Slashdot Mirror
Beware Headlines Saying Chocolate Is Good For You
BarbaraHudson writes: Many news organizations ran stories last fall extolling certain health benefits of chocolate. But it turns out the studies that the articles were based on didn't go quite so far. The CBC is running a pair of stories debunking chocolate's benefits to the average consumer: "Scientists have zeroed in on a family of fragile molecules known as cocoa flavanols. Research suggests they can relax blood vessels, improve blood flow and, as Small found in his study, even increase activity in a part of the brain involved with age related memory loss. But those flavanols largely disappear once the cocoa bean is heated, fermented and processed into chocolate. In other words, making chocolate destroys the very ingredient that is supposed to make it healthy.
That’s why Small’s memory study used a highly concentrated powder prepared exclusively for research by Mars Inc., the chocolate company, which also partially funded the study. ... There are lots of foods that contain potentially healthy flavanols, along with other bioactive compounds in complex combinations. So the question is: Would academic scientists in publicly funded institutions be so interested in the cocoa bean if the chocolate industry wasn't supporting so much of the research?"
That’s why Small’s memory study used a highly concentrated powder prepared exclusively for research by Mars Inc., the chocolate company, which also partially funded the study. ... There are lots of foods that contain potentially healthy flavanols, along with other bioactive compounds in complex combinations. So the question is: Would academic scientists in publicly funded institutions be so interested in the cocoa bean if the chocolate industry wasn't supporting so much of the research?"
Industries supporting research that supports their products! SAY IT AIN'T SO CRUSTY
If cocoa flavanols prove medically beneficial, we can figure out how to synthetically produce them in a dosed format. You might not be able to get health benefits by eating a chocolate bar, but perhaps one day your doctor will prescribe two flavanol pills every morning to treat your condition. This is how much of medicine functions. First, we notice something (in nature or lab produced) that has a beneficial effect. Next, we refine that substance and figure out a dosing system for it to maximize the effect and minimize any side effects.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
What the media regurgitated as findings made by scientific studies were in fact PR releases by chocolate companies filled with half truths and misleading information. Of course the worst part is how people have been convinced that a Snickers and other junk food bars are actually chocolate.
I work in an academic lab doing research. If some company wants me to work on chocolate and is willing to supply it, lots of it, hell, I'll find any damn result they want.
The marketing bots are out of control and use science in ways it wasn't meant to be. All a marketing bot needs to do is look at one scientific fact anywhere that says something remotely positive about their product and voila, advertising angle. I seriously saw Lucky Charms marketed as a health food once because the oat pieces are made of oats which are known to be good for the heart. Science is supposed to be unbiased, but the results are being used in wrong ways. You can say something good about anything. "Why not try toxic waste for a facial cream? It will give your skin a healthy glow."
God spoke to me
Chocolate/wine/dogs/etc. are not always the best things to research in scientific terms, but they are some of the very best ways for a mediocre scientist in an obscure field to get his name in the paper.
Why bother finding a cure for cancer (which is really fucking hard), when you can feed half your friends from your chocolate stash for three months, measure the hell out of them once a week, then massage the data into something click-baitable, and *poof* you now meet Wikipedia's standards for notability.
Not always. If you want to give a grilled steak a beautiful dark-brown color, rub a little bit of unsweetened coco powder on it before you cook it. It also adds depth to the flavor. It also goes well in chili in small quantities.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
The cocoa content of a chocolate bar is very, very small. And, it has been decreasing over time.
But what has also been INCREASING over time, is consumption of dark chocolate - sometimes very dark. These usually do have a lot more deal cocoa powder than the "traditional" chocolate bar ever did.
Any more I will not even bother with "chocolate" below 85%...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
After sanitary water (chlorination, et al), cooking food reigns supreme as the alpha contributor to human longevity.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Would academic scientists in publicly funded institutions be so interested in the cocoa bean if the chocolate industry wasn't supporting so much of the research?"
I love the idea that this somehow invalidates the research. The researchers investigated what they could get funding to investigate, there's no allegations that the research was non-rigorous or of any other improper practice. Presumably the results are valid and therefore valuable. Further, presumably this research wouldn't have been done otherwise so we've got some additional research we wouldn't have done otherwise. So what if it supports someone's interests? We all benefit because now we know more about the world around us and what is, and isn't, good for our bodies. Now go and take your ad hominems elsewhere.
Is there any question of chocolate's benefits? I mean, really?
Jesus wept. Chocolate has been one of mankind's go-to pantydroppers for centuries. Some guys get beer goggles, I get chocolate goggles. Three truffles with >72% cocoa content and I'm yours for the asking.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm going to go ahead and assume you have no idea how science works. For starters researching natural products, as these scientists did, is a very fertile starting ground when searching for a "cure for cancer". Unfortunately you seem to have bought into the myth that only big glamorous research is valuable, ignoring the facts that, by definition, we don't know what the outcome of research will be until we do it and that most glamorous research will probably mostly involve work that looks "mediocre" in value to you.
Actually, no. Evolution has provided humans with taste buds to favor foods that will keep us alive, depending upon conditions. These conditions are key. Bears are a good example. Bears that need to survive hibernation will gorge themselves on any sweets they can find because it is key to their survival. Bears will eat all the honey they can find, but they don't find much. Bears eat a lot of salmon and they find plenty. Bears eat a lot of berries and they find plenty. Bears eat a lot of grubs and they find plenty. Bears will eat all the Hershey bars they can find, along with all the almonds, denim, and bear repellant that goes with it, but they don't find a lot. If bears did find a lot of Hershey bars, they would soon die of (insert disease here). Humans, in the recent 4000 years, have gained the ability to have any food from anywhere on earth within arms reach available to them at low cost. Foods that would be healthy to gorge on, if they were scarce, are now plentiful. That is the problem. Technology has given us the means, but our self control has not evolved to fit our environment. Our taste buds still control us. If it tastes good, it is because your ancestors relied upon it to survive. You, with your comfortable life and big screen TV, should know better. If it tastes good, enjoy in moderation.
I know it is unfashionable to RTFA, but if you do you will see that the story is about the non peer reviewed non research of a "cultural geographer" who did not have anything to say about the health effects of cocoa, but raised a question about whether one tribe being studied sourced its cocoa beans locally or not. Excuse me, but the headline made me think this was about the health effects of cocoa, not whether there is something magical about some particular strain of bean. Is there a story here? Is there even a researcher here?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Chocolate consumption is correlated with a nice range of positive clinical effects. It doesn't matter if someone figures out one proposed mechanism is invalid, because the stuff still works. Just because we might still be learning *why* something works does not invalidate the effect at all.