Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Want to Eat Chocolate Every Day For a Year?

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the dental-nightmare dept.

Science 158

Scientists from the University of East Anglia are studying the potential health benefits of dark chocolate, and need 40 female volunteers who would like to eat chocolate every day for a year. The chocolate loving 40 must be post-menopausal and have type 2 diabetes so it can be determined if the flavonoid compounds in chocolate can reduce the risk of heart disease. Dr Peter Curtis, of the UEA's School of Medicine, said, "Our first volunteers are about to return for their final visit to see if the markers of heart health - such as blood pressure and cholesterol levels — have changed. A successful outcome could be the first step in developing new ways to improve the lives of people at increased risk of heart disease."

cancel ×

158 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Catch (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28796373)

"Dark chocolate" means getting fucked by a nigger every day for a year. Read the terms carefully.

slashdot demographics (5, Insightful)

BigHungryJoe (737554) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796387)

I'm sure the post-menopausal, type-2 diabetic woman that regularly reads slashdot appreciates knowing about this study.

You jest but... (2, Informative)

Dareth (47614) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796469)

It sure as hell made me think of my dear old mother-in-law!

Re:You jest but... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28796597)

It made me think of Heidi Klum [wordpress.com] .

It's just proof that women will eat anything if it has a big enough dick.

Captcha: savored

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:slashdot demographics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28796495)

I'm sure the post-menopausal, type-2 diabetic woman that regularly reads slashdot appreciates knowing about this study.

Well, the article said:

The new volunteers must be under 76 years old and must not have had a period for at least one year or be taking HRT.

I don't think any Slashdot user has ever had a period!

Re:slashdot demographics (3, Funny)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796799)

Slash DOT. Duh!

Re:slashdot demographics (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28797035)

Brilliant! I'm going to start calling it that. It sounds less offensive. In fact I'm going to go one step farther and just ask my Significant other how the department of transportation (DOT) is going. Basically, I'll just start using traffic metaphors.

Traffic Jam == Constipation
Accident == well, obviously ...
Construction == Bloating
Rush hour == Heavy Flow
Road Rage == PMS

Re:slashdot demographics (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797067)

Do I smell a car analogy?

Re:slashdot demographics (1)

Omniscient Lurker (1504701) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797729)

That's just the new car smell.

Re:slashdot demographics (4, Funny)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#28798209)

You'd better not be thinking of the children.

Re:slashdot demographics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28797211)

Who live in and around Norwich, UK. Still, the town has a nice library, and a rail link to Ipswich and Cambridge, so you can escape if you wish.

Re:slashdot demographics (1)

Deadfyre_Deadsoul (1193759) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797751)

work in a bakery. have a 60,000 pound hot-tank of white chocolate I get to use every day for cookies. keep pestering them to add a dark chocolate tank. to no avail. wife is a 2 diabetic.

One floor up (2, Insightful)

aepervius (535155) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797377)

No problem, they just need to climb up one floor from their basement and voila, they can show the article to their mother :).

Re:slashdot demographics (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797627)

yeah, as opposed to the type-1 diabetic woman, right?

Re:slashdot demographics Useful, especially if (2, Funny)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797637)

All that dark chocolate might help them crap out all sorts of unhealthier things they ate months prior to the test. Hopefully, they drink enough water so they don't become a diuretic diabetic in dire need of a medic.

Re:slashdot demographics Useful, especially if (1)

Sporkinum (655143) | more than 4 years ago | (#28798029)

Ob Python....

"Man: The principle's the same. Bleeding C-of-E. The Mohmedans don't come 'round here wavin' bells at us! We don't get Buddhists playing bagpipes in our bathroom! Or Hindus harmonizing in the hall! The Shintuists don't come here shattering sheet glass in the shithouse, shouting slogans...
Wife: All right, don't practice your alliteration on me."

Re:slashdot demographics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28798361)

I'm sure the post-menopausal, type-2 diabetic woman that regularly reads slashdot appreciates knowing about this study.

careful...we are here

If there's a more underrepresented demographic... (5, Funny)

swillden (191260) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796389)

... on slashdot than post-menopausal women, I don't know what it would be.

Re:If there's a more underrepresented demographic. (5, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796415)

Pre-Menopausal.

Re:If there's a more underrepresented demographic. (4, Funny)

Clandestine_Blaze (1019274) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797711)

Women.

Re:If there's a more underrepresented demographic. (2, Insightful)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796419)

with type-2 diabetes.

Re:If there's a more underrepresented demographic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28796707)

I find that it's mainly men that like dark chocolate too. Women in my limited experience go more for milk chocolate.

Re:If there's a more underrepresented demographic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28796733)

You know the wrong women.

Re:If there's a more underrepresented demographic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28796833)

My experience has been exactly the opposite. Women can't get enough dark chocolate, while men strongly prefer milk chocolate.

Re:If there's a more underrepresented demographic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28796749)

Well, maybe it's directed at ME! :P

Re:If there's a more underrepresented demographic. (5, Funny)

Zerth (26112) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796919)

Bisexual, attractive, nudist 19yo women who care more about her WoW character's latest adventure than shoes, that are looking to move into a basement, has a couple of friends of a similar nature that also need a place to stay, and hopes to trade their domestic skills in place of rent so they can afford the gigabit fiber drop, which they'd also share, but only if you agree to referee their jello-wrestling.

Re:If there's a more underrepresented demographic. (1)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797357)

All of what you said, plus a predilection for hot grits.

Re:If there's a more underrepresented demographic. (1)

dpilot (134227) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797477)

Oh, so you watched "Big Bang Theory" the other night, too. I don't generally, but happened to catch a few moments.

Re:If there's a more underrepresented demographic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28797789)

No, I think he watched "Gang Bang Theory" instead. You usually catch it by 5 to 10 minutes increments.

Re:If there's a more underrepresented demographic. (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797821)

Is that a singles advert? As long as you don't touch the table saw or drill press in the basement and don't mind me going down at random times, you can come on over.

Re:If there's a more underrepresented demographic. (3, Funny)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797971)

I'm just going to go ahead and cut&paste that into craigslist and see if I get any responses. Even if you get a girl that meets 8 out of those 10... you're still well on your way to an awesome time.

Re:If there's a more underrepresented demographic. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28798101)

So it's okay to leave off 'attractive' and 'women', then?

Re:If there's a more underrepresented demographic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28798181)

But does she run Linux?

a turn-off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28798201)

Bisexual, attractive, nudist 19yo women who care more about her WoW character's latest adventure than shoes...

... AREN'T HOT!!! Let me explain something. Being attractive is not enough to be hot. You have work on it. You think fitness, clothes, beauty products, aren't something you need to "care about" more than WoW if you want to be hot? You are simply wrong. Any man OR woman who cares more about their online character than their fashion will not be hot.

Re:If there's a more underrepresented demographic. (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 4 years ago | (#28798391)

Pre-menstrual women?
Post-menopausal men?
Hermaphroditic clowns?

Well... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28796393)

I bet Chastity Bono is kicking himself right now.

demographics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28796399)

Looking for women on /.? Truly has arrived at the wrong forum ...

Re:demographics (2, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796455)

Truly didn't post it, samzenpus did.

Chocolate.... type 2 diabetes..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28796401)

What?

Re:Chocolate.... type 2 diabetes..... (4, Informative)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796627)

Dark chocolate is relatively low in sugars compared to other forms of chocolate. Many Type 2 diabetes patients can handle sugar, without insulin, in limited quantities. If there are health benefits from the dark chocolate, expending some of your limited sugar intake on dark chocolate may be worth it, particularly if one of the benefits is to mitigate other risks related to diabetes.

Re:Chocolate.... type 2 diabetes..... (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796815)

Oh come on, how many times do we need to do this study? No matter how much you test it, eating candy will never be good for you. Isn't there an old joke about research funding and the positive health effects of chocolate?

Re:Chocolate.... type 2 diabetes..... (3, Informative)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796887)

Candy is basically sweet by definition. Dark chocolate contains very little sugar (how little depends on how dark the chocolate is). Try some dark chocolate with an 80 or 90% cacao content and then tell me it's candy. Mmmm... if you don't want to finish that, I'll eat it.

Re:Chocolate.... type 2 diabetes..... (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796997)

So just because it has a low amount of sugar, it can't be bad for you? In that case, I'll use the whole stick of butter tomorrow at breakfast. All natural!

Re:Chocolate.... type 2 diabetes..... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797037)

I thought we were talking about candy.

If we're talking about fats, it's pretty widely accepted that vegetable fats, even solid ones, are better for you than animal fats (unless they're hydrogenated).

Re:Chocolate.... type 2 diabetes..... (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797303)

Sure, chocolate is better for you than eating suet or lard; but this isn't valid a reasonable comparison.

X calories of steak is much better food than X calories of chocolate; even if only because it leaves you feeling "full" and satisfied.

Re:Chocolate.... type 2 diabetes..... (3, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797391)

I'm not sure what exactly you have against a perfectly natural food. If we were arguing about saltine crackers or bagels with cream cheese or something I could understand it, but this not so much.

Really dark chocolate doesn't have all that many calories. It's not that fatty. It isn't loaded with sugar. (Have you ever had, say, 80% dark chocolate? It's quite bitter, very slightly dry, and 90% is even more so...) I'd personally expect that it would be somewhat difficult to get a comparable amount of calories of dark chocolate compared to any reasonable amount of steak. (Hershey's "dark" chocolate, which is loaded with sugar and fat, doesn't count, of course.)

Re:Chocolate.... type 2 diabetes..... (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 4 years ago | (#28798283)

Uh, yeah. Pure 100% chocolate is "only" 53% fat, 60% of which is saturated... :-/ That's about twice as much fat by weight as a "lean" cut of steak...

It's trivial to get a good comparison of nutrition; go to nutritiondata.com (or anywhere else - but this one seems to have the most data and the least ads), and search for "baking chocolate" which is of course 100% chocolate, and will be very close to premium dark chocolate in nutrition facts, if not necessarily in taste. (Although Ghirardelli's baking chocolate gives premium chocolates a run for their money, imho.)

I have nothing against chocolate, but in anything but small amounts, it's just not good for you. I eat it as a delicacy, anything from Hershey's Dark (hey, it's cheap) to premium 99% cacao; single-origins; and even the aforementioned straight Ghirardelli's baking chocolate (100%).

Also, what's unnatural about saltine crackers and cream cheese? Saltines: hull and grind wheat; add salt and water; bake (of course nowadays they add crisco, but you can get them without it...). Cream cheese: milk a cow; add tailored bacteria; wait. I'm not seeing the problem here...

Re:Chocolate.... type 2 diabetes..... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#28798427)

Pure 100% chocolate is "only" 53% fat, 60% of which is saturated... :-/ That's about twice as much fat by weight as a "lean" cut of steak.

Chocolate is basically cocoa powder (cacao with the fat removed) plus cocoa butter (the fat). Dark chocolate contains less of the cocoa butter; the darker it is, the less fat it contains. Again, I was under the impression that even saturated fat from plant sources is generally considered healthier than most animal fats.

Also, what's unnatural about saltine crackers and cream cheese?

White, bleached wheat with the germ removed; animal fat, sugar, salt with all the trace minerals removed, etc. Basically all the nutrition has been processed out and then they've added a select few (iron, niacin, iodine, etc). I'm not saying they're terribly unhealthy, but they're a slight leap further from "natural" if we're comparing them to really dark chocolate. In terms of comparisons, I'd put milk chocolate in with the bleached, enriched flour, and dark chocolate more along with the whole-wheat varieties.

Re:Chocolate.... type 2 diabetes..... (2, Insightful)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 4 years ago | (#28798539)

Keep in mind, that chocolates may have cocoa butter added, but very rarely do they have cocoa butter removed. What this means, is that baking chocolate is a lower bound for the amount of fat in dark chocolate. I have already shown that baking chocolate is very fatty, which implies that dark chocolate is, and I have nothing more to say here.

Yes, vegetable fats may be "healthier" overall (although I think the benefit is overstated), but the fact is, there is still an awful lot of them in chocolate; and a lot of them are saturated...

In re how "natural" various foods are, your subjective taxonomy is of no interest to me.

Re:Chocolate.... type 2 diabetes..... (1)

brusk (135896) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797097)

What about cough drops?

Exercise? (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796403)

I've often wondered there... are you supposed to pretty much maintain your current lifestyle? What ifyou start working out like a fiend? What if you give up and binge on dounuts? I know the number of participants is supposed to smooth out that... but really, over a year isn't it likely that most participants have made at least one major change in their life?

Re:Exercise? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28796437)

hahahaha, a woman making a major change in her life? come now, that's just absurd.

Re:Exercise? (2, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796459)

Given that Chocolate is an Aphrodisiac, I hope that change would be for the better.

uhhh*WINK* ;)

Re:Exercise? (3, Insightful)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796559)

I think the only way they could really make this work would be to have a much larger sample group balanced out with a control group of equal size willing to swear off chocolate for the duration of the experiment. There will definitely be huge changes in each woman's health over the year, and I don't think that 40 is a large enough sample to clear out the statistical noise, especially without a control group. So pretty much, this whole thing is just an extraordinary waste of time.

Re:Exercise? (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796659)

First, a control group could take care of this relatively easily. Statistically, the people in the control group are just as likely to make those changes as the people actually eating the chocolate; though in this case a good, double blind study is impossible (it might be that eating a chocolate bar every day encourages the women to do other, seemingly unhealthy, things).

The other option is to use statistics to control for external variables. Assuming you know about the changes in behavior, you can control for them when you do your analysis. Statistics are a wonderful thing and can be used for all manner of evils, but done correctly they can also produce good science out of what might at first glance appear to be a random jumble of information.

Anonymous Coward (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28796491)

Just FYI: Flavonoids are polycyclic aromatic molecules, capable of absorbing free radicals through their conjugated bonds (i.e. moving the unpaired electron around so that a built-up of charge is not created (which drastically lowers its reactivity (and therefore stops a free radical's harmful effects (like the hydroxyl radical, which is used by fungi to invade the cell walls of wood (which is why flavonoids are being explored as wood preservatives, and why the Osage Orange tree is naturally resistant to fungi (since it has a natural abundance of flavonoids)))))). Flavonoids are good at absorbing the harmful affects of free radicals (unpaired electrons) in the body, and this can be a very good thing :)

Re:Anonymous Coward (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28796719)

are you a lisp programmer?

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797537)

It would be good, if clinical studies on antioxidants hadn't shown such staggeringly increased mortality that the studies had to be aborted.

You're doing it wrong (4, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796529)

Seriously guys, this is why scientists can't get dates. You have a requirement for female volunteers to come to your lab and eat chocolate...this may be the experiment that actually gets you a woman for once. Then, you screw it all up by requiring that the women be post-menopausal with type 2 diabetes, guaranteeing you're going to get a bunch of fat old chicks. Seriously guys, if you really want to have fun with this study, you need to require that the women be 18-25, physically fit, and sexually attracted to glasses and pocket protectors. You know, for science. Surely you could come up with some sort of sciency rationalizations to justify those requirements.

Re:You're doing it wrong (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796617)

Surely you could come up with some sort of sciency rationalizations to justify those requirements.

Which is more productive at arousing men and women:
Whipped Cream
or
Chocolate Sauce?

FOR SCIENCE!

Re:You're doing it wrong (1)

Icegryphon (715550) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796633)

All the sudden "no chubbies!" is thundering in my head.
Thank you [foxnews.com] fox news, Thank you so much.
Between this an repeatedly blowing up a yellow vans, you are sure full of laughs.

Re:You're doing it wrong (1)

lobiusmoop (305328) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796823)

Those are obviously the required 'control' subjects for such an experiment. Hooray for control subjects.

Re:You're doing it wrong (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797149)

The entire lab has a GILF fetish. It's a requirement to join the lab that you like em wrinkly and flabby. It's not even a nutrition lab, they're a physics lab. They know what they're doing.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28796573)

I am a techie. I am also post menopausal due to UFE surgery. Don't be so judgemental.

Re:Anonymous Coward (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28797461)

I haven't seen anybody seriously say that there were absolutely no post menopausal women on Slashdot. You're delusional if you think you're anything but an incredibly tiny minority on this site. Don't be so touchy.

will there be some desintox at the end? (1)

Mishotaki (957104) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796581)

Just like drinking cofee and cigartte smoking, a steady portion of sugra will have just the same effects as smoking everyday for a year... will the study support the resulting eating disorders or rehabilitation at the end of the study?

Re:will there be some desintox at the end? (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797373)

Most likely the custom-made bars are artificially sweetened. Also, sugar isn't as bad as smoking.

Re:will there be some desintox at the end? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797419)

According to TFA,

A Belgian chocolatier has been used to create bars rich in flavonoids, and the test bars used in the clinical trials are said to have a "bitter" taste.

(I know, I know... we don't RTFA here...)

Re:will there be some desintox at the end? (1)

Mishotaki (957104) | more than 4 years ago | (#28798217)

Most likely the custom-made bars are artificially sweetened. Also, sugar isn't as bad as smoking.

How about you try to stop all sources of sugar(all forms of sugar, including it's replacements) for a month, i'm pretty sure you'll be like someone who's trying to quit smoking...

220 years after the French Revolution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28796675)

it appears that, in Dr. Peter Curtis, Marie Antoinette has a successor.

What will the control group be? (1, Insightful)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796679)

And how much chocolate are they feeding these people? Just a few grams a day or ???

Regardless of whether the dark chocolate may have beneficial compounds, the other components (lots of fat and sugar) are in general rather unhealthy, and EXTREMELY so for a type 2 diabetic.

Is the control group going to be fed a combination of fats/sugar? The control group will have to volunteer to engage in a fundamentally unhealthy and risky practice for a year.

Or are they going to be attempting to create some sort of "chocolate extract" with the chemicals being studied present but no sugar added and the fatty components removed? It'll taste awful but at least won't have significant negative health effects.

Re:What will the control group be? (1)

Eternauta3k (680157) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797031)

the other components (lots of fat and sugar) are in general rather unhealthy

If you avoid fats and sugars, you must have some weird-ass diet.

Re:What will the control group be? (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797469)

Processed sugar (cane sugar, typically almost entirely sucrose) is fundamentally less healthy than fruit sugar (fructose) because it is absorbed in the bloodstream far more quickly than fructose.

It is entirely possible to avoid sucrose in one's diet - don't eat candy, or eat candy that has been sweetened with artificial sweeteners (worst case, sugar alcohols have very slow absorption rates).

Now if they're using unsweetened chocolate they still need to deal with the fact that the fat content of chocolate is still very high - sugar free chocolate is still pretty unhealthy in anything but tiny quantities due to the fat content.

You can't avoid fats and sugars, but you can most definately avoid foods that have lots of fats and sugars but few other redeeming qualities. Unless the chocolate in question has had the potentially beneficial substances super-concentrated, the fat content of the chocolate will offset the benefits of anything else in there.

I'm a Type I diabetic who can exercise FAR more precise control over their bloodsugar than a most Type IIs can (some are unable to manage their condition with oral meds alone so have to take insulin injections anyway, but this is rare) and I would never volunteer for this study.

Re:What will the control group be? (1)

adnd74 (1022357) | more than 4 years ago | (#28798557)

I'm an Insulin dependent Type 2 Diabetic... While I have the ability to match insulin with sugar intake, I agree with the parent comment,"I would never volunteer for this study". Asking a Diabetic to eat chocolate is just wrong! If I were able to maintain my glucose levels without insulin, I surely couldn't do it while eating candy.

Re:What will the control group be? (1)

turtledawn (149719) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797079)

Most studies on cocoa flavanoids have been done using 1 oz pieces of very dark chocolate, which are (relatively) low in calories due to the lack of adulterating sugar and cocoa butter. I assume they will be following a similar protocol to enable easy comparison of the results.

am I the only one... (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796727)

that rarely ever eats chocolate? Just curious, cause when I say that to people in "the real world*", they look at me like I just whipped it out and pissed on their shoes.**

*yes, you all don't exist.

**I guess it could be that I actually AM whipping it out and pissing on their shoes as I say I don't eat chocolate.

Re:am I the only one... (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797495)

I used to eat the Hell out of chocolate, trying every new candy bar I saw, getting it as a present a lot, it just being plain available. In the last few years I'm not so interested, kind of worn out on it. I like a good piece of really, strikingly, of my god my glands are swelling dark chocolate, but I don't gobble it up the way I used to.

Re:am I the only one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28798379)

Seriously, I think you are pretty statistically uncommon.

I've only ever met a very small number of people who were "meh" about chocolate. I suspect it's a combination of some people's tastebuds just working differently than others, plus the higher level preference for some flavors over others. I think also that some component of these factors is heritable. My 3-year old son (who isn't yet subject to awareness of or pressure from anyone's *expectations* of what he should like), uniformly (and vociferously) prefers chocolate over other choices, and has for at least a year. I was apparently pretty much the same when I was his age. As far as I know, no one's ever given him any particular encouragement one way or the other (and he doesn't chow down on chocolate every day or anything), but he sure has a preference for it.

My specific tastes in chocolate have evolved. Used to be, anything chocolate was acceptable, and I wasn't very discriminating, but over the past few years, I've gone off too-sweet confections like almost anything Hershey's makes, and settled on about 75% cocoa solids, plus optional flavoring like mint or hazelnut or orange zest or almond, being ideal. White chocolate, I've just never gotten at all - total meh there.

East Anglia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28796747)

Isn't that where all the fat, stupid white people in America, Australia, and the other former British colonies trace their ancestries too?

Shouldn't be too hard to find test subjects locally - just go to the nearest Sainsburys supermarket on dole day.

Signed,

A Yank Who Lived in Peterborough for Six F*cking Years

Isn't this normal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28796791)

Isn't every woman who is post-menopausal and has type 2 diabetes already eat a ton of chocolate everyday?

Yes. (1)

RobVB (1566105) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796805)

Yes, I do.

Re:Yes. (1)

RobVB (1566105) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796835)

Oh, had to read the article to know it's about a study and stuff. Next time, ask the question at the end instead of in the title.

How dark is the chocolate? (1)

revlayle (964221) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796807)

Really dark chocolate seems to have some interesting health effects. Really dark chocolates have more cocoa and much less sugar (example, my wife is Type 2 Diabetic, if she really wants chocolate, she gets at 70%+ cocoa chocolate bar) then your milk chocolate bars. Eating one like that every day as probably the same sugar risk as eating a couple pieces of toast.

If it is lower on the cocoa content, then yeah, I think that would be somewhat dangerous IMNSHO.

Purely anecdotal (4, Interesting)

joeasian (1056578) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796893)

Jeanne Calment, the oldest person who had ever lived, ate a kilo of chocolate every week [wikipedia.org] .

More interesting is that she smoked until the age of 117. As with Henry Allingham, who credited cigarettes, whisky and wild, wild women - and a good sense of humour [wikipedia.org] for his longevity.

I'll be picking up some Lucky Strike and prostitute this evening and do my own study.

Risky suggestions (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796947)

This is probably just an attempt to boost the market for dark chocolate. Some people who just read about this study before it's even conducted may be lead to assume that dark chocolate is a healthy alternative to a well-balanced diet and maybe exercise, or believe chocolate is somehow good for diabetes, or any number of other negative effects.

Worse, due to the desire to have a healthier lifestyle and the target audience being social, this false belief may get disseminated further.

I do hope that for the sake of ethics these people are honestly in the belief that dark chocolate will have a positive effect on this group are not just trying to sell more chocolate.

There's a problem here.... (5, Funny)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796985)

Finding 40 women willing to eat chocolate daily: easy.

Finding 40 women that will agree to NOT eat ANY chocolate for a year, as a control: yeah, good luck with that.

Re:There's a problem here.... (1)

cwike (1481913) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797587)

Finding 40 women willing to eat chocolate daily: easy. Finding 40 women that will agree to NOT eat ANY chocolate for a year, as a control: yeah, good luck with that.

Isnt that most diabetics?

Re:There's a problem here.... (1)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797823)

The other BIG problem I see here will be to find 40 women in this study who will accept being weighted because, I guess, weight control will be part of this study (didn't RTFA).

Re:There's a problem here.... (1)

zapakh (1256518) | more than 4 years ago | (#28798261)

The control group gets a placebo. It's a laxative.

:(

Chocolate science did it again! (3, Funny)

JJJK (1029630) | more than 4 years ago | (#28796991)

And here's your webcomic reference: PhD Comics [phdcomics.com]

Next up: Candy makers profit from misleading study (1)

surferx0 (1206364) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797065)

It's unfortunate that the average person will not realize the difference between the real unprocessed/unsweetened dark chocolate being used for the study and the "dark chocolate" processed candy products you find at convenience stores.

Real dark chocolate tastes like ass, so basically all mass market dark chocolate products will add sugar and milk fat to enhance the flavor which will surely negate any sort of heart-friendly health benefits that this study is meant to find. Seems to me like it's going to yet another piece of misleading and confusing information when it comes to the world of nutrition.

Re:Next up: Candy makers profit from misleading st (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797393)

Real dark chocolate tastes like ass.

Yeah, just like single-malt scotch.

Re:Next up: Candy makers profit from misleading st (1)

Lost Engineer (459920) | more than 4 years ago | (#28798457)

Meh whatever. I'll down the chocolate, wash it down with the whisky, and finish off with a cigar, and be a very happy man.

great plan (1)

Draque (1367509) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797407)

Theory: Making diabetics eat candy every day will result in something good. Proposal: Give us funding so we can feed diabetics candy. Every day.

Clinical trials on chocolate (1)

SiliconEntity (448450) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797501)

For chocolate lovers who don't fit the demographics, peruse this list of ongoing clinical trials, you might get lucky:

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=chocolate [clinicaltrials.gov]

I think the article descirbes this one, FLAVO, which compares flavonoid-enhanced chocolate with unenhanced:

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00677599?term=chocolate&rank=18 [clinicaltrials.gov]

For study subjects: "Flavonoid compounds from cocoa (including epicatechin) and soy to be consumed for 365days in the experimental intervention (versus placebo consumption). 27g chocolate bar the vehicle for flavonoid enrichment."

For controls: "27g placebo chocolate bar to be consumed for 365 days."

27g is about 1 oz. Typical commercial chocolate bars are maybe 1.5 oz.

You mean some people *don't* eat chocolate daily? (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797651)

Nobody I know of course...

Man... so close... (1)

nkcaump (1016816) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797767)

If only /. could link us to a clinical trial for 40+ Ex-Unix admins (we'll call them Type 2 Diabetics, for short) who are willing to eat only bacon and bitch about Microsoft for a year. THEN you'd be onto something.

Re:Man... so close... (1)

geekgirlandrea (1148779) | more than 4 years ago | (#28798161)

Well, maybe you can compromise on chocolate-covered bacon [mariniscandies.com] ?

Double Blindness of this study (1)

dlakelan (43245) | more than 4 years ago | (#28798305)

It wouldn't be hard to make this double blind, you'd grind up chocolate and put it in capsules, and then grind up something inert, dye it brown, and put that in capsules. Don't tell the dispenser or the taker which group they're in. Of course the takers could open the capsules and try to guess which group they were in, but yeah, it's not impossible to do a good job double-blinding this, it's just not as interesting for the taker if they don't get to enjoy the chocolate.

Cocoa is not chocolate (4, Informative)

Kainaw (676073) | more than 4 years ago | (#28798561)

The study actually uses extremely bitter cocoa powder, not sweet and tasty chocolate. The study is on the antioxidants in the cocoa powder. When sweetened, the antioxidants are destroyed. So, you have to choke down a nasty bitter powder every morning. Not something most people are willing to do.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>