Comment · Tue, December 27, 2022 · ND Owner
Consumerlab report on Chocamine
Original post in this thread
lewanay · 89 points
Just came across a recent Consumerlab report on Flavanol content in different chocolate products including supplements. It’s behind a paywall but here is the link:
I like them as a third party testing company and sometimes use them for things like choosing the best Chocolate to eat etc. this is the first time they have tested an ND product to my knowledge. I know ND doesn’t claim that their product Chocamine has the highest flavanols, and is geared more towards other compounds such as threobromine. What still surprised me how low the flavanol content was for ND compared to Cocoavia (2.4mg vs 993 mg !!) . In addition, ND had worse cadmium level in comparison as well. Just curious to hear thoughts from people here and ND’s team.
What they were answering
lewanay · 6 points
Consumerlab is different from consumer report but they both tested chocolate products to my understanding from this article. I had the same reaction, wanted to buy from ND because I trust them more than other companies. It is worth knowing that Cocoavia is a big company funded by Mars chocolate I think, who are also funding large trials such as cosmos. Based on those trials, the health benefits like cardiovascular and cognitive benefits are driven by flavanols so I don’t entirely understand the standardization for theobromine. Cocoavia products have some caffeine so I am guessing their products have theobromine too.
In terms of actual chocolate bars, even the better ones on the list have enough for one to go over the daily limit if you have more servings. I guess it’s easier to eat more actual chocolate than a supplement but still the contrast in levels between chocamine and Cocoavia is surprising for a company that tests so rigorously.
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · ND Owner
The flavanols in cocoa are mainly (-)–epicatechin, (+)–catechin, EGCG, and procyanidins B1 and B2. Then there are flavonols like luteolin, orientin, isoorientin, apigenin, vitexin, ixovitexin, naringenin, prunin, hesperidin, and quercetin in some cocoas, too. We sell (-)–epicatechin, EGCG, apigenin, hesperidin, and quercetin by themselves, so you can take exactly what you want. Then we just released Vignatex for vitexin and isovitexin. Our tart cherry has the procyanidins, and our Pomella has proanthocyanidins. Then we are working on multiple of the other flavones as standalones, too. I didn't see a reason to try and go down the road of doing it with cocoa. Chocamine is more for the stimulating aspects. You could add in other flavones/flavanols/flavonols separately to get exactly what you want if you want to boost that side of things.
That brings me to my other main point. Grouping flavanols all together in a standardization with cocoa doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. You know why? I could blow everyone else's numbers out of the water by just adding in a cheap flavanol to our Chocamine. ConsumerLab ain't separating the flavanols out in the data and looking to see if they fit the natural ratios in cocoa, so I bet many of these samples are just spiked. It's the cheapest and easiest way to do it. I would bet money if we test all these samples they did, and look at the ratios of the flavanols, we would find our answer. I think we'll find a big peak from a single flavanol in there. My bet would be EGCG. You think these massive companies like Nestle, Hershey, and Mars candy give one flying fuck about the scientific validity of what they are claiming? Nestle literally murders people around the world to keep their stranglehold on things. Mars, Nestle, and Hershey all have claims against them for using child slaves... Mars Candy is the one behind CocoaVia
You think those guys have the scientific integrity to really look at the ratios of the flavanols in their cacao, and put QC steps in to ensure they match the natural ratios? Or do you think it is more likely they are adding as much EGCG to the batches to get the "total flavanols" number higher than their competitors? I have not gone out and tested cocoa/cacao products on the market, so I don't have the broad data to say for sure. However, I know how this industry works, and I know how big of pieces of shit the big players in it are. Hell, maybe they are testing for the ratios, and our data will show that. However, I think we will find not.
Cocoavia products have some caffeine so I am guessing their products have theobromine too.
You don't have to guess with ours. It has exactly what we claim for theobromine. Also, we would be able to compare everyone on that front if ConsumerLab actually tested it! They didn't, though. They only tested for a group of things called flavanoids, which our product is not standardized to, then made their determinations off that measure. It would be just as stupid to go out and only test theobromine, then say everyone else's cocoa sucked, even though they don't standardize to that compound. Also, why was our Chocamine (not standardized to flavanols) and Mars' CocoaVia the only cocoa supplements tested?!? They choose one supplement made for high flavanols, and then one that is not, and call that a day for the supplement group?!? They pick the very thing CocoaVia is made for, but ours is not, and use that as the sole measure of things? Now that this whole thing has been brought up, I am going to discuss with my lab director about doing a proper flavanol assay in cocoa. I want to see the amounts and ratios in all these extracts. $100 says we find many are spiked with something like EGCG. If that's the case, just take our EGCG and epicatechin and know exactly how much you are getting.