Talk:Chocolate-covered raisin

Hmm... nothing like looking around the room for objects to look up on Wikipedia. -chaosemerald

ya rly

Why on earth does "Raisinets" redirect here!? I was looking for information on the specific brand, not a stub about chocolate-covered raisins in general. The specific spelling "Raisinets" additionally is a trademark. Redirecting it here is as bad as redirecting kleenex to facial tissue would be (and note that kleenex directs you to a page about the actual trademarked brand, with a note that: "This article is about the Kleenex brand. For information about the musical band of the same name, see Kleenex (band). For information about the generic item, see Facial tissue." Why was something like that not done here!?).

ETA: By the way, the link to Raisinets leads right back here! ARGH! >.< How exactly does this kind of thing even happen?? Runa27 18:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the edit (merging of "Chocolate covered raisins" and "Raisinets".) is a clue. There was nothing stopping you from editing the page and removing the brackets around "Raisinets" thereby eliminating the loop redirect. :) Electrawn 07:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

My gripe is the inaccuracy described in the shellac coating process. Having spent many years in candy manufacturing I have only ever seen a non modified ( ie an "original") Huon-Stuehrer nozzle used in the way described here. I admit that I have been retired for a number of years, so may be "out of the loop" with regard to current micro spraying methodology. Nonetheless, during several years in Europe in my early career I was fortunate enough to meet Herr Huon-Stuehrer. Apart from his natural teutonic charm, he was a very capable thinker and his original design was more than sufficient to achieve the purpose for which it was developed. I feel that very often modifications and alterations are there because of the notion of "change for the sake of change". Bobby " The Dog" span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.20.227 (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing. --Lpd-Lbr (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Healthy or Unhealthy?

Does anyone know the relative amounts of chocolate and fruit contained in this product? I've read a half dozen articles on the web and most say this snack is unhealthy because of the chocolate, but some sites say it's healthy because the fruit is healthy. Some even say the chocolate can be healthy if it is dark chocolate. In any event, my question is whether the split is 50/50 chocolate/raisin. I suppose I could measure it myself, but that would be original research that I don't want to do. In summary, if this is the #1, or #2, or #3 most popular candy in the world, it would really be nice to know how much, percentage-wise, is fruit. (And, yes, a range is acceptable - e.g. typically, 20-40% fruit by weight). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.164.140.85 (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd guess 27.341% healthy - what an idiotic question... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.90.64 (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to be so nasty as to call the person an "idiot" for asking a question that they clearly asked out of legitimate confusion from seeing conflicting sources of information. Don't be a jerk, you're not helping anybody by doing that, including yourself.

Regarding the ACTUAL question though, the real answer is more nuanced - you absolutely wouldn't know it from the way food and food science are discussed in our modern culture(s), but for one, humans have a WIDE variety of dietary needs and tolerances from each other, and also, ANYTHING in enough excess can be bad for you even if you're a Healthy Adult (including water!), while many things are totally fine for many or even most people to consume in moderation even if society says they're allegedly "not healthy" items. The truth is, pop culture likes to dramatize and make things sound black and white to get more readers/viewers/clicks/make more sales, but the vast majority of foods are NOT inherently easily divisible into a binary "healthy" and "unhealthy", where it's somehow horrible or super great to eat them, with no room in between. Yes, even stuff that is literally pure sugar and not much else, is fine "in moderation" - glucose (sugar) is what your brain runs on, after all.

Since your concern is chocolate, though, let's address chocolate in specific. It won't meet every single one of your dietary needs of course, not by far, absolutely don't LIVE on nothing but chocolate, but it is a perfectly fine food to eat in moderation for those who lack an allergy to it.

The definition of "moderation" for it, too, will depend on your particular health needs though - and the amount may differ based on recipe for different people.

For example, "dark chocolate" has less fat and sugar in it than "milk" chocolate (because its recipes call for less milk and sugar), but it does tend to be higher in things like potassium and iron a few other nutrients the body needs, so even ignoring all the fancy talk of "anti-oxidants" and such, it's usually listed as "healthier" than milk chocolate, because most people are more concerned with excess sugar and/or fat in their diets and have no problem say, filtering out excess potassium in their body.

However, if you have very very weak kidney function, it's the reverse - "dark" chocolate at that point can be actively dangerous in higher consumed amounts, because it has a higher proportion of cocoa powder, which is made from ground up cocoa beans, which are in turn extremely high in potassium (potassium is one of the core nutrients plants need to grow, so roots, seeds, beans, tubers and bulbs all tend to be pretty high in it in general).

So for those with "good" or especially great kidney function, who don't have allergies that would interfere either, often "dark" chocolate is "healthier" than "milk" chocolate...but for those with weak kidney function, who cannot safely filter out the excess potassium in their diet, the level at which "moderation" kicks in is much stricter for dark chocolate or anything containing a lot of cocoa (such as hot chocolate/hot cocoa), than it is for things like, say, milk chocolate M&M's, which have a much much lower actual amount of cocoa powder in their recipes (there is a reason I jump to M&M's as the example here - I noticed when having to watch over my grandmother while she was having kidney function issues, that there were some hot chocolate packets that had like 400mg or more of potassium listed, while some M&M's packets only had something like 75mg. This meant that she couldn't, in her case, have more than maybe one or two cups of hot chocolate a week, but she could practically eat a pack of M&M's every day if she kept everything else low-potassium).

Additionally, people who are prone to hypoglycemia (steep, potentially dangerous drops in blood sugar levels) may actually NEED items with more readily-available glucose in those cases in order to stave off a fainting spell or the like..there's a reason they give you a cookie and some juice after donating blood, after all, and that reason is to avoid a rapid, dangerous drop in blood sugar. For them, also, milk chocolate may not just be better than dark chocolate, it may be an occasional life-saver to have it on hand!

TLDR - it's not a "stupid" question because society likes to pretend these things have easy answers but truth is that what is "healthy" or "not healthy" for you depends more on your particular body's own individual needs, metabolism, tolerances/allergies/sensitivities, and how much you consume of the thing at once or within the same few days...than it does absolutely anything else. If you're in good or average health and not sensitive to any of the ingredients or things it could have come in contact with, chances are you could have, I dunno, one or two normal-sized packages a week of most kinds of chocolate-covered raisins with no problem? So long as you're not otherwise overdoing it on caffeine (because chocolate does have that, remember), sugar, etc. Oh, or fiber - raisins are dried fruits after all, and eating a lot of those can uh. Well. It can shoot right through your system, as it were.

But yeah, I wouldn't worry about the actual "chocolate to raisin" ratio if "not overdoing it" is your only concern -- I would just pay attention to the nutritional information on the package of whatever you're thinking of eating, to make sure you're not overdoing it on things like salt or sugar (both of which, unless you have highly specific metabolic or medical needs, you only need a fairly small amount of per day chances are, and both of which are super common in the modern Western diet)...and maybe don't eat anything with chocolate in it within a few hours of trying to sleep (since the caffeine can interfere with that). :) 2600:1702:40E0:6560:1140:15DE:7272:DA55 (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Third most popular candy?

There is absolutely no way that I believe that Raisinets are the second largest selling candy in the United States. I put a sloppy citation needed tag on this 5 years ago, but it looks like this has never been addressed... and somehow random editors have made this go from third largest, to first, to second now.

Based on this article from 2012 Raisinets doesn't crack the top 13 in the US in 2012. While things may have changed, I highly doubt this information.

ChunyangD (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your removal of the claim. Meters (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Fake history removed

There is no such German prayer (and the "German" quote makes no sense). Since both it and the speculation about Meso-American origins have been added by the same account that did not do much else, and the "references" to both "factoids" where added later by another limited-use account, I think it is very likely that the whole section is fabricated. --Peter Putzer (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)