Talk:Cupuaçu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cupuaçu is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Querie

does cocoa acually have caffine? and is it harm ful?Oxinabox1 11:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Cacao has more theobromine (a related chemical) than caffeine, but yes, it does have caffeine too. It's pretty far down on the list of the most harmful things, at least when taken in moderation. —Keenan Pepper 04:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theacrine?

These Portuguese guys say Cupuaçu contains 1,3,7,9-tetramethyluric acid (which other sources say is called theacrine) instead of caffeine. The question is whether theacrine is more or less healthy than caffeine. Anyone? —Keenan Pepper 05:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cupuacu phytochemicals

Comparing cupuacu pulp with cocoa makes no sense. Cupuacu's "cocoa" would be made from processed roasted seeds NOT the pulp.

T. cacao's economically important product is the seed and cocoa (which is made from the seed being fermented, roasted, and treated). Cacao's pulp is tasty (sweet / sour with none of the rich flavors of cupuacu's pulp) but is often wasted (too bad, it like the pods (which could be used for food grade thickners) could be used to generate extra income for the cacao farmers.

Cupuacu is almost the opposite. The big breadwinner (so far) is the pulp. It is like cacao's pulp (with sweetness and sourness) except it also has a lot of rich flavors (earthy aromatics reminiscent of vanilla or rum extract). The pulp is used (unprocessed) as a flavoring agent and is VERY tasty (note wild varieties can have pulp that is way too sour to eat straight... but that's just as well because the pulp has a lot of flavor and eating it straight is a waste).

T. grandiflora "chocolate" or "cocoa" will undoubtedly have caffiene in it as well as the other xanthines such as theobromine. The amounts and ratios are probably different from cacao but I'd be surprised if they vary considerably. In cocoa the xanthines tend to be in much higher concentration than caffiene. In humans xanthines act as very mild versions of caffiene (they are basically alkylated (usually methyl I think) versions of caffiene) each alkylation tends to reduce the physological effects by an order of magnitude (in humans). In dogs and cats (however) xanthines are still very poisionous (as is caffiene for them, unlike the gentle stimulant it is for us). Caffiene and xanthines are produced by plants as natural anti-browsing agents (to kill, make sick, or deter browsers (they taste bitter to creatures like us that can tollerate them)).

The other chemical mentioned as being in the pulp (in your article) damages chromosomes... that's a lot worse than caffiene. Of course, insignificant doses give insignificant effects especially for humans which have mechanisms like cytochrome P451 for detoxifying plant based toxins (cats and dog's don't have this which is part of the reason that cocoa/chocolate does major organ damage to them). The pulp of cupuassu is probably "healthier" than cocoa but cupuassu "chocolate" or "cocoa" won't be made from the pulp but from the processed seeds (which will probably have a very similar phytochemistry to cocoa). 192.80.55.74 18:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)