Posted on Leave a comment

How much sugar is in your chocolate?

Sugar is a sticky topic. There’s a large swathe of people who lump all chocolate into the catch-all; “if it has sugar, it has to be bad”. We beg to differ!

Let’s start with a couple of questions: Which has less sugar; a typical breakfast cereal or a dark craft chocolate bar? A low fat yogurt or a dark craft chocolate bar? Most people will be aware that breakfast cereals contain more sugar than dark craft chocolate bars (and this is true even of most ‘no sugar-added granolas’). But what not everyone realises is that a single serving size of low fat vanilla yogurt can have over five teaspoons of sugar (the sugar is used to replace the fat and so stabilise, preserve and give mouthfeel). By contrast an average craft dark chocolate bar (65g at 70%) has less than four teaspoons of sugar.

Let’s add a bit more context: A 330ml can of Coca Cola has just over eight teaspoons of sugar in it. A bottle of red wine (750CL) has around six teaspoons. A craft chocolate bar (65g, 70% bar) contains about three/four teaspoons of sugar. Most people drink the full can of coke in one sitting. Most people share the bottle of red wine. And most craft chocolate consumers share and savour the bar of chocolate over a few evenings.

So the more useful question is “how many teaspoons per serving?”.

And not all chocolate is created equal. If you examine the ingredients of a mass produced milk (or dark) chocolate bar you’ll notice it will have a far higher sugar content (over 60% in many cases). Even the lead ingredient on the new Cadbury’s Dark Dairy Milk is sugar. This is partly because sugar is a much cheaper ingredient than mass-produced cacao. And it’s also because sugar is addictive and, when combined with fat, flavourings and salt, becomes irresistible (the so called ‘bliss point‘). Even a 45g supermarket checkout bar can contain six teaspoons of sugar. And you are very likely to eat this whole snack bar in one go (hence why the packaging of mass-produced bars isn’t resealable).

By contrast, if you savour a craft chocolate bar with just three to five squares per session, you’ll be consuming less than a teaspoon of sugar per serving. Your taste buds will be stimulated. You’ll feel delighted. No games with the bliss point. Just the magic of the cocoa bean. Brilliant!

So firstly, savour. Indulge. No need to scoff.

And secondly, don’t worry too much about the percentages on a craft chocolate bar. Bean type and mouthfeel make a massive difference to how sweet a craft bar tastes. Below we’ve assembled a bunch of ‘high percentage’ bars that will leave you guessing (and delighted). Try a couple blind and see if you can work out which has the higher percentage (including the 100% from Fossa).

Posted on Leave a comment

Too Good To Be True:

How to read the small print of chocolate and health studies, with Dr Tim Spector

There are a lot of scientific claims about chocolate! So we teamed up with Dr Tim Spector to ‘review’ these claims. 

Similar to the way we encourage you to check the ingredients on a chocolate bar’s label for its ingredients, and the details of the farm where the beans are sourced, we STRONGLY suggest you review chocolate-related health claims and how many people were studied, who funded the work and your own potential ‘cognitive bias’.

One of our mantras at Cocoa Runners is that “craft chocolate tastes better, is better for farmers, better for the planet and also better for you”.

This is one reason why we invited Dr Tim Spector to join us for a ‘Craft Chocolate Conversation’, and to discuss his latest book, ‘Spoon-Fed: Why almost everything we’ve been told about food is wrong‘. 

Tim is Professor of Genetic Epidemiology at King’s College, a craft chocolate aficionado, and one of the driving forces behind the crowdsourced covid-19 app (the one that works!). And his latest book is a passionate paean to the dangers and risks of ‘miracle cures’ and hyped scientific claims for all foods. At the same time, Tim has also spent the last 30+ years researching the microbiome of our gut, and he talks a tonne of sense about how different people respond to different foods (including chocolate).

A Quick History of ‘Scientific’ Claims for Chocolate

Throughout history, chocolate has been the subject of truly miraculous claims. Both the Aztecs and Marquis de Sade were convinced of its properties as an aphrodisiac. Earnest debates were held on its “humorous” properties by alchemists, doctors, barbers and quacks during the 17th and 18th centuries. And two of the first three US presidents (John Adams and Thomas Jefferson) were keen that chocolate become the preferred drink in the US given it’s “nutritional benefits” (…and that it didn’t come from Great Britain).

Arguably, the modern fad for claiming that chocolate is somehow healthy can be sourced from a series of studies of the Kuna people in the late 20th Century, which highlighted their low rate of heart attacks and coronary problems. These health benefits were attributed to their predilection for a unique drinking chocolate recipe that is very high in flavanols (as well as eating lots of fish).

There may well be something in this. But it’s hard to translate their habits into ‘normal’ chocolate consumption, as the Kuna were drinking gallons (over 5 large cups or almost, 2 litres a day) of this beverage, which is crafted and fermented very differently to any normal chocolate bar.

But the genie was out of the bottle. The power of associating health benefits with chocolate was immediate. Loads more studies were launched all over the world. To journalists, the headlines from these studies are like catnip; after all, chocolate health studies make for great click bait.

‘Greatest hits’ from the “is chocolate good for you”? debate:

It’s fun (and also a little worrying) pulling highlights from the ‘chocolate-as-cure-all’ discourse. For those who want to read more, The Economics of Chocolate (ed. Mara P. Squicciarini and Johan Swinnen 2019), has a whole chapter entitled ‘Nutritional and Health Effects of Chocolate’ which collates various studies. Here are a dozen claims: 

  1. “…an average consumption of 10g/day of chocolate induced positive effects on cognitive performance, with maximum benefit depending on the variety of chocolate consumed (flavonoids-rich type) (Nurk et al 2009)”.
  2. “…a habitual chocolate consumption of 10g of dark chocolate per day (corresponding to 4.2g of cocoa) was associated with lower systolic blood pressure compared to no, or very low, cocoa intake (Buijsse et al 2006)”.
  3.  “…Almoosawi and colleagues (2012) found that 20g per day of dark chocolate improved cardiovascular risk factors in healthy, overweight and obese subjects”.
  4. “Research conducted in the Netherlands on young healthy women explored the relationship between appetites and levels of gastrointestinal hormones … results showed that smelling and eating 30g chocolate induced appetite suppression and were inversely correlated with levels of ghrelin, a hormone which stimulates appetite (Massolt, 2010)”
  5. 21 healthy men aged 25-30, were given dark or white chocolate for 28 days. They were given 25g three times a day (at 4,6 and 8pm). And those who were given dark chocolate saw a “decrease in blood sugar” (Rusconi, 2012).
  6. 15 women, aged 20-40 years, were given 100g of 70% dark chocolate (Di Renzo) in two 50g portions in morning and evening. “After chocolate consumption, a significant increase in HDL cholesterol level and a significant decrease of total cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio were observed”. And in addition “a reduction in abdomen circumference” was noted.
  7. Hermann and colleagues (2006) suggest that “70% dark chocolate improves vasodilation by 80% in young healthy smokers starting from two hours after chocolate ingestion and lasting for up to 8 hours”.
  8. “…people with an average age of 57 years who’d been eating chocolate five times a week for the last few years, and run 3-4 times a week, have a lower BMI that those who eat chocolate less often (Golomb and colleagues)”.
  9. In a study by Parker and Crawford in 2007, of 3000 people who described themselves as being depressed, 45% craved chocolate. “Chocolate is high in branch-train amino acids, and especially in tryptophan, which increases the blood level of serotonin, the neurotransmitter producing calming and pleasurable feelings”.
  10. “Chocolate was found to coat the teeth, thereby preventing tooth decay … Tannins in cocoa were found to promote healthy teeth as they inhibited the formation of dental plaque (Matsumoto, 2004)”.
  11.  “A double blind study of 30 healthy subjects divided into two groups one consuming a 20g per day of high flavanol level chocolate and one consuming a conventional dark chocolate … confirmed that a regular consumption of rich-in-polyphenols chocolate confers significant photoprotection and can be effective at protecting human skin from harmful UV effects (Williams et al 2009)”.
  12. “Chocolate is rich in theobromine (an alkaloid stimulant that acts on the body in ways similar to caffeine) and other compounds similar to caffeine) and other compounds similar to the cannabinoids, that act on the central nervous system, producing euphoric, aphrodisiac and stimulating effect (Di Tomaso et al 1996). It also contains phenylethylamine, a molecule  released during intimacy, when people are infatuated or fall in love, and it further promotes the release of serotonin … producing some aphrodisiac and mood lifting effects”. (No study quoted for this one, and to be fair, the authors say more work is needed on this).

It looks like if you smoke or are healthy, if you are male or female, looking to lower blood sugar, reduce the size of your “abdomen circumference”, end your cravings, cure your depression, think better or want to fall in love someone has done a study where the solution is “EAT MORE CHOCOLATE”!

Some scientific studies really are too good to be true.

So, to help you separate fact from (fantasy) fiction, here are some of Tim’s tips on seeing through the jargon:

  1. Just as we encourage you to check the ingredients in your bar of chocolate, check how many people the study has involved. In the above, I could rarely find the number of people ‘studied’.  
  2. Similarly, just as you want to know the farm/estate/co-operative where the beans in your bar are from, when checking a study it’s worth trying to find out who has paid for the research. Vox did some research in 2017 of 100+ studies carried out on chocolate by Mars and found “they overwhelmingly drew glowing conclusions about cocoa and chocolate … promoting everything from chocolate’s heart health benefits to cocoa’s ability to fight disease”. Similarly, when we dug into the health benefit claims for coconut sugar we discovered that the “proof” that Coconut sugar generates lower GI spikes was based on a study of 11 people financed by The Philippine Coconut Marketing Agency… Hmmm…
  3. Beware of what is variously described as ‘cognitive bias’, ‘motivated reasoning’ or ‘wishful thinking’. Psychologists warn us to beware that we all are more likely to notice what we want to notice. And this is very true when we see ‘justifications’ for savouring our favourite craft chocolate bars.
Posted on Leave a comment

Is Chocolate Addictive?

Chocolate is NOT addictive.

Unlike the likes of caffeine, alcohol and other drugs, theobromine (the primary stimulant in chocolate) doesn’t meet any of the standard definitions for addiction.

But various ingredients can be added to your chocolate bar that ARE highly addictive. Top of the list of these additives is sugar, especially if combined with a little salt and fat (e.g. cocoa butter, milk, etc.). And in excess, this added sugar creates highs, and lows, which are much faster-acting than caffeine, nicotine, theobromine, cocaine or alcohol; and addictive.

At the same time, sugar helps make chocolate palatable and reveals the myriad flavours in the cocoa bean. For most of us chocolate is too bitter and astringent to enjoy without some sugar (although come to a virtual tasting to explore how you can learn to handle the astringency of a 100% cocoa chocolate very easily).

To showcase how sugar (and salt) can enhance and reveal the flavours in cocoa, we’ve highlighted a few new bars (including some 100%s) below. And there is also a whole range of different sweeteners for chocolate bars, including the likes of dates, maple syrup and a few that don’t use anything other than milk to caramelise the chocolate.

What is addiction?

For a word that is bandied around so much, addiction is hard to pin down. The UK’s NHS offers a simple definition:

Addiction is defined as not having control over doing, taking or using something to the point where it could be harmful to you. …There are lots of reasons why addictions begin. In the case of drugs, alcohol and nicotine, these substances affect the way you feel, both physically and mentally. These feelings can be enjoyable and create a powerful urge to use the substances again.

The American definition (DSM-5) is more complicated, and more granular, with 11 components. It differentiates “addiction” from “dependency” which can be confusing as (arguably) these two states are two sides of the same coin.

On a practical level, it’s helpful to see how industry experts approach addiction; for example, to quote Michael Szymanczyk, the CEO of tobacco giant Philip Morris:

My definition of addiction is a repetitive behavior that some people find difficult to quit”.

Or as his chief lawyer, Steven C. Parrish, says:

“…it’s easier …to quit (my) company’s cigarettes than it is chocolate cookies”. (For more on this, please see Michael Moss’ new book Hooked).

So when you can’t stop eating those chocolate biscuits, and really crave the sugar rush (or sugar, salt and fat “bliss point”) of mass market confectionery, you need to beware of ‘addiction’.

But it’s not chocolate itself that is addictive; it’s what is added to chocolate that is addictive. In particular when sugar becomes a, if not the, primary ingredient.

What is going on with chocolate?

Neither theobromine nor caffeine create an immediate craving for another fix. They don’t make you seek out that second slice of cake.

However, caffeine can create a dependency and addiction. For example, just one cup of coffee (100g of caffeine) taken daily for a few weeks can leave many people with withdrawal symptoms including headaches, irritability etc. without their daily fix. By comparison, scientists have tried to find how much theobromine humans would need to eat to start to develop withdrawal symptoms and estimate this to be over 1 kg (i.e. ten BIG bars) of 70% dark chocolate eaten daily for two weeks before you’d get cravings.

Note: Chocolate does also contain small amounts of caffeine (about a tenth of the amount of theobromine in the bar), and if you take a 70% dark chocolate bar of 70g, even if you ate the whole bar in one go, this would be less than chewing 3 coffee beans.

All chocolate contains some sugar (even 100% bars), and it’s in how much sugar, and how the sugar is being used, that the problems and crucial differences emerge.

Sugar’s Unique Qualities

From birth, humans are attracted to sweetness, and we recoil at the other basic tastes of bitterness and sourness (saltiness is more complex, and astringency, spiciness etc. aren’t ‘tastes’).

Sweetness is a way for humans to identify foods that are full of energy (like ripe fruit, cooked meats, etc). And our brains are hardwired to respond to sugar in foods with an immediate craving for MORE. We are evolved to gorge on these sweet foods until we are full of things like ripe bananas, for example. Our penchant for sweet and sugary foods helped us to find calories and survive.

For most of human history our craving for more sugar and sweetness hasn’t been a problem. There really wasn’t much sugar, let alone added sugar, in our diets until the modern era. In 1700s Britain the average sugar consumption per capita per year was less than 2kg. By 1850 this had doubled to 5kg. It’s now over 75kg!

But today the uses (and abuses) of sugar are becoming more and more problematic. Sugar is very cheap. It’s a great preservative. And it’s hard to resist when ‘gamified’ in ultra-processed foods, drinks and chocolate bars.

And the way sugar is used in modern day foods like breakfast cereals, biscuits, cakes and mass market chocolate bars is very different to the way sweetness in fruits etc. encouraged us to seek out these foods. The sugar in ultra-processed junk foods make us eat more and binge. We just want to eat more and more until the bag, bar, bowl is finished (and even then we may well come for more).

We don’t get sated in the same way as we do from eating a piece of fruit (or savouring a craft chocolate bar). We’re being ‘gamed’ via practices like the ‘bliss point’ where sugar is combined with salt and fat to the extent that it really is harming our health.

Sugar’s Highs and Lows

Sugar is remarkable for the the speed at which it gives us a ‘high’ followed by a ‘low’. And these attributes can be (ab)used to encourage scoffing and binge eating. Compare the speed at which sugar gives us a ‘buzz’ or ‘hit’ relative to other stimulants; along with how long it stays in our system to other addictive substances:

  1. Sugar takes between 6/10ths of a second to one second to “register and reward”, and then within another 10-30 minutes it will start to give you a ‘sugar high’ and energised feeling. Thereafter (normally 30-60 minutes later) you’ll get a sugar crash, and a craving for more sugar (note: this is highly dependent on the amount of sugar you consume),
  2. Tobacco (via a cigarette) takes 5-10 seconds to hit, and it has a relatively short half life of 2 hours (i.e. the amount of time the nicotine is still in your system is relatively short you’ll want another fix relatively soon, but not as immediately as sugar),
  3. Coffee (e.g. an espresso) requires 5-10 minutes to perk you up, and has a half life (i.e. half the caffeine is still in your system) of 4-6 hours, so you don’t get the same cravings for another fix as fast,
  4. Alcohol (e.g. a glass of wine) is a bit more complex and depends on lots of factors (what you’ve eaten, your size etc.) as after a drink is swallowed, the alcohol is rapidly absorbed into the blood (20% through the stomach and 80% through the small intestine). And the first effects are felt within 5 to 10 minutes after drinking, with the peak after 30-90 minutes and wearing off after 3-4 hours (again, depending on how much you’ve drunk).

Note: Theobromine (the stimulant in chocolate) is harder to find details for as it’s studied far less. However whereas caffeine peaks in the blood 30–40 minutes after ingestion, and has a half-life of 2.5–5 hours, theobromine attains peak blood concentration 2–3 hours after ingestion, and has an estimated half-life of 7–12 hours (which is why it keeps you feeling full for so long).

Mass Produced Chocolate Bars

The predominant ingredient of mass-produced confectionery chocolate is SUGAR. And it’s this predominance, combined with the bliss point, that creates problems, including addiction.

For example, a snack, pocket-sized Dairy Milk that is 45g contains 25g of sugar and 1g of salt. And it only has 20% cocoa in the bar. The Dairy Milk’s standard 85g bar contains 48g of sugar (12 teaspoons of sugar). And the so called ‘dark’ Dairy Milk 85g bar (which is still only 39% cocoa) contains 42g of sugar (10.5 teaspoons of added sugar).

A standard 100g bar of Bournville Dark Chocolate contains 58g of sugar (16 teaspoons of sugar), so if you compare this to an 85g bar of dark Dairy Milk it actually contains MORE sugar than a dairy milk (49 vs 48g).

And the main pleasure or ‘hit’ from these bars is their sugar rush and familiarity. There really isn’t that much to savour. It’s all about the dopamine ‘fix’ from that hit of sugar. And just as with caffeine (or alcohol or tobacco), you can become habituated to this fix. At the same time the sugar fix encourages binge eating to the point that people know they shouldn’t be consuming so much. And so sadly for some, the sugar in mass market chocolate can become addictive.

Hint: Look at the Packaging (and Check the Ingredients)

If you look at the packaging of mass market chocolate it’s not designed to be resealable. You can’t save the bar for later. The bars are all packaged with the expectation that you’ll eat them in one go. It’s about scoffing and bingeing.

In comparison craft chocolate makers use boxes and packaging that is resealable. They want you to savour their bars over a few sessions. And that’s why we send out resealable pouches with your first subscription kit (and following requests from subscribers, we’re going to include one of these every 3 months from now on, not just with your first box).

Sugar and Craft Chocolate

To be very pedantic, all chocolate bars (including craft ones) will contain some sugar. Even 100% bars. This is because there is a small amount of natural sugars in cocoa beans (depending on the bean, this varies between 0.2-0.7g per 100g of chocolate).

Thanks to the work of Martin Christie and his Seventy% club, most chocolate aficionados argue that dark chocolate bars should contain at least 70% cocoa and then 30% “other stuff” (which is generally refined cane sugar that is responsibly sourced). Milk chocolate bars are more complex; the vast majority of the milk chocolate bars we sell contain over 40% cocoa, and what we call “dark milk” chocolate bars contain more than 50% cocoa. And there are some dark milk chocolates where the main sweetener is the milk, not added sugar (note: milk contains lactose a sugar).

Important side note: These percentage rules are “there to be broken”. As many chocolate makers will tell you; the exact percentage they choose is dependent on the bean, its fermentation, roast, conche, and how the makers want to showcase the flavours of the bean (see below for some great exceptions from Bare Bones and Chocolate Makers).

Putting this into context, the amount of added sugar in an ‘average’ (i.e. 65g bar that is 70% dark) is 21g, or about 4 teaspoonfuls of sugar.

4 teaspoons of sugar is quite a lot. It’s not insignificant given NHS guidelines are to eat less than 30g of sugar per day.

But very few people want to eat a whole bar of craft chocolate in one go. Most people savour the flavour in their craft chocolate bars. And there is a LOT of protein, carbohydrates and fibre in a craft chocolate bar. And this is very filling. So rarely does anyone scoff a full bar in one go.

Most people report being sated with 15-30g of craft chocolate (i.e. 4-8 squares). That’s about 5-10g of sugar, or 1-2 teaspoons of sugar. To put this in context, a low fat vanilla yogurt contains 6-7g of added sugar. Or a small glass of dessert wine contains 6-7g of sugar.

Bottom line: People aren’t savouring craft chocolate for the sugar fix. Hopefully you’ll fall in love with craft chocolate. But you won’t get addicted to it.

Posted on Leave a comment

Theobromine Versus Caffeine

Back in 1841 the Russian chemist Alekasandr Voskresensky discovered an alkaloid in the fruit of Theobroma cacao (aka the cacao/cocoa tree). And he called it ‘theobromine’, reflecting the etymology of “food of the goods” (aka, the cocoa tree; called “Theobroma cacao” by Carl Linnaeus).

This discovery was part of a line of remarkable alkaloid discoveries starting with morphine (1804) that went on to include a range of other interesting stimulants and drugs such as caffeine (1820), nicotine (1828), and cocaine (1860).

Theobromine is one of the reasons why chocolate is so delightful and so stimulating. But despite being remarkably similar in composition to caffeine (see image the above), theobromine’s ‘stimulation’ is quite different. Unlike other alkaloids, theobromine is not addictive, you won’t get withdrawal symptoms from missing your daily fix but at the same time, it does wonders for your heart, blood pressure and general mood.

How do Theobromine and Caffeine Differ?

Theobromine is found in a number of plants and fruits; most notably in cocoa and chocolate, and also in tea (Camellia sinensis), carob, guarana, and yerba mate.

Caffeine is also found in a number of plants and fruits; in particular coffee, and also trace elements of caffeine are in cocoa and chocolate.

Chemically these two alkaloids are remarkably similar (see the above image). Theobromine is technically C7H8N4O2. And caffeine is C8H10N4O2.

Caffeine contains one more ‘methyl group’ than theobromine.  And this extra methyl group is hugely significant.

How do Theobromine and Caffeine Work?

Caffeine, thanks to its third methyl group, can cross the blood-brain barrier and bind to adenosine receptors. Caffeine blocks these adenosine receptors, stopping one feeling drowsy and boosting adrenaline. This is why caffeine “peps” one up; making one more alert and perkier (hence why it’s great for sports like cycling). It can also make you jittery as it promotes an adrenaline surge, and if you consume a reasonable amount regularly you may suffer withdrawal symptoms if you stop drinking coffee/taking caffeine.

Theobromine does not cross the blood-brain barrier. It doesn’t boost adrenaline production or block adenosine reactors. So it doesn’t cause any jitteriness. And you don’t get any withdrawal symptoms (the cravings people have for mass produced chocolate confectionery is from the sugar).

As theobromine is absorbed in our bodies it stimulates the release of nitric oxide, and these in turn reduce enzymes in the blood that constrict our blood vessels. And as a consequence, theobromine causes our blood pressure to decline (note: This may also be due to phosphoesterase inhibition).

At the same time, theobromine interacts with enzymes in our heart and lungs promoting vasodilation and bronchodilation. And this is one reason why dark chocolate is often recommended to help asthmatics breathe more easily.

Theobromine (and caffeine) are also diuretics (or, more graphically; they encourage you to pee). Indeed back in the early 1900s chocolate was regularly prescribed as a diuretic and way to treat edemas (i.e. fluid build ups in the legs, hands, etc.).

Note: Many of the benefits that you get from theobromine you also get from caffeine as the body breaks down caffeine into theobromine. But given that only 10-15% of caffeine is converted to theobromine (the majority is converted into paraxanthine as well as theophylline), the magical impact of chocolate and cocoa as vasodilator, diuretic, etc. are a bit less.

Is Theobromine Poisonous?

At  very high doses, theobromine has been blamed for sweating, trembling and severe headaches in some cases. But it’s very hard to find large studies on this, and even anecdotal evidence here seems very rare.

However, there are some suggestions that for some (unlucky) people, over indulging in chocolate in massive binges may also cause heartburn as theobromine causes the oesophageal sphincter to relax and so some stomach acids go “the wrong way” (so you’ll need some antacids etc.).

More importantly for dogs (and cats), theobromine is far more dangerous because they metabolize it far slower than humans (humans metabolize theobromine over 5-8 hours versus three to five times this for dogs). So if you do have pets (especially dogs as they, unlike cats, have an affinity for sugar and sweetness), keep the chocolate out of the way.

Note: If you are one of those people who believes that dark chocolate etc. causes you headaches, it may well be that you are allergic to PEA (phenylethylamine; another chemical in cocoa/chocolate) rather than theobromine.

How can I access some these wonderful benefits from theobromine?

So the simple answer here is “eat some dark craft chocolate”. Or you can drink some good quality craft drinking chocolate where the prime ingredient isn’t sugar. Or you can add some cocoa nibs to your smoothie, porridge or whatever. And indeed you can even have a good craft chocolate milk bar (especially if it’s a ‘dark milk’ like Krak’s award winning bar below, as the high content of chocolate in these bars ensures the presence of lots of theobromine). And please see below for some suggestions of some great drinking chocolate and bars.

As you try the recommendations below, remember that there are also a host of other great benefits from savouring craft chocolate; everything from satisfying the second stomach so you’ll gorge less, to accessing valuable minerals like magnesium, zinc, selenium etc., whilst also releasing all sorts of wonders like serotonin, phenylethylamine, etc., which make you feel GREAT! And it’s far better for the farmers and planet.

Delight and relax without any jitteriness. Thank you THEOBROMINE: Food, and alkaloid, of the gods.

Posted on Leave a comment

Cocoa and Cacao… What’s the difference?

So the ‘smart Alec’ answer here is spelling. ‘Cacao’ has two As, one O and two Cs. ‘Cocoa’ has one A, two Os and two Cs.

However, all sorts of claims are made for the benefits of the likes of “raw cacao nibs”, “alkalinised pure cocoa powder”, etc. Almost all these claims are hogwash. And some are downright misleading.

And then there are a bunch of definitions in dictionaries, government departments, medical sites, etc., which are at best amusing and invariably confused and confusing.

Having said this, there are a couple of best practises for using the terms cacao and cocoa. And as long as these aren’t bowdlerised by nonsense terms like ‘raw’, the way we use the terms helps us think more about the magic of chocolate and that it’s so much more than a commodity or mechanic for half-baked health claims.

Bottom line: Think of “cacao” as to what the farmer does with the fruit of Theobroma cacao. Cocoa is what makers do with cocoa (or cacao) beans.

Cacao is what comes from Theobroma cacao (aka, the tree whose fruit gives us chocolate)

Most craft chocolate makers and “cacao sourcerers” (yes there really is such a term; it refers to people who source the cocoa beans used to make chocolate), use “cacao” to refer to the fruit of Theobroma cacao that is handled on the cocoa farm, i.e. the pods, the pulp inside the pods, the seeds, and the then fermented and dried ‘beans’.

But you can also refer to cocoa pods, cocoa seeds, cocoa pulp, fermented cocoa beans, dried cocoa beans, etc.

It really doesn’t matter too much. Both are correct.

Cocoa is what chocolate makers do with fermented cacao (or cocoa) beans

Many of us use the term ‘cocoa’ to refer to ‘hot cocoa’ (i.e. the drink) or ‘cocoa powder’.

These terms started to be extensively used in the early 19th century following the invention of the cocoa press (by father and son, the Van Houtens). And to demarcate the massive innovations following on from this invention (coupled with a few by Fry, Nestlé, Lindt, and Daniel Peter), the idea of makers processing the fruit of the cacao tree into cocoa, is a useful historical reminder.

The cocoa press kicked off a bunch of innovations and further inventions (if you want more details, and to taste loads of chocolates, please do come to an in person, or virtual craft chocolate tasting).

  1. Fairly soon after working out the mechanics of the cocoa press, the Dutch also realised that if you ‘washed’ the remaining cocoa mass in an alkaline solution you could remove some of its bitterness, lighten and redden its colour, whilst also improving its solubility in water, milk etc. Smart marketing was deployed for this alkalinised or ‘Dutched’ cocoa powder such that many consumers perceive Dutched or alkalised cocoa powder to be nutritionally superior; but in fact, natural cocoa powder retains far more of the nutritionally valuable minerals like magnesium, potassium, iron, etc. In the US, food labelling requires that manufacturers say whether cocoa powder is alkalinised. But here in Europe, and the UK, this isn’t a requirement (you can read more on the deficiencies of European labelling regulations and other issues on chocolate labels). And in Europe (and the US), most cocoa powder is alkalinised. So if you want some cocoa powder to make a great hot chocolate and/or to cook with, please can we recommend our Kokoa Kamili cocoa powder (and if you are near Nkora speciality coffee, check out their hot chocolate made with this).
  2. In parallel, this extracted cocoa butter also became a key ingredient for cosmetics. Cocoa butter is an amazing butter in a multitude of ways. It nourishes and moisturises. It doesn’t go rancid or ‘off’ for a VERY long time. And it can be crafted into a stable solid at room temperature which then can melt on contact with bits of the human body like lips (lipsticks), cheeks (blushes), arms and legs (moisturisers), etc. And so popular is cocoa butter for these purposes that cocoa butter is now far higher priced than cocoa mass (which is used to make confectionary, ice cream, etc.).
  3. Another use of the spare cocoa butter also (apocryphally at least) gave rise the transformation of chocolate from being consumed as a drink to being eaten in the form of stable, solid bar. Back in 1847, Joseph Fry had his eureka moment when he realised that he could add back cocoa butter to the cocoa mass used to create drinking chocolate to create the first stoneground chocolate bar (try a Taza bar to explore the very different textures of these stone ground bars).
  4. Over the next fifty years the Swiss then fine tuned the idea of the chocolate bar into smooth and moreish chocolate bars thanks to Rodolphe Lindt (conching), Jean Tobler (tempering), Daniel Peter and Henri Nestlé (milk chocolate); learn about these developments at a tasting.
  5. At the same time, advertising and trading standards here in the UK can be partially traced back to “hot cocoa”. Cadbury are, again, coming in for criticism of their sourcing with child labour etc. But they were (and arguably still are) amazing marketers. And amongst their marketing genius was their use of the advertising for their Dutched cocoa essence drinking powder in the 1860s as “Absolutely Pure. Therefore Best”, alongside medical testimonials, which helped shape the idea of which gave rise to the modern day trading and advertising standards authorities.

What about raw caca nibs, raw cacao, etc.?

Cocoa (or cacao) nibs are wonderful to nibble on, add to porridge and smoothies, use for cooking (both sweet and savoury), etc. Try them from our shop.

And they are also very nutritious. And they can be packed with flavour. They also are less astringent to consume than 100% chocolate bars; so many chocolate connoisseurs worried about additives and sugar will opt for a handful of nibs rather than a few squares of 100% chocolate. To somewhat oversimplify, this is technically because the finer particles of the ground cocoa nibs in your smooth 100% chocolate bar can deliver the tannins in your chocolate faster and more effectively to dry out the proteins in your saliva which is what creates that puckering sensation of astringency.

But these nibs aren’t ‘raw’. Please read our longer rant on “raw”. But raw cocoa (or cacao) nibs are nonsense (as are raw bars). All cocoa nibs are made with fermented beans, not unfermented cocoa seeds. And as cocoa beans can’t germinate, they shouldn’t be called ‘raw’, at best raw should be confined to cocoa seeds. And these aren’t very pleasant to eat (they are super bitter and astringent). And fermentation and drying of cocoa goes above 42 degrees which effectively kyboshed another often quoted characteristic of raw foods; i.e. they’ve not been cooked or heated above human body temperature.

Almost all cocoa nibs for sale direct to consumers, are also roasted. This roasting is partly to impart flavour; just as roasting coffee beans differently imparts different flavours, the Maillard reaction does the same for chocolate. Roasting is also used to kill off any bugs and nasties in the chocolate (cocoa beans are a notorious source of anthrax). And almost all raw chocolate is ‘flash roasted’. This is true of many of the ‘raw’ bars we sell (e.g. Minka) where these bars are roasted similarly to the “virgin roast” of Conexión’s bars, i.e. a flash roast for 1-2 minutes rather than 18-25. We do have a few exceptions, e.g. Raaka and Forever Cacao, who don’t roast their beans (and they are very careful to test all their beans for any nasties). But these makers are careful not to confuse the loose definition of raw with their ‘unroasted approach.

And on a final note: Cocoa nibs are super healthy and nutritious. But the extra claims that go along with raw cocoa nibs are scientifically unfounded. For example, the oft quoted claim that these raw cocoa nibs are higher in anti-oxidants because of their ORAC score is technical tosh. And the same is true for raw chocolate bars’ health claims. Indeed many of these supposedly super healthy raw chocolate bars are packed with sugar and other ultra processed additives, so you’d be FAR, FAR better off with a craft chocolate bar that has ‘cleaner’ ingredients, tastes far better and is far better for the farmers and the planet.

So bottom line: If you do want to draw a sensible line between ‘cacao’ and ‘cocoa’, this processing by makers is as good as any line to draw. But don’t fall for the marketing nonsense about raw, alkalinisation, etc. Having finished this rant, we’d love to ask you readers with an interest in chocolate a couple of questions:

  1.  Why do so many people continue to believe so much tosh about chocolate?
  2. What do we have to do to get more common sense into the industry about not just misleading health claims but also disingenuous sourcing claims (such as Cadbury’s Cocoa Trace programme)?

Let us know your thoughts here (please comment on the blog here, or send an email to

Posted on Leave a comment

Why We SHOULD Add (a little) Sugar to Chocolate

spoon full of sugar

Sweetness and sugar are hugely complicated. And they are also hugely controversial.

As far as chocolate is concerned, Epicurus was right. As he advised: “Be moderate in order to taste the joys of life in abundance”. The addition of sugar to chocolate IN MODERATION can be wonderful.

But too much sugar (as in most ultra-processed, mainstream chocolate) is really, really bad, and addictive.

There is also a huge amount of nonsense talked about some sugars (and artificial sweeteners) being ‘better’, causing lower ‘sugar spikes’ etc. that should be debunked (‘hat tip’ to Professor Tim Spector, who covers this in his book, and who will be joining us for another Craft Chocolate in Conversation session).

So whilst you read this post (and apologies for the length), please do try some bars sweetened with alternatives to refined cane sugar. And do try some approachable 100% bars too. Savour them from a texture, flavour and taste perspective. Revel in being moderate.

What is sugar?

To quote from Wikipedia: “Sugar is the generic name for sweet-tasting, soluble carbohydrates, many of which are used in food. Table sugar, granulated sugar, or regular sugar, refers to sucrose, a disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose”.

So far, so simple.

Historically most of the refined sugar we’ve added to our foods we’ve extracted from sugar cane and, more recently, sugar beet. These two plants contain 14g and 17g of sugar per 100g; not much more than mangoes, for example, which contain 12g, and even oranges with around 8g per 100g. Of course consuming refined sugar is very different from eating fruit; all the fibre, protein, etc. is removed as sugar is extracted from sugar cane/beet. However, until recently, adding refined sugar to our foods and drinks was a luxury and didn’t cause huge problems.

This has dramatically changed in the last few decades with a series of scientific developments, in particular:

  1. Innovations and new techniques for processing sugar from unexpected sources (in particular something called “high fructose corn syrup”), combined with continuing subsidies for refining sugar (not just from sugar beet and sugar cane, but also now corn),
  2. The discovery of new lower-calorie sweeteners from coal tar and chlorine (via accidents involving poor hygiene and scientists not washing their hands before eating!),
  3. The development of ultra-processed foods and the ‘bliss point‘. It’s the bliss point that underpins the explosion of junk food and why we just can’t put down foods that are engineered with additions of fats, salts and SUGARS to make them irresistible.

What’s the difference between sugars and other sweeteners?

This gets a little more complicated. Many things can be sweet (e.g. the amylase in your saliva can make bread taste ‘sweet’ as it breaks down starch into sugars). So for the purpose of simplicity, we’re going to talk about ‘sweetener’ additives, like sugar, that are combined with chocolate, and many (most?) other foods and drinks, to make them sweeter (and also cheaper, last longer, have different textures, etc.).

The NHS suggests a couple of ways to segment “sweeteners”:

One way is to loosely group sweeteners as: sugar or sugar substitutes … One of the most useful ways of grouping sweeteners is to look at those that have nutritive value, i.e. nutritive sweeteners, and those without nutritive value, i.e. non-nutritive or ‘low-calorie’ sweeteners”.

And here is how the NHS further breaks down different types of sugars and sweeteners:

  • Nutritive sweeteners are defined as sweeteners containing carbohydrate and provide calories”. Think of these as sugars.
    • The largest category here is what most people think of as sugars; e.g. glucose, fructose, sucrose (a combination of sucrose and fructose, and basically the sugar we buy in the supermarket), maltose, lactose, honey and maple syrup, etc. (note: this isn’t an exhaustive list), etc.
    • Over the last few decades scientists have also bioengineered new low calorie “sugars” that have fewer carbohydrates, especially a category known as polyols or sugar alcohols. When you read a label and see ingredients like erythritol, isomalt, maltitol (see the sugar-free bar from La Reine Astrid), mannitol, sorbitol, xylitol, you are experimenting with these ‘low calorie’ sugars.
  • Then there are ‘non-nutritive’ sweeteners, i.e. sweet tasting additives that have no (or very few low) calories, carbohydrates or much else.
    • The first of these sweeteners, saccharine, was discovered by a university student way back in 1897 who, after experimenting with coal tar, forgot to wash his hands. And when he licked his fingers was amazed by how sweet they tasted, and realised this was from the coal tar (bizarrely cyclamate a.k.a. Sweet’N Low, and aspartame, were also discovered after similar accidents).
    • Most of these no calorie sweeteners are chemically and biologically synthesised from the likes of coal tar, chlorine, etc. But recently scientists have managed to extract a plant based non-nutritive sweetener called stevia from the Stevia rebaudiana plant. So just to add to the confusion there are some “plant based, natural” “non-nutritive” sweeteners too!

Why do we like sugar (and sweetness in general)?

Returning to why we like sweetness; from birth humans are genetically wired to enjoy the sweetness in our mother’s milk, and as we get older we seek out ripe fruit, cooked meat and vegetables (they are sweeter), etc.

Evolutionary biologists suggest that this is because sweetness is a great predictor of calories (a.k.a. energy) in food. And most of human history has been about getting enough calories to survive and reproduce. At the same time most foods with lots of sugar have many other nutrients and benefits (vitamins, fibre, etc.).

Until very recently indulging our sweet tooth hasn’t caused many health problems (although it has caused many socio-economic issues, read elsewhere in our blog for more on the very dark history of sugar and slavery). Indeed even today hunter gatherer tribes like the Hazda in Tanzania obtain 15% plus of their annual calories from honey (far higher than any Western dietician would recommend).

But as we’ve created more and more sugars and non-nutritive sweeteners for lower and lower costs this has caused massive problems. We are now gorging on ultra processed breakfast cereals, confectionery and mass produced chocolate. Our sweet tooth is now helping fuel an obesity epidemic. We are eating more and more calories from natural and artificial sugars added to foods which are designed to make us want to gorge more, more and more.

So, is it bad that we add sugar, and other sweeteners, to craft chocolate?

Having said all this, a little sugar can be a great addition. And we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water in our disdain for sugar while also being very sceptical about ‘miracle’ new sugars.

As with many matters concerning food and cooking, Brillat Savarin, almost 200 years ago, hit the nail on the head:

The centuries last passed have also given the taste important extension; the discovery of sugar, and its different preparations, … have given us flavors hitherto unknown“.

Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, The Physiology of Taste.

We add sugar to craft chocolate as it helps us appreciate the myriad of flavours in a craft chocolate bar. As anyone who has tried a fresh cocoa seed, or indeed a 100% chocolate bar, can attest there are A LOT of tannins in chocolate. And these tannins are very bitter and very astringent. Adding sugar counters astringency and bitterness. It makes the chocolate more palatable. And it’s like adding salt, or umami, to meat; it brings out the flavour. Without the sweetener, most of us only experience bitterness and astringency. We can miss the amazing variety of flavour brought out by fermentation, roasting, conching, tempering, and of course the beans themselves because we are so overwhelmed by the astringency.

Side note on 100% bars: Most people can learn to appreciate (and even love) craft chocolate which doesn’t have any added sugar (indeed we even have a 100% subscription offering). Coffee provides a great parallel: The first time most people drink an espresso or a black coffee they too are overpowered by the tannins. But you can get used to it. Hence why so many people come to love espresso and black coffee. And as anyone who has been to a virtual tasting can testify, chew on a coffee bean and then trying some 100% completely changes the experience. Astringency is something that the brain can switch on and off. Try some great 100% bars below from Firetree and Karuna. Try them over a few days. Possibly after chewing a coffee bean. They are amazing!

Why sugar added to mass produced chocolate isn’t such a good thing:

Sugar in mass produced confectionery is added for very different reasons.

Firstly, sugar is not added to enhance the flavour of the underlying chocolate in a mass produced chocolate bar (or chocolate confectionery). Sugar is added to make the mass produced candy and ultra-processed chocolate sweet. These are then marketed as a sweet treat and reward that act as a pick me up (sadly also with a sugar crash).

Secondly, sugar is also added as it’s an incredibly cheap ingredient. Given all the health issues too much sugar is now seen as causing, this is ironic as sugar’s cheapness is in part thanks to massive government subsidies coupled with new technologies. Indeed, sugar is far cheaper than the chocolate in any mass processed bar. And far cheaper even than ultra-processed, artificial sweeteners. To quote the R&D Department of Callebaut in North America:

Any [sugar] replacement or change in sweetening…typically will mean a cost increase with the raw materials … polyols such as the low-calorie sugar alcohols erythritol and maltitol are more expensive than cane sugar”.

That’s why when you check the ingredients of many mass produced bars, sugar is the primary ingredient (for example; a snack sized 45g of Dairy Milk contains 25g of sugar).

What are the consequences of adding sugar and sweeteners to mass produced chocolate?

Put our desire for sweetness together with this cheap added sugar and it’s a problem. For the first time in human history many of us have too many calories and not enough fibre, protein and nutrients in our diet.

Ironically ‘calorie counting’ doesn’t help here: It over simplifies how nutrition works at both an individual and general level.

For example, refined sugar has less calories than the chocolate it is added to. Craft chocolate contains lots of carbohydrates, fats, minerals and even fibre (cocoa is after all a fruit). So if you just look at the calorie count, gram per gram, a mass produced chocolate bar will have LESS calories than e.g., a 100% or even 70% craft chocolate bar.

But this is very misleading.

Craft chocolate is about savouring. The fibre, carbohydrates and fat in dark chocolate are all REALLY filling. Especially if you savour SLOWLY. You rarely eat that much craft chocolate in one go; say 4-6 squares, or around 20g. Come to a virtual tasting and you’ll be sated, but you’ll have savoured less than a third of a full bar of chocolate.

By contrast, sugar is what is often described as an ’empty calorie’. In its refined form, sugar packs a lot of calories and is a great source of immediate energy. But refined sugar doesn’t have any nutrients. And sugar isn’t very filling. Its sweetness means that when you add it to cereals, biscuits, or mass chocolate bars, you want to eat more. And more. Indeed, for most people they keep eating more of a sugar filled mass produced chocolate bar until it’s all been scoffed (hence the packaging, which we’ve discussed before).

And sugar can become addictive, and this helps sales.

Does the type of sweetener (and sugar) make a difference?

So the simple answer here is YES. The type of sugar added will change flavour, mouthfeel and taste. And the source of the sugar also makes a HUGE socio-economic difference (see the our article on sugar and slavery).

But it’s far more complicated to answer whether any sweeteners are ‘healthier’. Honey has been shown by more and more studies to have various health benefits. And eating sugary fruits (like figs, oranges, apples, etc.) is clearly healthy.

But the suggestion that some refined sugars are healthier than others is, to put it mildly, unproven. In particular claims that certain added sugars (e.g., coconut sugar) cause a lower ‘GI spike’ (sugar rush) have never stood up to scrutiny (the original study was done by the Philippine Coconut Sugar Marketing board on only 11 people, and never been replicated). And different peoples’ blood sugar is impacted dramatically differently by different products. In Tim Spector’s upcoming book he points out that:

  • My blood sugar hardly moved with a bowl of white rice which has a GI of 95/100 and shot up to the diabetic range with ten red grapes which have a GI of only 46/100. I tested my long suffering wife, and she had the opposite result .. studies from … our UK twins are showing that our individuality in the gut microbiome determines how quickly we absorb glucose and the speed of our insulin response. Microbes were much more important than carb content or GI index”.
  • Note: I used a blood sugar monitor to experiment on myself a few months ago and was delighted to discover that chocolate and red wine DON’T cause my blood sugar to spike. But sadly black coffee does cause huge spikes.

And the idea that artificial (or natural) sweeteners are healthier is also under increasing challenge from discoveries about how we taste. Again, Tim’s upcoming book has more on this, but one intriguing insight from Tim’s work is that we have taste receptors not just in our mouth, but also all the way through our gut. So while you can fool the receptors on your tongue with the likes of aspartame and stevia, your gut isn’t as fooled, and so it may well rumble and demand more (if you have some maltodextrin, which is a sugar but doesn’t taste sweet, that will satiate your stomach, but it causes other issues).

How do sugars and sweeteners impact mouthfeel, flavour and taste?

The GREAT attribute about refined sugar is that it has no flavour. It’s just a sweet taste.

This changes when sugar is heated above a certain level; it then caramelises, and develops various flavours (note: this is at high temperatures, above 320 degrees Fahrenheit). So refined sugar’s great asset for the craft chocolate maker is that when properly applied, the sugar is flavourless and allows the complexities of the bean, fermentation, conching and tempering to shine through. ‘Fancy’ sugars (like coconut blossom sugar, lacuna, or honey, maple syrup, etc.) are not just a sweet taste, they also have flavour which, to purists, diminishes the flavour of the bean.

This isn’t to say don’t try some sugars refined from the likes of dates or mango, or with maple syrup (see Raaka’s bar below, or some of Zotter‘s new range). But as you try these chocolates, you may want to go in thinking of them as more like an inclusion bar.

Indeed to expand your horizons, try some bars that are sweetened using lower calorie sugars such as La Reine Astrid’s sugar-free milk bar which uses maltitol; it’s very distinctive.

Then try some chocolate bars which are sweetened with milk. The natural sweetness of the milk, plus it’s texture, gives them an intriguing mouthfeel and temper (see below for bars from Chocolat Madagascar and Zotter).

Finally do try the eminently approachable and intriguing 100% bars from Firetree and Karuna.

Posted on Leave a comment

Why Do I Crave Chocolate During My Period?

We have all seen that stereotypical image of the menstruating woman; the emotional wreck slumped on the sofa with a hot water bottle, tissues and, yes, a huge slab of chocolate. Whilst she’s sometimes a sight of pity, more often she’s the butt of a joke.

But as those of us with wombs will contest, PMS is no laughing matter, and, for many, chocolate is a key part of combating period blues.

But why? Is it scientific fact that chocolate fills some biochemical gap caused by menstruation, or is there a more sociological explanation behind this phenomenon?

“Period Cravings”: Fact or Fiction?

To get the other 50% of the population up to speed; menstruation entails a 28 days long succession of hormonal changes regulating ovulation, starting on day one of your period, and ending the day before the next.

No two cycles are the same, but during the final days the levels of the reproductive hormones progesterone and oestrogen drop significantly, triggering a whole host of biochemical horrors, also known as PMS or premenstrual syndrome. This can include a reduction in serotonin, a surge of the stress hormone, cortisol, and a release of prostaglandin, causing nausea and digestive discomfort. This is not to mention the bleeding and abdominal cramps that kick in when progesterone is at its lowest!

But are these hormone changes the direct cause of monthly chocolate cravings, or is this just one of many coping strategies to deal with the hormonal battle within?

A 2003 study conducted by Zellner et al. found that 60% of American women who craved chocolate did so while they were premenstrual, suggesting a correlation. However, when the same study was conducted on a sample of Spanish women, the figure dropped to 24% despite them having similar oestrogen and progesterone levels.

There may be a positive trend between chocolate craving and menstruation, but so far research has only suggested that this is a culture-bound correlation, not universal causation.

Yet, there is reason to think that this mythologised hypothesis would make sense. For example, the drop in oestrogen and progesterone can cause fatigue which in turn makes us turn to caffeine and simple carbohydrates. Where can these be found? Chocolate.

Additionally, cocoa’s rich array of minerals could help PMS symptoms: potassium to ease cramps, iron to boost haemoglobin levels and magnesium which has been shown to alleviate nausea. But again, there is no scientific evidence that consuming chocolate alleviates PMS pain. You would have to consume a dangerous volume of chocolate to notice any change!

A Self-fulfilling Prophecy

But why has chocolate become our default period snack? Dietitian Melanie McGrice believes the answer may rest in a complex history of social conditioning; the pseudo-scientific theory being perpetuated by the media, film, television and advertising industries.

Firstly, ‘classical conditioning’, a psychological theory based on association, comes into play. Think Pavlov’s Dog but with chocolate. When we are regularly exposed to images of chocolate and menstruation together, we encode the information as one. Subsequently, when our period comes, the idea of eating chocolate is cued up in our brain, triggering the craving.

A process called operant conditioning then enters the scene, for when we eat that chocolate we are rewarded with that delicious taste and silky texture we love so much. If this brings us joy for even for a brief moment, the behaviour is positively reinforced and, naturally, we want more!

Yet, there is a strange, sociological double standard lurking in the background of this argument. While the media perpetuates the image of the chocolate guzzling hormonal woman, it also demonizes ‘empty calories’ and demands adults watch their weight.

In a sense, the media presents being on your period as a get out of jail free card for the social pressure of weight-loss it tries so hard to maintain. When, according to a 2019 YouGov study, 1 in 5 UK adults report worrying about their body image due to social media, no wonder the opportunity is taken up.

Perhaps if we encouraged more food freedom, and more blissful moments of savouring our favourite chocolate, we would feel less need to find excuses, like periods, to enjoy chocolate.

Should I be eating chocolate on my period?

Chocolate is no magic cure and, period or not, over indulgence will impact your health. But, like all things in life, moderation and quality is key. You want to enjoy chocolate, not regret it!

Research has shown that consuming excess chocolate during your period could actually exacerbate PMS symptoms. The high percentage of fats and sweeteners present in most mainstream chocolates can trigger nausea, particularly when you eat too much too quickly. Additionally, cocoa’s natural caffeine can cause your abdominal muscles to contract, intensifying period cramps while excess sugar plunges your hormones into even more chaos!

It’s not all doom and gloom though. Opting for a 70% or above dark craft chocolate may be your key to reaping chocolate’s comforting rewards without the adverse impacts!

Craft chocolate doesn’t contain all the hyper-processed fats found in mass chocolate suppliers and is generally lower in sugar, relying on the quality of the cocoa bean rather than the intensity of the sweetener to deliver amazing flavour! The more pure the chocolate, the less risk of abdominal inflammation. As craft chocolate is also often richer and less diluted with oils and additives, portion control becomes easier. You can eat less and still kick the craving, saving you from the discomfort of bingeing.

Whether or not there is a scientific link between chocolate craving and menstrual cycles, biochemical or socio-psychological, the bottom line is this: you don’t need a hormonal excuse to ‘deserve’ chocolate; you just have to enjoy it!

Posted on Leave a comment

Myths about Calories

cartoon joke about calories

One of the most misleading dietary rules is “count the calories and you’ll lose weight”. Calorie calculations are based on experiments made over a century ago that even then were acknowledged as “broad brush”.

Quite how a unit of measurement originally applied to steam engines and then adapted by nutritionists who stuck people in copper cells for a week at a time to measure their food, breathing and faeces, became the mainstay of so many diets is peculiar.

And focusing on ‘calorie counting’ distracts from the difference between ‘food like substances’ (such as ultra processed, mass produced chocolate) and ‘real foods’ (like craft chocolate). Calorie counting isn’t a path to healthy eating or even losing weight.

Chocolate is demonised for being high in calories. It is indeed true that a craft dark chocolate bar will contain more calories than a bar of ultra processed, mass produced chocolate that is packed full of additives, preservatives and sugar (sugar is not calorically dense). But this certainly doesn’t mean that ‘low calorie’ snacks (including confectionery and chocolate) are ‘healthier’ or good for your waistline.

To unwrap these misconceptions, it’s worth understanding the history of calories and unpicking the challenges posed by over focusing on calories, low fat foods, etc.

The History of The Calorie … France

Given France’s culinary tradition, it’s appropriately ironic that the man credited with first coining, and then defining, the calorie was a Frenchman: Nicolas Clément. Nicolas was not a chef or nutritionist. Rather he was an entrepreneur who also held one of the first chairs in industrial chemistry at the Conservatoire des Arts et Metiers in Paris. And his students record him using the term calories to measure how steam engines convert heat into work, specifically defining a calorie as the quantity of heat needed to raise the temperature of 1 kg of water by one degree.

Whilst Clement is now credited with inventing the term calories another French chemist, Antoine Lavosier, laid the groundwork that enabled it’s rapid adoption. Back in 1780 Lavoisier designed a tool to measure how guinea pigs’ breathing would heat up ice. He called this device a “calorimeter” and then adapted it to measure the heat from various mechanical experiments and chemical reactions.

In the late 19th century scientists in Germany, keen to improve farming efficiency, used calories and calorimeters to measure how different animal feeds impacted cattle’s weight gain by weighing them, and monitoring their respiration. Note the link between nutrition and respiration is key; we lose weight and burn calories via breathing (yes, that’s right; we lose weight almost entirely via breathing and Lavosier was definitely onto something).

…The USA

Turning this work on cattle and animal feeds to modern calorie counting and diets involved a couple of extraordinary hops.

The man generally credited with putting calories at the heart of human nutrition and dieting is an American, Wilbur O. Atwater, who studied in Germany (and Atwater generously credits these scientists, especially: Voit, Rubner, Henneberg and Stohmann, in much of his work). Atwater’s work was designed to inform people to spend their “hard earned wages” on more “calorifically and nutritionally effective foods”; as far as can be understood, dieting wasn’t on his agenda.

Atwater first experiments were with a ‘bomb calorimeter’; basically a chamber-like device where food samples are burned, heating up the surrounding water. The amount of food that needed to be burnt to raise the temperature of the surrounding water by one degree gave Atwater a benchmark to calculate the calories of different foods (this is where the phrase “burning calories” comes from) and come up with some general rules.

But measuring food energy in a bomb calorimeter is obviously different from the way a human body digests, and uses, food. Basically we don’t ‘consume’ everything we eat; some foods we can’t digest and we will ‘excrete’ (mainly via our bowels). Atwater called the difference between what we consume and excrete “available energy” (nowadays known as metabolisable energy). And he calculated it through simple arithmetic; taking the total energy produced by burning the food sample and subtracting this from the energy not used by the body (i.e. excreted matter).

To measure this excreted matter, and to control for other variables, Atwater performed thousands of experiments on volunteers on over 500 different foods in what he called a “respiration chamber”. The respiration chamber sounds somewhat like a prison, and not much fun. Volunteers were asked to spend a week in a “box of copper incased in walls of zinc and wood [where] he lives – eats, drinks, works, rests, and sleeps. …the temperature is kept at the point most agreeable. …in the chamber are a small folding cot-bed, a chair, and a table. …[the chamber is] 7 feet long, 4 feet wide, and 6 feet high. Food and drink are passed into the chamber through an aperture which serves also for the removal of the solid and liquid excretory products, and the passing in and out of toilet materials, books, and other things required for comfort and convenience“.

Armed with the results of the bomb calorimeter and the respiration chamber Atwater could work out the ‘calorie count’ of different foods. And in 1894 Atwater published his findings in the USDA Farmer’s Bulletin under the title “Foods: Nutritive Value and Cost”. In this he categorised three basic food types; protein, fats and carbohydrates. And to each of these food types he assigned different calorie counts. The basics for the calculation have been tweaked, but have remained basically the same ever since; proteins and carbohydrates are assumed to contain 4 kCals per gram and fats and lipids to have 9 kCals per gram. And even today when you look at the calorie count on any food, it will be based on a simple calculation on the amount of protein, carbohydrates and fats in the food multiplied by these Atwater’ factors.

The simplicity of the calorie system proved irresistible. It was used during the first world war to help work out what agricultural crops to plant and animals to rear. And after the war, authors started to write articles and books to help people diet. One of the most famous of these was by Dr Lulu Hunt Peters, titled “Diet & Health”, and from 1922 to 1926 it consistently was in the NY Times Top 10 best seller list. Read it today and it’s hard to believe it isn’t an article (or blog) from any current dietary magazine (or website).

Why a calorie may not really be a calorie…

From the get go, the problems of Atwater’s calculations were apparent (and to be fair, he acknowledged many of them). And his calculations were NOT designed for dieting. They were designed to help people generally, and farmers specifically, figure out which foods were better nutritional value for their hard earned dollars.

In no apparent order, here are some examples of the problems with “calorie counting” to diet:

  • The way protein is metabolised by the body is radically different to the way carbohydrates and fats are metabolised. To quote Dr Giles Yeo: “Atwater’s calculations never took into account the energy it takes our cells to metabolise food in order to use it. …a calorie of protein makes you feel fuller than a calorie of fat, because protein is more complex to metabolise. For every 100 calories of protein you eat, you only ever absorb 70”.
  • And it’s not just protein calories that work differently; in 1973 Merill and Watt of the USDA revised the Atwater Factors noting that variations of digestibility in carbohydrates could mean you can absorb between 32% to 98% depending on which carbohydrate you ate (i.e. for some carbohydrates, only 32g of a 100g portion will be digested, for others it’s 98g).
  • How food is cooked (and prepared) also radically alters how it can be metabolised, as is what you cook together (e.g., making it more digestible and therefore higher in calories).
  • Your genes also make a massive difference to how you absorb foods too, and again, Giles Yeo’s book is eye opening here; he has some pretty sobering studies from Professor Clare Llewellyn of UCL showing how socio-economic status impacts the heritability of body weight varies from 40% for middle class families to 70% for those who are “food insecure”.
  • Your microbiome similarly makes a huge difference (read any of Tim Spector’s books for more on this).

So basically, the nature of the protein/carb/fat, the way the are cooked, what else you eat it with, your genes, your socio-economic circumstances, and your microbiome, all mean that the effective calories you eat mean that a food listed as having 100 calories could effectively be metabolised by you to generate anywhere from 20 to 99 calories.

But because almost all packaged foods list their calculated calories and because it seems so simple, many people do ‘count the calories’. Counting calories can convey an impression of control. But counting calories is also very misleading and may encourage people to believe that a low calorie, ultra processed snack (or chocolate bar) is better for them.

So What to Do?

It is very clear that some foods (and drinks) are unhealthy. And fattening. But you won’t be able to work this out by looking at their calorie count.

A far better approach would be to avoid ultra processed foods, including almost all mass processed chocolate and confectionery with their additives, preservatives, hydrolyzed added fats, sugars, etc.

The best advice is to first check the ingredients. If there is an ingredient listed that you don’t have in your kitchen and/or if your grandmother wouldn’t recognise the ingredient, why are you considering eating this? And please, please, try to ensure you know where the bars are made and beans are sourced.

And don’t fixate on calories. The listed numbers need to be adjusted by so many factors that they are effectively as useful as the proverbial chocolate tea pot.

Far better to follow the simple advise of Michael Pollan: “Eat food, not too much, mostly plants“; and in particular focus on the first two words: “eat food“. Not low calorie food stuffs that are ultra-processed and mass produced.

Chocolate and Calories

Gram for gram, sugar is lower in calories than chocolate (and many artificial ingredients and additives are lower still). So mass produced chocolate appears ‘better’ than craft chocolate in terms of calorie count; for example:


Maltesers (37g)187
Creme Egg187
Kit Kat (4 finger)233
Mars Bar (58g)260
Bounty (57g)268
Snickers (58g)296


Menakao 45% Milk and 72% Dark (70g)391-451
Standout Coconut Milk (50g)316
Amaro Piura Peru, 75% Dark (70g)390

Gram per gram, craft chocolate bars contain more chocolate, which is far more filling (and nutritious) than sugar and all the other additives, flavouring agents, e-numbers, etc. in low calorie, mass produced chocolate snacks. So, craft chocolate has a higher calorie count (note: the bars are also bigger in most of the cases above). But (normally) you savour a few squares of craft chocolate at a time. In contrast, ultra-processed, mass market chocolate is also designed to be scoffed. So you end up eating the whole bar and, depending on the time, mess up your appetite for lunch, dinner, etc.

So, check the ingredients (and ideally, identify where the bar has been crafted, and the source of the beans). Don’t get distracted by calories. And please see below for a few very different craft chocolate bars that you can savour (and ignore the calorie counts).

Posted on Leave a comment


Whether you’re attempting Veganuary or are one of the 1.5 million veteran vegans in the UK, you’ll be pleased to hear that chocolate is not completely off the table: Quite the opposite! Chocolate can be a bit of a milky minefield, so here is a handy guide on choosing the right bar.

Not Just for Vegans

It is estimated that a staggering 68% of the world’s population is unable to properly absorb lactose, a.k.a. milk sugar.

Whether you’re vegan, lactose-intolerant, allergic to dairy, or just craving a dairy-free tea-time snack, craft chocolate is your ally.

The Basics

Environmental Impact

How we feed ourselves has an undeniable impact on CO2 emissions; the dairy industry alone counts for 2% of total US greenhouse gas emissions. Choosing your chocolate carefully is one simple way to help fight climate change.

Animal Welfare


When it comes to all things cocoa, unfortunately the vegan certification is not a very good indicator.

Firstly, not many bars have a certification. Secondly, just because a bar does, it doesn’t mean that it’s any good!

Likewise, many craft chocolate makers dedicated to creating amazing vegan chocolate alone do not have the certification. Among their number are crafters and full-time vegans Solkiki and Forever Cacao. So, how to choose?

Dark Chocolate

Firstly, dark chocolate should be vegan. The pure stuff should only ever be made from cocoa beans and sugar, with the optional addition of cocoa butter. Don’t be tricked; cocoa butter is the natural fat of the cocoa bean. Used to enhance the mouthfeel and texture of the final product, it’s completely plant-based. Phew!

Even so, animal products often sneakily slip into supermarket dark chocolate, most commonly under the guise of ‘whey powder’ or ‘butterfat’. Whey, a by-product of cheese, is used as a bulking agent; butterfat creates a rich mouthfeel.

But we’re having none of that. Indeed, the vast majority of dark chocolate in our chocolate library is vegan so have a browse. And the brilliant news is that milk chocolate is not off the books either.

Milk Chocolate

Supermarket milk chocolate may be a definite no-go area, but vegan milk chocolate (often dubbed mylk chocolate) exists and is delightful! It makes sense. Chocolate producers jumped on the milk alternatives bandwagon to create some fabulous bars, making the most from coconut milk’s natural creaminess. 

Over the years, we’ve had many a mylk bar suitable for vegans. These are among our current favourites. We’re constantly on the lookout for more.

White chocolate is a bit more tricky; milk in some form features among the three main ingredients, alongside sugar and cocoa butter. There is the occasional vegan white chocolate bar; but watch this space in the years to come…


It may be difficult ground but with a few pointers hopefully we can make vegan chocolate buying and savouring less puzzling:

  • Vegans and people with dairy allergy or lactose intolerance can still have chocolate! 
  • It’s just a question of taking a little extra time to check the ingredients. 
  • Dark chocolate should be vegan:
    • Supermarket dark chocolate sometimes has dairy-based fillers.
  • Stay away from any chocolate, even dark, that has ‘whey’, ‘milk powder’, ‘butterfat’ hidden on it’s ingredient list, or that has ‘milk’ as an allergen.
  • With a tiny number of exceptions, dark chocolate from craft makers is normally vegan.
  • Milk chocolate is not off the table. 
  • …and neither is white chocolate.

Finally, if we stock the bar, don’t hesitate to get in touch with us if you have any questions, ingredient-related or otherwise.

Posted on Leave a comment

Is Sugar Addictive?

This article is for the ‘chocoholic.’ Those who love chocolate and find themselves eating a lot of it. If you are concerned about addiction, please consult a medical professional for appropriate support.

Biological Addiction

The question “is sugar addictive?” is an interesting one. From a biomedical perspective; the current research suggests that sugar is not ‘addictive’ in the same ways that substances, such as nicotine or alcohol, are.

Dopamine is a neurotransmitter, levels of which spike in the brain in response to something pleasurable, including food. The ‘explosion’ of dopamine is much larger in response to addictive substances than in response to sugar, which releases an amount of dopamine that is comparable to holding a baby or laughing.

The argument within nutrition studies that sugar is addictive largely comes from a 2005 rodent study. Rats that were given and restricted from a sugar solution intermittently every 12 hours displayed more binging behaviour than rats who had unlimited access to the solution and rats who were given it twice a day. This has led to the suggestion that there is something unique about sugar that makes it difficult to not want to binge on.

However, a 2014 literature review of all available science on sugar addiction found no evidence that the human brain responds in the same way to sugar as it does to biologically addictive substances like cocaine; it does not have the same ‘neurohijacking.’

Instead, we have pleasure centres in the brain that are stimulated as we eat. While drugs over stimulate and hijack these pathways, sugar leads to the same dopamine response that we have in response to non addictive stimuli like listening to music or laughing. These are pleasurable, but not addictive.

Evolutionary Response to Sugar

It makes evolutionary sense to derive pleasure from food, otherwise we would have no drive to obtain and the survival of our species would be compromised. It also makes sense that we crave high sugar and high fat foods: fat is the most calorie-dense macronutrient so we get the most energy in the smallest package, and sugar is immediately absorbed into the blood stream so we also get fast energy.

Since humans have evolved to favour these flavours, the ‘bliss point’ was developed. This refers to a ratio of salt, sugar and fat that makes food as moreish as possible. The brain responds to these foods with a ‘reward’ of dopamine, making us want to take another bite. Check out our other article about how bliss point features in the chocolate sector too.

Are We Culturally Addicted?

So, we have established that there is currently little evidence to support a sugar ‘addiction’ in the medical sense of the word. However, it is a social fact that the Western world is certainly enamoured, hooked, obsessed with the stuff.

Craft Chocolate

Milk chocolate is a prime example of a food that capitalises upon the bliss point, which helps to explain why people so often scoff a full bar mindlessly and quickly. This way of eating is particularly common in mainstream chocolate, which has such an excess of sugar that it conceals the actual flavour of the cocoa.

If high sugar foods are eaten regularly or in high amounts, the dopamine response will continue to feel rewarding. This is unlike non-sugary, balanced meals, where repetition will diminish the dopamine response. In this way, sugar can be seen to act a bit like an addictive substance and helps us to understand why people seem to be hooked on sugary foods.

To combat this, we recommend relishing chocolate. Craft dark chocolate, with its lower sugar content, is perfect for this; suck a square slowly, savouring and noticing the different aromas and flavours that it contains. Craft chocolate offers an awful lot to appreciate, and mindful tasting often leads to a sense of satisfaction after only a few squares.

References and Further Reading:

“Addiction” as a mental health disorder:

Is sugar addictive?

Actual case studies: