 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / February 2005Hershey's Special Dark Chips
Not for induction! I've developed an eating plan that includes Hershey'd Special Dark Chocolate Chips. The bag is a 12 oz bag and Serving size is 15 grams. Each serving of 32 chips is 80 calories and 9 grams of carbs. There are 1840 calories in a bag. I've determined that my daily limit is equal to the stated serving size, so the 12 oz bag should last me 3 weeks with allowing for a couple of cheat days I prefer to break my daily quota into small batches, so I normally eat only 8 chips at a time. If I'm busy that day, I might find myself with 16 chips to consume after my supper. That's a good thing. PJ I hope you don't respond to the sugar in them the way I do. I tried the trick of eating 5 (and only 5 -- 2g net carbs) M&M's for my morning snack when I couldn't take the time for my cookies. It's easy to just pop 5 of them into my mouth and munch them down while I'm heading out the door to a meeting. But on the days when I do that, I get terrible hunger pangs 45 minutes to an hour before my lunch. Since the calories are about the same as what's in my LC cookies, it can only be a reaction to the sugar. > Not for induction! > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >eat only 8 chips at a time. If I'm busy that day, I might find >myself with 16 chips to consume after my supper. That's a good thing. ----- Bev >I hope you don't respond to the sugar in them the way I do. I tried the >trick of eating 5 (and only 5 -- 2g net carbs) M&M's for my morning snack [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >----- >Bev Well, I've been doing this for about 6 months and have not noticed any difference. But then I don't dislike hunger pains either. I feel they are a good thing and welcome them. Before changing my way of eating, I seldom experienced hunger. I'd stuff my face with anything in sight long before I had a chance to feel a hunger pain. Probably a 'comfort' food thing. Now, I intentionally try to experience some degree of hunger every day. The more the better as it means that I am NOT doing what I did to get so fat - stuffing my face when I am not hungry. I learned that from someone in this group who fasts for one or two days a week. I started with the dark chocolate because I desperately miss chocolate and I also read reliable studies that dark chocolate may be good for you. Killed two birds with one stone. However, I'm waiting for 'dark' chocolate chips that are sweetened with splenda, that I can afford. I'm paying $1.50 - $2.00 a bag at Walmart now. PJ I love dark chocolate and, nutritionally, think it's a 'superfood' (when eaten in moderation). I think you'll find with the richness of dark chocolate that you are satisified eating just a small amount. Dark chocolates and almonds are a great combo too. Would you happen to know what percentage of cocoa the Hershey's Special Dark chips have? Thanks! > Well, I've been doing this for about 6 months and have not noticed >any difference. But then I don't dislike hunger pains either. I [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >PJ > > I love dark chocolate and, nutritionally, think it's a 'superfood' > (when eaten in moderation). I think you'll find with the richness of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Thanks! Not me. If I buy a bar of dark chocolate, I eat all of it. So, I try to buy small bars of good dark chocolate only once in a while.  SignatureBob in CT All dark chocolates that I have seen, contain a large quantity of sugar. As a chocolate lover (and sugar hater), I eat "unsweetened chocolate" from the baking section. I need chocolate, not sugar. Signature223/173.2/180 >All dark chocolates that I have seen, contain a large quantity of >sugar. > >As a chocolate lover (and sugar hater), I eat "unsweetened chocolate" >from the baking section. I need chocolate, not sugar. Lindt Excellence 85% cocoa has only a very little sugar. I'm told the 99% (which I haven't been able to find in Australia, sadly) has even less. Aramanth >>All dark chocolates that I have seen, contain a large quantity of >>sugar. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 99% (which I haven't been able to find in Australia, sadly) has even > less. Do you have specific numbers? You may find yourself surprised. i Signature223/173.2/180 >>>All dark chocolates that I have seen, contain a large quantity of >>>sugar. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >i Yep. Per 40g serve (about 1 1/2 oz) which is 4 squares - 8g carb (of which 5g are sugars and 3 fibre) If you want to see the rest of the numbers, look at http://www.globalchocolates.com/Nutrition.htm - the chart for #114 is the Lindt Excellence 85% cocoa. Because it's so VERY dark and rich, I find that 10g by weight (1 square) is almost always enough for me. Even as a diabetic I can factor in 2g carb for very dark, rich and good chocolate like Lindt Excellence on those 4 days a month when I would (normally) become a Chocolate Fiend. It's about as good a low-sugar brand as I'm likely to find in Australia. Our supermarket 'baking chocolate' is actually about 50% sugar. The only way I'm going to find a lower sugar product is to buy Couverture chocolate - premium grade confectioners chocolate, and the carb count on that is half the carb count on the Lindt. Since the asking price for it at the one source I can get it from regularly is $23 AUS for 250g (that's almost $18 US for a block slightly over half a pound - and they don't sell it in smaller amounts) I'm not looking for it. The Lindt, in comparison, is about $7.50 AUS for the same amount of chocolate. For my purse, for my eating plan, Lindt Excellence 85% cocoa (NOT any other of the Excellence range unless the 99% comes to the Oz shores) is going to be my Chocolate of Choice. Aramanth I also am a Lindz 85% lover- 1 carb per square I limit myself to 2 squares. Pure chocolate- good stuff, I haven't found any other that compares yet. It only comes in a large block- wish it was in singles SignatureDiane >>>>All dark chocolates that I have seen, contain a large quantity of >>>>sugar. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Aramanth > I also am a Lindz 85% lover- 1 carb per square I limit myself to 2 > squares. > Pure chocolate- good stuff, I haven't found any other that compares > yet. It > only comes in a large block- wish it was in singles I think Lindz is good. Scharffen Berger is a little better, in my opinion, and you can find it in one (or two?) ounce bars. It's one ounce: http://www.scharffenberger.com/index.php?cPath=0_21 SignatureBob in CT >> I also am a Lindz 85% lover- 1 carb per square I limit myself to 2 >> squares. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.scharffenberger.com/index.php?cPath=0_21 It looks like, though, that you need to buy the 3oz bars to get 82%; the 1 oz bars are only 70%. SignatureBob in CT Bob, can you find Scharffen Berger in the store? I'm just a few states away from you. SignatureDiane >> I also am a Lindz 85% lover- 1 carb per square I limit myself to 2 >> squares. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.scharffenberger.com/index.php?cPath=0_21 > Bob, can you find Scharffen Berger in the store? I'm just a few states > away > from you. It's hard to do, but not impossible. Here's a store locator: http://www.scharffenberger.com/locator_stores.php?osCsid=bec8db56fd73bee7744e158 66e1220ea For my state, this doesn't list a place that I know carriers it. However, they just started carrying it. SignatureBob in CT Woodstock VT not far from me- I want to X ski at the Nordic park there SignatureThe key to success is knowing your limits > >> Bob, can you find Scharffen Berger in the store? I'm just a few states [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > For my state, this doesn't list a place that I know carriers it. However, > they just started carrying it. carb count in Lindz 85 % is lower than Scharffen Berger, but too bitter for some people- keeps me from eating too much. If only they made it with almonds or coconut! yummm SignatureDiane >> I also am a Lindz 85% lover- 1 carb per square I limit myself to 2 >> squares. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.scharffenberger.com/index.php?cPath=0_21 > carb count in Lindz 85 % is lower than Scharffen Berger, but too bitter > for > some people- keeps me from eating too much. If only they made it with > almonds or coconut! yummm I like them both, as I like dark chocolate. I think that SF tastes a little more complex than Lindz, which has more of a "one note" flavor (not nearly as bad as US chocolate, which is totally bland). SignatureBob in CT >>>All dark chocolates that I have seen, contain a large quantity of >>>sugar. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Do you have specific numbers? You may find yourself surprised. Lindt brand chocolate has come up before. I think on several occasions I posted the carbohydrate count for 40g worth of chocolate (less than 6 grams after fiber). Too lazy to google it though ;) > i I have a bar right here: 40 grams = 210 calories 18 g fat carb 8g fiber 3g protein 4 g so net carb 5!!!!!! SignatureThe key to success is knowing your limits > >>>>All dark chocolates that I have seen, contain a large quantity of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >> i > I have a bar right here: 40 grams = 210 calories 18 g fat carb 8g fiber > 3g protein 4 g so net carb 5!!!!!! Ahhh saved me the googling effort, thank you :) glad to help. I buy a few bars when I can find them since they aren't in my local stores. About $2 a bar. I can keep these bars for months before touching them- ditto on the truffles which really are like 4 carbs a ball-but I hide them from hubby, who would have finished off the stash, yesterday. just a touch of chocolate with a good cup of coffee is such a nice treat Diane SignatureThe key to success is knowing your limits > >> I have a bar right here: 40 grams = 210 calories 18 g fat carb 8g >> fiber >> 3g protein 4 g so net carb 5!!!!!! > > Ahhh saved me the googling effort, thank you :) > Lindt Excellence 85% cocoa has only a very little sugar. I'm told the > 99% (which I haven't been able to find in Australia, sadly) has even > less. The 99% has the wrong mouth feel, somehow - the 85% is much nicer. Nicky. SignatureA1c 10.5/5.7/<6 Weight 95/78/72Kg 1g Metformin, 87.5ug Thyroxine T2 DX 05/2004 >> Lindt Excellence 85% cocoa has only a very little sugar. I'm told the >> 99% (which I haven't been able to find in Australia, sadly) has even [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nicky. I have Scharffen Berger 99%, and I find it inedible. SignatureBob in CT > >> Lindt Excellence 85% cocoa has only a very little sugar. I'm told the > >> 99% (which I haven't been able to find in Australia, sadly) has even [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I have Scharffen Berger 99%, and I find it inedible. send it to me! i love 99%. >> >> Lindt Excellence 85% cocoa has only a very little sugar. I'm told >> the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > send it to me! i love 99%. What's your address? I was going to keep it to make something with, but that never seems to happen. SignatureBob in CT > >> >> Lindt Excellence 85% cocoa has only a very little sugar. I'm told > >> the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > What's your address? I was going to keep it to make something with, but > that never seems to happen. for serious? i'll email you. > for serious? i'll email you. I'll mail it next week. I think there's at least one large (9 oz?) bar and perhaps half of another bar. SignatureBob in CT > > for serious? i'll email you. > > I'll mail it next week. I think there's at least one large (9 oz?) bar > and perhaps half of another bar. take your time, no rush. it's very generous of you to share. Hi, On 27-Jan-2005, dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet (The Queen of Cans and Jars) wrote: > > I have Scharffen Berger 99%, and I find it inedible. > > send it to me! i love 99%. That's because you are a true chocolate afficianado. The rest of the poseurs just like chocolate flavored sugar. <BEG> Take care, Carmen Star Bellied Sneetch SignaturePlease note change in Reply To address carmensrt <at> gmail <dot> com Hotmail isn't working and is being abandoned > Hi, > On 27-Jan-2005, dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet (The Queen of Cans and Jars) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That's because you are a true chocolate afficianado. The rest of the > poseurs just like chocolate flavored sugar. <BEG> mheh. i got nothing against sweet chocolate, mind you. but i really do love the 99% and i never overeat it because a little bit goes a loooooooong way. The Lindt/Lindor stuff is really good!! I've heard that 'Dove' Special Dark brand (made my Mars in the US??) is or was being used in a clinical study, and is expected to provide a great health benefit (participants are being given 1oz per day I think). I imagine that being manufactured by Mars though means that it has a lot of sugar... I think cocao has one of the highest rates of anti-oxidents, right up there, or maybe even better than, blueberries and green tea. Here (in Ontario, Canada) Droste is readily available, and pretty good (though only 72%). They make chocolate in 'Pastilles', little round disk shaped pieces that are just the right size for a craving. http://www.droste.nl/pages_en/assortiment_chocolade_pastilles1.php >>All dark chocolates that I have seen, contain a large quantity of >>sugar. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Aramanth Good point. Much of it does, though I think it varies a lot between brands. Sugar is something that many people avoid of course (fortunately, not me) :-) I tend to fall more into the GI camp on this, which is essentially that sugar isn't inherently bad when eaten in moderation (of course, there are different types of sugars, some better some worse). I know there are lots of other camps where Sugar is the positively evil :-) >All dark chocolates that I have seen, contain a large quantity of >sugar. > >As a chocolate lover (and sugar hater), I eat "unsweetened chocolate" >from the baking section. I need chocolate, not sugar. > Good point. Much of it does, though I think it varies a lot between > brands. Sugar is something that many people avoid of course [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I know there are lots of other camps where Sugar is the positively > evil :-) How do you define moderation? And how do you measure GI, which is notoriously dependent on all kinds of circumstances (such as who is eating the food, what else is served, quantity of water etc). i >>All dark chocolates that I have seen, contain a large quantity of >>sugar. >> >>As a chocolate lover (and sugar hater), I eat "unsweetened chocolate" >>from the baking section. I need chocolate, not sugar. Signature223/173.2/180 >> Good point. Much of it does, though I think it varies a lot between >> brands. Sugar is something that many people avoid of course [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >notoriously dependent on all kinds of circumstances (such as who is >eating the food, what else is served, quantity of water etc). Good question! To plagerize from "What Makes My Blood Sugar Go Up and Down... And A 101 Other Frequently Asked Questions About Your Blood Glucose Level" (Miller-Brand PHD, Foster Powell, M. Nutr & Diet, Mondosa, Marlowe & Co. 2003) "So, what is moderate? Most health authorities would consider sixty grams (about two ounces) of refined sugar a moderate and acceptable daily amount of sugar for most individuals for most individuals... the trouble is that the average consumption in the United States is close to triple that!" ... "In relation to obesity, most studies in adults and children have shown that those whose diets are relatively high in sugar or sugar-containing foods are no heavier than their peers. In some countries, the dramatic rise in obesity has been accompanied by a decline in sugar consumption." ... "A moderate intake of added caloric sweeteners is sixty grams per day. That's the equivalent to ten teaspoons of sugar, or one-and-a-half cans of soft drink" 1 teaspoon of sugar = 6 grams 1 tablesppon jam = 11 grams 5 squares of chocolate = 20 1 choc bar (avg) = 35 12 oz softdrink = 40 As to the 2nd question (measuring GI) that takes a couple hours of education but is easy enough to do with practice, and in time. Note that the original criticism of GI/GL (too difficult to predict) are not true (it's can be predicted pretty well). It was primarily Harvard who championed the early criticism, but they've actually come to embrace GI more recently (Walt's slowly coming around). If you want to know the *relative* GI's of the various types of sugar, they are as follows (best to worst) Fructose Lactose Sucrose Glucose TTYL > As to the 2nd question (measuring GI) that takes a couple hours of > education but is easy enough to do with practice, and in time. Note > that the original criticism of GI/GL (too difficult to predict) are > not true (it's can be predicted pretty well). It was primarily > Harvard who championed the early criticism, but they've actually come > to embrace GI more recently (Walt's slowly coming around). Thanks for your opinion, with which I happen to disagree. Check out http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gi.pdf it is a good article, that criticizes GI. Signature223/173.2/180 >> As to the 2nd question (measuring GI) that takes a couple hours of >> education but is easy enough to do with practice, and in time. Note [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >it is a good article, that criticizes GI. That is a good article - thanks. I does pretty much echo the criticism that Harvard Med also had early on. However... just to make a points worth noting: 1) I wonder what level of expertise does Xavier Pi-Sunyer bring to the table? I know he's the director of the NY Obesity Research Centre, but I couldn't find any research that he's been credited with, or any contribution from him (apart from this article published in the "American Journal of Clinical Nutrition" in July 2002). By contrast, many supporters of the GI concent are world-renowned, top researchers and experts in their field. Walter Willet (Harvard) and his team, for example, have probably published more peer review articles and contributed more to nutritional research than anyone else in the world. 2) The article is a little out of date. It was published in July '02, and a lot of the studies and references that it's based on are far older (many from the 80's and 90's) 3) Everone agrees that the GI index is not to be used in 'isolation' (just like the caloric value of food) Here's how JMB somewhat sarcastic (but I like it!) answer to criticism that the GI is 'too complicated', or not a useful tool: -- Imagine setting up a system of rating the energy content of foods and assigning a number?let's call them calories, the higher the number, the more energy they contain and the greater their likelihood of causing weight gain. We could use this system to guide food choices to lower energy intake. Unfortunately, it's not that simple! The number would not tell us anything about the vitamin, mineral or fiber content. The numbers could be misleading?some highly nutritious foods like nuts and legumes have terribly high numbers (calories), while some nutritionally worthless foods have very low numbers (e.g. diet soda). What's more the numbers are not set in stone?they vary from time to time and just a slight change in the recipe would alter the number drastically. Let's dump the concept?it's way too difficult to follow. The worth of any food cannot be measured by a single number, but a single number can tell you a great deal about how the carbohydrate in that food affects blood sugar levels. High blood sugar levels are a risk factor for diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Dozens of studies have shown improvements in a variety of clinical outcomes with free-living subjects consuming self-selected low glycemic index diets. Like the calorie content of food, the glycemic index deserves some consideration. The foods that provide the most carbohydrate in the diet are the ones that need close attention (potatoes, breakfast cereals, breads, soft drinks), not carrots, honey or over-ripe bananas. Sincerely, Jennie Brand-Miller PhD Associate Professor of Human Nutrition University of Sydney, Australia --- A lot more current research has since come out in support of the GI in the past couple of years. Granted, there's still a lot more to learn, some criticisms, and it's by no means 'black and white' or overly simple, but it is being recognized, found 'useful', and embraced in some form or another by almost all of the top experts in the world... Willett (Harvard), The World Health Organization, JAMA, Jenkins (CDA), Wolever (UofT), Miller-Brand (Uof Sydney), Barry Sears, Andrew Weil... even Atkins. :-) I think Katz (Yale) and the ADA are close to coming around soon too. >>> As to the 2nd question (measuring GI) that takes a couple hours of >>> education but is easy enough to do with practice, and in time. Note [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > articles and contributed more to nutritional research than anyone else > in the world. All that Xavier did was review literature. > 2) The article is a little out of date. It was published in July '02, > and a lot of the studies and references that it's based on are far [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > a slight change in the recipe would alter the number drastically. > Let's dump the conceptit's way too difficult to follow. is it even possible to follow this concept? > The worth of any food cannot be measured by a single number, but a > single number can tell you a great deal about how the carbohydrate in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > cereals, breads, soft drinks), not carrots, honey or over-ripe > bananas. That depends on who is doing the eating. :) i > Sincerely, > Jennie Brand-Miller PhD [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > even Atkins. :-) I think Katz (Yale) and the ADA are close to > coming around soon too. Signature223/173.1/180 On 2 Feb 2005 22:03:42 GMT, Ignoramus23553 >> By contrast, many supporters of the GI concent are world-renowned, top >> researchers and experts in their field. Walter Willet (Harvard) and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >All that Xavier did was review literature. Hey - you were doing the Paleo diet weren't you? How's that going? It looks pretty interesting - and I think a good basis to work from (though I personally haven't made up my mind on whether or not grain is good or evil, and am not sure I completely agree with Cordain's take o on sat. fat). That just came to mind because Loren Cordain also supports the GI and, in fact, I just found he co-authored a paper with J Miller Brand "(Cordain L, Brand Miller J, Eaton SB, Mann N, Holt SHA, Speth JD. Plant to animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations in world wide hunter-gatherer diets. Am J Clin Nutr 2000, 71:682-92)" http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/71/3/682 > On 2 Feb 2005 22:03:42 GMT, Ignoramus23553 > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>All that Xavier did was review literature. > Hey - you were doing the Paleo diet weren't you? Yep. > How's that going? It's going okay. It's been a little over 6 months, I am not gaining and I am not going hungry, like I was on the "eating less" moderate carb diet. As a reminder, I lost weight and maintained my loss by the eating less method prior to that. http://igor.chudov.com/weightloss/ > It looks pretty interesting - and I think a good basis to work from > (though I personally haven't made up my mind on whether or not grain > is good or evil, and am not sure I completely agree with Cordain's > take o on sat. fat). I do not follow Cordain's diet, as such. Regarding grains, at the risk of being redundant, I want to repeat what I said earlier, since I do not recall you posting around the time when I mentioned my experience. For several years prior, I suffered from knee pain that precluded me from running more than 1, 2 at most, times per week. Losing weight did NOT cure that pain. As soon as I gave up grains -- all of them -- my knee pain disappeared. It could be a coincidence, but it would be unlikely. I can now run every day. I find this experience most fascinating aspect of my low carbing. That my appetite became normal is nothing new for most low carbers, but the knee pain issue is much more unexpected for me. > That just came to mind because Loren Cordain also supports the GI and, > in fact, I just found he co-authored a paper with J Miller Brand [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 71:682-92)" > http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/71/3/682 Thanks for a great link, I will read it. Signature223/172.9/180 >It's going okay. It's been a little over 6 months, I am not gaining >and I am not going hungry, like I was on the "eating less" moderate >carb diet. As a reminder, I lost weight and maintained my loss by the >eating less method prior to that. http://igor.chudov.com/weightloss/ Wow - that's actually quite amazing. Congrats! I think the site, and array of pics, is also good inspiration for a lot of people. >Regarding grains, at the risk of being redundant, I want to repeat >what I said earlier, since I do not recall you posting around the time [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >up grains -- all of them -- my knee pain disappeared. It could be a >coincidence, but it would be unlikely. I can now run every day. That's interesting. I've heard of people with what seems to be an alergy go grain that causes more internal type problems, but nothing about affects to 'knees' (joints, connective tissue, etc.). I have heard reports though of arthritis improvements (which I guess is similar). I might try giving up grain. I was thinking about it but then, just this past week, came another reprot is support of grain (bran) and it's healthful properties (possibly in combination with other phydochemicals found in grain). Also, a lot of 'non-grain' eaters seem to have kind of a 'pasty' complexion which worries me (not you though). :-) Also, some leading research seems to allude that insulin sensitivity is best with a moderate to high intake of carbs. I interpret this (right or wrong) as being like 'exercise'. To be in good physical shape it's best if you do some regular exercise. But if you overdo the exercise... you injur yourself. To have the best insulin sensitivity you need to moderate carbs regularily, but if you overdo the carbs... you injur yourself?? >223/172.9/180 OK, here's a stupid question (I know I should look for an FAQ, or search old posts but...) the above ratio's are... high weight / low weight / current weight? High / current / target ?? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.