by inertial on 10/18/17, 6:56 PM with 122 comments
by WheelsAtLarge on 10/18/17, 9:10 PM
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.
by JosephLark on 10/18/17, 7:24 PM
Interestingly, the chart just below this quotation shows that it takes ~70 calories of straight cocoa powder to get a "heart healthy" dose of flavanols. With dark chocolate, which has less sugar as the cocoa percentage goes up, they don't distinguish the type but you need 750 calories. That's quite a bit.
70% cocoa dark chocolate is somewhat (not entirely) palatable to most people, but getting up to 85% becomes a distinguished taste even for dark chocolate lovers.
Jives with my first thoughts after reading the submitted headline: that even if they could show cocoa was good for you, there is no way that translates into the standard Mars chocolate bars. I can totally see how it benefits Mars though - I've seen people give way more twisted justifications for eating junk food than "cocoa is good for you" as an excuse when eating a chocolate bar.
by BFatts on 10/18/17, 7:43 PM
I also have another question: Everyone in media is always looking for that story to break about "Big Business" doing something. Big Pharma, Big Chocolate, Big Auto... but what's the alternative? 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.
by jesperlang on 10/18/17, 7:54 PM
these companies benefit from _vague_ terms like "chocolate" and exploit customer's pre-conceived notion of what these terms actually mean.
Of course no scientific study is going to find that Mars/snickers bars are good for you. The trick is to make sure the good result from cocoa bean studies gets linked to your Mars/snickers/product. So the process might look like this..
1. A compound in raw cocoa bean is found to help blood levels
2. Cocoa powder is made from cocoa beans, therefor cocoa powder is healthy
3. Chocolate with high cocoa powder content should also be healthy
4. "Chocolate" is healthy
5. Mars/snickers is chocolate right? Therefor these products are also healthy.
Posts on health blogs, marketing campaigns, etc. water down the results from (1) and draw their own conclusions, and there you go. People go out and by all kinds of chocolate products.
Similar stuff happen with things like green tea (super healthy, but your sugar drenched matcha latte is not), fruits and vegetables in general. A "productized" version of these raw foods is easier to control and cheaper than the real deal. That's the sad reality I guess.
edit: Key take... it's not that sponsored studies are necessarily misleading or "fake". It's the purpose of exploiting the key results of the study by somehow linking them with your product in a positive way!
by colordrops on 10/18/17, 7:44 PM
by scrapcode on 10/18/17, 7:22 PM
Sure, it sounds like something a conspiracist would think up, but it'd just be the same tactics that these groups claim the meat industry et. al. have done to us for years, right?
by Dirlewanger on 10/18/17, 7:21 PM
May be the main key to take away from this. Correlation != causation etc. etc.
Cant deny though: biting into a square of 90% cacao dark chocolate(make sure it has more fiber than sugar) is an exquisitely divine experience.
by ourmandave on 10/19/17, 12:55 AM
(De Nile is not just a chocolate river in Egypt.)
by sna1l on 10/18/17, 7:11 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-in...
by bllguo on 10/18/17, 7:31 PM
by duncan_bayne on 10/19/17, 2:17 AM
" Why do the media keep running stories saying suits are back? Because PR firms tell them to. One of the most surprising things I discovered during my brief business career was the existence of the PR industry, lurking like a huge, quiet submarine beneath the news. Of the stories you read in traditional media that aren't about politics, crimes, or disasters, more than half probably come from PR firms."
by maxxxxx on 10/18/17, 7:26 PM
by air7 on 10/18/17, 7:41 PM
I know this is off topic, but what do you make of the fact that the researcher's name is Nestle? Is it a total coincidence?
Turns out the commonly repeated idea that "Denis's are more likely to become Dentists" (i.e nominative determinism) was proven false [1]. Yet, it seems there are only about 500 people named Nestle in the whole US... [2]
It's of course just one data point, but it's still curious.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/pascalemmanuelgobry/2014/01/09/... [2] http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Map/Nestle
by gnicholas on 10/18/17, 7:35 PM
by jv22222 on 10/18/17, 10:22 PM
I've always wondered if that was true, or even possible.
by rpazyaquian on 10/18/17, 7:16 PM
by DoodleBuggy on 10/19/17, 2:21 AM
Now it's applicable to nearly everything
by guelo on 10/19/17, 12:15 AM
by lawpoop on 10/19/17, 1:55 AM
by norswap on 10/18/17, 7:19 PM
Hardly incompatible with it being candy. Avocado is super fat, chocolate is super fat. What did you expect? Also fat and even "candy" are not synonymous with unhealthy.
Sidebar: my first thought upon seeing the title: there isn't even that much chocolate in a Mars bar.