Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Mars company has sponsored hundreds of studies to show cocoa is good

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 128 posts

Re: The Mars company has sponsored hundreds of studies to show cocoa is good

#41

Post by alexanderstears »

denzil_correa wrote: post #32
BFatts wrote: post #20

Someone has to do the research and "Big" whatever seems to be the ones with the money to do so. So, what should we expect from them? They are going to look for research that is compelling to their business model, but as long as it's not wholly misleading, why is it bad? All research should be taken with a grain of salt. I also have another question: Everyone in media is always looking for that story to break about "B…

> All research should be taken with a grain of salt. The very fact of science is that you can take the same experiment and under the said assumptions; you can repeat the same experiment yourself and come to similar conclusions as the one done by the original scientists. > I doubt that mom and pop have the cash to do research. And I sure as hell won't trust any mom and pop research about pharmacology. AD Hominem falla…

AD Hominem fallacy - the status of someone has no relation to the outcome of a scientific experiment.

That's not what the parent comment is arguing. The parent comment points out that research is expensive and not available equally to all groups.

The status of mom and pop doesn't effect the outcome of their research. Mom and pop weighing R&D against making their mortgage that month usually means they don't invest much in research.

Re: The Mars company has sponsored hundreds of studies to show cocoa is good

#42

Post by athenot »

bllguo wrote: post #38
denzil_correa wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All research should be taken with a grain of salt. The very fact of science is that you can take the same experiment and under the said assumptions; you can repeat the same experiment yourself and come to similar conclusions as the one done by the original scientists. > I doubt that mom and pop have the cash to do research. And I sure as hell won't trust any mom and pop research about pharmacology. AD Hominem falla…

It has a relation to the ability of someone to actually conduct an experiment... Larger groups have more resources, from knowledge to experience to money. It is not an ad hominem fallacy. I don't know how you twisted his meaning to come to that conclusion.

Louis Pasteur and Pierre & Marie Curie fit the description of "mom and pop research", as compared to today's labs, yet their findings are still valid.

Re: The Mars company has sponsored hundreds of studies to show cocoa is good

#43

Post by asdfasfhretwt »

BFatts wrote: post #20

Someone has to do the research and "Big" whatever seems to be the ones with the money to do so. So, what should we expect from them? They are going to look for research that is compelling to their business model, but as long as it's not wholly misleading, why is it bad? All research should be taken with a grain of salt. I also have another question: Everyone in media is always looking for that story to break about "B…

Government funding, universities and charitable foundations are the traditional model for research.

Re: The Mars company has sponsored hundreds of studies to show cocoa is good

#44

Post by athenot »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #16
JosephLark wrote: post #9

> “Dark chocolate probably has some beneficial properties to it,” said Salt Sugar Fat author Michael Moss, “but generally you have to eat so much of it to get any benefit that it’s kind of daunting, or something else in the product counteracts the benefits. In the case of chocolate, it’s probably going to be sugar.” Interestingly, the chart just below this quotation shows that it takes ~70 calories of straight cocoa…

Not really a dark chocolate connoisseur, but your post got me wondering. Hershey's Special Dark (which a lot of people are probably familiar with and is way better than regular Hershey's milk chocolate) is 45%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hershey%27s_Special_Dark Can't imagine 80%, but it's easy to get on Amazon. Thanks for the extra weight.

70%, 85% and even higher are available at the regular grocery store (Publix here in the Southeast). Lindt is one of the available brands.

Re: The Mars company has sponsored hundreds of studies to show cocoa is good

#45

Post by asdfasfhretwt »

alexanderstears wrote: post #41
denzil_correa wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All research should be taken with a grain of salt. The very fact of science is that you can take the same experiment and under the said assumptions; you can repeat the same experiment yourself and come to similar conclusions as the one done by the original scientists. > I doubt that mom and pop have the cash to do research. And I sure as hell won't trust any mom and pop research about pharmacology. AD Hominem falla…

AD Hominem fallacy - the status of someone has no relation to the outcome of a scientific experiment. That's not what the parent comment is arguing. The parent comment points out that research is expensive and not available equally to all groups. The status of mom and pop doesn't effect the outcome of their research. Mom and pop weighing R&D against making their mortgage that month usually means they don't invest muc…

If only there was a way that millions of mops and pops could club together to fund research into areas that might benefit them all...

Re: The Mars company has sponsored hundreds of studies to show cocoa is good

#46

Post by nobodyorother »

JosephLark wrote: post #9

> “Dark chocolate probably has some beneficial properties to it,” said Salt Sugar Fat author Michael Moss, “but generally you have to eat so much of it to get any benefit that it’s kind of daunting, or something else in the product counteracts the benefits. In the case of chocolate, it’s probably going to be sugar.” Interestingly, the chart just below this quotation shows that it takes ~70 calories of straight cocoa…

What does 70 calories of chocolate weigh, and what's chocolate's LD50?

...What's the maximum number of heart-healthy flavanol doses?

Re: The Mars company has sponsored hundreds of studies to show cocoa is good

#47

Post by sp332 »

norswap wrote: post #15
sp332 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that's exactly what the article says two sentences later.

I think it says exactly the opposite. > Wait, what? Make no mistake: This vegan avocado chocolate bar is candy. With nearly 600 calories and 43 grams of fat per 100-gram serving, the bar packs more fat and calories than Cadbury Dairy Milk, and just a little less sugar. > So how in the world could a chocolate bar be convincingly sold as a health food? You can thank a decades-long effort by the chocolate industry. I sa…

An extra 600 calories from whatever source is not going to be healthy.

Re: The Mars company has sponsored hundreds of studies to show cocoa is good

#48

Post by denzil_correa »

alexanderstears wrote: post #41
denzil_correa wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All research should be taken with a grain of salt. The very fact of science is that you can take the same experiment and under the said assumptions; you can repeat the same experiment yourself and come to similar conclusions as the one done by the original scientists. > I doubt that mom and pop have the cash to do research. And I sure as hell won't trust any mom and pop research about pharmacology. AD Hominem falla…

AD Hominem fallacy - the status of someone has no relation to the outcome of a scientific experiment. That's not what the parent comment is arguing. The parent comment points out that research is expensive and not available equally to all groups. The status of mom and pop doesn't effect the outcome of their research. Mom and pop weighing R&D against making their mortgage that month usually means they don't invest muc…

The grand parent comment does venture in that territory the moment the commentator says this

> And I sure as hell won't trust any mom and pop research about pharmacology.

Regardless of Mom and Pop store investments, the outcome of scientific experiments don't depend on who does the experiments.

Re: The Mars company has sponsored hundreds of studies to show cocoa is good

#49

Post by Sharlin »

athenot wrote: post #42
bllguo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has a relation to the ability of someone to actually conduct an experiment... Larger groups have more resources, from knowledge to experience to money. It is not an ad hominem fallacy. I don't know how you twisted his meaning to come to that conclusion.

Louis Pasteur and Pierre & Marie Curie fit the description of "mom and pop research", as compared to today's labs, yet their findings are still valid.

That was then, now is now. There are few low-hanging fruits left these days. Especially in a field where showing any effect practically requires a sample size of dozens to hundreds and an observation period of years to decades.

Re: The Mars company has sponsored hundreds of studies to show cocoa is good

#50

Post by denzil_correa »

bllguo wrote: post #38
denzil_correa wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All research should be taken with a grain of salt. The very fact of science is that you can take the same experiment and under the said assumptions; you can repeat the same experiment yourself and come to similar conclusions as the one done by the original scientists. > I doubt that mom and pop have the cash to do research. And I sure as hell won't trust any mom and pop research about pharmacology. AD Hominem falla…

It has a relation to the ability of someone to actually conduct an experiment... Larger groups have more resources, from knowledge to experience to money. It is not an ad hominem fallacy. I don't know how you twisted his meaning to come to that conclusion.

> I don't know how you twisted his meaning to come to that conclusion.

Because the comment also mentioned this

> And I sure as hell won't trust any mom and pop research about pharmacology.

The comment essentially means that peer reviewed scientific experimental results from mom & pop are untrustworthy over big companies.

Post reply on HN