Talk:Chocolate milk

invention

• • So apparently it was Invented in Jamaica and brought back to Ireland?**

"While in Jamaica, Sloane was introduced to cocoa as a drink favoured by the local people. He found it 'nauseous' but by mixing it with milk made it more palatable. He brought this chocolate recipe back to England"

Sources stating its from Jamaica & — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.162.229.236 (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

References

CM

I have never heard of chocolate milk being called "CM". Maybe this is regional slang, but even so, it should be cited and explained further. Thank you, MontySpurling 00:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

ROFL, I just saw this page and was about to post this same thing but you already said it. I've never heard it called "CM". Maybe it's a British thing. 68.2.143.22 03:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Calcium Myth?

There has to be a citation on the calcium myth section, as I recall chocolate mlk is still a good source of calcium. TostitosAreGross 21:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It is still a good source of calcium. I've added in a new part telling why.

Temperature

"This mixture should be stored at 0.5 to 4 °C (33 to 39 °F)." where are these numbers from? and isn't 0.5°C a little too cold?

If I recall correctly from my grocery days, most dairy cases (particularly orange juice) recommended 33-35°F, and never more than 38°F. Most of the milk came in crates, so they didn't have the temperature recommendations. 68.228.155.76 01:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge

It seems kind of unnecessary for chocolate milk to have an article of its own. --Mentaka 14:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Object It seems reasonable to me. There is too much information for a subsection in the milk article. Rintrah 15:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Object --EarthPerson 01:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Object --Agahnim 4:53, 10 October 2007 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.138.45 (talk)

Hot chocolate?

Hot chocolate isn't just chocolate milk that's been heated up. It's a totally different beverage. Or am I wrong about this? Simulato 06:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You could put a disputed or POV tag on the article—that would make me laugh pretty hard. Seriously, though, if you can find evidence for this, you're welcome to mend the article accordingly. Rintrah 07:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's hot chocolate article itself seems to back me up on this, so I've changed the wording. If anyone disagrees I suppose the article will have to be tagged... chocolate milk is a very polarising topic, after all. *laughs* Simulato 09:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen "hot chocolate" made by heating chocolate milk. Completely different beverage. Batvette (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Batvette (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"Other ways to drink chocolate milk"

Some companies have created a straw in which stirring is not necessary. You simply place the straw into plain milk, and when you drink it, it will taste like chocolate. Unfortunately, in 2003, this method was recalled because the flavoring pellets were toxic. However, the original prototype was improved and the pellets are now relatively safe. You must proceed with caution however, because the true effects of the pellets are not completely validated. In a recent study of 475 Californians, 52% had some type of negative feedback associated with the pellets, most noticeable stomach pain.

This needs sources and I'm not totally sure it's relevant in the article. Also needs some rewriting to make it suitably encyclopaediac. Simulato 19:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Recorvery after a workout?

This section reads just like an infomercial.

- I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice this.Skexe (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

this article is among the worst I have seen on wikipedia and that section was the most offensive part, I deleted it. Maybe someone can replace it with something relevant and coherent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.206.77 (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

added a scientific study results with reference which state that it is a recovery drink.

Removed marketing section

The marketing section was not appropriate content or tone for an encyclopaedia. As has been mentioned, it read like an infomercial. Simulato (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Culture or the United States?

Why bother to have a culture section if your just gonna talk about American canteens. There ARE over 250 other countries on earth ya know...! Talk about them as well or remove this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.149.134 (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This article I think refers to a product that in other countries may be known by another name. E.g. in the UK we would call it chocolate milkshake (Milkshakes here are made with milk and flavourings - not icecream).

I have removed the section, if there are any objections state them below --124.188.149.134 (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

American Bias

This article seems to have a little bit of an American bias. The page should either reflect the fact that this is mostly American, or include more european or at least non-western references. 71.169.41.167 (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You are, of course, welcome to add a {{globalize/USA}} template to the page if you think so. Be Bold! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Supplements section

Is the lower part of the about just chocolate, or chocolate milk? It seems unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isething (talk • contribs) 04:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking for someone to nominate this article for GA status

Does anyone think this article is up to GA status?--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Dead link in first citation

I'm not completely sure how to fix the first citation correctly and I don't want to mess anything up. If anyone knows how to do it with the proper formatting, an up-to-date version of the page can be found here: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/science-of-natural-history/biographies/hans-sloane/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.27.9 (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Bias/Unencyclopedic Language

Specifically in the Nutritional Values section. A few examples: "Chocolate milk contains 9 essential nutrients, B vitamins for energy to get you going, and the combination of five bone building nutrients-calcium, Vitamin D, phosphorus, protein and potassium." - "Energy to get you going" does not belong in an encyclopedia. This is definitely not written from a neutral point of view and reads like an advertisement. "Contrary to popular belief, chocolate milk has been proven in several studies to actually be healthier than white milk." - "Proven in several studies" is a ridiculous statement considering studies don't ever prove anything. "The importance of magnesium in all of these bodily functions is due to the fact that nerve impluses need to accurately transmit messages throughout your body during exercise." - Not only is this information irrelevant to the subject of the article, but it's also extremely informal ("your body") and sounds like propaganda written for children.

I'm not qualified to edit this article myself, but it really needs some attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:4B41:A00:1D70:2A36:5F1C:971B (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Heterogenous mixture, bias, unnecessary information

The "Heterogenous mixture" section below Source -> Homemade reads like a health/recipe blog and not an encyclopedia. Why is this here? Like "Dairy fats like cream contains saturated fat that is negative for the health. Instead essential fatty acids may be added like linoleic acid found in significant quantities in commonly available oils such as sunflower oil, or corn oil." is incredibly biased 198.84.225.238 (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)