Lindt 85% cocoa chocolate bar

[Adena]

Yesterday I bought an 85% cocoa Lindt chocolate bar. It has 5 net carbs (no SAs, only fiber) for 4 big squares. It tastes similar to baking chocolate, but is a lot smoother. I only had one square, which is around 50 calories and 1.5 carbs. I'm not a big dark chocolate fan, so one square was satisfying and I was able to easily stop there.

Am I allowed to have that at this point in the game? (I'm on the diary rung of OWL.) I noticed that "chocolate" isn't one of the carb ladder rungs! Where does it fit in, if anywhere?

And the same question goes for sugar-free candy. I realize some people stay away from it b/c it stalls their losses, but for those who can tolerate it, when/where can it be added?

[not2late]

What's in the remaining 15% of that 85% chocolate?

[scott123]

85% cocoa Lindt chocolate contains the following ingredients:

Chocolate, sugar, cocoa butter, vanilla-a natural flavor.

As you can see, it contains sugar. There is no sugar 'rung' in Atkins.

That's the 'by the book' answer. For many Atkins followers, it's not quite so black and white. Cocoa contains carbs, so an 85% cocoa chocolate bar contains a substantial amount of cocoa carbs. How much? I'd say probably 1/2 of the carbs are from cocoa. Cocoa/unsweetened chocolate is allowed (in moderation) in every phase of Atkins, so that's not an issue. When you look at the amount of sugar you're consuming in a 1/4 bar serving... you're talking less than a gram (.75 g). Although sugar isn't allowed in any stage of this WOE, quite a few adherents consume trace amounts and still continue to lose. Many people, myself included, consume trace amounts of sugar in bacon and in mayonnaise. In bacon and mayo, though, you're probably talking about .25 g or less sugar per serving. This chocolate, as I said before, could easily be in the .75 g realm. At what point does sugar stop being a trace amount and start becoming dangerous? I think only you know the answer to that question. If you're attuned to the effects that foods have on you and can honestly say that a small piece of chocolate doesn't stall you or cause cravings... then perhaps 85% chocolate, within the context of a small serving, might be okay for you.

This being said... I think this is the kind of decision that is best delayed until maintenance, especially since there are excellent sugar free chocolate options available to you in OWL. Which brings us to sugar alcohol based sugar free candy.

Sugar alcohols include maltitol, isomalt, xylitol, sorbitol, lactitol and erythrito. According to DANDR 2002, sugar alcohols (SAs) are allowed on induction (in moderation), but many people on this website and elsewhere question the motivation behind this policy and recommend a much more stringent approach. How stringent? Again, it's a personal thing. I definitely wouldn't recommend them on induction, but if you can consume them in moderation and they don't stall or laxate you, then SAs are okay for you. Just like any other questionable food group, you need to pay extremely close attention to see how they effect you.

Although I recommend a more stringent approach to SAs than DANDR, unlike the 85% lindt, SAs are definitely a suitable candidate for being introduced/tested during OWL. There are substantial numbers of people that are neither stalled nor laxated by them and it's definitely worthwhile to invest some time/effort to see if you fit in this group.

And, just to complicate things even more, sugar alcohols are not all created equal. Some are less carby, some are less laxating, some are both. There's also sugar free/sugar alcohol free chocolate available (eat well be well, chocoperfection), and although this is a much safer choice than maltitol based chocolate, it still can carry some potential digestive issues.

[Adena]

Thanks so much for your thoughtful answer, Scott. Just to clarify, the bar actually has 8 squares, so 1 squre is .35 to .40 grams of sugar. That, however, is really beside the point...

I'm not actually a major chocoholic. But, I saw it and wanted to try it. I actually like that it's not overly sweet -- seems more likely to satisfy the urge but not trigger cravings as the really sweet stuff does. For example, I've tried the SF Peppermint Patties, and after I eat one, I want 5 more. Not so with the Lindt...

However, I do understand that it's probably best to do "experiments" like this closer to maintenance.

As for the SAs, I fortunately haven't noticed any digestive issues with them. But, I do find it's hard to eat just once piece of sugar free candy.

Thanks very much for the insight...

omg that has been my problem all the freaking time !!!! you guys!!!! ..I have been trying to find the "sugar rung" !!!!

I love how you clear things up for me Scott

[sadie147]

Lindt actually makes a 99% cocoa bar as well. I love these, i melt a few squares and add my own sweeteners to it. It's very rich....it does have a trace of sugar, the entire bar is less than 1g carbs, i can only eat 1/4 of it. I like it as a nice change from sugar alcohols that unfortunately I don't tolerate well (but of course still eat once in a while anyway LOL)...

http://www.lindtusa.com/shop_product_detail.cfm?PID=975

I really want to eat sweeteners you know

[scott123]

Originally Posted by Adena

I'm not actually a major chocoholic. But, I saw it and wanted to try it. I actually like that it's not overly sweet -- seems more likely to satisfy the urge but not trigger cravings as the really sweet stuff does. For example, I've tried the SF Peppermint Patties, and after I eat one, I want 5 more. Not so with the Lindt...

Well, there you have it. Your body is telling you more than the book

If the peppermint patties are triggering cravings, then the Lindt definitely sounds like a better choice for you. At less than half a gram of sugar per 'serving,' I, personally, don't see anything wrong with it.

As much as I support reading/fully comprehending DANDR, I believe there's a letter of the law and a spirit of the law involved here. Dr. Atkins, imo, never intended for people to follow the rules in DANDR by wrote. I believe he intended it as a road map towards personal understanding. Your body will always tell you more than a book will.

Enjoy the lindt. If you want to give the sugar alcohol-free eat well be well chocolates a try and see how you react, that might be a good idea, but if nothing works for you as well as the 85% does, then by all means, go for it (in moderation of course )

[scott123]

Originally Posted by Heidi3

I really want to eat sweeteners you know

Go ahead, eat them No, not sugar and not the artificial nasties that you're currently circumventing either. There's a class of sweeteners that are 100% natural and 100% safe. You may have heard of them. They're called sugar alcohols

I know that the potentially laxating nature of sugar alcohols strikes terror into your heart, but it needn't have to. Sugar alcohols, contrary to what a lot of people say, are not 'evil.'

There I said it

Natural

There's a few different ways sugar alcohols are produced, but basically we're talking about plant extracts. Sugar alcohols occur all over the place in the vegetable kingdom. If you consumed a veggie or a salad today, you probably consumed a sugar alcohol.

A lot of the sweeteners presently on the market don't occur in nature/only occur in a lab. Splenda is a good example of this. Sugar alcohols are a completely different animal. This is health food store/crunchy/hippie stuff we're talking about

Safe

SAs have been extracted and used for decades. Some go back further than 100 years! Their history of safety is massive. In ten years, it won't come out that maltitol gives you cancer. With splenda, you never now. Even stevia's long term use is up in the air. Sugar alcohols have a crystal clear record when it comes to long term health impact. If anything, sugar alcohols have a positive long term impact due to healthier teeth and healthier colons. The only possible negative health impact that could possibly occur with SAs is laxation. That's the absolute worst they can do to you.

Laxation 'Epidemic'

What percentage of the population do you think is laxated by small amounts of SAs? 70%? 80%? More? The way people complain about their SA misadventures, it would seem like just about everyone has problems with them. You know what? They don't. What happens is that the sensitive ones yell the loudest. The reality- closer to 10% of the population is extremely sensitive to SAs. Those, imo, are pretty good odds.

Craving 'Epidemic'

Again, you hear a lot of people that get cravings from SAs, but, again, it's not the entire picture. SAs, for some people, can heavily impact blood sugar and can trigger cravings, but it isn't everyone, and, again, it isn't the majority.

Sensitivities Not Set in Stone

Your body is going to react differently the first time you try maltitol compared to the 50th time you consume it. People go out, buy a bag of maltitol chocolates for the first time, eat the whole thing, reap the ensuing whirlwind and swear off of SAs for the rest of their lives. Does this scenario have to occur? No, of course not. With a little foreknowledge, this type of scenario can play out very differently. If we have made it all the way to maintenance, we should be friggin Jedi Knights in the area of food introduction. Buy a bag of chocolates, eat one. See how you feel. Try another one the next day. Drink plenty of water. Eat the chocolate on a full stomach. It's not that difficult.

Taste

Sugar alcohols are SO worth the effort to be able to eat. Maltitol, isomalt and sorbitol, all taste exactly like sugar. Nothing else comes close to replicating the texture and flavor of sugar. They're amazing.


There is no sugar rung. But there is, at least there should be, a sugar alcohol rung. Does it involve some soul searching? Some additional self awareness? Some work? Sure. But to deprive yourself of some of the best tasting/healthiest/most natural alternative sweeteners on the planet because you think you might get laxated from them, would be tragic, imo. As Atkins followers, we cannot have sugar ever again. Ever. Isn't it worthwhile to exhaust every possible alternative? I think so.

Take the plunge. If you never try them, you'll never know if you're sensitive. No matter what you hear, trust me, the odds are that you won't be.

May the force be with you, young Paduan

[2big4mysize]

scott Hedie is in a sweets free challenge she started so she can't