Talk:Theobromine/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is not mentioned in the caffeine article. I sure would like to see a source.

From the caffeine article: "Symptoms of caffeine intoxication include: restlessness, nervousness, excitement..." I guess that the general idea is that large doses of caffeine often induce stress-like symptoms. Caffeine in smaller doses has a slightly similar effect, but 'stress' is a very strong word for it.--Simen 88 13:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

To call it theobromine, technically there must be bromine in the molecule. It is posssible that the diagram of the molecule of theobromine is incorrect. Chemically, it has no properties like that of bromine and probably does not look like it since bromine is a brown/red liquid which an indivisable chemical element.

The name is derived from greek, as explained in the introduction. It is not a description of the formula.Simen 88 21:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Because God made it that way. Flying Hamster 20:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Could someone clarify the following statement, which is somewhat confusing: "In chocolate, theobromine exists in doses that are safe for humans to consume in large quantities"

Read the whole statement:arge quantities, but can be lethal for animals such as dogs and horses, as they metabolize theobromine more slowly."

I suggest:

"Very high levels of theobromine can be dangerous to some mammals. Humans metabolise theobromine quickly, making it almost impossible to suffer harm from theobromine poisoning due to excessive chocolate consumption. Other animals, including horses and dogs, metabolise theobromine much more slowly, so even moderate chocolate consumption can be fatal."

but a better version yet would say why and how:

"Very high levels of theobromine can be dangerous because XXXX. Humans metabolise theobromine quickly (broken down by the liver or what?), making it almost impossible to suffer harm from theobromine poisoning due to excessive chocolate consumption. Other animals, including horses and dogs, metabolise theobromine much more slowly, so even moderate chocolate consumption can be fatal."

Can someone explain the pathology and metabolism, to fill out my latter suggestion? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:14, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I just did an elemental analysis on the ball and stick Theobromine molecule on my desk and found that, contrary to the

Why? The "sticks with no balls" clearly terminate in methyl groups; anything else would need to be shown, but the methyl groups come as standard. EdC 22:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Theobromine need a check on teratogenicity and mutagenicity

the article is not clear. I've removed Theobromine from Category:Teratogens --Melaen 21:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The Caffeine article says that caffeine is metabolized to three components one of which is theobromine. If that's true, shouldn't this article reflect that. Here I read theobromine has very different effects from caffeine. In that case that statement wouldn't be very precise would it. --Fs 11:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking to do up a vector version of image:theobromine.png, based on image:theophylline.png. I just want to check one thing: is the H on the nitrogen at left needed or would it be implicit if left off? -- Perey 07:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Many people say that theobromine is the ingredient in chocolate that has the same effect as "falling in love." Any idea where that all comes from?66.41.66.213 04:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any concrete information on theobromine having this effect, but it is well known that it is mood-enhancing. I did, however, find this. I assume some people have drawn a connection between theobromine's effects and chocolate's effects.Simen 88 14:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

From the abstract of the article by Slattery and West it is clear that the theobromine intake was purely from chocolate (I think there are not that many people who take theobromine as a supplement). Couldn't the higher risk of prostate cancer be caused by some other substance in chocolate or is there other evidence pointing at theobromine? Icek 12:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is know that fat is associated with prostate cancer, so it could be from all that fat in chocolate for all we know. In any case, the evidence wasn't very strong, and could be spurious. Also, the increased risk was shown to be for older persons only.

As for other evidence pointing to theobromine, as per the article, it is known to be genotoxic in lower animals in various ways. Nonetheless and fortunately, it is not too difficult to reduce one's risk of acquiring prostate cancer.

I wouldn't worry too much before popping a cocoa powder pill (and acquiring the theobromine contained within). People have been consuming cocoa for a very long time, and there are health benefits to it.

--AB (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Pretty good article, although there are a few issues which preclude its listing as a GA right now:

1. Methylxanthine family—there isn't really a black-letter chemical "taxonomy" of this sort AFAIK, so I'd reword it to "the methylxanthine class of chemical compounds" or something to that effect.
2. Under "Properties", you can link "inhibitor" to either enzyme inhibitor or phosphodiesterase inhibitor, not just "inhibitor". "Homologue" should be linked to homologous series.
3. Please add ISBNs to all book references.
4. Please italicize all scientific names as per
   MoS:T
   .
5. I'd like to see some History—when it was first isolated, synthesized, etc. Maybe a little bit more on the history of cocoa/chocolate and its effects.
6. Can you find data to fill in the Drugbox? It is painfully empty right now.

Otherwise, it's good. When these issues are addressed, it will be Good :) Fvasconcellos 14:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'm going to cross out your points as you go along. I'll do my best to continue research on it. And of course, I will find the ISBNs. I'm sure the books are legitimate; I've gotten them from this really cool online library. I should get back to work. —

Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker

. 21:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and strike them through. Nice work so far. Fvasconcellos 21:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, what constitutes a scientific name? —

Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker

. 21:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Names of species and genera—see Binomial nomenclature. Fvasconcellos 21:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ohh, those scientific names. Anyways, I italicised their names. All we have left to do is create some sort of history section, then the article will be ready for Good Articledom! —

Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker

. 02:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those' :) Almost there, keep up the good work. I like to see tag-teaming improvement! Fvasconcellos 14:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but for the moment I am failing this article's GA nomination. Although it is well referenced and pretty well written, it could still be broader in scope. I realize GAC is meant for short articles, but this merits expansion IMHO. Thanks for your work so far and best wishes, Fvasconcellos 00:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I was sort of reviewing this article for GA status, and I think it is good in most respects, but I saw a couple of things that concerned me:

• It the phrase, "A lesser homologue of caffeine...", what does lesser mean?
• I am not sure that in makes sense to have the diagram of the bronchus in this article; it really only illustrates one sentence.

Good luck and good work. ike9898 20:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose a "lesser homologue" as in it has a lesser effect on living beings yet the two drugs are nonetheless very similar. —

Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker

. 22:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, surely "less active" is more precise. Flying Hamster (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I've put this article on hold is that, like the previous reviewer, I think it could do with slightly more material. I would suggest:

• A little more about social use. The previous reviewer did suggest this. Personally, I came to the article expecting to see it clearly stated at the top that this is the main active ingredient in chocolate. (That's what made me pick this to review in the first place.) If you feel it is inappropriate to go into detail on the history of chocolate use, then maybe go through the other chocolate-related articles and find a good one to direct readers to.

• I would suggest looing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide and adding in what you judge to be the most appropriate headings mentioned there. This drug doesn't need the heaviest treatment, but I was surprised, for example, to see mention that caffeine is partially metabolised to theobromine, but no mention of how theobromine is metabolised. As theobromine appears to be prescribed in some countries, I would expect a more detailed discussion of things like side-effects, administration etc. The French webpage already cited in the article[1] appears to have the information needed, but my French isn't good enough and I'm an ex-drug worker social worker not a pharmacologist, so you or someone else will have to translate.

Otherwise it looks a well put-together little article. I tried to BE BOLD and fix a little language problem at the top. It read as if the genus was made up of Greek roots, not the name of the genus. I may have made the English worse in other ways, however. And if "lesser homologue" confused the other potential reviewer, I suggets that the JARGON be explaine or replaced --Peter cohen 00:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the article needs to go into extensive detail about the social use of theobromine, as it's more tied into the use of chocolate and this is an article about theobromine not chocolate. As for the French article, I'll see if I can read it. (

talk

) 02:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have started to do some cleaning up. I am now looking at that French article and perhaps I will be updating the article with information from it. (

talk

) 02:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That article doesn't really have much more than what the Wikipedia article already has. In any case, I am finished editing for the night. Tomorrow I shall continue; I have some other source material on hand which should help contribute to the article. (

talk

) 04:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're more or less there. But I'm not stopping you doing what else you were going to polish. I've gone and explained the two bits of unexplained jargon that most leapt out at me. Remember the primary use of pharmacology articles in wiki will be by people prescribed drugs and concerned relatives. Professionals will have the

MIMS - prescribing reference or their equivalents in other countries. Obviously this article will also attract chocoholics like me. --Peter cohen

08:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think with your changes above and the reduction of jargon we have achieved that I can now go over to te nominations page and pass this article. --Peter cohen 19:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm tagging this because it needs to be rewritten. There is little organization to the article and some of the information is repeated several times. It is very confusing, even to this chemist. Jeff Dahl 04:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Nominating this article for GAR. As noted on the peer review last week, this article needs to be rewritten, because it currently is not well organized. This article needs to follow wikipedia's medical manual of style for drug-related articles. Many of the sections seem too short, without enough context, and it needs to have better coverage of topics such as its metabolism and biosynthesis. Terms like "lesser homologue" need to be changed; other reviewers have had problems with terms like this as well. The peer review contains more suggestions for improvement, and I will happy to review this article again in the future. Jeff Dahl 04:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This has now been delisted. See the archived discussion (linked from article history) for further suggestions. Geometry guy 21:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This article perpetuates an urban myth. There is no study I know of indicating a low LD50 (measure of toxicity)in dogs with theobormine. Nehmo (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The current information under "4.2 Animals" is too vague to be useful and could cause wrong impressions/assumtions in my opinion. The Theobromine poisoning article has somewhat more useful information and I think we could draw a short few statements from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASA-IRULE (talk • contribs) 15:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a merger, except last time I checked,

write this article

) 19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The section still needs work. The part about poisoning dogs is alarmist, inaccurate and poorly sourced. — 

There is inaccurate and unsourced information in this section. The information in theobromine poisoning is now well-sourced, so I think there should be a merger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf4NK (talk • contribs) 08:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

0.5% - 2.7% for chocolate seems a bit too much. According to V. Beasley, the concentration in coca beans is only 1% - 2% and in dark chocolate it's no more than 0.5%. Icek (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The collaboration of the month program for

This article is now the current

Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month for March 2008. Dr. Cash (talk

) 18:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Theobromine is from from theo- and *broma* (food), not *brosi* (I would bet the writer was thinking of the etymology of ambrosia and sliipped up). I don't know if this mistake is also in the book cited in footnote 4, but the OED 3rd edition could be cited for the correct etymology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.13.245 (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

--On the references list, reference 4 notes that a book incorrectly stated that theobromine comes from latin. However, according to world english dictionary it derives from french which derives from New Latin, which of course derives from Greek; however, it's still not incorrect that it came from Latin. That's where the french got it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.182.41.117 (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"Theobromine is known to induce gene mutations in lower eukaryotes and bacteria." - This needs a reference. Only reference given is related to lack of carcinogenic activity in humans and experimental animals. This should be removed if no reference can be found.

"and then shortly afterwards was synthesized from xanthine by Hermann Emil Fischer.[11]" - Anyone have a date for the synthesis?

Additionally, I've seen several sources stating that Theobromine was isolated by Woskresensky in 1841 rather than in 1878. One source which explicitly states that 1878 is an incorrect date for the isolation of Theobromine: Molecular Interventions 7:236-242, (2007), A New Look at the Xanthine Alkaloids by Stanley Scheindlin --Jmcclare (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a layman looking into the effects of caffeine & chocolate on my body. The following text is confusing me: "...theobromine has an antitussive (cough-reducing) effect... theobromine significantly increased the capsaicin concentration required to induce coughs when compared with a placebo." This leads me to think capsaicin makes you cough & theobromine increases the concentration of capaicin.

If theobromine reduces cough shouldn't it either "decrease the capsaicin concentration required to induce coughs" or "increase the capsaicin concentration required to reduce coughs"? wbm (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think (I'm another layman) that what it is intended to mean is that to get a person to cough you need to give them a hotter chilli (i.e. with a greater concentration of capsaicin) after they've had some theobromine than you would have without the theobromine.--

talk

) 21:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter is correct. --AB (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a theobromine supplement in doses of 100/500/1000 mg? The best I currently know is AmerMed cocoa extract with 10% theobromine, but that's far from ideal. One problem with taking too much cocoa extract can be that the extract also contains unwanted caffeine. The AmerMed product in particular is advertised as containing 0.18% caffeine, which is negligible. --AB (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Your post was written in 2008. Now in 2018 I searched amermed website for cocoa and theobromione and found only this product:

https://amermed.com/store/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=129

Cocoa Extract 450mg 120 capsules Product Code: A507 Availability: In Stock Cocoa Extract 10% Theobromine

That is a poor source for Theobromine. 1 capsule is claimed to contain only 45mg theobromine.

ConsumerLab website might help you to find out what is the best source of theobromine in USA market. Unfortunately they don't review products that are sold in other countries.

--ee1518 (talk) 09:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The source for the statement that theobromine is less active than caffeine seems to be this book: Kenneth Maxwell (1996). A Sexual Odyssey: From Forbidden Fruit to Cybersex. New York: Plenum, 38-40.

Source updated Xargque (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

there should be more and clearer about its metabolism, like in Caffeine#Metabolism_and_half-life.¨¨ victor falk 09:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The article reads: "Birds, again due to their smaller size and more rapid metabolism, are even more susceptible to its toxic effects." -- there is no reference for this statement and it contradicts the preceding statement "Animals that

Google news search shows hordes of news outlets have recently been covering this story again [2] with archive search showing its been covered in detail for years now. [3]. Exactly how much theobromine do you need to surprise persistent cough response, and how much do you get in the average chocolate bar? How many pounds of chocolate would it take to work? Can someone just eat 5 bars a day and be fine? Dream Focus 03:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Q: "how much do you get in the average chocolate bar?"

A: ConsumerLab website has tested that.

Q: "Exactly how much theobromine do you need to surprise persistent cough response

A: Search PubMed website for that. If you can't find answer, it may still be underresearched.

Or find out is Theobromine sold as cough medicine in some country. Search also countries where English is not the main language.

I believe Theobromine was sold in South Korea as cough medicine. Can one still buy it in South Korea, I have no idea.

Perhaps you can read Theobromine wikipedia article in foreign languages?

Are there alternatives to Wikipedia in some countries? Wikipedia is probably banned in some countries, what alternatives do they use?

--ee1518 (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The link referencing the products of metabolizing theobromine is broken, and I'll fix that once I'm done here. More importantly, the page for theobromine on that website doesn't say anything about the metabolism of theobromine: just that it comes from cocoa, and is a diuretic, among other things. I'll look for a reference to those figures, but in the meantime, would it be better to remove the statement until support is found, or to change the reference to 'citation needed,' or to do something else? EricWesBrown (Talk) 23:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

HAHA DISREGARD THAT, I LOOKED UP THE WRONG DRUG! Link is fixed, now it directs you to the 'caffeine' page, where it is described that the body breaks caffeine down into several compounds, including theobromine. EricWesBrown (Talk) 07:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

does the dutch process cause more, or less, theobromine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_process_chocolate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.95.229 (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060927172427/http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol51/volume51.pdf to http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol51/volume51.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —

Would it be possible to make grams the primary unit in this article? 28g of chocolate is not a very relevant number when you really mean 1oz, and ounces are not very relevant to the measurement of chocolate anymore. 25g or 30g or some round number would be more useful. I just looked and all of the dark chocolate bars I've got (three different brands) are 100g bars with 3.5 ounces in parenthesis. Smaller bars are in round grams and fractional ounces, too. Tying grams to ounces requires written or electronic calculation when quantities in round grams could probably be calculated in my head. Most foods from international companies are in round metric units with fractional ounces in parenthesis. Frankly, I am a 60 year old American who knows our traditional measurements intuitively and I still think you could just completely eliminate ounces from this article without diminishing its value at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FatBear1 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

^[1] is great material for improving this article. Kevin143 (talk) 05:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone able to verify xantheose name (mentioned in intro) in the ref Dictionary of Bio-Chemistry and Related Subjects by William Marias Malisoff (1943; ASIN B0006AQ0NU)? In here (German) it seems to be rather a trade name. —Mykhal (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

(Well, OK, I am, (here), however can't tell that is's not mentioned as a trade name. Or, that it has been anywhere used without mentioning theobromine.) —Mykhal (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The article said that rabbits had been poisoned by chocolate, but the source did not say that. [4] says "Rabbits have a sensitive digestive system that requires a high fibre, low sugar and low fat diet. There are a number of human foods that you should avoid feeding your rabbit, including: ... Bread, Rice, Potatoes, Biscuits, Chocolate, Lollies, Chips, Avocado." Given that chocolate is usually a high sugar product, it may just be saying that chocolate is not good for them for that reason. It also didn't strike me as a terribly reliable source; I know agriculture.vic.gov.au sounds authoritative, but a lot of such sources have passed along misinformation. Ultimately they don't care about the distinction; chocolate (as a sweet) is not optimal for rabbits so why worry if theobromine will kill them or not?

I don't have any good sources, but anecdotally rat owners do give their rats chocolate without problem. Rabbits and rats are both members of clade Glires, which is part of clade Euarchontoglires, which includes chocolate-eating humans. It'd be cool if someone could find good scientific studies on some other members of Glires or Euarchontoglires or even just other mammals, as the cats, dogs and bears mentioned in the article are all members of Carnivora, a small subset of mammals.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)