Chocolate and Your Brain, Drug, Treat, or Health Food?

Jesse Chesp opens this chocolate discussion with a vibe many people recognize: she loves chocolate, she eats it, and she still wants the science to be honest.

That framing matters. Instead of trying to “detox” you from chocolate with fear, the episode treats chocolate as a spectrum, from ground cacao beans to highly sweetened candy. The question is not whether chocolate is “good” or “bad”. The question is what your brain and body are actually responding to.

A biochemist’s chocolate dilemma: drug, treat, or “health food”?

The central tension is simple: chocolate is marketed like a wellness food, eaten like a comfort drug, and processed like candy.

In this perspective, chocolate is not automatically a “health food” just because cacao contains antioxidants. Once sugar and milk are added, you are no longer eating something close to the original cacao bean. You are eating a product engineered to be pleasurable, and pleasure is not the same thing as health.

One of the more grounding points in the episode is that chocolate is allowed to be “just tasty.” You do not need a medical excuse to enjoy it. But if you are eating it for health benefits, it helps to know what part of chocolate could plausibly offer those benefits, and what part is mainly there to drive reward and cravings.

A small but telling detail is the Latin name for the cacao tree, Theobroma cacao, which is often translated as “food of the gods.” That cultural halo can make it easy to assume cacao is medicinal. The episode repeatedly pulls the conversation back to chemistry and dose.

Did you know? The episode notes that average chocolate intake is about 1 kilogram (around 2 pounds) per person per year, roughly 10 bars annually. That number can feel surprisingly low if chocolate is a daily habit.

From cacao fruit to candy bar: what “% cacao” really means

Chocolate starts as a fruit. Inside are cacao beans that are extracted, dried, fermented, and roasted. Once ground, the beans become cacao solids (often thought of as cacao powder) plus cacao fat (cacao butter).

Here is the key definition used throughout the episode: 100% cacao chocolate is essentially just the cacao bean components (solids plus cacao butter) formed into a bar. No sugar. No milk. No flavoring.

And it is intensely bitter.

That bitterness is not a moral failing, it is chemistry. Many people simply will not eat 100% cacao in meaningful amounts, which becomes relevant when people talk about cacao’s antioxidants as if everyone is consuming them at therapeutic doses.

Why food makers add “the other stuff”

To make chocolate widely appealing, manufacturers dilute the cacao with ingredients like sugar, milk, and vanilla.

A useful analogy from the episode compares tomatoes vs ketchup. Ketchup started as tomatoes, but it is not nutritionally identical to tomatoes because of what gets added. Chocolate behaves similarly: once you add enough sugar and milk, you cannot assume it carries the same benefits as the original bean.

Glucose spikes: why white and milk chocolate hit differently

This episode sits in a glucose-focused niche, so it repeatedly ties chocolate choices back to blood sugar response.

The framework is straightforward: the glucose spike from chocolate mostly reflects how much sugar is added.

This is one of the most practical takeaways: if you are choosing chocolate for “health,” the cacao percentage is not just a taste preference. It is a rough proxy for how much sugar you are eating.

Pro Tip: If you are trying to reduce cravings and glucose swings, treat chocolate like dessert. Pairing it after a balanced meal is often easier on your glucose response than eating it alone as a snack.

A subtle but important implication is that two people can say “I eat chocolate every day” and have completely different metabolic experiences depending on whether they mean 85% cacao squares or a sweetened bar.

Flavonoids and antioxidants: the main reason cacao gets a health halo

The episode’s “hero molecule” is the flavonoid, described as an antioxidant.

Antioxidants are explained using a vivid, lay-friendly model: free radicals are reactive molecules that can damage cells and DNA, and antioxidants can neutralize them. Your body can handle some free radicals naturally, but lifestyle factors can increase oxidative stress. In that context, antioxidants are framed as helpers, not miracle cures.

The key point is where those flavonoids live: they are concentrated in the cacao solids, not in the sugar, not in the milk, and not in white chocolate’s cacao butter.

One striking claim in the episode is about antioxidant density: 100% dark chocolate can contain far more antioxidants per weight than blueberries. The practical catch is dose and ease. Blueberries are easy to eat in volume. 100% cacao is hard to eat in volume.

So the “health food” framing gets complicated. Yes, cacao can be antioxidant-rich. But if you only tolerate a tiny amount of very dark chocolate, you may not be getting a meaningful quantity compared with other antioxidant-rich foods.

Important: If you have reflux, migraines, or sensitivity to stimulants, very dark chocolate can bother some people. If chocolate reliably triggers symptoms for you, consider discussing patterns and triggers with a clinician.

What the biggest reviews say about heart and metabolic markers

The episode leans heavily on a large research summary: a systematic review of chocolate and cocoa’s health effects, which pooled clinical trials comparing dark chocolate (often around 75% cacao) to a control product that resembled chocolate but lacked flavonoids. That design is meant to isolate the effect of cacao flavonoids rather than the experience of eating something sweet.

The overall message is more restrained than many headlines.

The “one clear win” highlighted

In the episode’s telling, the review’s most consistent measurable benefit was a reduction in triglycerides, a blood fat marker associated with cardiovascular risk. In other words, adding dark chocolate in studied contexts sometimes improved this one marker.

What the research shows: A broad review of clinical trials found that cocoa and dark chocolate may improve some cardiovascular risk markers, with effects varying by outcome and study design, and not all markers improving consistently (systematic reviewTrusted Source).

What did not reliably improve

A major part of the episode is what the review did not find consistently:

This is where the episode’s unique perspective becomes sharp: it pushes back against the idea that you should eat chocolate for your health.

If you want flavonoids, you can get them from other foods without the sugar load. The episode specifically mentions options like berries, leafy greens, and tea.

A practical interpretation is that dark chocolate can be a reasonable pleasure food that also contains some beneficial compounds, but it is not a “free health supplement,” especially when sugar content rises.

Chocolate and the brain: dopamine, “weed receptors”, and why the story is messy

This is the section where the episode becomes almost detective-like. People feel something when they eat chocolate, comfort, focus, reward. The question is whether chocolate acts like a drug, and if so, how.

The first explanation is not exotic at all.

Unless you are eating 100% cacao, your chocolate contains sugar, and sugar can increase dopamine, a neurotransmitter involved in motivation and reward. The episode makes a blunt point: if you ate a different sugary food with the same sugar dose, you would still get a dopamine response. That part is not “special chocolate magic.”

Anandamide: the cannabis-like headline that falls apart

Scientists identified anandamide, a compound in chocolate that can bind to the same receptors as cannabis. That sounds like a perfect explanation for why chocolate can feel relaxing.

Then comes the twist: the episode states that anandamide from chocolate does not meaningfully reach the bloodstream or brain in a way that would explain the effect.

So it is a fun headline, but likely not the main driver.

Phenethylamine (PEA): the amphetamine-like idea that also fizzles

Another compound, phenethylamine (PEA), is described as stimulating the brain somewhat like amphetamines.

Again, the episode highlights the limitation: after you eat chocolate, PEA is rapidly broken down by enzymes, so any mood effect would be subtle and short-lived.

This repeated pattern is part of the video’s unique tone. It is not anti-chocolate. It is anti-overclaim.

The “current best guess” in the episode

The discussion then shifts to more plausible contributors:

The episode also mentions theobromine, a mild stimulant similar to caffeine, as a possible reason some people feel more alert or focused after chocolate.

From a research standpoint, evidence on cognition is mixed. Reviews of cocoa flavanols and brain outcomes report variable results depending on dose, population, and the cognitive task being measured (cocoa flavanol reviewTrusted Source). Some studies in healthy adults suggest potential short-term cognitive benefits, including aspects of memory, but findings are not uniform (episodic memory studyTrusted Source).

The episode’s bottom line remains cautious: chocolate does not appear to contain a single unique compound that fully explains its grip on us. Much of the “hook” may be taste, texture, and sugar-driven reward.

Expert Q&A

Q: If chocolate releases dopamine, does that mean it is addictive like drugs?

A: Dopamine is involved in reward and motivation, and many pleasurable activities can increase it, including sweet foods. That does not automatically mean a substance causes addiction in the same way as drugs, but it can help explain why cravings happen and why certain foods feel hard to moderate.

If you feel out of control around chocolate, it may help to look at the form you are eating (high sugar vs high cacao), the context (snacking vs after meals), and your overall stress and sleep. If cravings feel intense or tied to bingeing, consider talking with a healthcare professional who can help you assess patterns and support.

Jessie Chesp, biochemist (as presented in the Glucose Goddess show)

Practical ways to enjoy chocolate without letting it run the show

This episode does not end with “never eat chocolate.” It ends with strategy.

The guiding idea is to separate two goals:

The episode’s core timing rules

The advice is short, but it is the kind people can actually use.

A small change in timing can be more realistic than swapping to 100% cacao if you hate it.

How to choose a bar in the real world

You do not need a perfect bar. You need an informed choice.

A step-by-step approach that does not rely on willpower

»MORE: If you track glucose or notice sugar cravings, consider keeping a simple food and timing log for one week. Write down what type of chocolate you ate (white, milk, 70%, 85%), when you ate it (empty stomach vs after meal), and what happened next (energy, cravings, mood).

A note on acne, and why some people blame chocolate

The episode highlights an interesting mismatch: reviews do not consistently show chocolate causes acne, yet many people swear it does.

One plausible explanation offered is that it may not be cacao itself, it may be the sugar in many chocolate products, which could influence inflammation in some individuals. This is not a diagnosis, but it is a useful hypothesis for self-experimentation: if you suspect chocolate affects your skin, compare high-sugar chocolate with higher-cacao, lower-sugar options, and pay attention to portion and timing.

A clinician can help if acne is persistent or severe, especially if you are considering major dietary restriction.

Key Takeaways