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

111–120 of 128 posts

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

#111

Post by smallworld99 »

joering2 wrote: post #73
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?)

Is this sarcasm? The war on drugs is the exact opposite of how you should handle public health crises, like how he handled mental health issues by closing numerous mental hospitals, whose occupants are now homeless and wandering the streets.

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

#112

Post by frik »

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…

The same is true for agricultural. Company lobbyists try to sneak in laws and publish studies and reports. Then we wonder why bees die left and right, and humans get sick.

"EU report on weedkiller safety copied text from Monsanto study"

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/15/eu-repor...

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

#114

Post by Jedd »

smazga wrote: post #72
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?

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.

> They're in almost every grocery store around here (I can only assume they're popular), 88% cacao, and much less bitter/harsh.

Evidently you're in Utah, USA.

It's good to mention actual location, rather than 'around here', for people that don't know where you are.

McDonalds are pretty much everywhere - that means they're popular, by definition, however most discerning consumers wouldn't consider them a high quality product.

Some tomatoes are considered acidic, but in practice most tomato varieties have the same acidity - just varying levels of sugars, which makes them taste more / less acidic. Is the 'much less bitter' quality of this bar you're referring to a result of a higher ratio of sugars?

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

#115

Post by tarsinge »

pierrec wrote: post #53
lokerfoi wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

75% is pretty standard in Europe. I've tried a couple of 99% cocoa chocolates too, but these are really for the hardcore lovers (gets glued to the teeth and other taste issues).

>gets glued to your teeth Because you're not supposed to chew it (I believe that's even written in the "tasting tips" on the Lindt packaging at least). Bite off small bits and let them melt in your mouth. It's kind of like a dark and very tasty coffee, if that sounds good to you, give it a try. Now if only I could find it in the supermarkets around here... (as is common in France)

Thanks for the tip, had my mouth completely glued first time I took a big chunk of 100%

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

#116

Post by squarefoot »

nostromo wrote: post #75
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.

The same principle can be applied with just about anything: water is not just healthy but essential for life, but if you drink 10 liters in a shot you either get hospitalized or dead. Most advertising is more subtle than the traditional snake oil bullshit which can be easily detected and sanctioned; it usually is based on a true principle which is then stretched so it can be used to sell something that doesn't work.

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

#117

Post by oliwarner »

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 straight cocoa powder" is what the parent comment says, not 70 calories of chocolate.

That's an odd way to measure it though. Maybe they meant grams. If they didn't you have another battle because the calorific content between brands of cocoa powder varies wildly 70kcal may be as little as 17g, or as much as 40g.

Who knows.

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

#118

Post by dovdovdov »

ggg9990 wrote: post #74
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.

okay, what if I have them with diet coke?

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

#119

Post by smazga »

Jedd wrote: post #114
smazga wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> They're in almost every grocery store around here (I can only assume they're popular), 88% cacao, and much less bitter/harsh. Evidently you're in Utah, USA. It's good to mention actual location, rather than 'around here', for people that don't know where you are. McDonalds are pretty much everywhere - that means they're popular, by definition, however most discerning consumers wouldn't consider them a high quality…

> Evidently you're in Utah, USA.

> It's good to mention actual location, rather than 'around here', for people that don't know where you are.

Why? What difference would that have made? Either the bars exist where the parent lives or they don't. My location has nothing to do with that. I only mention that they're common in my area as a "maybe they're common enough to also be found where you are" data point.

> McDonalds are pretty much everywhere - that means they're popular, by definition, however most discerning consumers wouldn't consider them a high quality product.

What's your point? Are you saying that the Endangered Species bars are low quality because they happen to be popular(-ish) in my area?

> Is the 'much less bitter' quality of this bar you're referring to a result of a higher ratio of sugars?

Possibly. I don't really know enough about the respective bars to really speak to that. I wonder, though, if it's not something in the manufacturing process since all Lindt (even the "sweet" bars) have the same sour/acidic flavor to me.

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

#120

Post by Broken_Hippo »

selectodude wrote: post #89
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That level is still somewhat prohibitive for a lot of folks. Schooling alone can cost quite a bit, and without this a lot of places won't take you seriously regardless of your self-study. This aspect alone makes the person unable to reach Pasteur or Curie's "mom and pop research" level. Not to mention supplies. I worked as a lab assistant for a dude studying the effects of zebra mussels in closed freshwater lake syst…

Marie Curie died of acute radiation poisoning, so I guess it's just a matter of how little you're worried about the effects of what you're working with. :)

Well, that really depends on whether or not you know the effects of what you are working with. It is really easy to be careless with such things when folks don't really know the effects. Even when she died, she didn't say much about the radiation effects.

Heck, we used xrays to fit shoes on people long after she died.[1] I'm sure part of that was humans being slow to regulate it, but still.

Knowing that x or y substance is dangerous brings a different perspective, I think. By the time I worked with formaldehyde, we knew we needed some precautions. I also think it is wise to consider age and mental capacity: IF someone isn't old enough to have full adult rights (including drinking, warring, and renting cars) they probably shouldn't be able to decide to not be careful. But then again, by the time one is educated to today's standards, they are old enough.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope

Post reply on HN