insoluble content.



Nowhere in those studies is the slightest suggestion that cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals.
If you insist, provide an excerpt.

There is no doubt that cocoa processed products have a high lead content. I already stated that there is disagreement regarding at what stage this contamination occur.

Regading cadmium
The accumulation of toxic metals in beans of the cocoa tree (Theobroma cacao L) has been an issue of increased interest for many years. Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption... ...Information on metal concentrations in cocoa beans is relatively scarce. The available data show highly variable concentrations of Cd and Pb, often exceeding the permissible levels,depending on sample origin. About 80% of cocoa comes from West Africa and Brazil, where low Cd values have been measured (0.3 ¡ 0.1 mg kg). A survey of the Swiss market showed elevated concentrations in Venezuelan (0.86–1.22 mg kg) and Ecuadorian (0.56–0.77 mg kg) cocoa beans. Levels above 1 mg kg have been measured independently in Ecuadorian and Venezuelan varieties, whereas the highest reported values of 3–6.5 mg kg have been reported for those of Colombian origin. The varieties of cocoa farmed in Asia and Oceania show varying concentrations, from within tolerable limits to exceeding them by far (0.07–1.83 mg kg).
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2569084/




Above excerpt is irrelevant to your conjecture that "cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals". If anything, the varyng Cd content in cocoa beans from various origin of the samples only suggests different pesticides have been used. So I take it that your conjecture was a conjecture.

Eh, read it again "The accumulation of toxic metals in beans of the cocoa tree (Theobroma cacao L) has been an issue of increased interest for many years. Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption." Varying concentrations would more likely be due to varying soil and air pollution than very different pesticides for the same plant. Never heard of pesticide causing cadmium accumulation. If there was one it would be hardly be allowed.





Eh, again irrelevant. Accumulation of toxic metals is observed not only in cocoa tree, but in all kinds of plants thus "The accumulation of toxic metals in beans of the cocoa tree (Theobroma cacao L) has been an issue of increased interest for many years" does not warrant your conjecture that "cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals".

By the way, Cd containing pesticides and fertilizers are routinely used in third world countries.

#23 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 04 April 2010 - 04:32 PM

Eh, again irrelevant. Accumulation of toxic metals is observed not only in cocoa tree, but in all kinds of plants thus "The accumulation of toxic metals in beans of the cocoa tree (Theobroma cacao L) has been an issue of increased interest for many years" does not warrant your conjecture that "cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals".

By the way, Cd containing pesticides and fertilizers are routinely used in third world countries.

Hm. why did you exclude "Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption"? So I have know presented sources for cocoa products having high amounts lead, cadmium, and nickel.

#24 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 04 April 2010 - 04:33 PM

By the way, Cd containing pesticides and fertilizers are routinely used in third world countries.

Your earlier claim was regarding pesticides. Source please.

Edited by Blue, 04 April 2010 - 04:34 PM.


#25 xyrox5

  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • 0

Posted 04 April 2010 - 04:41 PM

Eh, again irrelevant. Accumulation of toxic metals is observed not only in cocoa tree, but in all kinds of plants thus "The accumulation of toxic metals in beans of the cocoa tree (Theobroma cacao L) has been an issue of increased interest for many years" does not warrant your conjecture that "cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals".

By the way, Cd containing pesticides and fertilizers are routinely used in third world countries.

Hm. why did you exclude "Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption"? So I have know presented sources for cocoa products having high amounts lead, cadmium, and nickel.





Still irrelevant. "Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption" means Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption, which is non-specific to cocoa tree, thus does not warrant your conjecture that "cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals".

#26 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 04 April 2010 - 04:53 PM

Still irrelevant. "Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption" means Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption, which is non-specific to cocoa tree, thus does not warrant your conjecture that "cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals".

Nice attempt at dishonest selective citation. The whole citation was "The accumulation of toxic metals in beans of the cocoa tree (Theobroma cacao L) has been an issue of increased interest for many years. Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption". So this is about cadmium being accumulated by the cocoa tree. Not plants in general.

Still waiting for a citation regarding you claim that pesticides causes cadmium accumulation.

So I have shown to cocoa products are often high in lead, cadmium, and nickel. In addition, cocoa has a high contents of many other metals that may of or may not be considered heavy metals depending on the definition such as copper, manganese, iron, zinc, and selenium.

#27 xyrox5

  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • 0

Posted 04 April 2010 - 05:02 PM

Still irrelevant. "Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption" means Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption, which is non-specific to cocoa tree, thus does not warrant your conjecture that "cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals".

Nice attempt at dishonest selective citation. The whole citation was "The accumulation of toxic metals in beans of the cocoa tree (Theobroma cacao L) has been an issue of increased interest for many years. Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption". So this is about cadmium being accumulated by the cocoa tree. Not plants in general.

Of course it is referring to plants in general. The only thing relevant here maybe is your English comprehension skill.

So I have shown to cocoa products are often high in lead, cadmium, and nickel. In addition, cocoa has a high contents of many other metals that may of or may not be considered heavy metals depending on the definition such as copper, manganese, iron, zinc, and selenium.



High in heavy metals are all kinds of plants, thus your conjecture that "cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals" is a mere conjecture.

#28 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 04 April 2010 - 05:13 PM

Still irrelevant. "Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption" means Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption, which is non-specific to cocoa tree, thus does not warrant your conjecture that "cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals".

Nice attempt at dishonest selective citation. The whole citation was "The accumulation of toxic metals in beans of the cocoa tree (Theobroma cacao L) has been an issue of increased interest for many years. Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption". So this is about cadmium being accumulated by the cocoa tree. Not plants in general.

Of course it is referring to plants in general. The only thing relevant here maybe is your English comprehension skill.

So I have shown to cocoa products are often high in lead, cadmium, and nickel. In addition, cocoa has a high contents of many other metals that may of or may not be considered heavy metals depending on the definition such as copper, manganese, iron, zinc, and selenium.



High in heavy metals are all kinds of plants, thus your conjecture that "cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals" is a mere conjecture.

That was even more dishonest. Changing the text I had written and removing "Still waiting for a citation regarding you claim that pesticides causes cadmium accumulation."

Oh, still waiting for a for a citation regarding you claim that pesticides cause cadmium accumulation.

Lets look at some of the citation: "The accumulation of toxic metals in beans of the cocoa tree (Theobroma cacao L) has been an issue of increased interest for many years. Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption. The metal is mobilized by the action of earthworms on a thick layer of Cd-rich cocoa leaves, usually covering the soil."
http://www.rsc.org/d...;JournalCode=JA

So they are talking about the cocoa tree, not plants in general.

Edited by Blue, 04 April 2010 - 05:15 PM.


#29 xyrox5

  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • 0

Posted 04 April 2010 - 05:18 PM

Still irrelevant. "Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption" means Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption, which is non-specific to cocoa tree, thus does not warrant your conjecture that "cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals".

Nice attempt at dishonest selective citation. The whole citation was "The accumulation of toxic metals in beans of the cocoa tree (Theobroma cacao L) has been an issue of increased interest for many years. Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption". So this is about cadmium being accumulated by the cocoa tree. Not plants in general.

Of course it is referring to plants in general. The only thing relevant here maybe is your English comprehension skill.

So I have shown to cocoa products are often high in lead, cadmium, and nickel. In addition, cocoa has a high contents of many other metals that may of or may not be considered heavy metals depending on the definition such as copper, manganese, iron, zinc, and selenium.



High in heavy metals are all kinds of plants, thus your conjecture that "cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals" is a mere conjecture.

That was even more dishonest. Changing the text I had written and removing "Still waiting for a citation regarding you claim that pesticides causes cadmium accumulation."

Oh, still waiting for a for a citation regarding you claim that pesticides cause cadmium accumulation.

Lets look at some of the citation: "The accumulation of toxic metals in beans of the cocoa tree (Theobroma cacao L) has been an issue of increased interest for many years. Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption. The metal is mobilized by the action of earthworms on a thick layer of Cd-rich cocoa leaves, usually covering the soil."
http://www.rsc.org/d...;JournalCode=JA

So they are talking about the cocoa tree, not plants in general.




Yes it is referring to plants in general.

#30 wydell

  • Guest
  • 503 posts
  • -1

Posted 04 April 2010 - 05:18 PM

Hi:

I am not sure I would categorize it as "mere" conjecture. There have been
a high propensity of news reports of lead in chocolate, even in organic sources, more so than in other foods. It seems to happen in many different geos. You can choose to ignore that if you like. You can buy cocoa where the sellers claim to test for lead and other heavy metals, but you have to take a claim for what it is worth.

With all that said, I still eat my home made chocolate every day. I also eat cilantro and chlorella daily which are reputed to be heavy metal chelators.

Still irrelevant. "Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption" means Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption, which is non-specific to cocoa tree, thus does not warrant your conjecture that "cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals".

Nice attempt at dishonest selective citation. The whole citation was "The accumulation of toxic metals in beans of the cocoa tree (Theobroma cacao L) has been an issue of increased interest for many years. Cadmium is known to be accumulated by foliar and root absorption". So this is about cadmium being accumulated by the cocoa tree. Not plants in general.

Of course it is referring to plants in general. The only thing relevant here maybe is your English comprehension skill.

So I have shown to cocoa products are often high in lead, cadmium, and nickel. In addition, cocoa has a high contents of many other metals that may of or may not be considered heavy metals depending on the definition such as copper, manganese, iron, zinc, and selenium.



High in heavy metals are all kinds of plants, thus your conjecture that "cocoa tree seems to be very good at absorbing heavy metals" is a mere conjecture.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users