I did some nutrition analysis on four different varieties of chocolate, three of them dark chocolate and one milk chocolate. My idea was to compare dark chocolate and milk chocolate to answer some nagging questions that were on the back of my mind- questions like "Is dark chocolate healthier than milk chocolate?" and "Are there fewer calories in dark chocolate?" I never buy/have milk chocolate, but there was some in the fridge since my husband bought some last week during his Ikea trip. LOL. Anyway, I decided to compare it to three different brands of dark chocolate that I've had, a couple of which I really like too.
Caveat-
This is just an informal study to help me get a rough grasp of the dark chocolate/milk chocolate puzzle, and it is by no means a thorough study. No propaganda or brand related endorsement is intended. :-)
Here's some data-
Ingredients-
Endangered Species 72% Dark Chocolate:
bittersweet choc (choc liquor, unbleached water-filtered beet sugar, cocoa butter, soy lecithin, vanilla)
Whole Foods 70% Dark Chocolate-coated Almonds:
bittersweet dark choc (choc liquor, sugar, cocoa butter, soy lecithin, vanilla), almonds, tapioca dextrin, confectioner's glaze
Noi Sirius 70% Dark Chocolate:
sugar, cocoa mass, cocoa Butter, lecithin, vanilla
Ikea food Choklad Ljus Milk Chocolate:
sugar, cocoa butter, whole milk powder, cocoa mass, sweet whey powder, lactose, butterfat, skimmed milk powder, soy lecithin, flavoring
Summary-
The dark chocolate/milk chocolate game, at least nutrition wise, is one of fat:sugar proportions. From what I saw, as expected, milk chocolate can have up to twice the amount of sugar as an equivalent quantity of dark chocolate.
But are there fewer calories in dark chocolate?
No. Dark chocolate tends to have comparable to more number of calories than milk chocolate! And those calories, surprisingly, come from the fat content! Some can even have more saturated fat than some varieties of milk chocolate. This is true despite the fact that dark chocolate often contains no dairy! All the varieties I used in my analysis were dairy-free at least. I think the fat must come from the cocoa butter.
While of the two options, dark chocolate is still the healthier option perhaps, since sugar + fat is the deadliest combination and you avoid at least some of the sugar in dark chocolate, it is by no means a food you can indulge in as you please (which is what I've been doing off and on), because of how calorie-rich it is.
Note that depending on the variety of dark chocolate, there might be some that offer more/better nutrition than others, like the dark chocolate coated almonds in this study, which have a good amount of protein and fiber from the almonds.
My take-away is that while dark chocolate generally has lesser sh*t thrown in than milk chocolate, and therefore, a much simpler ingredients list, it should still be consumed in moderation. :-)
Caveat-
This is just an informal study to help me get a rough grasp of the dark chocolate/milk chocolate puzzle, and it is by no means a thorough study. No propaganda or brand related endorsement is intended. :-)
Here's some data-
Endangered Species 72% Dark Chocolate:
bittersweet choc (choc liquor, unbleached water-filtered beet sugar, cocoa butter, soy lecithin, vanilla)
Whole Foods 70% Dark Chocolate-coated Almonds:
bittersweet dark choc (choc liquor, sugar, cocoa butter, soy lecithin, vanilla), almonds, tapioca dextrin, confectioner's glaze
Noi Sirius 70% Dark Chocolate:
sugar, cocoa mass, cocoa Butter, lecithin, vanilla
Ikea food Choklad Ljus Milk Chocolate:
sugar, cocoa butter, whole milk powder, cocoa mass, sweet whey powder, lactose, butterfat, skimmed milk powder, soy lecithin, flavoring
Summary-
The dark chocolate/milk chocolate game, at least nutrition wise, is one of fat:sugar proportions. From what I saw, as expected, milk chocolate can have up to twice the amount of sugar as an equivalent quantity of dark chocolate.
But are there fewer calories in dark chocolate?
No. Dark chocolate tends to have comparable to more number of calories than milk chocolate! And those calories, surprisingly, come from the fat content! Some can even have more saturated fat than some varieties of milk chocolate. This is true despite the fact that dark chocolate often contains no dairy! All the varieties I used in my analysis were dairy-free at least. I think the fat must come from the cocoa butter.
While of the two options, dark chocolate is still the healthier option perhaps, since sugar + fat is the deadliest combination and you avoid at least some of the sugar in dark chocolate, it is by no means a food you can indulge in as you please (which is what I've been doing off and on), because of how calorie-rich it is.
Note that depending on the variety of dark chocolate, there might be some that offer more/better nutrition than others, like the dark chocolate coated almonds in this study, which have a good amount of protein and fiber from the almonds.
My take-away is that while dark chocolate generally has lesser sh*t thrown in than milk chocolate, and therefore, a much simpler ingredients list, it should still be consumed in moderation. :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment