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

71–80 of 128 posts

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

#71

Post by njarboe »

emodendroket wrote: post #28
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…

If only there were some sort of organization that was not driven by profit and had the ability to allocate the entire society's resources toward the common good. And incidentally I'd say a big part of the problem is that the research is totally misleading.

Any organization that has come close to "the ability to allocate the entire society's resources toward the common good" have created societies of great suffering and desperation so far. Maybe some super-intelligent computer system could do better?

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

#72

Post by smazga »

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?

Ugh. I hate Lindt. It's like eating a battery.

Look for an Endangered Species Panther bar. They're in almost every grocery store around here (I can only assume they're popular), 88% cacao, and much less bitter/harsh.

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

#73

Post by joering2 »

WheelsAtLarge wrote: post #63

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 breakthro…

> We now have thousands of people addicted and many of the dying.

But isn't it also why Reagan announced war on drugs? So the government does answer when needed (eventually?)

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

#74

Post by ggg9990 »

WheelsAtLarge wrote: post #63

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 breakthro…

Solid cacao and black coffee both have some good and reasonably well-established therapeutic properties in small amounts. But "American-style" (huge servings with tons of sugar and fats added) they are just junk food.

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

#75

Post by nostromo »

WheelsAtLarge wrote: post #63

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 breakthro…

> No, chocolate is not health food.

It actually may be. The large about of sugar that usually accompanies it certainly is not.

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

#76

Post by emodendroket »

burkaman wrote: post #68
emodendroket wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, I don't agree, because we live in a society where your options are to work or starve. Essentially no matter what you do you're complicit in something. Your computer and phone probably have some conflict resources in them, it is very likely that sweatshops or even unfree labor was used at some point in the supply chain for your clothes, produce is picked in appalling conditions, etc.

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

#77

Post by dwighttk »

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.

Trader Joe's has a 72% bar that is really good.

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

#78

Post by thinkharder »

nobodyorother wrote: post #46
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?

70 Calories of chocolate is about 11-12g of (70-85%) dark chocolate, or 12-13g of Milk Chocolate(1). Chocolate's LD50 is approximately 1000g/Kg(2). So basically your body weight in chocolate. It's the theobromine that kills you, same as dogs, but they're much more sensitive to it. And it strongly depends on the kind of chocolate, pure cocoa is much higher in theobromine than milk chocolate: So 5 oz of Cocoa powder ~= 8.6 oz of Baking chocolate ~= 26 oz of Semi-sweet ~= 27oz of dark chocolate ~= 59 oz of Milk Chocolate ~= 3583 oz of White chocolate.(3) (White chocolate has no cocoa powder in it, just cocoa butter.) Note that these comparisons are of just the theobromine content, not the the 'healthy' stuff in chocolate.

I have personally tested this back when my metabolism was young by eating 2 pounds of Hershey's Kisses in one evening with no ill effects. :)

I don't think we know that much about flavonols, quercetin is the most studied and most of the studies used a 1000 mg/day dose, but I don't find any info about a most effective or maximum dosage.(4)

The reason to eat chocolate is cause it tastes fucking awesome. If you're trying to eat it for your health I feel sad for you. ;-)

1.)http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calories-in-average-all-bra... 2.)http://blogs.plos.org/speakeasyscience/2012/02/14/the-curiou... 3.)http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/10/pets/chocolate-cha... 4.)https://examine.com/supplements/cocoa-extract/

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

#79

Post by agumonkey »

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 had to cut sugar, I tried things with less in it, so I ramped up the dark chocolate %. 70% is my sweet spot.

I hope I can get a little benefits from this (and other nutrients of course). Although dark chocolate also contains bromide derivatives who can be harmful too.

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

#80

Post by gmac »

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…

A really good dark chocolate need not be an acquired taste.

In the UK, Co-op's own brand 85% dark chocolate is excellent. It's rich enough that you'll probably never want more than a square or two at one go (which I count as a point in is favour), but it's fruity and delicious. Also Sainsbury's Organic Santo Domingo 74% gives much fancier bars at several times the price a run for their money.

Green & Black's 70%, on the other hand, which is widely available, is over-priced, chalky, bitter, marketing-led nonsense.

Post reply on HN