On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 Adam Sroka wrote:

>>> I have heard a number of supposedly scientifically based theories,
>>> including that it contains substances that emulate certain hormones and
>>> antioxidants similar to those found in berries (I believe that both of
>>> these are true, but I'm not sure either explains its almost addictive
>>> qualities.)
>>>
>>
>> Let's nail this once and for all. Very few people like chocolate unless it is 
>> mixed with massive quantities of modern, processed foods. Chocolate 
>> (that is, cocoa) on its own has very little appeal.

>As a matter of personal preference, I prefer the scientific method to
>the asked-my-friends method. Even though neither is always accurate.

Don't get me wrong. I don't doubt that pure chocolate has addictive properties. But there are 
degrees of addictiveness. Cocoa does not approach nicotene in its addictive power, but its 
pharmacologic properties do have an attraction. My point was that cocoa's addictive properties are 
of themselves insufficient to account for its popularity, and for people consuming excessive 
amounts of chocolate. They could get more of chocolate's pharmacologic agents for less price by 
buying pure cocoa and spooning it down. But would they?

This is where the relevance to Paleofood comes in. It is only because of the addition of sugar, fat, 
milk, soy lecithin, glucose syrup, colouring, preservatives, gelatine and artificial flavours (all non 
paleo foods) that cocoa has its appeal. Marketing and cultural acceptbility help too. (These are 
also non-Paleo.)

The larger point is that many of the foods we like to think of as paleo are not. My pet hate is 
having plastics touching food. The phthalate oestrogen mimics leach into foods, particularly those 
containing fats (like meat, nuts, butter, cheese). I'd guess that much of the declining sperm counts 
of human males is due to the oestrogens they have absorbed from foods. Even grass-fed beef, 
once wrapped in plastic, is no longer paleo.

Stick with paleo - REAL paleo!

Keith