20 replies to this topic

[lemon_]

Does anyone know which has more catechin -> fermented or unfermented 

 

 

When cacao beans were roasted to 120 °C, the catechin level in beans increased by 696% in unfermented beans, by 650% in Ivory Coast beans, and by 640% in Papua New Guinea fermented beans compared to the same unroasted beans. 

 

 

 

 

"Substantial decreases (>80%) in catechin and epicatechin levels were observed in fermented versus unfermented beans."

 

 

 

"The levels of epicatechin and catechin were determined in raw and conventionally fermented cacao beans and during conventional processing, which included drying, roasting, and Dutch (alkali) processing. Unripe cacao beans had 29% higher levels of epicatechin and the same level of catechin compared to fully ripe beans. Drying had minimal effect on the epicatechin and catechin levels.

 

 

Substantial decreases (>80%) in catechin and epicatechin levels were observed in fermented versus unfermented beans. When both Ivory Coast and Papua New Guinea beans were subjected to roasting under controlled conditions, there was a distinct loss of epicatechin when bean temperatures exceeded 70 °C.

 

When cacao beans were roasted to 120 °C, the catechin level in beans increased by 696% in unfermented beans, by 650% in Ivory Coast beans, and by 640% in Papua New Guinea fermented beans compared to the same unroasted beans. These results suggest that roasting in excess of 70 °C generates significant amounts of (−)-catechin, probably due to epimerization of (−)-epicatechin. Compared to natural cocoa powders, Dutch processing caused a loss in both epicatechin (up to 98%) and catechin (up to 80%). "

 

 

[lemon_]

http://www.sacredcho...nal-ecuadorian/

 

they are a 0-1 day ferment.... so like the lower the days does it have more of the catechin

[lemon_]

which from the UK/EU are a good buy 

[lemon_]

wut about caoco nibs... they have flavoids ? 

[Turnbuckle]

A better source: http://www.swansonvi...-580-mg-60-caps

[Ohm]

A better source: http://www.swansonvi...-580-mg-60-caps

 

I used to have access to ConsumerLabs and their cacao section turned me off of Swanson Vitamins.  Swanson looks great because they are dirt cheap but at least with just their cacao supp, Consumer Labs found almost no flavanol content compared to other products.  Basically you would have to consume an entire bottle of their cacao product to achieve something similar to one serving of Reserveage, CocaoVia, or even regular dark chocolate bars.

 

Now it is possible that ConsumerLabs is corrupt or made a mistake but their study did get Now Foods to retract their cacao product due to heavy metal contamination.

 

It was this study that prompted me to move to doctor/clinical brands such as Thorne/PureEncaps/IntThera/DfH/etc for the few supplements I do take.  More expensive for sure but worth it, at least to me.

[Turnbuckle]

Can you post the Consumer Labs report on this product, Ohm? I've been using it for some time (see this thread) and generally a couple of caps does it for me, often combined with piracetam. I started off with 4 caps and found it kept me awake.

[Ohm]

I ended my subscription over a year ago and do not have access to the site anymore.  I joined specifically to see that cacao report as cacao/cocoa is a part of my diet.

 

Navitas Naturals cacao nibs was one of the many products noted for excessive levels of heavy metals.  NOW recalled their product for being on the heavy metal list.

 

Apart from the list of tainted product Consumer Labs had a really nice flavanol content graph/chart.

 

http://reserveage.co...ll-true-energy/

 

That Reserveage product was #1 if memory serves correctly.  CocoaVia was at the top of the chart as well.  Baker's chocolate (the cheap cooking bars at most grocery stores) did really well and it was free of contamination.  There was another chocolate bar that did well, cant remember the name but it has a panther photo on the product wrapper.

 

It was worth the $40 12 month sub charge for this cacao report alone but they had a fair amount of other content which was decent/useful.

[Turnbuckle]

I ended my subscription over a year ago and do not have access to the site anymore.  I joined specifically to see that cacao report as cacao/cocoa is a part of my diet.

 

Navitas Naturals cacao nibs was one of the many products noted for excessive levels of heavy metals.  NOW recalled their product for being on the heavy metal list.

 

Apart from the list of tainted product Consumer Labs had a really nice flavanol content graph/chart.

 

http://reserveage.co...ll-true-energy/

 

That Reserveage product was #1 if memory serves correctly.  CocoaVia was at the top of the chart as well.  Baker's chocolate (the cheap cooking bars at most grocery stores) did really well and it was free of contamination.  There was another chocolate bar that did well, cant remember the name but it has a panther photo on the product wrapper.

 

It was worth the $40 12 month sub charge for this cacao report alone but they had a fair amount of other content which was decent/useful.

 

 

In this case the epicatechin and catechin are extracted from Acacia Catechu, not from cocoa. Other sources are available if you don't trust Swanson, though they may be even more suspect. Other catechins are avaliable as well, such as epigallocatechin gallate from green tea.

[joelcairo]

Are you talking about just this product or Swanson Vitamins in general? It seems to me that with their higher-end products at least, they license high quality brand name ingredients. Meriva curcumin, Lyc-o-mato lycopene, Sensoril ashwagandha, etc.

[Ohm]

http://www.swansonvi...-400-mg-60-caps

 

I think it was this product.  It could just be one flawed product and the rest of their line could be 100%.  

 

NOW is supposed to be a decent brand yet was selling contaminated stuff to customers, which is worse than selling a cacao product that tests low for flavanols.  They did pull that product, but only after it's contamination became public.

[Ohm]

 

I ended my subscription over a year ago and do not have access to the site anymore.  I joined specifically to see that cacao report as cacao/cocoa is a part of my diet.

 

Navitas Naturals cacao nibs was one of the many products noted for excessive levels of heavy metals.  NOW recalled their product for being on the heavy metal list.

 

Apart from the list of tainted product Consumer Labs had a really nice flavanol content graph/chart.

 

http://reserveage.co...ll-true-energy/

 

That Reserveage product was #1 if memory serves correctly.  CocoaVia was at the top of the chart as well.  Baker's chocolate (the cheap cooking bars at most grocery stores) did really well and it was free of contamination.  There was another chocolate bar that did well, cant remember the name but it has a panther photo on the product wrapper.

 

It was worth the $40 12 month sub charge for this cacao report alone but they had a fair amount of other content which was decent/useful.

 

 

In this case the epicatechin and catechin are extracted from Acacia Catechu, not from cocoa. Other sources are available if you don't trust Swanson, though they may be even more suspect. Other catechins are avaliable as well, such as epigallocatechin gallate from green tea.

 

 

I drink matcha from Shizuoka and eat a couple chunks of dark chocolate after dinner.  Should be enough EGCG/flavanols for me.

 

People who supplement EGCG should be careful as liver toxicity may be a problem. 

 

The tea polyphenol (-)-epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) has been studied for chronic disease preventive effects, and is marketed as part of many dietary supplements. However, case reports have associated the use of green tea-based supplements with liver toxicity.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2905152/

 

 

[joelcairo]

I agree EGCG is not something to be megadosed, but in normal ranges it's been proven safe by billions of people over the course of millennia. That study was using enormous doses. Scanning it briefly, I see doses of 750 mg and 1500 mg and 2000 mg per kilogram. That's a lot.

 

[Ohm]

Based on allometric scaling, the doses of EGCG observed to cause toxicity in the study (500 – 1500 mg/kg) correspond to a dose in humans of 30 – 90 mg/kg assuming a daily requirement of 12 and 2000 kcal for mice and humans, respectively (Schneider et al., 2004). This corresponds to approximately 10.5 – 32 cups of green tea (if each cup is made from 2.5 g green tea leaves in 250 mL). Since normal tea consumption habits are to drink tea one cup at a time over the course of the day rather than as a large bolus dose, the present data do not indicate that tea consumption poses a significant risk for hepatotoxicity. Although at least one case study has reporte hepatotoxicity after consumption of as little as 6 cups/d of green tea infusion (Jimenez-Saenz and Martinez-Sanchez Mdel, 2006). Where a risk may exist, and where case studies have reported toxicity, is when high doses of dietary supplements containing concentrated or purified tea preparations are taken. Based on a search of Internet advertisements, supplements are commercially available with recommended doses of 2 – 12 mg/kg/d EGCG (www.fitnessfire.net,www.progena.com, www.lef.org, www.bulknutrition.com). These doses themselves are not within the apparent toxic range determined in this study, but they are similar to doses of green tea supplements associated with human hepatotoxicity observed in case-reports and the possibility of reaching the toxic threshold by exceeding the recommended dose is not insignificant (Bonkovsky, 2006; Federico et al., 2007). Further, these estimates of safety assume normal basal liver function and do not take into account variations in the genotype of phase II metabolizing enzymes such as catechol-O-methyltransferase, which may affect EGCG bioavailability and increase EGCG exposure (Wu et al., 2003). Further studies on the effects of such polymorphisms or reduced liver function on the toxic potential of EGCG are needed.

 

 

[joelcairo]

That is not 10 cups of tea, unless you're feeding it to a baby maybe. Whatever you are quoting is BS. If 10 or even 30 cups of green tea could cause the kind of liver failure described in the article, don't you think this would have been discovered before now?

[Ohm]

joelcairo,

 

That is from the NIH link in my previous post.

 

 

[Ohm]

Green Tea Polyphenols May Cause Liver Damage In High Doses

http://www.longecity...-in-high-doses/

 

Warning: Green tea supplements

http://www.longecity...ea-supplements/

 

Green tea extract and liver consequences

http://www.longecity...r-consequences/

 

Green Tea Extract & Other Supplements Increase Liver Damage

http://www.longecity...e-liver-damage/

[lemon_]

Its not just the catechin !!!

 

 

its over 300+ chemicals in the coaco 

[normalizing]

lemon are you 12 year old? all the threads you start are like you beg for silly things and yell if you dont get what you want exactly. there are a lot of things in everything not just cacao. not sure where you get your information but im pretty sure you can find the supposed "300 chemicals" in everything else besides cacao not like its original and its the only thing to have extra fancy things. just use google and use your head a bit more and figure out what you need exactly by reading encyclopedias and science papers online instead of bugging people all the time on here like a little brat

[joelcairo]

And go back and read your original post again. You asked about how to get the most catechins specifically.

[Adaptogen]

based on the study you linked, it looks like neither moderate temperature roasting nor fermentation cause a significant loss of catechin. but both do seem to strongly shift the balance of epicatechin:catechin to favor catechins.

 

and based on this rat study at least, epicatechin is more bioavailable than catechin