| horsecrzy
|
|
|
what's the best brand/kind of dark chocolate i can eat? isnt it high in monounsaturated fats?
<a></a><p><small>Created by MyFitnessPal - Free <a>Calorie Counter</a></small></p> |
|
Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:52 pm |
|
| Magna
|
|
|
horsecrzy wrote: what's the best brand/kind of dark chocolate i can eat? isnt it high in monounsaturated fats?
Personally, I use Carb Control, which I get at Trader Joe's. It's SF. All solid chocolate is high in fats. I haven't checked the nutritional info, but if it is high in monounsaturated fats as you say, that would be a good thing, since monounsaturated fats are good fats.
Edit: The brand name is Carb Safe. |
|
Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:43 pm |
|
| Kimboroni
|
|
|
Regular dark chocolate is low in sugar, so SB doesn't require any special "carb ____" or sugar-free chocolate (in fact, those aren't on any SB food list). Just make sure it's 60% or higher cocoa content. Lindt is good, Ghirardelli is good, Dove makes some. There are lots of good kinds.
You do have to watch the "dark chocolate with _____ (such as flavored fillings)" kinds, though, because there is probably extra sugar associated with it, which cancels out the whole point of choosing dark chocolate. A good test is to make sure that cocoa is the first ingredient with sugar later, rather than the reverse.
It is high in good fats, but you can't use that to justify overdoing it. I read one study where people had tremendous gains in heart health by eating some high amount of chocolate every day-- maybe 4 oz. At the time, I figured out that if you added whatever amount they said to your daily diet without taking anything away, you'd gain 50 lbs a year. |
|
Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:14 pm |
|
| RedRox
|
|
|
| We like Endangered Species. Dagoba was on sale this month so we bought some of that instead and it's very good too, but more expensive if not on sale. the one with chilies is interesting! ;) |
|
Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:20 pm |
|
| Magna
|
|
|
Kimboroni wrote: Regular dark chocolate is low in sugar, so SB doesn't require any special "carb ____" or sugar-free chocolate (in fact, those aren't on any SB food list).
Just to point out: I eat this kind of chocolate, but SF isn't required for dark chocolate. I just prefer it (tastes the same to me, with fewer calories and no sugar). SF dark chocolate is in the same category as any other SF sweet treat, so, if you wanted, you could even have some in P1, but only if you kept the total <100 calories daily. |
|
Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:27 pm |
|
| Kimboroni
|
|
|
| Nope, as I said, SF dark chocolate isn't on any SB food list. You can have unsweetened cocoa powder, SF choc syrup, NSA fudgsicles, or SF hard candy. No soft chocolates in p1, SF or not. Then real dark chocolate is added in p2. |
|
Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:35 pm |
|
| Magna
|
|
|
Kimboroni wrote: Nope, as I said, SF dark chocolate isn't on any SB food list. You can have unsweetened cocoa powder, SF choc syrup, NSA fudgsicles, or SF hard candy. No soft chocolates in p1, SF or not. Then real dark chocolate is added in p2.
It's not named on the P1 list. But then again, lots of acceptable sweet treats aren't, and the sweet treat lists makes it clear it is not all-inclusive. It says:
Quote: Sweet treats are items that contain sugar alcohols, such as:
The words "such as" show that the sweet treats on the list are only examples of the types of things you could have. The SF dark chocolate I eat contains sugar alcohols, so by definition it's a sweet treat. But many SF chocolates or chocolate bars will put someone over the calorie limit, and some contain bad fats.
BTW, the nutritional benefits in dark chocolate come from the cocoa, not the sugar. Leaving the sugar out does not reduce the nutritional and health benefits of dark chocolate. In fact, xylitol or sorbitol may have health benefits of their own. And SBD doesn't require us to eat sugar if we don't want to. |
|
Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:55 pm |
|
| Kimboroni
|
|
|
| Dr A has specified that SF chocolate is not recommended, especially for p1. They also add a lot of bad/weird things to the special low-carb/SF chocolates, whereas plain dark chocolate is fairly pure. |
|
Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:54 pm |
|
| Magna
|
|
|
Kimboroni wrote: Dr A has specified that SF chocolate is not recommended, especially for p1. They also add a lot of bad/weird things to the special low-carb/SF chocolates, whereas plain dark chocolate is fairly pure.
Dr. A sometimes revises his recommendations as new information becomes available. Dr. A doesn't suggest SF dark chocolate for P1 is because it "often has a high level of total calories." It's not because of bad or weird ingredients (or, at least, that's not his recommendation any more). It seems to be OK on P1, though, if it's kept within the sweet treat calorie limits (which may hard to do). Dr. A has said that SF dark chocolate is fine for P2.
http://www.southbeach-diet-plan.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=86989
(See posts by luvs_torun, ami, and RedRox, and the link in RedRox's post.)
It may be when Dr. A said that, the available SF chocolate wasn't very good. But now, a lot of better quality dark chocolate is available. Except for the sugar, the ingredients in SF and regular dark chocolate are virtually identical. (By the way, where did he say this? Was it in a book or online?)
Compare, for example, the ingredients in one you recommend with a SF one:
Dove dark chocolate bar - Sugar, Chocolate processed with Alkali, Chocolate, Cocoa butter, Milkfat, Soy Lecithin, Natural and Artificial flavors
Valor SF dark chocolate bar - Maltitol, Chocolate processed with Alkali, Cocoa Butter, Soy Lecithin (Emulsifier), Vanillin, Artificial Flavour
Besides replacing sugar with a sugar alcohol, the only real difference is that the Dove bar adds milkfat, and more of the SF bar is alkali-processed chocolate instead of non-alkali-processed. |
|
Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:01 am |
|
| MrsDayna8992
|
|
|
Chocolate- I LOVE this topic and since starting SBD have become quite the chocolate "freak". but I have a hard time stopping once I open the package.
I found something cool at our Local Meijers and also TJ. They are dark chocolate sticks and they are preportioned.
TJ is 100 calories- Hersheys is 60. Both are excellent!
On another note: Has anyone tried Diana's Bananas? They are frozen mini Bananas dipped in dark chocolate. Don't know if they are SBD allowed but they are fantastic!
Have a great day all! |
|
Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:07 pm |
|
| horsecrzy
|
|
|
| wow! thanks 4 the info. i think SF chocolate tastes the same as the real stuff, but i guess it is better 4 u to eat the real thing and skip the sugar alchohols. i tried the dove 73% cacao bar last nite and boy was it yummy! it was a big bar and it was hard to stick to one serving size... but i did it! yay me! -lol- oh and miss dayna,where did u find Diana's banans? they sound really good! |
|
Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:26 pm |
|
| Elaine64
|
|
|
| I keep a bar of Ghiradelli 70% Dark Chocolate at home and when I really want some chocolate I'll eat one square of it. That does the trick for my chocolate craving. I've had the same bar in the cabinet now going on 3 weeks. I used to be a huge chocoholic so this is a major for me. When I first started SBD I thought going the SF way was the best way but I have found that one square of the "real" stuff is far better for me. |
|
Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:58 pm |
|
| Magna
|
|
|
horsecrzy wrote: wow! thanks 4 the info. i think SF chocolate tastes the same as the real stuff, but i guess it is better 4 u to eat the real thing and skip the sugar alchohols.
This is a misconception, I think. Sugar alcohols are natural foods. They are not bad for you, toxic, or unhealthy. Unlike sugar, some are in fact considered health foods and are recommended to help prevent infections and dental problems. But excess consumption of sugar alcohols can cause intestinal problems - not because of anything weird they're doing to your intestines - just because you aren't absorbing them completely. (Some sugar alcohols are absorbed better than others.) So it is recommended you limit the quantities. Sugar is not better for you than sugar alcohols, and you are not better off selecting foods because they have sugar in them instead of sugar alcohols. So you're free to choose SF if you want to. This information comes from the P1 FAQ in the Good Fats/Good Carbs book. |
|
Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:31 pm |
|
| Kimboroni
|
|
|
| A lot of research shows that we need 150g of glucose daily for proper brain function. This is not a sugar avoidance program. |
|
Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:43 pm |
|
| Magna
|
|
|
Kimboroni wrote: A lot of research shows that we need 150g of glucose daily for proper brain function. This is not a sugar avoidance program.
I'm concerned people will be misled by this, and other posts, into thinking that table sugar (sucrose) is some kind of natural health food, or a necessary part of our diet. Table sugar (sucrose) is not a necessary part of our diet, nor is it even very "natural" as foods go. It's not a health food in any sense. We are not required to eat any sucrose on SBD if we don't want to, and we're allowed to avoid it completely if we would like to. We can have a little in certain foods if we want, but it's not mandatory.
SBD is designed to provide a variety of other kinds of sugars from other sources (fruits, vegetables, dairy products, legumes, etc.) And nearly all carbohydrates, including starches, provide glucose. So if we follow SBD (meaning we're eating plenty of good carbs), we'll have plenty of glucose from our diet. |
|
Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:27 pm |
|