Save for the few weirdos here and there that don’t like chocolate, it seems that it is an almost-universally enjoyed taste. So, do people naturally “like” chocolate–that is, if someone who’s never had it before is given a piece, would they be more inclined to enjoy it? And are there any parts of the world where the population as a whole generally does not like chocolate?
Define chocolate.
Are you talking about the sweetened chocolate made into bars? The unsweetened chocolate used in baking? Cocoa butter? Cocoa nuts?
The product we think of as chocolate is a highly processed food. Would we even recognize what the Spanish found when they came to the New World? Or are you really thinking of the sugar that makes chocolate popular today?
I’d go with the sugar idea, and that it is processed to taste nice. I also think to some degree though, that there is some quality of ‘un-offensiveness’ to the taste (believe me, I’m cringing as I use such an inane adjective) which explains why so few people like it, not including people who can’t eat it i.e. lactose intolerants. Alot of people like McDonalds food (though many do not), and that can be explained away as it being highly processed, and containing sugar and addtives, but there must be some quality of ‘offensiveness’ to the taste which explains why there is a sizable proportion of people who don’t enjoy McDonalds food (substitute in whatever fast food chain you like). It’d be interesting to hear from anybody who actually does not like the taste of chocolate.
What do most people think of when they think chocolate. That ^
People like sugar and fat. Processed chocolate bars are sugar and fat (cocoa butter).
McDonald’s doesn’t do too bad globally, not because people like ground beef but because their food is all salt and fat. People like that too.
Dark, aka semisweet or bittersweet, chocolate has no milk in it so it’s not an issue for lactose intolerants. In reality, eating small amounts of milk chocolate makes no difference either because the total amount of lactose is so tiny.
Take the sugar out of chocolate and it’s inedible. Sugar is the universal, not the cocoa.
Wait, what? I thought the natives who ate chocolate (well, not what we think of today as ‘chocolate’ of course) DID eat it without processed sugar. Is that not so? And if not, if it was inedible, how did they stumble on it in the first place?
(I thought it was Europeans who first started adding sugar to make it more widely popular, but I thought it was essentially like coffee…folks drank/ate it for the caffeine, because it was a stimulant. Well, and a narcotic too in this case.)
-XT
Here’s a quick run-down of the discovery of the cacao fruit and later the seeds. It seems it was enjoyed as a very bitter drink (unless fermented) until the Spanish showed up.
(cacao isn’t a narcotic, that’s the coca plant - not the cacao tree)
Yep, the four food groups: sugar salt chocolate fat.
If you are interested enough to ask the question then I will recommend the book “The Emperors of Chocolate”. It is a fascinating book.
Chocolate is a delicacy. It has been considered the perfect food. It has been part of soldier’s field rations for decades.
Really, read the book. It is well written and well reported. It will give you a whole new perspective on chocolate.
I’m not sure what you mean. Would they be more inclined to enjoy it than what? My kids loved chocolate the moment they tried it, if that’s relevant. They don’t love everything, even if they are told they will.
I expect that sugar and fat make it popular, but personally I enjoy immensely dark chocolate that has just enough sugar to offset the cocoa solids’ natural bitterness. I don’t want any more sugar in it than that, which suggests to me that I don’t like it for the sugar but for the taste. I find that 70% cocoa solids is good, and 85% is slightly over the edge into too much bitterness.
I also like 70-72% cocoa the best, although I’ve seen an increase in the 80+% bars probably because there is a marketing trend toward bitter flavors today. But I think that makes my point stronger. The milder milk chocolate is overwhelmingly the best seller. Lower sugar chocolates sell less and less until it becomes a niche player, and maybe even a “whatever is popular I’ll have the opposite” player. Since there are whole reality shows about people eating rocks and stuff, I’m sure that somebody must eat unsweetened baking chocolate but those are isolated cases.
As SeaDragonTattoo said, the Aztecs probably didn’t eat chocolate the way we think of it but drank it as a beverage, and often spiced it to add flavor. As soon as people who knew about sugar discovered it they added sugar to make it more palatable. I’ll bet any amount of money that without sugar we’d think of chocolate today as a rare flavoring rather than a universal.
I like bars in the 50-60% range myself…FWIW my understanding is that a regular Hershey’s bar is around 10% cocoa content (the minimum required by the US Gov’t for “Milk Chocolate”).
True, but I’m not sure it’s relevant to the point.
You can use any number of things to flavour fat and sugar, but chocolate is one of the most popular ways to do it. So saying we like chocolate because of the fat and sugar is like saying we like a particular pop song because it has a beat: so does every other pop song, but it is the melody (etc) of this particular song that causes it to be popular.
People like chocolate. They might not like it if it wasn’t fattened and sweetened, but they do like chocolate ahead of other things that could be and are fattened and sweetened.
The way that I am interpreting the op’s question is that they are referring to the common standard milk chocolate that is popular and available in almost all US stores that sell food (I guess a Hershey Bar or a Hershey’s kiss would be a fair example).
Then I think that they are asking is there any documentation or record of someone having contact with a culture that hasn’t been exposed to chocolate, giving them a piece, and then having the non chocolate culture person respond by spitting it out and saying something like, “this taste like crap, I never want to eat that stuff again.” I guess that it would be a better story if the chocolate was giving to more than one non chocolate culture person.
I remember reading a thread about how Europeans are more likely to like black licorice, while the flavor is not as popular in the US. Likewise, US people are more likely to like rootbeer, and Europeans think that rootbeer tastes like medicine (I love rootbeer flavored anything, black licorice does not taste good to me).
So, are there cultures that think that chocolate (like Hersheys) does not taste good? Are there cultures that think that no form of chocolate tastes good?
No churros for me, thanks.
I don’t think that it’s right to say that chocolate wouldn’t be popular if not for the sugar (and, maybe, the milk). The Americans, after all, were already drinking sugar-less, milk-less chocolate (it was called “the bitter drink”) And this, despite the fact that it takes a lot of work to process the chocolate even to that stage. Chocolate has caffeine and theobromine, and it’s not irrelevant to ask if people weren’t consuming chocolate for either its taste or its effects. Ive come to the comnclusion that people will, indeed, eat or drink practically anything with a nonzero taste. I had a co-worker who used to bring in things like rice made with unsweetened chocolate as seasoning. Certainly for a lot of people throughout history,
I’m curious about any possible benefits because i keep hearing the claim that women like chocolate when they’re having menstrual cramps, and some folks claim that the chocolate helps. This might be a complete fabrication, or excuse to eat chocolate, or cionfusing of what’s causing the effect, but you do have to wonder if the caffeine, theobromine, sugar, or something else is relieving any characteristic pain. You can find sites on the internet that make contradictory claims about any or all of these.
Chocolate does some CNS effects independent of the fat and sugar:
The association of higher chocolate consumption with being a person at risk for depression is not also correlated with a general increase in fat or carbohydrate intake. So whatever that association is based on, causality in either direction or something else, it is not the same a fat and sugar overall.
Also, as a general rule men and women really do, in a brain lighting up way, like chocolate differently. Anecdotally many more women seem to “love” chocolate than men, who often just like it like they’d like any other sweet fat laden thing … be it a donut or chocolate bar.
I love the SDMB.
Joe
I love the SBMB too, because it lets me get down into the guts of what a question is, what an answer is, and what an argument is. You don’t see that in too many places.
There’s an old saw that runs something like “bad questions breed bad answers”. If the question is vague or makes you mind-read the asker, any answer is probably going to be worthless even if technically correct. That’s why scientists prize people who have a knack for asking the right question. since that’s what gives the deepest answers.
The other side of that is topic drift. That’s often a good thing, especially if the OP is vague, because people might latch on to an interesting issue that can be explored in depth.
Look what happened here, though. We went from asking whether is a universal that anyone of any culture would immediately like to Cal’s response that people will eat anything readily available, which is essentially a 180 degree turn.
Now, I agree completely with Cal. Historically, people have tried to eat every organic substance in the world - and probably most of the inorganic ones. They learned to stay away from some because they made them sick or dead, but only after they tried them long enough to make the connection. We know several interesting things from this trial and error. One is that bitter tastes are warnings. Plants and animals have evolved bitter tastes as defense mechanisms to keep from being eaten. Jews eat bitter herbs during the Passover Sedar to remind them of their captivity in Egypt. It’s a punishment, not a treat. Amazingly, people don’t simply shun these products. They learn often elaborate methods for processing them to remove the bitterness and make them palatable. Food is too valuable to shun even if work must be placed into it.
That leads to several additional conclusions. People will eat anything and everything in their native habitat that can be made palatable, and will often come to consider these foods delicacies. It’s psychologically better to eat an otherwise off-putting food if you consider it a special treat. But, and it’s a big but, as soon as more palatable food is introduced in sufficient quantities to become everyday eating, it will supplant native foods that are more work-laden or poorer-tasting. The experience of introducing American processed foods around the world shows this. Hawaii has the highest per capita consumption of Spam and it’s found at McDonald’s and Burger King there. Milk-laden products are booming in places that traditionally did not use milk in foods and have high levels of lactose intolerance. But culture is still extremely important. Duncan Donuts is expanding in China with pork donuts. Traditional taste and westernized delivery. I’m sure that any of our Asian-based members can list dozens of similar products that Americans would find weird.
I don’t see how this is conceptually any different from the known history of chocolate. It was used in the limited number of cultures to which it was native. It was highly processed and often flavored to make it more palatable. When another culture discovered it, they adapted it by a superior method of palatability. It supplanted native foods but is further adapted to local tastes with a huge range of flavorings and processings.
Are donuts universal? No, sugar and fat wrapped in a grain is universal. Is cocoa powder universal? No, flavored sugar bars are universal.
Are pork donuts universal? I remember that I did not eat pizza or Chinese food until I was in college. Walking into my local supermarket and seeing both or those as well as take-out sushi, thai lemon grass, vegan nachos, and dal would have been unthinkable and unthinkably weird. On the other hand, how different are pork donuts from an Irish boxty?
People will eat anything and everything. Given free choice, though, they will preferentially eat foods that have culturally familiar tastes and will adapt new foods to local tastes. As the proprietor of any ethnic restaurant in suburbia already knows.