What's your favorite fruit?

[Lord Daddy Lombrosis]

You overreacted to a throwaway comment.

You advocated pseudoscience, and I corrected you.

That is not accurate. It was a hypothesis based on my own medical history and the contents of grapefruit juice. I did not propose a theory of food cravings, nor did I advocate that anyone make similar conjectures because I don't know their situations. I am not addicted to anything, so that doesn't apply.. For all you or anyone knows, I'm an outlier and there is something in my diet that grapefruit replenishes. It could be the cortisol. These specific connections may be impossible to establish by physicians. We're both guilty of speculation.

Don't make ignorant throwaway comments if you don't really believe them and don't want to be corrected.

You seemed to be serious. If somebody said something like that homosexuality was contagious, I would similarly correct them.

Don't say stupid things, and you won't risk being called out on them.

I'm happy to be corrected, but you like to set up strawmen and make presumptuous statements about me. For instance, you think I was putting forth a scientific theory of food cravings when my conjecture was about my own medical history and what I know about grapefruit.

Your pedantic, long-winded reply made it seem as though I was at risk of addiction.

No, I explained that cravings are related to addiction, and not actual need. It's a spectrum, of course, and grapefruit is not a hard drug, so the risk isn't extreme, and the dangers aren't either (even if you were addicted to grapefruit, it wouldn't be a big deal). It's only important that you understand that your body doesn't provide you with magical intuition into your nutritional needs and what will fulfill them. Cravings are based on very different factors, both physiological and psychological.

That's not always true though. There are people with an underlying condition that causes cravings for sodium-rich foods (I know one personally).

I've never had an addiction to a substance so I don't fall into that class.

Then you responded in an even more brusque, condescending manner and accused me (apparently in earnest) of being arrogant!

You were being arrogant. You were making very bold assertions without any evidence. Arrogance itself isn't necessarily a bad thing (it can be good), but not when combined with ignorance. Arrogance and ignorance together are idiocy, and that's what you were expressing.

Ignorance is perfectly forgivable if it comes with a bit of humility, which is what you needed.

Hilarious.

No sane person would read your responses and think you were humble and polite.

My first comment was relatively polite, as I said. Compare to my second, and my average comment. I was being nice to you because you were new.

Who said I was humble? I see little value in being unnecessarily humble when confronting pseudoscience.

You can call science arrogant if you want; it has every right to be, because it is correct.

Why do you depersonalize your conduct here? Science doesn't call people assholes, people do. I was arguing with a hysterical person. You make it sound like a clash of ideas in the abstract (science vs pseudoscience) when one of us became very abusive and emotive.

My hunch was based on the properties of grapefruit not just on the cravings.

The properties are unrelated to your cravings, but coincidence.

You saw a correlation, and made a false assertion of causation.

How do you know it's false? It hasn't been tested. It may not be possible to verify whether the correlation is causative or coincidental. Its status as of now is unverified. At this point we're both making overconfident assertions.

You should have just said you've been craving grapefruit, but that may be a good thing because as a coincidence it happens to be a decent treatment for low cortisol, which you suffer from.

Not that craving is an evidence of it possessing something you need, which it is not. It's called a coincidence.

Let's say I trip and fall on the ground, but while I'm down there I find a key I lost. Must I have tripped because I needed to find that key and my body mysteriously knew it was down there and made me trip to show me? NO. That's absurd. It was a coincidence. Your claim about cravings indicating nutritional needs was even more absurd.

Must is too strong of a word. It was a hypothesis, but I made it in a careless throwaway manner. It's possibly due to a deficiency.

I've never craved other sugary foods. If it was sugar my body wanted then why didn't I crave soda pop and candy bars?

No, because it has nothing to do with your body wanting sugar. Your body doesn't want things, your mind does, based on the feelings it gives you. Grapefruit gives you a dopamine rush for a number of reasons. Sugar is one, but so is the aromatic component, and the combination of bitter and sweet taste, which triggers a region in your brain associated with sense memory and tells you this is pleasurable -- it may also be tied in with emotions, such as childhood experiences with grapefruit juice at grandma's house, and an association with familial love, and any number of feelings which you may not even be fully aware of.

Cravings are complicated, but there's no statistically relevant correlation between the foods being craved and nutritional deficiencies.

Even in the case of iron deficiency pica, which has a correlation between a deficiency and a general class of cravings, the subjects may end up eating ice -- which contains little to no iron.

As I said, I've never been addicted to a substance and the cravings can be satisfied by sugar free juice. I have no fond memories of drinking grapefruit juice (that I'm aware of). That is just as speculative as my conjecture that the cravings are based on a deficiency. How would a scientist verify that a test subject's cravings are linked to childhood memories? It seems that the subjects would have to be prompted by suggestion. That could trigger false or distorted memories. Even if the person had such experiences, the researcher has no way of verifying it. They must have faith in the subject's ability to recall childhood events. If the memories are veridical, then you're in the same boat as me wrt inferring cause from correlation. How would the scientist demonstrate that the memories are causing the cravings? It's not the kind of mechanistic cause that physical scientists observe in experimental settings. That seems closer to a pseudoscience than anything I've said.

Some food cravings are based on dietary needs.

No, they aren't. Do you understand the concept of science? Of controlled studies? Of statistical significance? No, you don't. Stop making such ignorant and arrogant assertions.

If you want to claim that, then back it up with peer reviewed evidence, not by pulling anecdotes out of your ass, which can "prove" anything.

Like that tripping and falling on the ground is often based on physical need, like finding keys, or dodging bullets that one didn't know about. Plenty of examples of those kinds of things too.

"A classical clinical manifestation of Addison's disease is a bronze coloration of the skin resembling a deep suntan, especially in the creases of the hands, elbows and knees. There may be some areas of vitiligo. The client may complain of fatigue, muscle weakness, lightheadedness upon rising, weight loss and craving for salty foods."

https://books.google.com/books?id=xutEV ... ood&f=true

I know a man who has this condition. He has high urinary sodium levels. In this case, there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between his cravings and a dietary (mineral) deficiency.

I know an older man who gets cravings for sodium rich food because he excretes so much of it.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Read this and stop being a tool.

What is your point? I said that some food cravings are based on dietary deficiencies. His ailment is an example of food cravings based on dietary deficiencies.

But maybe you're right. Maybe it's all in my head and the inference I made was baseless.

Not maybe, probably.

How can you say probably if most cravings are based on addiction and I don't fall into the class of addicts?

I still don't see why that calls for a hysterical lecture on the dangers of addiction unless you assume that I think that grapefruit juice cravings are analogous to food cravings generally.

There's your misogyny again.

It wasn't a lecture on addiction, it was a lecture on you being an idiot and advocating pseudoscience.

Misogyny?

The addiction part was explaining how cravings work, in part, and based on another baseless assertion you made.

Go snort crack if you want, I'm not here to warn you about addiction (grapefruit being of least concern), I'm here to criticize your bad science, and ignorant assertions, so nobody else reads them and thinks that kind of behavior is acceptable.

I wasn't putting forward a scientific theory of food cravings.

Rest assured, if I suddenly developed strong cravings for lard and Coca-Cola, I wouldn't go out and indulge myself. But thanks for your concern. I can see why a gentle soul like yourself wouldn't hurt animals....

Like I said, I don't care if you in particular snort crack because you crave it. Give into your cravings if you're weak like that, it's not really my problem.

What I do care about is people going around and arrogantly spouting pseudoscience, which could mislead other people.

My statement was not posturing as a science. Surely most people could figure that out.

I don't kill animals either (not directly, at least).

What a bullshit cop-out. You pay somebody else to do it for you. So if I pay somebody to kill you, my hands are clean, right? I haven't killed you?

Nonsense. If course I've killed you; I was the only reason you were killed. My order and payment set the whole thing into motion, and resulted in your death to satisfy my wants.

Read the bold, especially the underlined word. More strawmen.

If you're looking for something 'un-manly', shirking responsibility for things you do and pretending your pure little hands are clean of any wrongdoing because you had somebody else do it for you to protect your delicate sentiments is probably up there.

I can and have killed plenty of animals with my own hands; it's not a manly thing to do. I do recognize my culpability, and don't try to offload my wrongdoings onto others.

This is question begging because it assumes wrongdoing for eating meat. Your first statement is presumptuous. I could just as easily say about you that your vegan diet is really a way to express your narcissism (to feel morally superior to other people).

It's effeminate to think you can "empathize" with animals because they are sentient and feel pain.

You don't need to empathize. If you even think you can fully empathize with another human being, you're an idiot. Obviously everybody is different, and experiences the world in slightly different ways. That doesn't mean we should turn to solipsism and deny the reality of their suffering.

You don't need to empathize with anybody, you just have to recognize the suffering as wrong in some sense, accept your responsibility, and endeavor to lessen it for rational reasons in attempt to be morally consistent.

I agree that you don't need to empathize with others to understand why something is wrong. Empathy is not a moral principle. However, this was TVA's justification for avoiding meat which is why I raised it. He talks about empathizing with the suffering of other sentient creatures. That is foolhardy because their mental life is different than ours. They experience suffering differently than humans. I could recognize animal suffering as wrong "in some sense," but that sense might not warrant the elimination of meat from my diet.

Maybe I'm wrong and you guys have evidence that farm animal cognition is the same as human cognition, even though cattle sounds don't have a syntax. But then the development of language to express abstract concepts in the human species is a wild coincidence.

Human language is not a coincidence, but every human speaks a slightly different language, and many languages are mutually unintelligible. Humans who speak radically different languages also THINK differently. Language does affect cognition, and you'll see differences among humans too, to that end.
It doesn't affect the capacity to feel the most primordial forms for pain and suffering, which are felt by humans without language (there are some) and non-human animals alike.
More "advanced" concepts can be understood with language; including by apes who are taught the abstract symbols of sign language (their behavior is radically different from those without language), and social species of animals who have more advanced languages (like cetaceans and Elephants), and this may correlate with some forms of existential angst. It's really trivial, though, to the magnitude of suffering.

No animal has been able to understand the syntax of a human language. Apes can't put the syntax of a sign language together to communicate anything meaningful. Herbet Terrance demonstrated this in the 70s. His ape was only able to form word salads about eating oranges. Why is this? Obviously, because their mental life is radically different than ours. Their cries are directed toward present desires (to mate and whatnot), not toward what may happen in the future.

You must be insane to believe that the majority of human suffering has to do with high level existential philosophy, because the vast majority of people have no grasp on those notions, and of those who do, that only makes up their suffering because they're so extremely comfortable in every other way as to have the luxury to suffer thusly. In most cases, language actually reduces suffering, by increasing understanding which reduces fear, and providing coping mechanisms such as rationalization (look at religion).

Humans in concentration camps didn't experience great existential suffering; they didn't have the luxury to. When you're in that state, and I gather you've been fat and happy your whole life and never gone without food and never been too cold to think, your brain isn't churning with the machinations of advanced language and high level concepts. You are reduced to the most primitive animal state of yearning and survival. In this sense, the suffering is as identical as anybody who isn't a solipsist could ask for.

How is someone in a predicament where they face hypothermia and starvation analogous to the conditions of livestock in the supply chain of meat production? The kind of starvation that drives people to cannibalism is something animals in the wild are more likely to face than farm animals. How does that help me understand why eating meat is wrong?

"High level philosophy" is a strawman. The memoirs of Primo Levi aren't high level philosophy. The concepts of loss, hopelessness, foreboding are what people experience in these conditions. There were people in forced labor camps who starved to death, but again, that's not analogous to what animals go through on a ranch. It's what wild creatures go through in their habitat.

Go find somebody to waterboard you. Experience something genuinely unpleasant for once in your life, then come and tell me how advanced language allowed you to understand that suffering while it was ongoing.

It's illegal for ranchers to torture their livestock. This is another false analogy, and it tells me you're not serious about veganism. Veganism is some kind of narcissistic high for you.

[EquALLity]

It's illegal for ranchers to torture their livestock

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibuQ-J04eLQ
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/us/ta ... d=all&_r=0
https://www.aspca.org/fight-cruelty/adv ... tate-level

[brimstoneSalad]

That is not accurate. It was a hypothesis based on my own medical history and the contents of grapefruit juice.

It was not a hypothesis when you asserted it.

You seem at least to recognize that now:

Must is too strong of a word. It was a hypothesis, but I made it in a careless throwaway manner. It's possibly due to a deficiency.

There you go.

How do you know it's false? It hasn't been tested. It may not be possible to verify whether the correlation is causative or coincidental. Its status as of now is unverified. At this point we're both making overconfident assertions.

As to my refutation, read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

They are unrelated until you demonstrate they are. This is where we get the overwhelming probability that your conjecture is wrong. It is not an equal thing to assert something and to deny that assertion.

God doesn't exist either. Provide evidence that it does if you want to claim otherwise. The two claims are not equal.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

While I have already gone into some detail backing up my refutation, I'll break it down more for you (or, anybody who is reading more likely):

That's not always true though. There are people with an underlying condition that causes cravings for sodium-rich foods (I know one personally).

I don't care if you know one personally, that's called an anecdote, and it's useless. I care about clinical evidence.

The claim regarding salt cravings is actually much more plausible, because there could be genetic/instinctual components to that. When we look at deer, for example, we know that they are attracted to salt licks, and manage their own internal sodium levels that way; through cravings for salt. This is essentially related to pica, and involves a craving which is for a non-food mineral item that occurs very widely in nature, and is tied not to learned experience associations (like smell), but to a fundamental taste (saltiness).

"A classical clinical manifestation of Addison's disease is a bronze coloration of the skin resembling a deep suntan, especially in the creases of the hands, elbows and knees. There may be some areas of vitiligo. The client may complain of fatigue, muscle weakness, lightheadedness upon rising, weight loss and craving for salty foods."

https://books.google.com/books?id=xutEV ... ood&f=true

That's what you should have said in the first reply. It doesn't matter if you know him. This isn't an anecdote.

It's like the difference between:

"I once saw a deer lick some salt, they must crave it because they need it."
and:
"Deer are known by behaviorists to lick salt, and manage their own salt levels through cravings when they need salt"

You should have said something like "I overstated my certainty on that matter, what I meant that it is a possibility, and it's just a hypothesis. I can't prove it. But there are cases where people with deficiencies have cravings for things like this:"

I appreciate that you've finally cited something, so thanks for that. You're learning.

It's not a very good comparison, however, because "grapefruit" is a much more specific kind of craving that wouldn't be written into your DNA like salt may conceivably be.
Much like how iron deficiency may cause certain kinds of pica (but is really just a crude tendency to eat non-food things that are in the environment haphazardly). These very general tendencies are more likely than incredibly specific intuition-based self medication.

I've never had an addiction to a substance so I don't fall into that class.

That's irrelevant, and makes me think you're still missing my point.

Addiction is about learned dependency, which creates cravings.

Here's how it would work for you, if it worked:

Your body is low in cortisol, you feel crappy.

You drink some grapefruit juice without having a craving (because you haven't learned it yet), and you feel better.

You feel bad again, not drinking grapefruit juice. You haven't learned the association yet, because it takes more than one exposure to do that.

You drink grapefruit juice again by chance, you feel better again.

Do this a few more times, and you learn to subconsciously associate grapefruit juice with feeling better, and no grapefruit juice with feeling crappy.
You begin to crave grapefruit juice on those grounds, without fully realizing why.

It's a lesser form of a strong addiction (which would be more irresistible, and more obvious). Addiction/dependency is a spectrum.

The reason I don't think this is the case with grapefruit juice is that it takes a couple hours for it to kick in, and it's hard to learn to associate something when it has that long of a delay before it takes effect.
If it was a more immediate hit, you're develop cravings for it very quickly (like sugar).

This is the issue with most claimed nutritional based cravings; they're all too slow to develop that kind of learned response. If something makes you feel better right away, that's a real possibility.

The only true nutritional based cravings that exist, thus, are probably instinctual, and hire-wired, which means they are very, very general cravings; water, food (generally, not anything specific) based on primary tastes, environmental minerals (salty, iron possibly). But these cravings don't mean a deficiency specifically for what is being craved; they're incredibly crude, and can be satisfied by many things that don't satisfy the nutritional deficiency (as I said, like iron deficiency pica sufferers eating ice).

We also crave a variety of food; not because we need that variety specifically, but because eating a variety in the wild is more likely to satisfy nutritional needs.
You could be eating a perfectly nutritionally satisfying gruel, but you'd still crave variety because of that. It's not causatively linked to any one person's deficiency, but to general tendencies in nature.

Do you understand now, why it's very unlikely that your cravings for grapefruit are linked to your problem?

Like I said, it's possible through the addiction/learned physiological dependency mechanism, but not likely.
The idea of "low cortisol, eat grapefruit!" being programmed into human DNA is absurd. I hope you understand why that is, and the same is not the case for salt or iron (which we have specific taste receptors for).

Science doesn't call people assholes, people do.

Yes, because you were being an asshole.

And you still are:

I was arguing with a hysterical person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteria

Read some of my other posts, this is how I write. It's a matter of rhetorical form, which expresses a neutral near indifferent state for me, not a malfunctioning uterus that causes me to be over-emotional.

That is just as speculative as my conjecture that the cravings are based on a deficiency. How would a scientist verify that a test subject's cravings are linked to childhood memories?

And it was presented as speculative. Childhood experiences form the basis for our food preferences, this is not speculative, and that is to which I was referring. It may or may not be the dominant force in your case; that was the speculation.

It seems that the subjects would have to be prompted by suggestion. That could trigger false or distorted memories. Even if the person had such experiences, the researcher has no way of verifying it. They must have faith in the subject's ability to recall childhood events.

You don't ask people those things, you observe family and cultural food traditions being passed on through upbringing. You can also use FMRI to scan people's brains while they're eating, or smelling something, and see that that sense memory is tied strongly to emotional experience (regions of the brain).

My statement was not posturing as a science. Surely most people could figure that out.

The statement was phrased as an assertion, not a "maybe". You recognized that. Most people can figure that out? I don't believe that. People aren't that intuitive. When scientists very clearly say "maybe", journalists splash it on the headline as a fact. Your average Joe isn't much more discerning.

Read the bold, especially the underlined word. More strawmen.

"I didn't directly kill all of those people, the axe killed them, I just held the axe and swung it around."
"No, I didn't directly strangle those people, my hands did that, I just sent the signal to the muscles in my hands to contract."

There is a direct line of cause and effect from your intention to the action.

Now, if the action was only possible, and not intended, that would be another matter.
E.g. indirectly killed somebody through careless action.

If it were murder to kill animals, no court would find you not guilty because you paid somebody else to do it for you.

This is question begging because it assumes wrongdoing for eating meat.

False, for animal suffering, which you admit to here:

I could recognize animal suffering as wrong "in some sense," but that sense might not warrant the elimination of meat from my diet.

I don't agree with The Vegan Atheist on ethics; he leans a little deontological (I and a couple other forum members are working on correcting him on that point).

Whether meat itself is wrong is based on the sum of all good and all bad that are part of the process.

That's irrelevant to the fact that animal suffering is wrong, and you are culpable for that.

I cause suffering, and I recognize that fact. I try to make up for it, and as a whole be a better person than I am a bad one. But I'm still guilty of causing that suffering, even when I do it in self-defense or for a good cause; it's just a question of whether that wrongness is justified by other factors.

My problem with your statements is your attempt to offload that blame rather than owning up to it.

If you want to say: "Yes, harming animals is wrong, but meat does more good that outweighs that wrong" then it's a different subject, but you are at least no longer dismissing the wrong. That allows a reasonable discussion that weighs the good against the bad, and looks at which side wins out overall.

The Vegan Atheist tends to assert if there's any wrong at all in the mix, the whole thing is wrong. Most of us do not agree with that position, but are consequentialists.

I could just as easily say about you that your vegan diet is really a way to express your narcissism (to feel morally superior to other people).

This would speak to the reasons for doing something, and not whether that thing in itself is more harmful or helpful to the world in general -- not to whether that thing is good or bad.

Something good done for selfish reasons is still good (like for narcissism, or health).
Something bad done for selfless reasons is still bad (like cleansing the fatherland of Jews, or persecuting homosexuals for Jesus).

The question of personal moral culpability is a complicated one that The Vegan Atheist doesn't fully understand yet. I like to think he's getting there, but he hasn't talked about it much recently since he's been busy.

He talks about empathizing with the suffering of other sentient creatures. That is foolhardy because their mental life is different than ours. They experience suffering differently than humans.

Like I said, though, it's also idiocy to think you can ever fully empathize with another human being. Everybody is different, and you can never fully understand another's emotional state or situation.

This can either lead you to solipsism, or you can just make your best effort to empathize, knowing you'll only achieve a very approximate understanding.

We can not fully understand what another human is feeling, but if we try, we can come close. We can't fully understand what a cow is feeling, but we can get in the ballpark. How about what a fish is feeling? We can maybe get in the right solar system. An insect? In the right galaxy.

We have evidence from FMRI and other highly objective tools examining animal cognition of the similarities of thoughts and experiences across species, genus, etc. They become more different and harder to compare as you drift farther away, but for the most primitive emotions the similarities are most striking -- and these primitive emotions happen to be the strongest when it comes to suffering.

No animal has been able to understand the syntax of a human language. Apes can't put the syntax of a sign language together to communicate anything meaningful. Herbet Terrance demonstrated this in the 70s. His ape was only able to form word salads about eating oranges. Why is this? Obviously, because their mental life is radically different than ours. Their cries are directed toward present desires (to mate and whatnot), not toward what may happen in the future.

You understate Ape cognition, but while you're right that there is less concern for the future in most other species, the majority of suffering occurs in the present. This is also, by the way, the case for children as it is for non-human animals.

How is someone in a predicament where they face hypothermia and starvation analogous to the conditions of livestock in the supply chain of meat production?

It's mindless fear and suffering that we're talking about, and it's that suffering we can compare. We don't have to postulate that the animals are experiencing trepidation over the unknown future or impending slaughter to understand they share the most basic and primitive forms of suffering, and experience those.

Non-human animals do think on the short term future, though. So, you really need to catch up on animal cognition because the gulf is not quite as vast as you paint it to be.

It's illegal for ranchers to torture their livestock.

Waterboarding isn't technically torture, it's not painful. It's a state of "mindless" panic, which is what animals experience when entering unknown situations, smelling certain things, etc. And it's pretty much the least pleasant experience you'd ever have.

The greatest suffering occurs when we are denied our mental faculties to deal with it.

It's just as likely that non-human animals suffer more, because they lack the understanding, coping mechanisms, and rationalizations that humans use to protect themselves.

This is another false analogy, and it tells me you're not serious about veganism. Veganism is some kind of narcissistic high for you.

It's not a false analogy, I'm trying to explain mindless panic.

And no, debating is a narcissistic high. I'd be smacking down moronic theists otherwise. The internet is a target rich environment for idiocy. Veganism is not something that provides me a special opportunity. It's something I do because it's morally consistent.

Tearing apart theists' argument is actually easier to reach a 'win' state from, and sometimes more fulfilling. So, by arguing against carnists, I make a personal sacrifice (the opportunity cost of the more fun and less invested tearing down of theists arguments). I argue this instead of that, because this may convince some people to eat less meat, and arguing against theists really doesn't help the world much when they become atheists.

Anyway, it's rare to find a true ad hominem (most people mistake it with insults), but it seems you just made one:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

[PiggyOfDoom]

Strawberries with sugar, apples with caramel, bananas with peanut butter (not exactly vegan.. but, yeah..), oranges with chocolate.. what's not to love?

[brimstoneSalad]

Strawberries with sugar, apples with caramel, bananas with peanut butter (not exactly vegan.. but, yeah..), oranges with chocolate.. what's not to love?

Peanut butter is vegan, it's made from peanuts that have been ground up into a paste. Dark chocolate is usually vegan; milk chocolate of course contains milk. Although there are milk chocolates made from plant milk.

[Indigo Monkey]

Papaya with Lime juice - "orgasmic"

[PiggyOfDoom]

Peanut butter is vegan, it's made from peanuts that have been ground up into a paste. Dark chocolate is usually vegan; milk chocolate of course contains milk. Although there are milk chocolates made from plant milk.

I rarely actually eat milk and white chocolate, I always found it too sweet and it's mostly just a bar of milk and sugar. (Atleast to me)

[brimstoneSalad]

I rarely actually eat milk and white chocolate, I always found it too sweet and it's mostly just a bar of milk and sugar. (Atleast to me)

I agree, and of course the dark stuff is much healthier too. Cocoa powder (without the fat and sugar), is actually super healthy. Ever tried dipping fruit in cocoa powder? It's something of a superfood.

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/healthi ... olate-fix/

[PiggyOfDoom]

Ever tried dipping fruit in cocoa powder? It's something of a superfood.

I never tried that. Will do in the future, thanks for the advice.

[codyedwardwilliams]

Almost all fruits are tasty and good, but apples are the best.