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

61–70 of 128 posts

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

#61

Post by sn9 »

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.

Most large grocery stores carry dark chocolates of anywhere from 60% to 100% dark chocolate. It's not hard to find 100% in my experience.

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

#62

Post by blackguardx »

jmiserez wrote: post #58
blackguardx wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recommend trying Lindt chocolate bars. It is a good, entry-level (sort of cheap) chocolate brand that is pretty wildly available. Try the 70% and then work your way up to 90%. They make a 99% as well, but it is harder to find.

I don’t know how you came to this conclusion, but Lindt is not an entry-level (whatever that means) chocolate brand in my book. What would you suggest is better?

Lindt is entry-level because it is cheap. I actually prefer Lindt to many higher-end brands. There are certainly better chocolate bars, but the price difference is often hard to justify.

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

#63

Post by WheelsAtLarge »

I've decided that any study presented by the media is the result of hype/marketing by a company with a bias. Year after year I've seen a constant flow of "health news" that eventually turns out to be marginally true or outright false. Here's another one. No, chocolate is not health food. I suspect coffee is the next one to fall.

Most reporters aren't knowledgeable enough to distinguish between hype and true breakthroughs. Because of this, they have to go to experts to determine whether the news is valid or not- if they do it at all. Unfortunately, they then get pointed to experts by the same companies that have a vested interest. Additionally, given the news cycle deadlines, its impossible to do the story justice.

On a related idea, 10-15 years ago, the news media was full of stories reporting on how doctors were underprescribing pain medicines. The big point was that when people needed them narcotics were safe and not addictive. Now, 15 years later see the results. We now have thousands of people addicted and many of the dying. The tragedy is that the narcotic manufacturers were behind those stories. They did it to sell more pills.

The reality is that we need to understand that we can't take these stories as advice but as, what they are, entertainment and as something to research if we have a real interest.

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

#64

Post by armandososa »

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…

I am a diabetic (since 2015) and have come to really appreciate 90% dark chocolate. Maybe it's weird coming from me, because I was legit addicted to it, but added sugar is sooooo overrated.

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

#65

Post by armandososa »

ianai wrote: post #51
blackguardx wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recommend trying Lindt chocolate bars. It is a good, entry-level (sort of cheap) chocolate brand that is pretty wildly available. Try the 70% and then work your way up to 90%. They make a 99% as well, but it is harder to find.

I think my next crazy taste test will be straight cocoa nibs whole.

crush toasted cocoa nibs with some agave nectar and they are great on spreads.

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

#66

Post by alexanderstears »

denzil_correa wrote: post #48
alexanderstears wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'll give the grand parent that benefit of the doubt - pharmacology research is expensive, there's a reason that most of the companies who develop pharmaceuticals have multi-billion dollar market caps.

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

#67

Post by emodendroket »

wallace_f wrote: post #59
emodendroket wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a sense of urgency to getting and staying employed in America which counteracts this ability to be judicious about what work you take, which is perhaps the underlying cultural driver. Uh, yeah, of course there is, because the alternative is penury. If you make scientists liable and change nothing else the result is not going to be a great scientific system that works for the average Joe.

So what is your solution? This happens in every industry, by the way: “Patterson's award for this discovery [the age of the earth]? A world of trouble. He didn’t know it, but he was on a collision course with some of the most powerful people on the planet [for discovering widespread lead pollution by accident].”-from the 2nd Cosmos

Well, some degree of nationalization would be my answer.

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

#68

Post by burkaman »

emodendroket wrote: post #56
burkaman wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the difference between an organization and the individuals who make up that organization?

Quite a lot both legally and psychologically.

I think the whole point of this conversation is that it shouldn't be different psychologically. People are responsible for the consequences of their actions.

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

#69

Post by alexanderstears »

asdfasfhretwt wrote: post #45
alexanderstears wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

If there were a way we'd surely see them opt-into that arrangement.

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

#70

Post by [deleted] »

blackguardx wrote: post #62
jmiserez wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know how you came to this conclusion, but Lindt is not an entry-level (whatever that means) chocolate brand in my book. What would you suggest is better?

Lindt is entry-level because it is cheap. I actually prefer Lindt to many higher-end brands. There are certainly better chocolate bars, but the price difference is often hard to justify.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN