How a Scientist Fooled Millions With Bizarre Chocolate Diet Claims

__roo writes: Did you know chocolate helps you lose weight? You can read all about this great news for chocoholics in the Daily Star, Daily Express, Irish Examiner, and TV shows in Texas and Australia, and even the front page of Bild, Europe's largest daily newspaper. The problem is that it's not true. A researcher who previously worked with Science to do a sting operation on fee-charging open access journals ran a real—but obviously flawed—study rigged to generate false positives, paid €600 to get it published in a fee-charging open access journal, set up a website for a fake institute, and issued press releases to feed the ever-hungry pool of nutrition journalists. The doctor who ran the trial had the idea to use chocolate, because it's a favorite of the "whole food" fanatics. "Bitter chocolate tastes bad, therefore it must be good for you. It's like a religion."

Comments

Heh.

[Aaron_Pike]

Schadenfreude is the best freude.

Re:Heh.

[Penguinisto]

True, though it sadly proves P.T. Barnum's maxim, and says more about a gullible public, the lack of peer review in the field of nutrition (and worse, the sheer incompetence of so-called 'nutrition journalists' and 'specialists'), than it does about a science journal's shady/sloppy practices.

Long story short, it exposes a hell of a lot more than just what the scientist initially wanted exposed.

Maybe someone could do and publish a sociology study from it?
(/me ducks and runs like hell...)

Re:Heh.

[Opportunist]

Mostly it exposes that people love to believe stories they like. And of course journalists love to publish stories that their readers like.

I just don't think that qualifies as news, though.

Re:Heh.

[Carewolf]

Schadenfreude is the best freude.

Certainly, and if you believe anything printed in the Bild (not a newspaper btw. but a picture-book/tabloid), you deserve nothing but Schadenfreude.

Re:Heh.

[Mikkeles]

"Bitter chocolate tastes bad."

Well, there's the fatal flaw indicator right there.

Re:Heh.

[michelcolman]

The big problem is that everyone will now remember the fake study and continue to believe it, because the rectification doesn't get nearly as much coverage. People are still refusing to vaccinate children because they're afraid of autism even though the author of that study actually confessed having made the whole thing up.

Re: Heh.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that they aren't aware that the author confessed, it's that they love to hear about "secrets that 'they' don't want you to know about" because there's a giant global conspiracy by this 'they' to keep poor people poor and make people sick for profit.

I don't personally know an anti vaxer, but I'd wager that most of them who heard about the author confessing to a fraud believe that he was coerced by 'they' to admit it, and it really does cause autism after all.

It's really the same reason why Greenpeace thinks Patrick Moore was bribed by big oil just because he fell out of line with their radical views. Or why anybody who says that GMO food isn't actually bad and is indeed a good thing gets accused of shilling for Monsanto, even though they have nothing to do with Monsanto or the food industry.

Re:Heh.

[Anonymous Coward]

(/me ducks and runs like hell...)

If you pay 600EUR and write a paper about your running, you can stop running in the wobbly manner.

Re:Heh.

[Jawnn]

Mostly it exposes that people love to believe stories they like. And of course journalists love to publish stories that their readers like.

I just don't think that qualifies as news, though.

Perhaps not news, but as a topic worthy of consideration and discussion, you bet. Consider Fox News. It's veracity and accuracy are so poor that almost an entire industry has been built up around calling "bullshit" on so many of their "facts", and yet millions of viewers rely on it to help build their world-view every day. Those ratings wouldn't be there without Fox's heavy emphasis on "stories that people love to believe". Frankly, I find such phenomena fascinating, and often more than a little troubling. Before the chocolate hoax was the whole anti-vaxer phenomenon. To this day, otherwise reasonable people cling to the notion that routine childhood vaccinations are a bad idea, despite overwhelming credible evidence to the contrary and the plain fact that the notion itself was spawned by miscreant for personal gain. Why do they choose to believe bullshit in the face of plainly evident truth? What should we do about it? Can we do anything about it? Should we? It's excellent grist for the discussion mill, IMO.

Re:Heh.

[Darinbob]

And P.T. Barnum's legacy survived and is thriving in journalism.

Re:Heh.

[Mr D from 63]

Mostly it exposes that people love to believe stories they like. And of course journalists love to publish stories that their readers like.

And it extends past publishing stories, to a business model built around telling people what they want to hear, like Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute or Al Gore.

Re: Heh.

[Anonymous Coward]

And you. Don't forget you.

Re:Heh.

[Curunir_wolf]

People are still refusing to vaccinate children because they're afraid of autism even though the author of that study actually confessed having made the whole thing up.

Ummm... no, he didn't. There were a couple of issues with the study, the primary one being that a temporal association between the administration of the vaccine and the onset of autistic enterocolitis should never have implied causality. The study was important because it identified the colon symptoms present in a subset of patients with ASD as a distinct disorder. But it was misinterpreted in the press, especially for a study where the primary findings involved only 12 patients.

The main author never signed on to the minor retraction. There was nothing close to a confession of "making the whole thing up", but some (questionable) researchers from other institutions have made that accusation.

Re:Heh.

[Frosty Piss]

Mostly it exposes that people love to believe stories they like. And of course journalists love to publish stories that their readers like.

I'm gluten free, you insensitive clod.

Re: Heh.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't personally know an anti vaxer, but I'd wager that most of them who heard about the author confessing to a fraud believe that he was coerced by 'they' to admit it, and it really does cause autism after all.

I do actually know quite a few anti-vaxers (not one myself though). Although it's probably a biased sample (all of them are upper middle class and college graduates), the general trends seem to be...

* okay, it doesn't cause autism, but it probably causes some other difficult to diagnose problem
* the schedule is too stressful on children, need to stretch it out, maybe even to 7-8 years old and probably not all are necessary

However, most of them have done at least a few vaccines for their kids, but not the full complement of them (and none of them get flu shots). When I ask them about it, they reluctantly admit that they don't know what the hell the right thing to do is, so they are doing nothing until they get bullied by their doctors to do so. School age for their kids is coming up, so I think they are coming to a time of reckoning as California is in the processes of removing the personal-belief exemption for vaccine compliance.

I think that there is generally a large overlap of those that seek "natural/organic" and these types of anti-vaxer (which I concede are probably not anti-vaxers in the traditional sense). They sense the controversy, and are thinking that doing nothing is better "safe" than sorry. Hopefully, they won't be sorry that they didn't vaccinate...

On the other hand, one of my friends had two autistic kids. Her stance on vaccines is really ambiguous. Gave the first kid the full schedule, and the second kid she held back but when he was diagnosed, she caught him up. She's currently a bit overwhelmed (her husband recently died in a freak accident leaving her a widow) and sadly isn't above blaming anything at this point (I've heard her take off on vaccines, BPA, pesticides, flame retardants, non-stick cookware, genetics, night-lights, etc). But when you talk to her about vaccines, she still says she would still vaccinate her kids even though when overwhelmed she switches her tune. I suspect her type is a sizeable camp of anti-vaxers as well.

No doubt there are some conspiracy folks out there, but perhaps just not in my socio-economic pool of acquaintances...

Re:Heh.

[Anonymous Coward]

...and massaging climate data to fit the argument. Wait? What? Yes, a new study shows chocolate is responsible for Globlal Warming.

Re:Heh.

[TranquilVoid]

He's even written an entire book defending his conduct through the whole thing, I guess that's a way to use the publicity to work around his destroyed career.

But this thread proves the whole story. Even those with 'correct' scientific beliefs are susceptible to believing what they want to hear, and it will become accepted canon that Andrew Wakefield was deliberately fraudulent and admitted it.

Re:Heh.

[rtb61]

Main stream media routinely lies to people not just in the advertising it sells but now in not-news it peddles. Those liars do not do nothing for free. That time gap between the report release and spreading the lies, time enough to approach candy corporations with spend some more on advertising and we will spread this not-news story far and wide.

Reality, people want to hear the truth from news, not more lies, ask people what they want to hear and by far the majority will say the 'TRUTH'. Forget the lies about main stream media saying they tell people what they want to hear, they tell the majority of people the lies a minority of people pay to be told. A more treasonous bunch you could not expect to find anywhere than in the corporate boardrooms of media empires.

Re:Heh.

[RespekMyAthorati]

Andrew Wakefield was deliberately fraudulent, and that is why the paper was retracted and his medical license revoked.

Re:Heh.

[Curunir_wolf]

Andrew Wakefield was deliberately fraudulent, and that is why the paper was retracted and his medical license revoked.

Odd that Wakefield's co-author, accused of the same things, had his indictment reversed on appeal. Wakefield did not have malpractice insurance, and his appeal was denied.

And, of course, the oft-quoted Danish study was conducted by a researcher now under indictment for fraud: Paul Thorsen.

Re:Heh.

[Opportunist]

Most people mistake a free press with a press that can (or even wants to) tell the truth. The only thing a free press means is that the press may tell different lies than the government.

Re:Heh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the world is a PT Barnum maxim.

Re:Heh.

[Anonymous Coward]

MSNBC runs 50% more opinion pieces than Fox News.

Re:Heh.

[Jawnn]

See, there's your problem. You don't believe it's an opinion piece unless the broadcaster is honest enough to say it is.

Re:Heh.

[Opportunist]

How? I thought it caps at 100%.

Re:Heh.

[sysrammer]

Hah! Excellent summary of a free press!

chocolate helped me lose weight

[turkeydance]

i just don't eat it.

Scientists are generally trusted

[craigminah]

Because scientists are trusted they hold a lot of power to do good or in this case, evil. Reminds me of the junk science and lies with "global warming".

Like cops, teachers, priests, etc., scientists are highly regarded and our blind trust in them can lead to tragic results.

Re:Scientists are generally trusted

[Anonymous Coward]

What they did was a public service. It wasn't "Evil". They did this to demonstrate a point about fee-charging open-access journals.

Re:Scientists are generally trusted

[CraigGlaser]

Anyone who trusts scientists has no idea how science works. You don't trust the person or title, you trust the chain of independent verification of the data. This is a critical thinking issue.

Re:Scientists are generally trusted

[Anonymous Coward]

more trolling in this thread... this was not to demonstrate anything about fee-charging journals (by the way all journals charge fees, just to different people). This was an exercise in vanity of the author, showing he is all too powerful fooling the establishment. I wish he gets punished!

Re:Scientists are generally trusted

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree.

Scientists are widely distrusted.

Except when they tell us what we want to hear.

Re:Scientists are generally trusted

[Penguinisto]

Here's the trick: You and I know this, but the average schlub out there does not.

That distinction is kinda vital, and it's what I think GP was driving at.

Re:Scientists are generally trusted

[Anonymous Coward]

More to the point, it's impossible to independently (& personally) verify the data and claims of everything that you would like verified. There's not enough time in the world.

Re:Scientists are generally trusted

[Anonymous Coward]

More to the point, it's impossible to independently (& personally) verify the data and claims of everything that you would like verified. There's not enough time in the world.

But I saw it on facebook!

Re:Scientists are generally trusted

[ShanghaiBill]

Here's the trick: You and I know this, but the average schlub out there does not.

Science journalists should be better than "average schlubs". They owe it to their readers to do at least a few minutes of fact checking before publishing.

Re:Scientists are generally trusted

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate Godwin'ed in three!

Re:Scientists are generally trusted

[Anonymous Coward]

They still have "journalists" out there somewhere?

Re:Scientists are generally trusted

[StikyPad]

Most people don't have time to do this, even if they had the requisite level of knowledge, so we trust other people to do it for us, and we call those people "journalists." Ideally, there would be multiple people doing independent reviews, but in the days of the AP and Reuters, we just get 1 semi-literate write up and then syndication, unless it has to do with whether some soccer people took bribes or how cute kittens are, and then we can count on no less than 20 independent reporters and weekly follow-ups.

The other problem is that there is no genuine nutrition research, nor genuine nutrition practitioners. As someone above mentioned, the only way to have controlled trials which pass ethical considerations is if you believe a substance will help, or very certain that it won't harm someone. You can't just feed them a diet of Twinkies and red meat and then see what happens, and say "oh yeah, heart disease, sorry about that" but you can't have a controlled trial without doing that either.

Re:Scientists are generally trusted

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have verify it. You just need to trust the chain of independent verification of the data by others.

Re:Scientists are generally trusted

[Anonymous Coward]

This was an exercise in vanity of the author, showing he is all too powerful fooling the establishment. I wish he gets punished!

Yes! Let's just kill the messenger for bringing us news we don't want to hear!

Re:Scientists are generally trusted

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree.

Scientists are widely distrusted.

Except when they tell us what we want to hear.

Congratulations! You win the internet for today! Now go grab yourself a cookie.

Re:Scientists are generally trusted

[BCGlorfindel]

Here's the trick: You and I know this, but the average schlub out there does not.

Science journalists should be better than "average schlubs". They owe it to their readers to do at least a few minutes of fact checking before publishing.

But that is counter balanced by owing it to their editors and share holders to skip those few minutes and facts to publish an article that will catch more readers eyes.

Re: Scientists are generally trusted

[houghi]

They are journalists not scientists. the reader is the product. Except for the subject there is no difference between a scientific or e.g. a sports or gossip journalist.

Re:Scientists are generally trusted

[ShanghaiBill]

But that is counter balanced by owing it to their editors and share holders to skip those few minutes and facts to publish an article that will catch more readers eyes.

They can still do that, while reporting accurately. They just need to include a disclaimer in the article that there was no peer review, and it likely total nonsense. Responsible publications have articles about unconfirmed preliminary research all the time, they are just careful to label it as such.

Re:Scientists are generally trusted

[nbauman]

Science journalists should be better than "average schlubs". They owe it to their readers to do at least a few minutes of fact checking before publishing.

Gary Schwitzer, who runs the Health News Review blog, gave a checklist that makes it easier.

http://www.healthnewsreview.or...

Tips for Understanding Studies

        Mixed messages about statistical significance
        Surrogate markers may not tell the whole story
        Be careful with composites
        Does The Language Fit The Evidence? - Association Versus Causation
        Odds ratios
        Resources for Reporting on Costs of Medical Interventions
        "Off-label" Drug Use and Marketing
        7 Words (and more) You Shouldn't Use in Medical News
        News from Scientific Meetings
        Absolute vs. Relative Risk
        Number Needed to Treat
        Commercialism
        Single Source Stories
        FDA Approval Not Guaranteed
        Phases of Drug Trials
        Medical Devices
        Animal & Lab Studies

Re:Scientists are generally trusted

[praxis]

Yes, but good journalists cost money and most people have stopped wanting to pay for journalism. That said, there are still some publications out there that have a healthy body of paid readership willing to find actual non-sensational journalism.

Re: Scientists are generally trusted

[praxis]

the reader is the product.

That is not always true. There are still journalists who write for publications for which the reader is the customer.

Re: Scientists are generally trusted

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you name such a publication? It's been *decades* since most publications were funded primarily by the readers (either by subscription or purchasing an issue), rather than by advertisers. For most, the subscription income doesn't cover the costs of the physical print runs (or servers & bandwidth), much less the cost to actually generate the content.

Re:Scientists are generally trusted

[Whorhay]

But, it's got electrolytes. It's what plants crave!.....

Re:Scientists are generally trusted

[HiThere]

The problem here is thinking of trust as a binary choice rather than as a probability (float). Everybody, when they stop to think about it, realize that trust isn't all or nothing, but somewhere intermediate. But people often take shortcuts, and one easy shortcut is deciding trust as binary.

So, no, you shouldn't blindly trust an authority, but neither should you blindly distrust them. Each case needs to be evaluated separately based on the evidence you have on hand, and then given a temporary weight...which is subject to being changed when more evidence arrives. Unfortunately, this is not a good model for convincing people that you are correct, because you don't have the emotionally driving certainty. But even though that certainty is a great tool for convincing people, it's quite dangerous. You should immediately doubt whenever you hear someone being certain. This is a matter of self-protection, it's not that they are always wrong, or always malicious, often they aren't. But their goals are quite likely to differ from yours. And certainty is driven not be evidence, but rather by emotions, which are almost always self-serving in either a narrow or in an extended sense. (OTOH, life isn't a zero sum game, so their being self-serving doesn't mean that they are necessarily detrimental to you, your purposes, or your goals.)

Re: Scientists are generally trusted

[Anonymous Coward]

2600

Re:Scientists are generally trusted

[lgw]

More to the point, it's impossible to independently (& personally) verify the data and claims of everything that you would like verified. There's not enough time in the world.

Very true. The rational man realizes this, and doesn't hold strong political opinions on the rest of it. We're all going to be ignorant of most science in the modern world - the time has long passed when the educated man could know all of the scientific knowledge there was. It's important to therefore set arrogance aside, and not try to tell others they're idiots, or force your uneducated opinion on others by law, unless you actually care enough to do the diligence first.

Far too many people mistake fashion for education. If you're going to call others fools for trying to stop the teaching of "evolution" in schools, call them fools because you took the time to understand the science, the counter-arguments, and why a smart, ration person could somehow not believe in evolution. Until you understand the other side, and why it's wrong, stay out of the argument. For the evolution case: if you had a solid biology class, this takes just a few days of reading the talk.origins site. It's not an undue burden, and otherwise arrogance about your uninformed opinion is just idiocy.

For newer fields like the climate change debate, it will take longer to dig up the details, as there isn't a handy website that collects all the pro and con arguments. For climate change, can read through the pro and con sites and understand where they're coming from, understand the Vostok ice core data for perspective, spend time pondering the satellite temperature data, and so on.

For any such issue, treat both sides as intelligent people who are in earnest in their beliefs and not trolling, and read enough to understand how this can be true. When you understand how intelligent people can disagree on the issue, and see where both sides are coming from, then you can act out of knowledge instead of arrogance, and stop polluting the debate with idiocy. If your only basis for argument is "everyone knows the smart people believe X, and the losers believe not-X", well, that's fashion, not knowledge. This pretty much applies to anything being debated politically, BTW, not just the science stuff.

Re:Scientists are generally trusted

[ThatsDrDangerToYou]

More to the point, it's impossible to independently (& personally) verify the data and claims of everything that you would like verified. There's not enough time in the world.

But I saw it on facebook!

That's good enough for me!

Then, something amazing happened...

Re: Scientists are generally trusted

[praxis]

The Economist sells 1.5 million issues per week. Their subscriptions number over 1 million. Their subscriptions are growing almost 50% per year. They also charge more than most weekly magazines.

Re:Scientists are generally trusted

[BCGlorfindel]

But that is counter balanced by owing it to their editors and share holders to skip those few minutes and facts to publish an article that will catch more readers eyes.

They can still do that, while reporting accurately. They just need to include a disclaimer in the article that there was no peer review, and it likely total nonsense. Responsible publications have articles about unconfirmed preliminary research all the time, they are just careful to label it as such.

Guess I needed a sarcasm sign with your response and a down vote too. What happened to everyone's sense of humor?

Re: Scientists are generally trusted

[ShanghaiBill]

They also charge more than most weekly magazines.

The Economist charges more per magazine, but if you consider the amount of news you get, it is actually cheaper. The Economist is mostly actual news and analysis. Time, Newsweek, and most other "news" magazines contain a huge amount of photo spreads, celebrity gossip, ads, and other fluff.

Re:Scientists are generally trusted

[jandersen]

I think one should distinguish between 'Science journalists' and 'Science reporters'. I like to think that 'journalist' means that a serious effort guided by a minimum of insight has taken place, whereas a 'reporter' is more akin to a simple repeating station, transmitting whatever it receives. There are not many real science journalists in the world, but there are plenty of reporters, who don't understand and don't really care either.

Re: Scientists are generally trusted

[praxis]

Cost per issue is an objective measure. Cost per unit value ("actual news and analysis") is a subjective measure. While I personally agree with you, I feel objective data makes a better answer to the question of publication funding.

Re:Scientists are generally trusted

[DrVxD]

Most people don't have time to do this, even if they had the requisite level of knowledge, so we trust other people to do it for us, and we call those people "journalists."

You rely on journalists to peer review scientific papers? You may want to rethink that...

Logic

[ArcadeMan]

"Bitter chocolate tastes bad, therefore it must be good for you. It's like a religion."

Well, it works for brocoli...

Re:Logic

[Em Adespoton]

"Bitter chocolate tastes bad, therefore it must be good for you. It's like a religion."

Well, it works for brocoli...

I like bitter chocolate, and I like broccoli -- I even like chocolate-covered broccoli.

But I'd never use either to lose weight.

Re:Logic

[tomhath]

For most people, a diet of bitter chocolate covered broccoli would probably result in a weight loss. You read it here first.

Re:Logic

[geminidomino]

Why wouldn't you use broccoli to lose weight? It's one of the few healthy sides that even seem worth the trouble of eating, for me.

Re:Logic

[LWATCDR]

but I like dark chocolate.
I also like broccoli as well

Re:Logic

[Garble Snarky]

Broccoli is my secret weight loss miracle food. It's both extremely filling and extremely low in calories. If you happen to like the taste of broccoli, there is no better snack food for losing weight.

Re:Logic

[The_Rook]

when broccoli is good, there is just a hint of sweetness that can be awoken with a little salt. pouring cheese and/or other gunk on it just covers up the flavor.

on the other hand, there's a lot of lousy tasting broccoli out there that fully deserves to be drowned in velveeta.

Re:Logic

[The_Rook]

i generally prefer chocolate between 60 and 65% cocoa solids. that would count more as semisweet rather than bittersweet.

and the best chocolate is from central and south america and the us (except for hershey's which should be only be referred to as soylent brown).

Re:Logic

[TranquilVoid]

Are you referring to processed chocolate or the growing of the beans? My impression was that Central/South America don't do much processing of chocolate, and that the U.S. doesn't grow cocoa. Beans are generally roasted, blended and processed in first-world countries.

So you'd want to say;

"The best beans come from Central and South America rather than Africa", or

"The best chocolate comes from France, Switzerland and Belgium"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my understanding.

Re:Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot Germany and Japan in your list.

Re: Logic

[Ororo]

Only because of the vomiting after eating it. *shudder* some things were not meant to be mixed.

they are called predatory journals

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact the journal is open access is irrelevant. The problem is that they just exist as a money-making scheme. The muddling of these things muddies the waters around the open access debate, needlessly mixing together good open-access publishers like PLoS with the numerous junk ones.

Could also work to get press for good science

[__roo]

TFA lays out a template for getting press for lousy research: publish a paper (doesn't matter where), create an institute and a website, write press releases that lazy journalists can copy almost verbatim. I don't see why this won't work for legitimate and useful science.

Re:Could also work to get press for good science

[Anonymous Coward]

People lap it up when some authority tells them that their vices are really virtues.

Try giving people bad news about their habits and you will not be so well received.

Re:Could also work to get press for good science

[Chris Mattern]

Because they also carefully pre-selected a result that would generate a desire in journalists to carry the story. Real science doesn't get to do that.

Chocolate is for luddites.

[Anonymous Coward]

Modern appers lose weight by eating apps, which have no substance!

Apps!

Because I did not read the original article...

[Anonymous Coward]

....but did science debunk it or what?

What was he trying to prove? That a journal would publish his findings?

Is it up to science journals to confirm results of a study? Or simply make sure all seems in order for publication and let the scientific community who reads the journal to confirm or debunk the study?

Re:Because I did not read the original article...

[Ignacio]

It was never science in the first place. He used known flaws in experimentation to prove that you can make the mainstream publish anything. Which was the point he was trying to make.

Re:Because I did not read the original article...

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand that it was not science to begin with. It has long been established that mainstream media will publish anything, I don't think anybody with an IQ above 100 was not aware. Their goal is simply to sell copies, above all else.

From what I read is that he initially published in a journal (although no specifically stated I took it to imply a reputable scientific journal) which mainstream media linked back to.

So if this is the case, my initial question stands; What was he trying to show? That scientific journals will publish bad science (IMHO it's not their job to check the results and conclusion of studies, that is up to the scientific community) ? That scientists should not be trusted (and they should not be, trust the science not the people)? Or did the scientific community debunk the study as expected?

Re:Because I did not read the original article...

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't have to go through so much effort.
http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/remove.pdf

Re:Because I did not read the original article...

[turbidostato]

"It has long been established that mainstream media will publish anything, I don't think anybody with an IQ above 100 was not aware."

So you thing that about half the people is not aware? That's still a lot of people.

Re:Because I did not read the original article...

[RDW]

So if this is the case, my initial question stands; What was he trying to show? That scientific journals will publish bad science (IMHO it's not their job to check the results and conclusion of studies, that is up to the scientific community)?

Any reputable journal will use a peer review process that will at least provide some level of filtering for this sort of thing, effectively the first step in assessment by the community. Junk journals hardly even bother pretending to do this, and are fair game for sting operations. However, I think that issuing press releases to the mainstream media is more questionable. How many of these newspapers will even bother printing followup articles explaining the sting? A fair proportion of their readers will probably never find out that the claims had no real basis, and will add the chocolate nonsense to their mental store of other dubious 'facts' that get reported in these papers (especially in the 'nutrition' section!).

Re:Because I did not read the original article...

[HiThere]

To be fair, while dark chocolate may not help you to lose weight, it's not all that bad a thing to add to your diet. You just need to remember to count the calories in it as a part. (My preference is unsweetened cocoa powder, which may not really be chocolate, I've never been sure.)

And I rather like chicken mole (my recipie, as I have a requirement that neither the chicken nor the sauce have added salt).

The problem is the people who think that chocolate flavored bars of fat are a weight loss aid. (Check out the carbs of unsweetened cocoa power, though. It's quite low.)

Also, I believe that, as with coffee, chocolate contains useful phytochemicals. Just as do kale, chard, and other dark green leavy vegetables. (I'm not so sure about most beans, as nobody seems to have been pushing them. Probably, however, kidney beans have them, as they are generally found in darkly colored vegetable foods...like broccoli and brussel sprouts.)

Re:Because I did not read the original article...

[TranquilVoid]

My preference is unsweetened cocoa powder, which may not really be chocolate, I've never been sure

It depends if you consider chocolate to be the finished product or the processed beans, but it's a sliding scale. You can get 99% chocolate that has no extra sugar or milk and it's still recognisable as chocolate.

You sound like you know all this, but the processed beans produce "cocoa mass" which is made up of two components;

- Cocoa butter (a pale yellow fat with little flavour)
- Cocoa solids (a dark, strong powder, pretty much what you buy as cocoa powder)

White chocolate is only the butter with a bunch of milk, sugar and flavourings, and is often said to not be real chocolate because it doesn't contain solids. This is where I remain unsure also - is the determining factor the presence of solids, or the presence of both solids and butter? Personally I am happy to call it all chocolate.

This was done by a journalist, not a scientist!

[metageek]

The OP is wrong on this, the guy is a JOURNALIST not a scientist. (He may have a science degree but he acts as a journalist).

If a scientist had done this they would be losing their job any minute. Any of the following would be enough to disgrace a practicing scientist (I am one):

1- carrying out research on human subjects without approval of the study by an independent review board
2- asking people to undergo a study that he knew before hand that was not beneficial to the subjects, in fact could likely be the opposite (this would mean he'd never get approval of the study)
3- lying to people about his affiliation and credentials in the paper

There are a lot of other problems with this "study", but it surely was not done by a scientist.

What it does reveal is that people cannot rely on popular press stories about science as journalist pay no attention to the important details of publications and fall for any hype. Unlike what the guy says, journalist can never be "peer" reviewers of any science... their role is different and yet they are not doing it properly.

Re:This was done by a journalist, not a scientist!

[Anonymous Coward]

0) Oh, he's not a scientist? He's doing fucking SCIENCE here. He had a hypothesis, conducted an experiment, published the fucking result. He created new information about the state of scientific journalism. But maybe you're confusing academics with science.

1) Get real. There was no potential for harm. Your "review board" requirement raises the bar high enough to render unethical every science fair project ever done.

2) Exactly like, for example, every control group, ever?

3) That was the basis. Of. The. Study.

Re:This was done by a journalist, not a scientist!

[captnjohnny1618]

I think you misread the post (and/or the article).

Yes, the author of the story is a science journalist. The "study" was intentionally bad to demonstrate the current sad state of "science journalism" (with an easy target like nutrition) where few of these journalists actually take the time to actually read the article, much less actually fact check on a critical, challenging or even marginally scientific level.

So your final conclusion is exactly what he wanted to show: you can't blindly trust popsci journalism... but your methods for arriving there are a little roundabout.

Re:This was done by a journalist, not a scientist!

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't eat haggis either.

Re:This was done by a journalist, not a scientist!

[captnjohnny1618]

Although, I see now that the original TITLE of the summary has been significantly change by "timothy" the editor to be a bullshitty clickbaity title that doesn't accurately represent the stories linked to. The summary is ok though, but still a little unclear. So it's easy to see where the confusion arises...

I'm just going to start reading everything in the firehouse before timothy gets his sticky little fingers on it.

Re:This was done by a journalist, not a scientist!

[Headw1nd]

Not all scientists work for universities, you know. Also a pet peeve, "Scientist" with a capital S is not a thing, stop treating it as though it were. Scientists are not paladins, there is no gold standard of purity for scientists, no science deity will strip them of their powers if they don't follow some moral code. There are thousands of amoral scientists out there right now doing far worse things, mostly at the behest of governments and corporations.

Re:This was done by a journalist, not a scientist!

[AthanasiusKircher]

You're absolutely correct that this story is mostly about how we should distrust science journalism, and the author of the "study" makes that clear.

However...

If a scientist had done this they would be losing their job any minute. Any of the following would be enough to disgrace a practicing scientist (I am one):

Yes, all of that is true. But I think you're exaggerating quite a bit about the impact any of this would have had on whether a study like this could have been done by a reputable scientist (it certainly could have been), or whether it would have been published if that scientist had appropriate credentials (as noted in the article, there are plenty of places to publish bad research with little vetting).

2- asking people to undergo a study that he knew before hand that was not beneficial to the subjects, in fact could likely be the opposite (this would mean he'd never get approval of the study)

The details of methodology in this study might have been changed a bit to get it approved by a review board, and there's certainly nothing about the basic idea of this study that suggests it would NECESSARILY (or even likely) have significant detrimental effects for the subjects. And there is certainly at least a possibility of beneficial effects.

I suggest you have a look at some of the research articles linked even in an article of Wikipedia on the subject. There have been dozens, and probably hundreds of studies that have tried to measure health effects of chocolate -- many of them have involved people eating small amounts of chocolate and observing effects, just as the study here did.

So, the idea that an actual scientist, with the appropriate amount of time, could "never get approval of the study" is just ridiculous. As I said, there would probably be some more detailed methodological justification and tweaks, but lots of nutrition studies like this happen all the time.

Unlike what the guy says, journalist can never be "peer" reviewers of any science... their role is different and yet they are not doing it properly.

Yes, journalists have their own jobs to do, and there are certainly flaws in the system.

But there are flaws in the science system too, which makes the job of journalists (and scientists trying to look at research out there and evaluate it) much harder. "P hacking" is not just something made up by this journalist -- it's a real thing, and it's a real problem. Yes, many reputable journals have tried to make review procedures better to avoid various statistical problems, but they often don't really fight them head-on (with a few notable exceptions of brave editors or boards). There are a LOT of problems with common statistical procedures followed by researchers -- even those who have proper credentials and have gotten independent reviews.

Anyhow, most of your criticism boils down to "this guy wasn't credentialed to do what he did." That's great, but it doesn't address the larger flaws here -- not only in journalistic reporting, but in some aspects of scientific methodology. This study was clearly not rigorous, but I've seen worse studies published in reputable journals.

Re:This was done by a journalist, not a scientist!

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientist: Lawful Neutral
HD d4
  BaB Fort Ref Will Special 0 1st
1st +0 +0 +0 +2 "Summon Assistant, Scribe Scroll" 3 1
Incurs casting penaly when not wearing white robe
If a Scientist fails its alignment check, it loses all special abilities.

Re:This was done by a journalist, not a scientist!

[taustin]

If a scientist had done this they would be losing their job any minute.

Given that we're talking about the "nutrition" industry, if a scientist had done this, it would likely be his job. Specifically.

That's the point.

Re:This was done by a journalist, not a scientist!

[Anonymous Coward]

2- asking people to undergo a study that he knew before hand that was not beneficial to the subjects, in fact could likely be the opposite (this would mean he'd never get approval of the study)

As a practicing mad scientist, I could run a study that shows that chocolate helps you lose weight and cures diabetes.
1. 800 cal a day in chocolate is only calorie source (vitamin supplements would be included in diet).
2. Medically supervised.
3. Runs for ~8 weeks.
4. Exercise will be rigorously "encouraged" via "El Shocko", the electrical cattle motivation stick (Hey man, got to keep it mad or it is no fun)

So there is a legit click bait study that can be done.
Put it up right after the "Why diet and exercise do not work!" and "Why your weight problem is not your fault!" and keep the fatties coming back for more clicks.

Re:This was done by a journalist, not a scientist!

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientist: Lawful Neutral
HD d4

  BaB Fort Ref Will Special 0 1st
1st +0 +0 +0 +2 "Summon Assistant, Scribe Scroll" 3 1
Incurs casting penaly when not wearing white robe
If a Scientist fails its alignment check, it loses all special abilities.

Touche monsieur.

Re:This was done by a journalist, not a scientist!

[narcc]

It wasn't a study, it was a publicity stunt.

Re:This was done by a journalist, not a scientist!

[turbidostato]

"the guy is a JOURNALIST not a scientist. (He may have a science degree but he acts as a journalist).

If a scientist had done this they would be losing their job any minute. Any of the following would be enough to disgrace a practicing scientist (I am one)
[...]
What it does reveal is that people cannot rely on popular press stories about science as journalist pay no attention to the important details of publications"

Have you paid attention to the references, you mister scientist?

At least one of the points of this Slashdot entry is that:
a) You *can* have a scientist career breaking all the nice points you cite.
b) It is not that people can't rely on popular press for science but that they can't rely on (open-access) scientific press either.

See an example:

"good news arrived in the inbox of Ocorrafoo Cobange, a biologist at the Wassee Institute of Medicine in Asmara. It was the official letter of acceptance for a paper he had submitted 2 months earlier to the Journal of Natural Pharmaceuticals" followed by " the Journal of Natural Pharmaceuticals. It describes itself as "a peer reviewed journal aiming to communicate high quality research articles, short communications, and reviews in the field of natural products with desired pharmacological activities." The editors and advisory board members are pharmaceutical science professors at universities around the world." and "In fact, it should have been promptly rejected [...] I know because I wrote the paper. Ocorrafoo Cobange does not exist, nor does the Wassee Institute of Medicine [...] More than half of the journals accepted the paper"

Re:This was done by a journalist, not a scientist!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that there is a bit of truth in the criticism that he is intentionally being misleading and this is bad for someone practicing science. I'm highly skeptical that asking subjects to eat a single serving of chocolate daily for several weeks as part of a diet study constitutes: "asking people to undergo a study that he knew before hand that was not beneficial to the subjects, in fact could likely be the opposite" and its clear from the article that they did some examination into the potential for harm. There's a lot of comments saying he's a journalist and this is a publicity stunt. No fucking shit, this is made very clear. It was a calculated deception to raise awareness about an issue. You can disagree with it, but personally I don't see a huge problem with this.

Re:This was done by a journalist, not a scientist!

[HiThere]

Well, sheep's stomachs are hard to come by.

Re:This was done by a journalist, not a scientist!

[Livius]

He's not ethical.

His results may or may not be scientific.

Of course, as a journalist, ethics isn't even an issue.

Re:This was done by a journalist, not a scientist!

[wisnoskij]

The author only makes clear his own bias. A journalist cannot hope to pick apart a scientific article, because they are not scientists. If they had the credentials that allowed them to understand and critic a scientist's work they would not be a journalist. What this article shows is a few of the methods the scientific community uses to generate esteem and keep their jobs by faking science. Pay to get your article taken periodicals do not exist because of poor journalism, there is an entire huge industry of scientific journals that has popped up like this to cater to biased, incompetent, and sometimes even dishonest scientists. It is ridiculous to think that the scientist would suffer any effects other than positive, as this is general industry practice.

Re:This was done by a journalist, not a scientist!

[alvinrod]

It's not a controlled experiment, but it could be called a case study of sorts.

Really though, this kind of thing should be publicized. It draws attention to the issues with science reporting and hopefully the people who latched onto this take a little time to look into what they're reporting on and avoid sources that will publish practically anything.

It also lets consumers know which journalists they may want to be more skeptical of when choosing what the read or believe.

Re:This was done by a journalist, not a scientist!

[phorm]

Depends on what you're studying...

In this case, it seems to be somewhat centered around the "real" public reaction to the "fake" experiment.

Re:This was done by a journalist, not a scientist!

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get "Summon Assistant" until much later on! A 1st level scientist *is* the assistant.

Like a religion indeed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Religions are bad, therefore it must be good for you

Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[HornWumpus]

WTF?

Go eat your milk chocolate, fools. I'll take the 80% Madagascar coco bad bitter stuff, you can have the Cadbury/Hershies.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they mean 110% chocolate!

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try it without any sugar in it.

Or better yet, don't.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[willworkforbeer]

Yes, 5 out of 5 humans surveyed said it, "tastes like Chocolate Dirt."

("Chocolate Dirt" now TM of Harpo Food Enterprises. "Harpo: When You Think You Feel as Good as You Look, You Look as Good as You Think")

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[halivar]

80%? Bah! Would you like some cocoa to go with your milk and sugar? If a chocolate bar doesn't make me scrunch up my face and run for a glass of water, it's not enough!

j/k; 80% is nice. But 90% is nicer.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[Opportunist]

Bar? If your chocolate is solid enough not to require a spoon because that's how it crumbles, it's not pure enough!

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[HornWumpus]

Some bozo opened up a 'I bleed chocolate' (actual name) store near me. They sell 50% coco 'dark'. I yelled at them and stomped out in disgust. Put too much sugar in my chocolate system.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[ArchieBunker]

You guys are already ruining craft beer by flooding it with cheap IPA and ever increasing levels or bitter. Its not a pissing contest to see who can stand the most bitter chocolate or beer.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[cyberchondriac]

Yes! I have never understood this modern obsession with hops. Myself, I prefer a dark malty, fruity ale with some body, something like a good Belgian Dubbel is awesome. Only that's probably even more fattening than chocolate. That said, I do prefer dark chocolate to milk chocolate, the former being a little less sweet.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[rubycodez]

what do you mean, 100% chocolate bars with no sugar are a few clicks away on amazon. great with red wine.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[rubycodez]

http://webcache.googleusercont...

(google cache to be nice to that store)

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[kamapuaa]

80% isn't really that dark...

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[kamapuaa]

WTF? If you don't like hoppy IPAs just order something else. It's certainly not like the only craft beer that's available.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[AthanasiusKircher]

WTF? If you don't like hoppy IPAs just order something else. It's certainly not like the only craft beer that's available.

While that's true, the percentage of hoppy IPAs (and similar styles) available on many beer menus has skyrocketed in the past decade or so.

Meanwhile, just about every craft dark beer (stout, porter, etc.) can't be sold unless it's brewed with some odd concoction of chocolate, coffee, herbs, and who knows what else. (I'm very sensitive to caffeine, so I don't want coffee in my beer, thank you.)

If you don't like hoppy lighter beers or coffee-infused dark beers, in most bars you're stuck drinking some "classic" beer on the menu. If you're lucky, you might see some craft brown ale that isn't completely "off the spectrum" of normal beer.

I actually love trying "interesting" beers. I also appreciate breweries that create variations on standard styles (not every stout needs to taste like Guinness, and there is a great deal of room for decent porters, cask ales, etc.).

But if I'm looking at a place that has 20+ beers on tap, there's often only one or two choices for people who might be interested in trying something different that's NOT overrun by hops or coffee. (A couple months ago, I had a beer that literally tasted like eating burnt pine cones and huge amounts of nutmeg -- terrible. But at least it was different. I only tried it because there was nothing else on the large beer menu which wasn't a standard classic beer, a hoppy IPA or ale, or a coffee-infused dark beer.)

If I wanted something incredibly bitter and/or full of coffee/caffeine in a wildly out-of-balance way, I'd just go drink crappy coffee at Starbucks. Ironically (to my mind), it seems that's where craft beer is taking its cues from these days.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[HornWumpus]

It's called baking chocolate.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[rogoshen1]

This. so much this. Buying beer in the Northwest kind of sucks at the moment due to hops.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys are already ruining craft beer by flooding it with cheap IPA and ever increasing levels or bitter. Its not a pissing contest to see who can stand the most bitter chocolate or beer.

Indeed. I don't quite get the pissing contest either. I eat my chocolate more bitter than you! I eat my thai/indian/chinese food hotter than you! I like my beer more bitter than you! I like my hard liquor with more alcohol than you! I can drink more alcohol at a sitting than you! I've noticed that it is typically Americans that fall into this mindset. I recall one time some of the guys at work went out for thai food. One of the guys ordered his food "thai hot". Half way through the meal he was sweating up a storm. (Sweat was literally dripping off his face onto his plate.) A couple of us were worried he might actually have a heart attack right there during lunch. So what gives? Can't we just enjoy the food without making it some kind of contest?

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called baking chocolate.

Looking at tesco's website, their baking chocolate varies from 30% to 72% so that is not even as strong as their own brand 85% dark chocolate,

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't drink beer, but you need CAMRA
Or the 2000 beers from Delirium Tremens

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[rahvin112]

I had the exact same reaction. I prefer low sugar (or commonly called bitter) chocolate. Chocolate and coffee are about the same bitterness, if you can drink coffee black but don't like unsweetened or low sugar chocolate you are crazy. If you can't consume either without a huge dose of sugar and cream (what makes milk chocolate) you are frankly a pussy.

You don't need a pile of sugar and cream added to something like coffee or chocolate to enjoy it. A lot of people like low sugar or unsweetened chocolate just fine.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[Eravnrekaree]

For me as well bitter chocolate tastes the best, really. The common milk chocolates sold taste like nothing except for sugar and milk, the taste of chocolate is barely there. Many people enjoy bitter tasting foods.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[Eravnrekaree]

IPA is supposed to be a bitter beer, by definition. And thats exactly why many of us love it. We want a bitter beer. If you dont like a bitter bear than the IPA is not for you. go back to drinking your Bud dish water.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[Eravnrekaree]

Exactly, the IPA and Extra IPA are supposed to be bitter. For a less bitter beer go with a regular Ale such as Pale Ale.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[trout007]

It's not that bitter chocolate is so great just that loads of sugar is bad for you. It's amazing how if you stop eating sugar things that were unpalatable like coffee and chocolate without sugar suddenly taste great.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[HornWumpus]

Because those are the only alternatives?

There is a dumbass 'how hoppy can we make beer' thing going on. No balance at all. Just more hops every quarter, no more malt, just more bitter.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[wisnoskij]

This.Coco does not need sugar added, ever.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you've been conditioned by junk food to be afraid of the bitter part of your pallet doesn't mean us hop heads are going to give up making fun of your syrupy barley pop.

And Americans wonder why they're fat.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

i'll stick with my nestle bars, tyvm. cadburys and herseys are just copycat wannabes, nestle is the original milk chocolate bar. herseys, incidentally, was originally made from, essentially, spoiling milk.. dunno if that's still the case or not.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, the IPA and Extra IPA are supposed to be bitter. For a less bitter beer go with a regular Ale such as Pale Ale.

Are you drunk? IPA is a Pale Ale. Less bitter ales would be Regular, Brown and Red ales.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't want an IPA then just go drink domestic premium piss water

You are exactly the type of person that causes these sorts of problems.

The parent post isn't blameless either. There are plenty of breweries around the country that produce delectable beers that taste of neither hairspray nor piss. You'd find them pretty easily if you weren't apparently hanging around in establishments that cater exclusively to trendy assholes who never liked beer in the first place.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go drink a nice altbier and there's nothing you can do to stop me.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[Trogre]

What the..?

I have no idea about craft beers but with chocolate, less sugar == better. The bitter aspect is just a side effect of that, which some like, some don't and that's fine.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

I had the exact same reaction. I prefer low sugar (or commonly called bitter) chocolate. Chocolate and coffee are about the same bitterness, if you can drink coffee black but don't like unsweetened or low sugar chocolate you are crazy. If you can't consume either without a huge dose of sugar and cream (what makes milk chocolate) you are frankly a pussy.

No. I'm not. What the hell is wrong with people like you?!? It is not a goddam contest! Go ahead and have your coffee and chocolate as bitter as you like it, but for God's sake just let the rest of us enjoy our guilty pleasures whatever way we wish to! It says absolutely zero about how macho you are. Seriously, you are not more manly than thou for liking your coffee black.

You don't need a pile of sugar and cream added to something like coffee or chocolate to enjoy it. A lot of people like low sugar or unsweetened chocolate just fine.

I tend to prefer my dark chocolate on the bitter side (70 to 86% cacao). But I like my coffee with lots of cream and sugar. Blow me!

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

It really is a matter of taste. I brewed my own beer for many years and like a rich, malty brew with lots of flavoring hops. My current favorite is Peak Organic Fresh Cut. It's packed with high quality flavoring hops, but low on bittering hops. But some people just seem to love bitter. A good example is England. In the south the beer tends to be light and taste like penicillin. In the north it's amber and sweet.

I don't like chocolate *really* bitter, but I do like it to taste like chocolate. I can't taste any chocolate in a Hershey bar. Only sugar.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

Bitter chocolate = bad.

IPA = india pale ale = had to be transported from india with extra hops acting as a preservative. Hence the name of the beer.

So they really have nothing to do with eachother.

Drink a pale ale then, not an IPA. That should have less hops for you. Some people like wheat or god forbit cream ales, so its really a personal preference like anything
There is always some sort of lager available from any craft brewery i've ever been to and pretty much no beer drinker will refuse a lager.

Bitter chocolate on the otherhand I am sure people eat because they think there are health benefits. Same with carob which is equally disgusting.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[Ihlosi]

If your chocolate is solid enough not to require a spoon because that's how it crumbles, it's not pure enough!

I prefer bars of sintered cocoa powder.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

I buy unusual chocolates for some friends who enjoy strong chocolate. We passed 90% a long while back. You can find 95%, 98%, 99%, and yes, 100%. The 100% is basically ground cocoa beans which hold together due to the cocoa butter. It's so intense and bitter that you can feel an ache below the back of your jaw - I've only found it in organic health food stores.

The consensus so far is that 100% is too strong to take by itself, but they like it on vanilla ice cream. For straight eating, they prefer 98% or 99%.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bitter, much?

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[HornWumpus]

At the high % the quality of the cocoa really starts to matter.

Madagascar cocoa really is better IMHO.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not even close to what baking chocolate is.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoon?? Spoons are for wusses and troglodytes!

A True Scotsman gets his chocolate directly from the tree, gnawing at the fruit like an angry monkey.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

See also, food whose only plus is that it's spicy.

Re:Bitter chocolate tastes bad?

[Uzuri]

Or you just have the genes for a stronger bitter taste, and it overwhelms absolutely everything else.

I can taste PTC paper from across the room. It's horrible; painful on the tongue to actually try one.

That said, crank up the cocoa level on my chocolate to 95%, so long as it's the good stuff. But forget black dark roast coffee, bitter beer, or raw greens. Painful, more like the bite of capsaicin than a flavor. My guess is there's some difference in the bitter compounds among the four; there are several bitter genes and they react differently to different compounds, so all this stuff tastes different to each of us, and it's not just an all or nothing sort of thing. You're lucky in a way; chances are you aren't actually tasting as much bitter as some of the rest of us do. No big deal, so long as there are options for everyone :)

Tabloids

[BitZtream]

Did you seriously just use a list of tabloids as an example of 'fooling millions'?

If so, you must have been born yesterday since tabloids aren't exactly new and are in fact designed around 'fooling millions' on a daily basis.

Just because they print a lot doesn't mean they're reputable news sources.

Oh, and by the way, Katie Holmes is an alien. She didn't used to be, but Tom Cruise has her DNA manipulated by Xenu so now she's like the chick from Species. Its all over the cover of Daily Star.

Its like you guys thought that line in MiB where he says all the best news comes from tabloids wasn't fictional. You know MiB was just a movie too, right?

Re:Tabloids

[Holi]

A movie, exactly, and tabloids are a bunch of hooey. Now please direct your gaze to my partner.

What!

[penguinoid]

How dare a highly processed food made largely of fats, not be good for you.

Re:What!

[Anonymous Coward]

Chocolate is not necessarily highly-processed, and fat is not inherently bad ; in fact, at least some dietary fat is necessary.

Re:What!

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably the chocolate itself is not bad. 'processed' chocolate (aka you cooked it) can be bad for you in large enough quantities. The dose makes the poison after all.

The cup of sugar and boiled cream and butter on the other hand probably is not exactly 'healthy' but not 'bad' for you.

Re:What!

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably the chocolate itself is not bad. 'processed' chocolate (aka you cooked it) can be bad for you in large enough quantities. The dose makes the poison after all.

The cup of sugar and boiled cream and butter on the other hand probably is not exactly 'healthy' but not 'bad' for you.

Cup of sugar? I believe that's actually the very definition of bad.

Re:What!

[gl4ss]

your personal Rainer told you to put butter in your coffee since saturated fats are a "GREAT SOURCE OF LASTING ENERGY"?

who cares if your cocoa powder and sugar is "highly processed" or not.. it's the overall calories that matter. sugar and cocoa themselves don't get any more processed in the process.

But... it would likely actually work (temporarily)

[nerdpocalypse]

Fat people eat on the basis of cues not internal hunger. You lose the normal cues to overeat when you eat a new diet and if it satisfies some psychological effect, you feel full while not eating so many calories (if you are fat and your normal cues are really messed up). http://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy00h/... and.... is there anything (ok, sex, dope, being proved right) that is more satisfying than chocolate? https://www.psychologytoday.co... so, it would work very temporarily.

This works 100%

[bogaboga]

Forget all those so called diet plans.. The only thing I know that works is actually eating less. Many of my friends will not agree, but I wonder how one can gain weight by putting less calories in their system.

Re:This works 100%

[swv3752]

At +- 100-200 Calories( really kilocalories)and less than 2000, preferably less than 1800 (at normal activity levels), Insulin levels play a bigger role than total calories. Insulin is a hormone and in addition to promoting cells to burn glucose, at high level it promotes cells to convert glucose to fat.

There is a decided link to promoting eating more sugar and starch and the US population turning fat.

Re:This works 100%

[Opportunist]

By your body going into starvation mode. C'mon, it's not that hard to look up how to lose weight sensibly, it's all over the web. Some of those tips are even good. Hint: It's the ones that don't want to sell you their miracle cure crap.

Re:This works 100%

[StikyPad]

Eating less... food that is not chocolate, you mean.

Re:This works 100%

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget all those so called diet plans.. The only thing I know that works is actually eating less. Many of my friends will not agree, but I wonder how one can gain weight by putting less calories in their system.

Ah yes, the armchair dieticians. Who needs a well-researched opinion when you're on the internet.

Re:This works 100%

[random coward]

There is a decided link to promoting eating more sugar and starch and the US population turning fat.

But, but, but The Government told us to eat more starches! So did all the Registered Dietitians! And Michelle Obama! I mean just look at the food pyramid. How could they all be wrong? It would have to be some kind of conspiracy for all the authorities to be so wrong on this.

Are you some kind of conspiracy theorist?

Re:This works 100%

[CptJeanLuc]

The "consume fewer calories" diet only works if you are able to keep it up for weeks or months, something most people are unable to do. A diet that is 100% efficient for a small percentage of people, is not a diet that works 100%.

Re:This works 100%

[sribe]

Many of my friends will not agree, but I wonder how one can gain weight by putting less calories in their system.

Endocrine disorder which totally mucks up metabolism, causing your body to metabolize muscle (including your heart, oh joy) and connective tissue, in order to create huge mounds of fat which are mostly water. It's called "Cushing's Syndrome".

It is also EXTREMELY RARE, so yeah, in the vast majority of cases eating less and moving your ass more works just fine ;-)

Re:This works 100%

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, if you can eat less. If you are fat and feel starving, you will eat. In fact, if you manipulate a mouse's hormones properly, you can get it to die of starvation while obese.

Willpower solutions work only so long as you have willpower, which is a finite resource, and expending it on not eating as much as you want for ever and ever won't work for most people. Which is why diets don't work for most people.

You know what animals do in the wild when they suddenly find a very favorable environment with lots of food? Do they eat until they get sick and fat and diabetic? No, they get super-healthy. People are not fat because of the quantity of food available. They are fat because they are not healthy.

The way to stay thin without expending a tremendous willpower and without massive discomfort is to get really freaking healthy. Exercise. Eat right, meaning foods we as humans are evolved to eat, which does not include sugar, processed food, modern wheat (which doesn't even have the same number of chromosomes as heritage wheat), etc. Buy foods without labels. You'll slowly get healthier, which is the goal. You'll get closer to your ideal weight, which is a very nice side effect. The cost? You'll have to break a few bad habits, which is never easy, but after a few weeks, the sugar in a strawberry will take as sweet to you as candy does currently. And every time you eat, you'll be proud and happy rather than hating yourself.

There are other reasons people get fat, but crappy food is probably the major one. Certainly there can be psychological reasons and other as well.

Telling a drunk to drink less never did work, and never will. Get to the root of the problem, and the drunk will naturally start to drink less without willpower.

Re:This works 100%

[Holi]

Exercise and a HEALTHY diet. The amount of calories depends on the amount of exercise. Grains Greens and some meat/protein/fat.

Re:This works 100%

[Holi]

Ahh you added something the GP forgot. " moving your ass more works"
Diets without exercise are destined to fail.

Re:This works 100%

[bogaboga]

The "consume fewer calories" diet only works if you are able to keep it up for weeks or months, something most people are unable to do.

I would like you to tell me what most people are able to do most of the time and for a long time. Like I said, if one tried the MO I outlined, I can guarantee 100% success. Yes, That is 100%.

Re:This works 100%

[Anonymous Coward]

Exercise and a HEALTHY diet. The amount of calories depends on the amount of exercise. Grains Greens and some meat/protein/fat.

Nope. You've just caused the obesity epidemic. Try again, this time with no grains and more meat. Leave the 1970s food pseudoscience where it belongs, in the 1970s.

Re:This works 100%

[RedK]

Starvation mode doesn't actually exist. Especially not if you're eating at least once a day. While your body can optimize some aspects of how it uses energy (which will result in you feeling like total crap as your breathing and heart rate slows even though your body needs more oxygen/blood flow to spread it), this won't be a drastic drop in calorie consumption to maintain your BMR (Basic Metabolic Rate).

You cannot put on weight if you do not ingest the calories. Period. If you do, check yourself in to the closest pharma ASAP, you're body is very special and just broke every law of physics relating conservation there is. You need to be studied so that we can use your magic properties to help the world's energy crisis.

Re:This works 100%

[RedK]

"Consuming fewer calories" in order to maintain your TDEE (BMR+activity) is called being "Normal". If you gain weight, you are overeating. If you cannot stop overeating, you have what is called a Eating Disorder.

Yes, normal people can "consume fewer calories", year after year after year, when they actually listen to satiety cues your body gives you, and eat proper non-processed foods in right quantities so that the majority of what you ingest is not calorie-dense (half a plate of vegetables has 1/10 the caloric content of half a plate of fries for example).

Re:This works 100%

[LogicLoop]

The only thing I know that works is actually eating less.

You're half right. Losing weight is about reducing your net caloric intake. That's calories in - calories out. In other words, you can eat less (fewer calories in) or move more (more calories out) or both.

Eating less works, yes, but it's certainly not the only way.

Re:This works 100%

[cdrudge]

...or eat the same, but exercise more. Burn more calories than you consume. Or better yet, eat fewer calories and exercise more. Burn the obesity candle at both ends.

Re:This works 100%

[turbidostato]

"Endocrine disorder which totally mucks up metabolism, causing your body to metabolize muscle (including your heart, oh joy) and connective tissue, in order to create huge mounds of fat which are mostly water. It's called "Cushing's Syndrome"."

Yes, another case of "armchair nutritionist" coupled with reading comprehension problems.

Unless the Cushing's Syndrome somehow implies termodynamics laws' violation, which I strongly doubt, I don't think you can increase *weight* simply by metabolizing tissues into fat.

Corporal *volume*, on the other hand...

And yes, I know Cushing's Syndrome usually curses with obesity, but you can bet it is not because of what you say but because the way you eat more (specially when it curses with depression) and how you transform what you eat mainly into fat at the expense of other tissues, which in turn makes you move less, which in turn makes your intake even more -relatively speaking, excessive.

Oh! and another one: fat being "mostly water"? C'mon, man, c'mon. You know fat is "drier" than even bones, do you?

Re:This works 100%

[geminidomino]

Leave the 1970s food pseudoscience where it belongs, in the 1970s.

Yeah, this is the age of the 21st Century food pseudoscience, damn it!

Re:This works 100%

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get fat from breathing air.

Re:This works 100%

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you don't have to eat less. You could always use more energy instead.

Re: This works 100%

[houghi]

Taking less calories out. Many people who did sports and stop will gain weight while eating less.

Re:This works 100%

[sribe]

Ahh you added something the GP forgot. " moving your ass more works"

Heh, in my case I never even bother with the "reduce calories" part. Exercise has always been enough for me.

Re:This works 100%

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget all those so called diet plans.. The only thing I know that works is actually eating less. Many of my friends will not agree, but I wonder how one can gain weight by putting less calories in their system.

They can excercise less. For example, a typical olympic swimmer might consume 6000 calories a day. If they cut down to 5000 calories per day but completely stop excercising, they will definitely gain weight.

Re:This works 100%

[Anonymous Coward]

"You cannot put on weight if you do not ingest the calories. Period. "

A) So if you don't eat anything, you'll lose weight? Got that.Check.

"Starvation mode doesn't actually exist."

cf

"While your body can optimize some aspects of how it uses energy (which will result in you feeling like total crap as your breathing and heart rate slows even though your body needs more oxygen/blood flow to spread it)"

So it does exist.

How did you manage that?

Re:This works 100%

[sribe]

Unless the Cushing's Syndrome somehow implies termodynamics laws' violation, which I strongly doubt, I don't think you can increase *weight* simply by metabolizing tissues into fat.

Yeah, OK, you're right about that--especially your point about water content of fat. It's been a long time since I dealt with this with a relative, and my recollection is somewhat hazy of the explanation for why it can be simply impossible for Cushing's patients to avoid weight gain, much less lose weight.

And yes, I know Cushing's Syndrome usually curses with obesity, but you can bet it is not because of what you say but because the way you eat more (specially when it curses with depression) and how you transform what you eat mainly into fat at the expense of other tissues, which in turn makes you move less, which in turn makes your intake even more -relatively speaking, excessive.

Cushing's patients can gain weight even on strict calorie-limited diets and with vigorous exercise. It's because of the changes in the way food is metabolized, increased metabolism specifically of carbohydrates & fats. In order to actually lose weight, some people with that disease would have to reduce caloric intake to a level that would lead to death pretty quickly from heart failure. (Now, to be clear, I am not talking about the mildest cases, thus "can gain weight..." not "will gain weight...", "some people..." not "all people...".)

Let me put it to you this way: when said relative described her attempts at calorie reduction and increased exercise to the specialist, his response was "Yes, that's why you gained 100 lbs last year instead of 200".

The vast majority of overweight people simply need to eat less and exercise more. That's true, but unfortunately it has been simplified into such dogma that, literally, someone who has weighed 120lbs an entire adult life, and suddenly balloons to nearly 200 in a few months without diet or activity changes, can go to the doctor and be told to see a dietician and and get a personal trainer, despite having multiple other symptoms besides weight gain, and that's dangerous. Dangerous, and happens again and again--very common at the Mayo Clinic for Cushing's patients to show up with photos to prove what they looked like a year ago because they've been blown off by so many.

Average time from onset of symptoms to diagnosis: 3 years. In a disease that has a 50% mortality rate (mostly heart failure) in 5 years. While 3 < 5, that's a delay that is scary :-(

Re:This works 100%

[CptJeanLuc]

I am not saying it is not possible. I actually know for a fact it is possible, as I am one of those people who have the self control to do it. I went through a half year diet on an Atkins variation eating two eggs for breakfast, half a chicken for lunch, and a piece of meat with a little broccoli and mushroom for dinner - every - single - day. And nothing else, except water. Plus I have later kept my weight by being somewhat conscious of weekly food intake.

Having done that, I have also had countless conversations with people telling me they could never control their diet that way, and how they do not have the willpower to cut back. There is no need for hard statistics to back up my claim, it is common knowledge. Just look at how many people are failing at going through with their diets, and how many of those who succeed have a relapse back to their previous weight. Plus listen to how most people talk about dieting. Plus why are people turning to all sorts of miracle cures, instead of your simple (and correct) solution.

Plus it is not only about willpower, as I seem to remember that there have been various writing in newspapers over recent years about how there are physiological differences contributing to how we cope with hunger and food intake. So what comes easy for some of us, is probably quite hard for others.

So I am with you on calory intake (vs physical activity but calory intake is just that much more efficient) being the (basically only short of surgery) way to reduce weight. I'm just saying that this observation or advice does not help all those people who are unable to follow through on this as a dieting regime. They need some other system or framework, rather than "just eat less".

Re:This works 100%

[Livius]

It's not that simple.

But neither is it so complex that "eating less" is without merit.

Re:This works 100%

[CptJeanLuc]

I agree, and as I basically wrote in another post, I am not making my comment because I have a problem with this myself. I have been at my BMI for years since I made it a priority, largely by doing what you write.

My point is, "anyone" is not necessarily able to do this. Yes, you could say they should be - because I can and from what you are writing I am guessing you can - but then we are projecting our own experience onto others, who have a different physiology and different experiences. E.g. someone who knows perfectly well they are going to regret eating that big piece of chocolate, but cannot stop themselves because they had a tough day and need a break.

If simply "just listen to satiety cues" was the answer, then how come there are so many people with obesity issues. You have the right solution, but it is not the right solution if it does not solve the problem. It needs to be wrapped in some dieting framework that most people are actually able to go through with.

Re:This works 100%

[Teebin]

Every pound of fat has 3500 Calories in it. Every one of those Calories came in through the mouth. If they didn't, then the fat could not be there (conservation of energy). Hormones are chemical messengers and have no (significant) energy. If you do not overeat (consume more calories than you use) you CANNOT gain weight. I don't think normal-sized people consuming 1800 to 2000 Cal/day with moderate activity levels will ever get fat. For example, the Mifflin equations say a 40 yo male, 5'8" (173cm), 150 lb (71kg) with a moderate activity level will require about 2470 Cal just to maintain their weight. People love to blame hormones and "metabolism" and what (eg starch vs protein) they eat for being fat. Certainly to first order it's HOW MUCH they eat and not WHAT they eat that makes them fat. I know people who are always obsessing about their weight and are up on all the hormone, dietary composition, chocolate fad, etc stuff and have no actual clue HOW MUCH they are eating (in terms of calories). It seems insane to me to try and jigger your metabolism to be higher (by adjusting dietary composition) rather than just eating a couple hundred Calories less a day. There is a general trend in the animal kingdom that lower metabolism animals live longer. Also, I believe there is fairly convincing evidence that people that stick to calorie-restricted diets end up being thin, have LOWER metabolisms, and live longer. I think it probable that low metabolism is a good thing. Like bogaboga said, If you want to lose weight, EAT LESS.

Re:This works 100%

[Anonymous Coward]

For most fat people exercise will do jack shit for losing weight. Spare me how you are so ripped your bicep alone burns 3 extra calories a day, how does that stack up to 3500 calories of french toast for breakfast, 2000 calories of big burger with "bottomless fries" for lunch, and a 1500 calorie dinner-sized appetizer before your actual 2000 calorie dinner, followed with a 750 calorie nice big fudge brownie with icecream for dessert?

Moving your ass more? Enjoy running 4 marathons a day, that might get you down to a surplus of only a few thousand calories, which I'm sure you can make up with a few deadlifts amirite? No. Fix your god damn diet. I guarantee that if you stop eating this shit, your teeth will stop falling out and you'll stop being fat.

Re:This works 100%

[tsqr]

I've had the 'starvation mode' discussion with people in the past. I lost 45 pounds at a rate of about 1-1/2 lbs/week by cutting my intake by an estimated 500 calories per day. There were people who responded essentially with "Can't be true -- after a couple of weeks your body would go into starvation mode and the weight loss would stop." While that might be true for some individuals with unusual metabolisms, it's not true in general. 500 calories is the difference between a burger and fries, and a burger and a side of fruit. Or the difference between a burrito slathered with sauce and cheese, and a salad. A year later, and the weight is still off; I have more energy, and my diet is definitely healthier by a long stretch.

Re:This works 100%

[Anonymous Coward]

... putting less calories in their system ...

In the 1980s the US FDA modified the new nutrition food pyramid to satisfy agri-business demands: Grains, originally recommended to be a small part of the daily diet became more important than fruit and vegetables: According to the modified food pyramid, people were now meant to eat 11 slices of bread a day. (Or the equivalent in pasta and low-fat pastry.)

Around 2000, the nutritionists warned the world everyone was eating too much fat and getting fat. So food companies took out the fat and used sugar and oil instead. Since food is sold by volume or weight, the number of calories should have decreased slightly. Or if servings got bigger, the calories would stay the same. So what happened next; everyone getting fat faster, should not have happened.

In the last 25 years, scientists have been doing a lot of study on digestion and metabolism: It indicates there is a lot of variety in how intestinal tracts digest fats and sugars. Plus, the internal flora can convert oils and fats and into starch, a problem since it's been known since the 1930s that sugar and starch accelerates the storing of fat. Such conversion also means a person is not getting the oils they need, which could cause over-eating.

Yes, fewer calories are healthier, as is castration/sterilization (less sex/pregnancy means less wear on the body and less food required). Eating less does not mean only putting less food on the plate at night-time: Eating fewer calories means the daily intake must consumed closer to expenditure. But the fast-food and frozen-food industry, is not geared towards small meals. Nor is the average work-place geared to a meal-break every 3 hours.

Re:This works 100%

[Anonymous Coward]

and for both of you...what do greens have to do with it?

Some of us don't do greens and do just fine on weight. In fact pretty much just grains and meat :) Plus, lots of fast food (no mayo, no supersize tho)

Gone from 130 lb in high school to 140 lb and over 50 now. No, i am not 4 ft tall ;p

Probably lots of ways to get there but still comes down to in vs out.

Re:This works 100%

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what animals do in the wild when they suddenly find a very favorable environment with lots of food? Do they eat until they get sick and fat and diabetic? No, they get super-healthy. People are not fat because of the quantity of food available. They are fat because they are not healthy.

You know what animals do when then suddenly find themselves with a nearly unlimited supply of high-calorie foods (e.g., not in the wild)? Most of them will eat until they get sick. This has been observed with nearly every type of animal that people keep as pets (e.g., dogs, goldfish, pigs, birds, rabbits, snakes, horses, etc).

We are no different than most animals in this regard.

Re:This works 100%

[Trogre]

It looks like you're describing human metabolism with the following model:
Cal(Food intake) = Cal(Storage) + Cal(Activity)

Is that what you're saying?

I'm pretty sure people excrete calories too. It is therefore not clear that simply reducing calorie intake with no change in activity will immediately result in fewer calories being stored in the body.

Yes, fat people nearly always eat too much but if you have a large meal after a period of fasting, for example, you're probably going to crap out most of the energy contained therein.

Re:This works 100%

[Anonymous Coward]

Starvation mode is probably just a misunderstanding. People reduce the amount they eat significantly, and tend to burn up a bit of muscle as they lose weight. That reduces the amount of energy their body actually needs, to the point where the reduced kilocalorie diet for their bulkier body is now a maintenance diet for their slimmer one (also known as the plateau thing). Probably better off doing the if it fits your macros thing, eating maintenance levels of protein and making up the rest in fat/carbs, so you maintain most of the muscle mass throughout the process.

Re:This works 100%

[strikethree]

Ha! If it were only so simple...

My diet has not changed over the past decade. I eat twice a day; eggs and bacon for breakfast, some sort of sandwich and soup for late lunch.

My exercise levels have not changed at all during that decade. I do not exercise.

I weighed 245 pounds. I weighed 190 pounds. I weighed 240 pounds. I weigh 200 pounds. I gain and lose weight based on what exactly? 40-50 pounds of gain and loss is not exactly small. Why does my weight vary so much? It is not diet and it is not exercise.

I feel certain that my weight would be more stable if I were to exercise, with the stabilization point likely at about 180. I know for a fact I would be healthier if I exercised...

But would my weight really stabilize if I exercised or would it still bounce around by 50 pounds?

I get comments all the time after a fat episode is over and a thinning episode starts: I am so jealous. What are you doing to lose weight?

Frequently, they are very unhappy when I tell them: Nothing.

Re:This works 100%

[Jesrad]

The only thing I know that works is actually eating less.

Not for everyone, no.

"Resistant obese" people have been known since the 1960s in nutrition science: they are people who won't lose weight even when locked in a metabolic ward (=unable to cheat) and limited to just 600 calories a day of food. Read one such study here for example (see page 742: no weight loss on hospital-controlled, drastically restricted-calorie diet). Your advice will NOT work for these people.

I wonder how one can gain weight by putting less calories in their system.

Yeah, the scientists involved in these studies like to call the resistant obese people "walking thermodynamic paradoxes" because they can only wonder, too. And calling them that won't help them in any way, nor will it help science understand why. You have to change paradigm to do that.

Re:This works 100%

[RedK]

When people say "Starvation Mode", they believe that suddenly their body retains all calories in ingests and instantly stores them for future use, and that their BMR and TDEE suddenly shoot down severely.

In actual practice, "starvation mode" results in maybe a different of about 30-50 calories in your TDEE. It might as well not exist, it won't "destroy your metabolism".

Take all those shows nowadays that simply tell people that say "I have slow metabolism", they just shove those guys under the tent and measure it to show them their metabolism is right, then they shove Double Labelled Water down their gullets and show them they are in fact over-eating like crazy.

I suggest reading the non-FA, non-HAES polluted wiki entry on the subject :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_response#In_humans

Re:This works 100%

[Opportunist]

Of course, if you take in less energy than you expend then yes, you will have to burn whatever reserves your body has. True. Is it the most efficient way to lose weight? No. Is it something people can actually do? Hell no. You still have to work. And if you thought a smoker trying to quit smoking is kinda grumpy, just wait 'til you see someone not eating right for a few days.

Re:This works 100%

[Opportunist]

I can see how eating a burger and fruit at the same time makes you lose weight. I at least would certainly puke.

Re: This works 100%

[Ororo]

Drugs. Hormones. I was on depo-provera in my twenties and I gained weight without changing my eating or exercise habits. Relative of mine took Seroquel for sleep, same damn thing. Simple eating less doesn't work in cases like this.

Re: This works 100%

[tsqr]

If combining a burger and watermelon makes you puke, you should see a doctor.

Re: This works 100%

[Opportunist]

I did. I told him about it and he asked me to stop talking, he has a sensitive stomach.

Re:This works 100%

[ebvwfbw]

True. True. I did the HCG diet, 500 calories a day. I lost nearly 100 Lbs. over a few times doing it.

Tried and true. Less food, lose weight. The bitch is once you lose it figuring out what you can eat so you don't gain again. Seems to be not much in my case.

Required reading: xkcd's "Significance"

[dwheeler]

xkcd's "Significance" pithily explains p-hacking.

Good study, bad hack

[ugen]

As a matter of fact, the study itself seems to provide a positive result that, ironically, authors have used to discredit similar studies :)

That said, from personal experience (as someone who lost 60 lbs by making changes to my diet) chocolate does have beneficial effect on weight loss, in that at a very least consuming smaller amounts of chocolate (in terms of calories) satisfies craving for sweets better than consuming much larger (in terms of calories) amount of other sweet foods (such as pastries). Just this benefit alone is sufficient to recommend (prudent) use of chocolate in a calorie-controlled diet.

As far as "bitter chocolate tasting bad" - well, tastes differ and some people find caviar or foie gras to be disgusting, but by an large they are smart enough to keep those opinions out of research papers. Me - I'll take my 90% dark any day (but don't shy away from milk chocolate, as long as it's not Hershey's anyway)

Re:Good study, bad hack

[Nidi62]

That said, from personal experience (as someone who lost 60 lbs by making changes to my diet) chocolate does have beneficial effect on weight loss, in that at a very least consuming smaller amounts of chocolate (in terms of calories) satisfies craving for sweets better than consuming much larger (in terms of calories) amount of other sweet foods (such as pastries). Just this benefit alone is sufficient to recommend (prudent) use of chocolate in a calorie-controlled diet.

I lost 30lbs in 3 months in college once I was done playing football, and there were 2 main tricks that I used: I didn't keep lots of food in the apartment, and I changed how much I ate. I didn't cut anything out, just reduced portions (slight reductions for some, drastic reductions for others). If you cut something out completely like sweets, you will crave them and eventually break your diet and binge. Instead, keep a pack of fun-sized bars (well, for me it was whatever the seasonal-shaped Reese's was) and if you really need a snack or are craving chocolate eat one. The key to a successful diet, just like everything else in life, is moderation and a little self-control.

Really? Your chocolate goes to 11?

[Overzeetop]

Somebody had to say it.

Khaaaaaaan

[Anonymous Coward]

Catholic here. I'm laughing at the superior intellect.

bitter chocolate

[Anonymous Coward]

eww, I hate bitter chocolate like some dark chocolate. I will not eat it even if it supposed to be good for me. Maybe I have a sensitive stomach or something but I cannot stand bitter foods. I have a gag reflex that will cause me to spit out bitter or sour food. I can't eat some Asian foods that my neighbor makes. I don't know what kind of fish sauce they use. No offense.

Re:bitter chocolate

[HiThere]

A possibility is that you had a very bad early experience with a bitter food. (Food poisoning?) You wouldn't necessarily remember it, which makes this hard to validate, but your attitude towards bitter foods could, essentially, be a phobia. It probably isn't worth treating even if this is true. (No idea how plausible this is, but it's just an explanation that occurred off the top of my head.)

I trust Dr. Oz

[Anonymous Coward]

I trust Dr. Oz. He told me about this new miracle chocolate infused coffee bean oil that I could rub on my butt hole to make me loose weight. It's exclusively sold on his website and it really works. I mean, Dr. Oz wouldn't lie me, he's a Dr!

Re:I trust Dr. Oz

[rubycodez]

use it as an anal lube for random encounters and you'll definitely lose weight, from AIDS

Why Blast Religion?

[brownshoe]

Bitter chocolate tastes bad, therefore it must be good for you. It's like a religion.

Perhaps a better way of getting your point across is by NOT arbitrarily assailing people of faith - especially when the topic at hand has nothing at all to do with religion.

Re:Why Blast Religion?

[tomhath]

The statement was that those people believe something without basing that belief on facts - that's faith.

Re:Why Blast Religion?

[brownshoe]

And how do you define "facts" - scientific consensus perhaps? Science routinely re-evaluates its own scientific conclusions and often returns a very different outcome than the previous. I think science seeks "truth", not facts - the same way faith does albeit by way of a different methodology.

Re:Why Blast Religion?

[tomhath]

And how do you define "facts" - scientific consensus perhaps?

No. Observable and testable. Consensus has nothing to do with it.

Science routinely re-evaluates its own scientific conclusions and often returns a very different outcome than the previous.

Can you say the same about people who believe what is written in a book that's thousands of years old? Of course not - you're told to take it on faith and not question (re-evaluate) what was written.

I think science seeks "truth", not facts - the same way faith does albeit by way of a different methodology.

No, science seeks observable and testable facts.

Re:Why Blast Religion?

[HiThere]

Science routinely re-evaluates theories. That's appropriate. And it doubts and tests purported "facts". Any organized system that doesn't do that is not worthy of being trusted. (Even governments do that to some extent.)

Re:Why Blast Religion?

[brownshoe]

No. Observable and testable. Consensus has nothing to do with it.

That is an over-simplification. Nothing in science is as black and white as you are suggesting. If it was, there would be no need for peer reviews and follow-on studies. Scientific studies utilize observation and testing to "support" scientific theory and assertion. A single instance of corroboration from these results does not establish scientific fact. That's why scientific consensus is important. Theology has done the same in regards to faith over the course of thousands of years to reveal theological truth. It begins with the theological premise that God is creator of the universe. You may not agree with it, but to many people it is fundamental to the human condition every bit that science is to other folks. I simply question why people feel the need to denigrate religion and faith. If you are a non-believer, great - that's your choice.

Distribution of Information

[Dutchmaan]

Gosh people believed what a scientist had to say... WHAT A STORY... next thing you know people will be taking their doctors advice! Scientists by and large are a trusted segment of the public, with the public having an understanding of the scientific process and that scientists CAN be wrong. That's how our information works. Researchers do experiments and publish results. News outlets pick up stories and broadcast them to a wider audience. If this disinformation had been allowed to just stand on it's own merits, it would eventually fall flat on its face as other scientists put the information to the test. The only thing this journalist accomplished was damaging the credibility of scientists! *DING* I think we have our motive.

Seriously, BILD?

[nospam007]

"and even the front page of Bild, Europe's largest daily newspaper. "

That's the yellowest yellow rag existing. If it's in there, it must be wrong.

Re:This could never happen with global warming...

[Holi]

Peer review hasn't killed AGW so whats your problem with it? Of the scientists who have expressed an opinion on AGW 97.2% endorse the consensus. only .7% reject it.

Now I understand science is not a popularity contest, but what are your credentials compared to theirs? If you are not willing to accept peer reviewed science then why the hell are you bothering to post here.

best submission contest

[steak]

_roo wins best pun category with "and issued press releases to feed the ever-hungry pool of nutrition journalists."

super taster

[Anonymous Coward]

you might be a super taster. do you also dislike coffee and beer?

not true?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The problem is that it's not true.

The fact that the study purporting for the hypothesis to be true was fake doesn't mean it's "not true", it means that we don't know whether it's true. In fact, the reason so many people believed it is that it's pretty plausible, at least if you stick to dark chocolate with little sugar content.

People frequently make the same error even for valid scientific studies: "study X failed to show a difference between A and B" is not the same as "study X showed that there is no difference between A and B".

Straw man arguments?

[ChromaticDragon]

This is a very strange article.

I'm happy if folk are drawing attention to issues of statistics, flawed studies or ways one can inappropriately draw conclusions from relatively small data sets. Reminds me of the old adage "Figures don't lie... but liars do figure".

But this seems to trivialize (or outright ignore) the actual purported benefits of cocoa. Why in the WORLD would it be acceptable to suggest "whole food" folk are fascinated with dark/bitter chocolate because of the weird idea that "since it tastes bad, it must be good for you". Is it really that hard to dig into the research, propaganda, whatever, in order to find out WHY folk are suggesting cocoa is good for you? Here's a clue. The dark/bitter chocolate is suggested not because it tastes bad (which is, of course an opinion - I like it dark) but because you have half-a-prayer of having more genuine cacao in such.

Next, I must confess I was ignorant of any study or claim that eating chocolate would help one lose weight. Even if I heard of it, I almost certainly would have simply immediately discounted it because of a number of factors. It's just one study. Let peer review deal with it. It also smells too much like other factors predominate. You're on a low-carb, calorie controlled diet? If you ADHERE to those two requirements, you can probably eat whatever you want and lose weight. Caloric balance/control is within an order of magnitude all that matters.

So, I may have an unwarranted perspective here. But it seems strange to get all excited about folk trouncing a study or argument I never heard of, nor would have respected to begin with. In essence, it seems like they're setting up a straw man to knock down.

Re:Straw man arguments?

[JimFive]

You seem to have missed the point of this article: THERE WAS NO STUDY.

The "researcher" made up a plausible but obviously flawed study and submitted it to a for-profit "science" journal. After passing the review process (e.g. paying $600) the paper was published and then picked up by news outlets which regurgitated the headline summary without looking at the write up enough to notice that it was flawed. The research here had nothing to do with chocolate.
--
JimFive

Re:This could never happen with global warming...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your numbers are from a paper that was published in an "OPEN ACCESS" Journal. Just like this article is talking about!

The point of science is to challenge accepted wisdom and refine it, a process that runs somewhat counter to the idea of a consensus.

but...consensus?

[Anonymous Coward]

there was consensus! the science is settled!

Chocolate deniers! obviously in the pockets of Big Bacon.

Overheard in Line Today at Whole Foods

[friedmud]

Girl buying a Kale drink (or some crap) talking to the cashier:

"Yeah, it tastes like crap... but it's good for you!"

lol

For the record, I was there buying roses for my wife who's been away for a few weeks. They have the BEST prices around on fresh roses...

Re:Overheard in Line Today at Whole Foods

[tomhath]

I was told the same thing once by someone who ate dandelion roots: "they taste really bitter, but they're so good for you". Presumably because they taste awful, I wouldn't know.

Re:This could never happen with global warming...

[mjm1231]

Interesting. Nobody here claimed that was the consensus. I've never heard anyone anywhere claim that was the consensus. I wonder why you would choose to pick a fight with a straw man?

"nutritional facts"

[gTsiros]

Did anyone pause to just look at the numbers?

it's mostly fat and sugar. Neither of them are detrimental, of course, but one 100 g chocolate bar has something between a third and a quarter of daily calories. Do people realize what does that mean?

and more interestingly, at least for the ritter sport i happened to have checked earlier today, the 73% cocoa variety has *more* calories than the 50% one. Initially one might be excused to think that it is weird... it is more bitter, how can it be less "healthy"? Doesn't take long to think that 1) it is cocoa *butter*, which is *fat* 2) you won't need to eat as much to satisfy your tastebuds. The 73% one is 100 g portioned into 64 pieces. That's less than 2 grams per piece. Tiny piece, yes, but they pack a punch and they are less than 20 kcal.

Recently i've started noticing that to eat properly healthy is very expensive and time consuming if you are preparing only for yourself. Certainly, as one finds tricks and combinations, to save time and money.

Don't read this as gloating, but where i live i have access to really high quality foodstuffs and i consider myself lucky that i am not in the UStates. I'd sell my granny for a proper texas burger tho... Wendy's and mcdonalds don't really count, do they?

Re:This could never happen with global warming...

[phantomfive]

Anyone who claims that there is consensus of 97%, as if that means something, doesn't understand what the consensus is.

You are one of those people.

He fooled scores.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the journalists who were fooled. It's too hard and completely unnecessary to check a story before running it. Their claims "fooled" millions. In that millions read it and figured that it was worth talking about because it sounds great.

And, honestly, "chocolate is bitter" is NOT people's first thought about it's taste. So quite where this moron gets the idea for that from is anyone's anus. Sorry, guess.

Re:"nutritional facts" - chocolate IS good for you

[BarbaraHudson]

NOT bringing your loved one at least some chocolate on Valentine's day can be bad for both your physical and emotional health. Negative physical effects can include sore back from sleeping on the couch to pneumonia from sleeping in the dog house, as well as bruising from flying saucers (and cups and plates and anything else handy) to not being able to have sex until you atone :-)

At least this was malicious

[WinstonWolfIT]

Anyone remember spinach? Or vitamin C?

I've Gotta Headline for You!

[sudon't]

I've gotta headline for you!

Thousands of Scientists Fool Millions of People with Non-Reproducable Studies

Confused

[John Da' Baddest]

Recently I've read articles on the purported health benefits of chocolate, especially dark chocolate -- ie, without the usual additives of sugar and milk. But not including weight loss, you're supposed to do that in the usual ways. Yet this article slams "choc is good" claims with a wide brush, as do most of the Slashdot comments above. So I'm unsure about the whole thing, and wish people could stick to the topic and clarify their contexts upfront.

...

Hey, UN-F*CK BETA! I'd glady pay for a moderated discussion, without never-ending comments from the peanut gallery. Sorry peanuts, I just don't have time,.

Re:This could never happen with global warming...

[mjm1231]

Anyone who argues against things that people didn't say is wasting their own time. You are one of those people.

(Reread my post. Show where I state that there is any consensus, on any topic, of any magnitude.)

Re:This could never happen with global warming...

[phantomfive]

Anyone who argues against things that people didn't say is wasting their own time. You are one of those people.

That is true, I am wasting my time, since you don't even understand what you are saying, you think there is a consensus, but you don't know what that consensus is.

If you understood what there is consensus on, then you would be more interesting to talk to. Instead you're just ignorant to talk to.

Re:Fuck dice

[Anonymous Coward]

SourceForge (SF) has taken over control of the GIMP for Windows SF project and is now distributing an adware/malwared installer for GIMP. They also locked out the maintainer, Jernej Simonii. Sourceforge claims it was "abandoned" and they're providing a service by "mirroring" the original, though it's unclear how much value malware adds for the end user, rather than for SF. (This comes two years after SF claiming its malware was just "misunderstood".)

Since being busted, SF is now serving an .exe that matches that at the official download site.

Other projects recently hijacked by SF include many Apache projects (Allura, Derby, Directory Studio, the Apache HTTP server, Hadoop, OpenOffice, Solr, and Subversion); Mozilla Firefox, Thunderbird, and FireFTP; Evolution and Open-Xchange; Drupal and WordPress; Eclipse, Aptana, Komodo, MonoDevelop, and NetBeans; VLC, Audacious, Banshee.fm, Helix, and Tomahawk media players; and many others.

Off Topic maybe, but not redundant. And not untrue. Different AC here, I did a quick google:

https://sourceforge.net/blog/gimp-win-project-wasnt-hijacked-just-abandoned/

There has recently been some report that the GIMP-Win project on SourceForge has been hijacked; this project was actually abandoned over 18 months ago, and SourceForge has stepped-in to keep this project current. For more details, read on

The GIMP-Win project was registered on SourceForge in October of 2004. In 2013, the GIMP-Win author discontinued use of SourceForge for download delivery.

Based on our prior outreach to the GIMP-Win author, we understand that they had concerns about the presence of misleading third-party ads on SourceForge. They were not alone in those concerns — we were also concerned — leading us to establish a program to enable users and developers to help us remove misleading and confusing ads.

In cases where a project is no longer actively being maintained, SourceForge has in some cases established a mirror of releases that are hosted elsewhere. This was done for GIMP-Win.

When we establish a mirror, we change the status on the project to clearly delineate it as a mirror, and change administrative control of the project to clearly delineate that it is editorially curated by SourceForge.

Mirrored projects help enable end-users to stay current with the latest releases, particularly where SourceForge continues to house historical releases for community benefit.

Mirrored projects are sometimes used to deliver easy-to-decline third-party offers, and the original downloads are always available.

Since our change to mirror GIMP-Win, we have received no requests by the original author to resume use of this project. We welcome further discussion about how SourceForge can best serve the GIMP-Win author.

[updated on 28-5-2015] Since yesterday, SourceForge Gimp-Win mirror downloads only the original software without any offers. We also invite the Gimp-Win developer to take back control of the project if that is his desire, while respectfully asking that he maintain any project updates or allow us to do so.

http://www.itworld.com/article/2927973/linux/is-sourceforge-hijacking-project-accounts.html

Is SourceForge hijacking project accounts?

SourceForge has gotten heat in the past for its advertising practices, but now the site is drawing criticism for possibly hijacking project accounts. A recent thread in the Linux subreddit had some users pointing fingers at SourceForge.

Patdavid started the thread by talking about an abandoned account for The GIMP that SourceForge has apparently taken over:

It appears that SourceForge has taken it upon themselves to take over the project account for GIMP-WIN that was previously handled by our windows maintainer, Jernej Simoni, without our permission.

The account that took over the project

Scalzi's Schadenfreude Pie

[billstewart]

There's really only one thing to eat while reading a story like this (other than Moar Chocolate, for Research Purposes.) It's Scalzi's Schadenfreude Pie. Dark, bitter, sticky, chocolately.

Re:This could never happen with global warming...

[mjm1231]

you think there is a consensus

You really like constructing those straw men, don't you? Nothing I've written here could lead to this conclusion. So not only do you not have any way of knowing whether or not I think there is a consensus, you don't have any information as to what I think that consensus might be. And yet, your're 100% positive that I must be wrong about it.

Since you're so knowledgable about information you don't have access to, can you tell me if the tie I'm going to wear next Tuesday goes with the shirt I was planning to wear it with?

Re:This could never happen with global warming...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying 97% agreement among expert judges does not fall under the term consensus? Sounds like someone needs to look up the definition of consensus.

Re:This could never happen with global warming...

[phantomfive]

Are you saying 97% agreement among expert judges does not fall under the term consensus?

That's not what I said. I said you don't understand what they agree on.

Re:This could never happen with global warming...

[phantomfive]

Since you're so knowledgable about information you don't have access to, can you tell me if the tie I'm going to wear next Tuesday goes with the shirt I was planning to wear it with?

I have no idea.

Re:This could never happen with global warming...

[mjm1231]

That much is obvious.

Re:This could never happen with global warming...

[phantomfive]

Indeed. As obvious as the fact that you are quoting a 'consensus' you don't understand!

Lies

[Ororo]

damn lies, and statistics.

Re:This could never happen with global warming...

[mjm1231]

I've quoted one thing in this thread, and it was your words. I'm not sure what drugs you're on that are causing you to imagine something else that I quoted, but at least you're loyal to your delusion.

Re:This could never happen with global warming...

[phantomfive]

So, do you know what the consensus is or not?

Re:This could never happen with global warming...

[mjm1231]

I never said that I did. I may well do, but it's really quite beside the point, as what the exact nature of any consensus is was never part of any comment I made.

As I originally stated, you claimed that someone else's opinion was wrong. Yet the opinion was never expressed by someone else, only imagined by you. This is the very definition of a straw man argument.

Re:This could never happen with global warming...

[phantomfive]

As I originally stated, you claimed that someone else's opinion was wrong. Yet the opinion was never expressed by someone else, only imagined by you. This is the very definition of a straw man argument.

Nah. It was attacking a supporting argument to his spoken point.

That is, there is no consensus at all that global warming needs to be 'solved' or even how to 'solve' it if it does need to be solved. There's no consensus that it's a problem, which was implicit in that guy's response.

His point was that science journalists and scientists never could be fooled by similar claims, but they already post silly claims all the time related to AGW, like this one by a scientist, which was widely reported before being debunked by other scientists (and soon by time as well).

DarinBob = "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!"

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject "Forrest" & this -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...