In theory, the idea of drinking hot, creamy, meltedchocolateseems almost too good to be true.
And sadly, it often is.
That’s why we decided we’d embark on a quest to find the perfect cup of hot chocolate.
Shutterstock
We’re defining “perfect” as one that’s both tastyandnot totally horrible for you.
(Fiber helps us feel full and slows the absorption of the drink’s sugar.)
Calories also played a role, as did the flavor.
Courtesy of Walmart
Land O’Lakesis known for making butter, and we think they should stick to their specialty.
Maybe it has something to do with all the chemicals that were floating around in their cup?
Althoughthis mixhas more calories than Stephen’s, we ranked it higher because it has a better fiber-to-sugar ratio.
Courtesy of Walmart
Either way, it shouldn’t be your go-to.
Ghirardelli Hot Cocoa Mix, Double Chocolate
Ingredients We Don’t Love:Cocoa processed with alkali.
Creamy hot cocoa packed for less than 100 calories and zero grams of sodium?
However, the sugar content is still high inthis hot cocoa mix.
Don’t let the low-calorie content ofthis productfool you.
In no way, shape, or form can this cocoa help keep you trim.
What you should probably know is that sucralose is one of the best of the “bad"sweeteners.
There are far worse options on the marketand in hot cocoa mixes.
Sarabeth’s Hot Chocolate
Ingredients We Don’t Love:Dutch cocoa (code for alkalized).
Courtesy of Ghirardelli
This one certainly has more calories than many of the other mixes.
We’re also not loving the high sugar countand our taste testers agreed.
If you’re curious and want to indulge, do yourselfand your guta favor andcut your portion sizein half.
Courtesy of Swiss Miss
Christopher Elbow Cocoa Noir Drinking Chocolate
Ingredients We Don’t Love:None.
“This is nothing great.
It tastes like milk mixed with chocolate sauce,” one person said.
Courtesy of Walmart
“Smells like stale milk,” said another.
There are far better-tasting optionsour advice is to skip it.
We’ve got to admit, though, its fiber-to-sugar ratio is among the best of the lot!
Overall, it’s not a bad choice in terms of nutrition or flavor.
The only reason this ranks higher than Fran’s is that it has 60 fewer calories.
In reality, though, they are somewhat tied.
Testers' taste buds enjoyed this mix, too.
Almost all our testers agreed that it is “definitely worth a purchase.”
A previous version of this story was published on January 13, 2020.
Courtesy of Whole Foods
Courtesy of Amazon
Courtesy of Amazon
Courtesy of Amazon
Courtesy of Swiss Miss
