In today’s classic column, Cecil writes
It’s been twenty years - did they ever finish that second study?
No, but they’re both the size of houses.
In this column, Cecil mentions the commonly cited “fact” that chocolate contains caffeine. I just happened to have recently stumbled across a website (yes, I know, I’m a terrble researcher) that claims chocolate contains theobromine, an alkaloid which is very similar in chemical structure and conveys a similar stimulant effect.
http://www.mrkland.com/fun/xocoatl/caffeine.htm
In the article, he cites a published study, and overall his research seems solid. I am definitely not intending to denigrate The Master in this matter. Heck, the published study cited in the above-linked article was from 1993, eight years after Cecil’s column originally ran. I mostly want to see if there are any biochemists out there who can invalidate the claim. If not, perhaps a minor…adjustment could be made to Cecil’s words.
Chocolate contains both caffeine and theobromine. I suspect the theobromine is more significant, but they’re both in there.
Interesting. I don’t think there’s any argument over the presence of theobromine in chocolate. The article you found, however, is quite adamant that chocolate contains no caffeine whatsoever, and references a 1993 study to back up that claim. Yet a 1998 USDA nutrient database supposedly (from a secondary source – yeah, I’m just as bad a researcher as you are) shows that chocolate contains both theobromine and a slight amount of caffeine. I wonder who has the better data.
What really caught my eye, though, was that Cecil referenced Andrew Weil. Um, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Dr. Andrew Weil (it’s the same person – just look up the book that’s referenced) viewed with some suspicion by the mainstream medical community as having embraced alternative healing methods a little too enthusiastically? Should we dare to question The Master’s citations, or was this before Dr. Weil parted ways with traditional medicine?