Don Hogan wrote:
> I know that cacao is referred to as a 'bean' but it actually is a 
> tropical palm that is  popular fare for some monkeys and other 
> mammals. I wonder if paleolithic man had it on his menu when 
> available.If so why wouldn't chocolate from cacao  be classed as 
> paleo, providing of course that it wasn't blended with cows milk?
> Don
Milk is only one of the bad things in chocolate. Refined sugar is a much 
bigger problem. Lecithin and other emulsifiers are also used. And, in 
many modern candies who knows what else?

Anyway, cacao itself is pretty good stuff. If you buy the high end dark 
chocolates that are higher in natural cacao and lower in sugar you are 
probably ok. I still wouldn't go crazy. An ounce or two a couple times a 
week won't hurt anyone, and some studies say it is actually very healthy.

Another thing: *do not* get those Atkins-approved, fake-sugar, low-carb 
chocolates that you see in the store that are made with sugar alcohols 
or other unnatural sweeteners. You are much better off to eat the carbs 
than to eat that junk.

One of the sugar alcohols, xylitol, is quite natural, found in the body, 
and proven to prevent or reverse tooth decay. There are still two 
problems, though. First, the amount of sugar alcohol needed to make 
things sweet enough for the average American is many, many times what 
you can find in any natural source (Same problem as sugar, or vegetable 
oil). Second, xylitol is comparatively expensive and difficult to 
manufacture. So most foods that contain sugar alcohol are mostly some 
other unnatural kind (Not to mention that they are usually used in 
combination with aspartame, ace-K, sucralose, and God knows what else.)