So David Wolfe has lied to me?
I'm just saying I read the article and found it weak. That's my opinion. I do believe i'm entitled to that.
University studies were also done which found it beneficial.
Obviously more studies need to be done.
I just started using it a couple of weeks ago in smoothies, and it seems to be agreeing with me. I use 2 Tbls per day.
Thanks for caring.
Back to someone's comment about diabetes diets. I am practising the 80-10-10 diet right now in prep for a one month trial after my kids go home in January. I have done the diet totally except for my cacoa drink every day - which still keeps me in the numbers but isn't raw. I love that cacoa. But I do know it is a stimulant, raw or not. The first time I took it I got the drug rush in seconds, my whole body tingled.
Anyway in the 2-3 weeks since I've been doing 80-10-10 my blood sugar has gone down. It's mind-blowing for me to toss back fruit all day and have lower insulin needs. I have lowered my adrenal and thyroid meds by one third. I am sleeping like a log without getting up to pee 3 times, and wake up ready for my day at 5-6 oc. I have energy like I haven't had in years. I am cleaning up stuff around the house like crazy.
I've lost a few pounds but I don't want to lose so I upped my calories.
Pretty good results for the tryout I would say. I am feeling way goooood!!!
What kind of thyroid meds are you on???
I am asking because I take synthroid everyday, for under-active thyroid.
maybe e-mail this question to david wolfe, himself. he seems reachable!!
it's always important to question.
plus, like my friend laila says "nutrition is not a one size fits all business".
i love cacao.
i bought one bottle of sunfood nutrition cacao.
i keep the bottle and re-fill it for half the price at my local health food store.
i would like to point out that david wolfe inspires people.
even if he's not 100% raw he has gotten a lot of people into raw food eating.
that's a good thing.
if he embellishes and uses a lot of finites -- well -- that's his personality.
that's cool with me!
i think he's making the world better.
I never took Synthroid because I had heard bad stuff about it. So I first took Armour, then it turned out I had Hashimoto's so now I take Cytomel, which is pure T3. With Synthroid you are getting mostly T4 and assuming that your body will make the conversion into the active form, which is T3. Doctors hate to prescribe T3 because they don't keep informed and I had to really push for it.
It works but I'd love to get off it or lower my dose as much as possible.
I'm feeling so much better on 80-10-10 that I am actually hoping to get off all 3 of my drugs. Wouldn't that be great? I never took a drug until I was 60.
I've been a big supporter of cacao ever since I went raw. I've been 100% raw since late May, and I've increased my cacao consumption since then. However, in the last few weeks, I've noticed a few symptoms arising:
1) Muscle cramps in the calf (Is cacao, esp. cacao powder, very drying? My friend, and her girlfriend had the same experience, and when they backed off the cacao, the cramping went away.
2) Tingling, numbness and poor circulation in the extremities (magnesium deficiency, circulatory issues?)
3) My immune system has been somewhat compromised (nasal allergies have resurfaced)
4) Dry skin (Omega 3 assimilation?)
5) Tenderness in the gums (vitamin C, calcium/mineral deficiency?)
I've been doing more cacao powder lately than the nibs. The powder has had most of the fat removed, and is likely more stimulating. If I blend the powder into a smoothie, it's not quite as stimulating. However, if I hand mix it into a cacao granola or a chocolate chia porridge, it seems more stimulating. Just something I noticed.
I'm not entirely convinced cacao is causing these symptoms, but I suspect it might be related. I'll keep you all posted.
Here are a couple links: Kevin Gianni's cacao experience, and David Wolfe's response.
I lived in Hawaii for awhile, and was blessed enough to be near some abundantly producing cacao trees. There were a few weeks when I ate about a pod a day, fresh with the fruit on the bean (about 25 seeds and a bunch of pulp and fiber). The fruit is amazing, tastes just like mangosteen. I felt really good, not hyper or wired out at all-- just sustained, balanced energy.
We harvested a bunch of cacao beans, fermented them for five days, washed them (really labor-intensive to get the fruit off), and dried them on racks in the sun. I returned to the mainland with some large bags of cacao... that was about four years ago, and I still have some left. I found that I couldn't eat it once it had been dried. It was too intense, affected my body very differently than the fresh fruit/beans. For me, it feels the same as dried fruit, or other dried foods-- they're so much more concentrated and easier to overdo it on. Also, eating foods that match the climate/season of the place I am living has always treated my body the best. All things in moderation...
Hope my story contributes some more light to the topic... I've enjoyed reading what you all had to say about the matter, as I now have a live chocolate business, so I'm very much in the middle of the whole debate [I feel for David Wolfe, but I really feel that he needs to be more accountable to all sides of the story... to encourage moderation instead of maxing out on "SuperFoods"]. I'm going to experiment with making a raw carob bar next.
sunshinerose: That's really interesting! I've read the unfermented beans are supposed to be more stimulating, not less. I'll have to try it someday, maybe when I do a raw food retreat in Hawaii. LOL. :)
I am trying to find a source of the magazines to download. I would like to read them off line.
I think it was the fresh and balanced (eaten with the fruit and fibers) factors than made the cacao less stimulating, not whether they were fermented. :)
Coming back late, but want to clarify that I wasn't defending cacao or not, or saying that everything must be scientifically proven to be true, which I don't believe to be the case, obviously.
All I said was if you present something as science, then it darn well ought to be science.
And I don't think one guy's casual observations constitute a scientific study. In fact, I don't think this, I know it.
The scientific method is thus:
sci·en·tif·ic method (sn-tfk)
The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.
The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007, 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
The article referred to only got as far as "formulation of a hypothesis."
That doesn't say a doggone thing about me and my beliefs. It doesn't tell you whether or not you should eat cacao. It only says that that article is not science.
If it ain't science, let's not call it that. That's all.
I did see your followup post, Snowbunny ("He spent a year and a half personally eating it, but "He spent 4 years (1999 -2003) studying the effects of cacao and has dedicated countless hours surfing the net, talking with specialists, and even got involved with the University of Hawaii, who’s agriculture branch is looking into raw cacao toxicity. "
PLUS "DOCTOR Fred Bisci ,a raw foodist for about 40 years, also confirmed what Jeremy and I suspected, cacao is toxic!") but there's nothing there that invalidates what I said before and above.
Just 'cause you're a doctor doesn't make your every opinion scientific fact. Nor does "involvement" with a university conducting a study. When that study is concluded, and the results suggest one way or another whether or not cacao is toxic, it will carry more infinitely more weight than the article to which you referred. Still won't be verifiable fact, it'll only be one study, but it will, at least, actually be science.
I would like to add that many studies are made by those who may gain or profit. When a scientist says 'there just isn't enough proof' or 'this is toxic', what they really mean is there is nothing that could benefit their objectives, the scientific communities or the government. When a university produces research saying 'eating grapes while pregnant MAY increase brain activity', what they really are saying is 'we needed funding'. Most research is BIASED. Many scientists and practitioners believe that they have the gift of knowledge above others because they are taught 'science is all' and as such adopt a very arrogant position in life. Science is not all, nor is research. What about how we FEEL? How many times has someone debunked your faith in raw food because it is not the 'norm', not 'proven' or just 'too weird'? Should you care? No, because you feel great, your look great and you now have direction in your life. Is that not a measure in itself? Also, do you seriously believe that certain factions don't know the healing power of the rain forest or medicinal plants? They know. They just don't want people to be empowered.
With regards to the Cacao studies, use your own intuition to guide you and take heed of who may be producing the evidence. For me, Cacao is a sacred plant that has taken me to new levels of consciousness. In fact in a few ancient cultures it was believed that the cacao plant was sent by the gods so that humans could see their messages and thereby communicate. I love cacao. I don't need it, but it helps me into the fourth dimension. Plus, if it creates love and bliss when consumed, what could be better? We need people to love not be mentally ill as, sadly, many people in the world are. However if it doesn't work for you, don't eat it. I actually believe that if you don't eat something feeling bad or guilty, it can be damaging. The spirit matters.
Hey satnam!...just wanted to say that its the other way round... Dr Graham is the fruit advocate and Cousens is the one against fruit....