Freedom Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 Chocolate, by the way, does not have caffeine. It has theobromine. 1
Calm Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) Apparently there is also a small amount of caffeine: http://www.caffeine-content.com/caffeine-in-chocolate/caffeine-content-in-chocolate/ "Chocolate derived from cocoa beans is a weak stimulant. It contains two stimulating methylxanthines (a class of alkaloid molecules), a significant amount of theobromine (and theophylline) and a small amount of caffeine. The slight stimulatory effect of chocolate is it seems as much due to the combination of theobromine and theophylline than caffeine. Generally, caffeine and theobromine have very different effects on different people. Theobromine is relatively mild and helps elevate serotonin levels producing a really nice side effect of feeling good over a longer period of time. Caffeine is a stronger stimulant and acts relatively quickly as a wake-up drug. Compared to the caffeine, the theobromine has about one-quarter the stimulating power. However, chocolate contains too little of these compounds to create a similar effect to portion equal to coffee. A typical cacao bean contains less than 1/20th of the caffeine present in coffee (from zero to 1000 parts per million of caffeine per bean). The caffeine content in the cocoa beans varies with the type of beans and the degree of fermentation. The caffeine content in the cacao pod is found mainly in the shell or membrane which encloses the cacao beans. Cacao beans which had the surrounding membrane removed before processing will contain almost no caffeine. Generally, the chocolate made from more expensive beans will be of higher quality and essentially free of caffeine. Also, the caffeine content from chocolate can be removed. So why should we worry about the presence of caffeine in chocolate? Caffeine can be addictive stimulant, but there is not enough caffeine in chocolate to label it "addictive". We do not need to be worried about chocolate caffeine content unless caffeine in an off itself is a problem for us. When compared to common sources of caffeine, the quantity of caffeine found in chocolate has no major effect on most people." Edited September 12, 2017 by Calm 1
Calm Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 I don't think it should be called a "mind altering drug" because I don't think it changes our perception of reality, "mood altering" as was used is a good label, imo. It is a stimulant in multiple ways. http://www.apa.org/monitor/2008/04/caffeine.aspx "If you're like 85 percent of the U.S. population, you drink caffeine. It's in your coffee. Your tea. Your soft drinks. Your energy drinks. It's so pervasive in our diets that we hardly think of caffeine as what it really is: a mood-altering drug. Just like coffee shops in your neighborhood, psychologists' research in the area is proliferating. Researchers are exploring how it affects us and the way we work--and they're finding that caffeine walks a fine line between benefit and bane. Here's a look at a few recent studies. All in our head Remember those 1990s commercials in which a wife would secretly switch her husband's regular coffee with decaf and watch as he never noticed the difference? The ads may not have been far off, according to caffeine researcher Laura Juliano, PhD. She found that expecting to receive caffeine mitigated some of the effects of caffeine withdrawal, at least in the short term.... By the final evening visit, caffeine showed its true colors. Those who were given caffeine but thought they received decaf reported lower levels of withdrawal symptoms--levels nearly equal to those experienced by the group that was promised and received caffeine. But the symptoms were much more intense for those who drank decaf that they thought was caffeine. Clearly, expectancy had an early effect on withdrawal, but it was only temporary relief. "In the long run, pharmacology is what matters," says Juliano, who presented the research at the 41st Annual Convention for the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies in November. "In the short term, expectancy plays a little bit of a role, but your body eventually catches up with your mind. If you haven't had caffeine for 36 hours and you have a headache, you have a headache."... Sharma found no expectancy effect at all. The caffeinated participants performed much better at the task than the non-caffeinated, regardless of whether they believed they received caffeine. But interestingly, the group that was told they received caffeine but instead was given a placebo reported that they could feel the effects of caffeine. They also claimed they were more attentive throughout the task, even though the results didn't bear that out... While none of caffeine's effects are life-threatening, they're not entirely benign, either. Too much caffeine can exacerbate existing cardiac problems and anxiety disorders and lead to insomnia, stomach and digestion problems, as well as the bothersome effects of the withdrawal symptoms discussed earlier... Given that caffeine is ubiquitous and has some manner of control over most of us, it's still unclear whether there is a net benefit, Griffiths says. But he points out there are times when caffeine is a handy drug to have around. If you need a quick pick-me-up to stay focused on the job, it's a benefit. When you get addicted and can't function without it, well, it's crossed the fine line and become more a nuisance than a benefit, he says. Ultimately, Griffiths thinks that people need to adjust the way they think about caffeine so they at least make informed decisions when they consume it. "When you get down to it, caffeine is a drug and it needs to be accorded the respect as a drug," he says. Consuming it is "ultimately an adult decision.""
Calm Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 Otoh, that article is almost 10 years old. I don't think the research calls it "addictive" as much any more though researchers talk about "dependence" on it: http://www.webmd.com/diet/caffeine-myths-and-facts#1-2 "This one has some truth to it, depending on what you mean by "addictive." Caffeine is a stimulant to the central nervous system, and regular use of caffeine does cause mild physical dependence. But caffeine doesn't threaten your physical, social, or economic health the way addictive drugs do. (Although after seeing your monthly spending at the coffee shop, you might disagree!) If you stop taking caffeine abruptly, you may have symptoms for a day or more, especially if you consume two or more cups of coffee a day."
Marginal Gains Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 The confusion with the word of wisdom, it seems to me, stems from modern Prophets trying to reinterpret or clarify the actual revelation. The focus is on tea/ coffee, tobacco and alcohol, but it is so much more than that, and most of it is ignored. Mormons living the word of wisdom should be largely vegetarian and not morbidly obese (as a result of overeating). Not living that part of the word of wisdom is a much bigger health risk than debating the pros and cons of caffeine. 1
The Nehor Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 The Word of Wisdom is neither validated or invalidated by the latest magazine article on the benefits or dangers of coffee, tobacco, and a glass of red wine. 4
thesometimesaint Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 American's in general would be better of eating less of everything including meat. I had a non-LDS Granduncle who ate a diet high in fat, and carb's. He lived to 103 years old. But then he chopped his own wood for the wood cook stove my Grandaunt cooked on. We generally don't do that amount of physical work anymore, but we continue to eat like we do. Also we have Scripture that we are not to command vegetarianism. SEE Timothy 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, mrmarklin said: There is an article in Consumer Reports this month extolling the health benefits of coffee. There are some cautions, but overall, coffee is apparently good for you! I don't care if it's the very Elixir of Life. I have covenanted to not drink it, and I know I will be blessed for keeping that covenant. We tend, in my opinion, to get so caught up in the "eat, eat not," "drink, drink not" aspects of the Word of Wisdom (and in beating each other over the head for not keeping our personal interpretation of it ) that we forget that its main blessings are spiritual (indeed, they are very nearly solely spiritual) in nature: Quote And all Saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel, and marrow in their bones. And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint. And shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, yea, even hidden treasures. And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the Destroying Angel shall pass by them, as the Children of Israel, at the last day, and shall not slay them. P.S.: Anybody think it's simply a coincidence that there's a parallel between the Word of Wisdom as revealed and a key spot in the Endowment Ceremony? Edited September 12, 2017 by Kenngo1969 2
Darren10 Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 16 hours ago, MorningStar said: My friend's husband won't eat any baked goods that have vanilla extract because vanilla extract has alcohol in it. Seriously. He is missing out on my mom's chocolate chip cookies. 1
Darren10 Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 17 hours ago, rayhale said: The Word of Wisdom can be confusing. We get the Word of Wisdom from Doctrine & Covenants Section 89. We all know about no drinking alcohol, tobacco, (leaf) tea, coffee, but we either forget or don't know that the Word of Wisdom keeps going. Verses 10-17 talk about eating herbs, eating meat sparingly, in verse 17 it says that we should eat wheat. I've yet heard any Conference talk that is about the Word of Wisdom talks about not drinking alcohol, smoke, or even not to drink coffee, or (leaf) tea, but leaves out any, and all mention of wheat, herbs, or meat, leaving me wondering if those items are still considered in the Word of Wisdom, and we should eat if not exclusively, then mostly, wheat. I also wonder why the Word of Wisdom hasn't updated to modern times. "We all know about no drinking alcohol, tobacco, (leaf) tea, coffee,..." People drink tobacoo? Ewwwwwwww. "I've yet heard any Conference talk that is about the Word of Wisdom talks about not drinking alcohol, smoke, or even not to drink coffee, or (leaf) tea,..." People drink smoke? Ewwwwwwwww.
Darren10 Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 WARNING! Over 90% of people who have died have drunk coffee.
Darren10 Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) On 9/11/2017 at 1:34 PM, mfbukowski said: They sell Coke Zero- cafeinated- in the LA Temple. Case closed. Of course someone might have ordered it by mistake. I loved buying Guraná at the BYU Bookstore. Edited September 12, 2017 by Darren10 1
smac97 Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 19 hours ago, MorningStar said: I have a new friend who can be rather opinionated at times and I walked away feeling really irritated the other night. I don't mind when people have misconceptions about our beliefs, but when I try to explain and they insist that they are right, that drives me nuts! It's understandable. Ours is a missionary church. We put our faith out there for examination and study and discussion. That will necessarily lead, on occasion, to differences of opinion, to offenses given/taken, etc. We just need to take such things in stride. 19 hours ago, MorningStar said: She made this comment that I didn't 100% follow my religion because I eat chocolate. I said, "We can eat chocolate." "No, because of caffeine." "We can have caffeine." "You're not supposed to have mind altering drugs." "Caffeine isn't a mind altering drug." "Yes it is." From the Church: Quote The media attention directed toward The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints took a unique turn last Thursday as NBC’s Rock Center with Brian Williams became the first network program to devote a full hour of prime-time television to a report on Mormonism. Although NBC doesn’t get everything right in this program (titled “Mormon in America”), it was a sincere attempt to know the faith. Thursday’s show is a good example of what we mean when we say we want to be a part of the global discussion of Mormonism. ... Despite what was reported, the Church revelation spelling out health practices (Doctrine and Covenants 89) does not mention the use of caffeine. The Church’s health guidelines prohibit alcoholic drinks, smoking or chewing of tobacco, and “hot drinks” — taught by Church leaders to refer specifically to tea and coffee. It is my understanding that the caffeine in chocolate (especially chocolate consumed in small quantities) is not comparable to the caffeine in coffee. See, e.g., here: Quote Chocolate derived from cocoa beans is a weak stimulant. It contains two stimulating methylxanthines (a class of alkaloid molecules), a significant amount of theobromine (and theophylline) and a small amount of caffeine. The slight stimulatory effect of chocolate is it seems as much due to the combination of theobromine and theophylline than caffeine. Generally, caffeine and theobromine have very different effects on different people. Theobromine is relatively mild and helps elevate serotonin levels producing a really nice side effect of feeling good over a longer period of time. Caffeine is a stronger stimulant and acts relatively quickly as a wake-up drug. Compared to the caffeine, the theobromine has about one-quarter the stimulating power. However, chocolate contains too little of these compounds to create a similar effect to portion equal to coffee. A typical cacao bean contains less than 1/20th of the caffeine present in coffee (from zero to 1000 parts per million of caffeine per bean). The caffeine content in the cocoa beans varies with the type of beans and the degree of fermentation. The caffeine content in the cacao pod is found mainly in the shell or membrane which encloses the cacao beans. Cacao beans which had the surrounding membrane removed before processing will contain almost no caffeine. Generally, the chocolate made from more expensive beans will be of higher quality and essentially free of caffeine. Also, the caffeine content from chocolate can be removed. So why should we worry about the presence of caffeine in chocolate? Caffeine can be addictive stimulant, but there is not enough caffeine in chocolate to label it "addictive". We do not need to be worried about chocolate caffeine content unless caffeine in an of itself is a problem for us. When compared to common sources of caffeine, the quantity of caffeine found in chocolate has no major effect on most people. And here: Quote How much caffeine is in chocolate? Caffeine is a natural compound derived from plant sources like kola nut and naturally found in substances like coffee and tea. However, very little caffeine is found in chocolate in comparison to the amount found in the other commonly consumed sources. Generally, 1 oz of Dark Chocolate contains about 20 mg of caffeine, 1 oz of Milk Chocolate contains about 6 mg of caffeine, and 1 oz of White Chocolate contains less than 2 mg of caffeine. By comparison, an average can of soda contains about 50 mg of caffeine and the average cup of coffee approximately 80 - 155 mg. The caffeine content will always vary, depending on the product and even in some cases depending on the specific cocoa bean and origin. So we should eat healthy. And we should abstain from those things which are specifically proscribed in the Word of Wisdom (alcohol, tobacco, and "hot drinks" - meaning coffee and tea). We should also observe the guidance from General Authorities arising from the Word of Wisdom as pertaining to harmful/mind altering/addictive substances (such as illicit drugs). I think there are some things that reasonable minds can disagree about as far as what counts as an "addictive" substance. Such things should genderally be left to the discretion of the individual. 19 hours ago, MorningStar said: Would you all consider caffeine a mind altering drug? I'm not sure about "mind altering." There appear to be no small amount of confusion about the relative health benefits and drawbacks of caffeine consumption. 19 hours ago, MorningStar said: What the heck. So bizarre when people try to hold us to a higher standard than the church expects of us. Ugh. We should take it in stride. We are proclaiming the Restored Gospel, which sets a high bar in terms of our words and actions. It is not surprising that we occasionally fail to live up to that bar, or that there are misunderstandings about it. 19 hours ago, MorningStar said: I explained a bit about how there were church members who assumed the prohibition against tea and coffee was about caffeine, but it was about those specific "hot drinks". She asked if I have iced coffee. No, I don't. I avoid all coffee and anything with tea leaves. It can't just be about the temperature of the drink or else we wouldn't have hot chocolate or soup. The counsel given about the interpretation of "hot drinks" has long been that it is a reference to coffee and tea. Thanks, -Smac 2
snowflake Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 19 hours ago, MorningStar said: I have a new friend who can be rather opinionated at times and I walked away feeling really irritated the other night. I don't mind when people have misconceptions about our beliefs, but when I try to explain and they insist that they are right, that drives me nuts! She made this comment that I didn't 100% follow my religion because I eat chocolate. I said, "We can eat chocolate." "No, because of caffeine." "We can have caffeine." "You're not supposed to have mind altering drugs." "Caffeine isn't a mind altering drug." "Yes it is." Would you all consider caffeine a mind altering drug? What the heck. So bizarre when people try to hold us to a higher standard than the church expects of us. Ugh. I explained a bit about how there were church members who assumed the prohibition against tea and coffee was about caffeine, but it was about those specific "hot drinks". She asked if I have iced coffee. No, I don't. I avoid all coffee and anything with tea leaves. It can't just be about the temperature of the drink or else we wouldn't have hot chocolate or soup. What is the Church's take on these terms? 1. "Strong drink" 2. "Mild drink" 3. "Hot drink" D&C 89 is incredibly clear on what you should and shouldn't be eating and drinking, why such a large disparity from the current LDS teachings? 1
BlueDreams Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) 14 hours ago, sunstoned said: This is true. Caffeine has come up in Mormon folklore as a way to justify the ban on the morning beverages of Coffee and Tea. Of course caffeine is a common ingredient of both. But it is also found in over the counter medicines, chocolate, and soft drinks. When you read the revelation on the word of wisdom, caffeine is not mentioned, but then again neither is coffee or tea. If you believe the D&C is inspired, then the word of wisdom is not given as a commandment. That came much later by a Prohibition era prophet who had an agenda. He could not provide a revelation to counter the original D&C revelation. So, we are stuck with elevating certain parts of the Word of Wisdom (coffee, tea, strong drinks, and mild drinks of barley (beer) ) to commandment status, and the rest of it (eat meat sparely, etc.) we just forget about. Hey now, speak for yourself. WoW is my jam....blueberry low in sugar and other preservatives jam. Seriously, I follow all of it pretty freaking well. What I've noticed is that people focus on it more the more they have space and privilege to think about it. And it is a privilege to eat like I do in the current US culture around found and in many modernized nations around. I don't think it's fair to describe it as forgotten. And I'm a-okay that the more obvious no-no's being made commandment and part of our covenants. In my short read of the history, it fits a general trend that was happening in the church overall of working to live the WoW more and more in practice. And on a pragmatic level, it's not exactly causing harm to avoid alcohol, tobacco, etc. 10 hours ago, Marginal Gains said: The confusion with the word of wisdom, it seems to me, stems from modern Prophets trying to reinterpret or clarify the actual revelation. The focus is on tea/ coffee, tobacco and alcohol, but it is so much more than that, and most of it is ignored. Mormons living the word of wisdom should be largely vegetarian and not morbidly obese (as a result of overeating). Not living that part of the word of wisdom is a much bigger health risk than debating the pros and cons of caffeine. You're missing the point of the OP. It wasn't a mormon fretting about caffeine, it was a non-mormon judging caffeine intake by a mormon. I don't think there's that much confusion about the WoW. But to both you and sunstone, I think there's a fairly simple reason why the "focus" is on tea/coffee, tobacco, alcohol, and such. Simply that they really easy to remove from one's diet. You don't need any of these to live and be healthy, so it's simply about removing them from one's life. But the other half of the WoW is more difficult and in some places near impossible to live (think food deserts) it's also more up to personal interpretation and may need to be individualized based off of food allergies and intolerances. In our modern society that can be particularly difficult due to both time and access. The meat part is a little more complicated than straight forward vegetarianism (though I am one). It's closer to sustainable meat practices that limits meat consumption to actual necessity than desire (don't need it....ergo vegetarian)...it includes other sections that specifically command you not to forbade others from eating meat. The problem I see with the other half - even though I am one who is pretty strict in following it (on basically a whole foods plant-based lifestyle with minimum amounts of eggs, cheese, and milk...with those being largely from organic or sustainable farming practices....I'm a food nazi) - is that it's circumstantial, open to interpretation, may inadvertently favor the privileged, could lead us to a more Pharisaical approach to the WoW. That part works better with flexibility. This doesn't mean we couldn't afford a dietary revolution in and outside the church. But that's easier said than done. Abstaining is generally easier than replacing, reeducating, and in some ways re-living. With luv, BD Edited September 12, 2017 by BlueDreams 2
BlueDreams Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: P.S.: Anybody think it's simply a coincidence that there's a parallel between the Word of Wisdom as revealed and a key spot in the Endowment Ceremony? Nope. Several of the scriptures speaking of WoW, Tithing, sabbath day worship, etc are specifically tied to the blessings promised in the temple. And there's probably a reason many of these are also part of our recommend questions/covenants now. With luv, BD 2
clarkgoble Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, Freedom said: Chocolate, by the way, does not have caffeine. It has theobromine. It actually has caffeine too. Not a huge amount, but enough to be significant. Edited September 12, 2017 by clarkgoble
thesometimesaint Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 Chocolate has a very small amount of caffeine. Most people don't find it medically significant in its effects. SEE http://www.caffeine-content.com/caffeine-in-chocolate/caffeine-content-in-chocolate/
mnn727 Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) On 9/11/2017 at 0:07 PM, MorningStar said: Would you all consider caffeine a mind altering drug? Based on the severity and length of the headaches I got when I was going off caffeine, I would say yes. However that is NOT the reason for us obeying the WoW and the WoW says nothing about caffeine or mind altering drugs. Edited September 12, 2017 by mnn727 1
cinepro Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 4 hours ago, snowflake said: What is the Church's take on these terms? 1. "Strong drink" 2. "Mild drink" 3. "Hot drink" D&C 89 is incredibly clear on what you should and shouldn't be eating and drinking, why such a large disparity from the current LDS teachings? This is a pretty good article about the context in which the Word of Wisdom was received, and how those terms were originally understood: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V14N03_48.pdf 1
Daniel2 Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 On 9/11/2017 at 11:34 AM, thesometimesaint said: I've always found it discourteous to tell others what they believe. Then condemn them when they don't believe it. Well said. Here's what I would have said, back in my active LDS days: "We support the words of our prophets, who have advise us that 'hot drinks' specifically mean coffee and tea. Many members make assumptions about why God may have specifically prohibited those items, but the truth is it's not something our church has officially commented on. Sometimes, we know the reasons for following God's commandments, and sometimes, we may not. Even if God's commandments are sometimes to test our faith. For me, this is a small thing to sacrifice, especially since I believe God has asked it of me. And since it doesn't really affect anyone else, I'm happy to avoid those drinks, regardless of whether or not others choose to."
jkwilliams Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 5 minutes ago, cinepro said: This is a pretty good article about the context in which the Word of Wisdom was received, and how those terms were originally understood: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V14N03_48.pdf Thanks for posting this. Interesting read.
thatjimguy Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 ** Broken record alert. ** A lot of our problem with understanding the describing the Word of Wisdom comes from a lack of knowing how the Holy Spirit guides us. Hardcore drugs aren't on the list, but we avoid it. Energy Drinks aren't on the list, but we have been warned about them and they have TONS more caffeine than coffee (starbucks exception) We more we try to put anything in hard and fast rules, the more we don't use our minds, and the Holy Spirit, to guide us.
Rock_N_Roll Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 38 minutes ago, thatjimguy said: Energy Drinks aren't on the list, but we have been warned about them and they have TONS more caffeine than coffee (starbucks exception) Are you sure about that? From a quick google I see 8oz. Coffee = 95mg of caffeine. 16oz. Rockstar = 160 mg. of caffeine. So, 16oz. coffee = 190mg. Of course energy drinks have a whole lot more sugar! https://www.caffeineinformer.com/the-coffee-and-energy-drink-double-standard 1
jkwilliams Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 4 minutes ago, Rock_N_Roll said: Are you sure about that? From a quick google I see 8oz. Coffee = 95mg of caffeine. 16oz. Rockstar = 160 mg. of caffeine. So, 16oz. coffee = 190mg. Of course energy drinks have a whole lot more sugar! https://www.caffeineinformer.com/the-coffee-and-energy-drink-double-standard Coffee tastes a lot better than energy drinks, IMO.
Recommended Posts