The Mars company has sponsored hundreds of studies to show cocoa is good(vox.com)
vox.com
The Mars company has sponsored hundreds of studies to show cocoa is good
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/10/18/15995478/chocolate-health-benefits-heart-disease
127 コメント
> On a related idea, 10-15 years ago, the news media was full of stories reporting on how doctors were underprescribing pain medicines.
I remember around the same time, there were tons of stories about how malpractice lawsuits were out of control and Americans were all suing anything that moved, which lead to a lot of states passing bills to cap malpractice awards. When I got older I read Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent". Powerful people are working hard to push narratives that benefit them, and it's important that we be skeptical whenever we don't know where the narrative is coming from.
I remember around the same time, there were tons of stories about how malpractice lawsuits were out of control and Americans were all suing anything that moved, which lead to a lot of states passing bills to cap malpractice awards. When I got older I read Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent". Powerful people are working hard to push narratives that benefit them, and it's important that we be skeptical whenever we don't know where the narrative is coming from.
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?
Artificial sweeteners are no solution. https://youtu.be/F7x_2f7uQyc
> No, chocolate is not health food.
It actually may be. The large about of sugar that usually accompanies it certainly is not.
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.
If anyone doubts that massive amounts of money have gone to a few (now extremely wealthy) legal drug dealers.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a12775932/sackler-famil...
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a12775932/sackler-famil...
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...
"EU report on weedkiller safety copied text from Monsanto study"
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/15/eu-repor...
> Most reporters aren't knowledgeable enough to distinguish between hype and true breakthroughs.
From personal experience I've learned that few reporters are knowledgeable about anything outside how to be a reporter.
From personal experience I've learned that few reporters are knowledgeable about anything outside how to be a reporter.
[deleted]
Unfortunately, as always, the pain med thing was mis_targetted.
There are a lot of people who die in needless pain all around the world. They're just not the same folks who are being over-prescribed oxy.
There are a lot of people who die in needless pain all around the world. They're just not the same folks who are being over-prescribed oxy.
> 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?)
But isn't it also why Reagan announced war on drugs? So the government does answer when needed (eventually?)
[deleted]
Obligatory: https://xkcd.com/1853/
> “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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
85% or better and some no sugar almond butter is really nice. I have come to prefer it, and occasionally Justin's with some sugar (but not a lot, 20g-30g of carbs). It is underrated health food. Easy to travel with, filling, etc.
To be fair, “come to appreciate” sounds a lot an “acquired taste” you know? Curious aside though, what brand do you go for? I have a friend who likes similarly dark chocolate and I’m always on the lookout for presents.
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.
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.
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)
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%
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.
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?
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]
Yeah they are king of the 90% price point and seem to use it as an anchor for uniform pricing on their whole bar range in Switzerland.
I think that gives the perception and benefits of being high end to the high volume but lower blends, but means the over 90s seem a bit too poor. But I'm not really sure how the botique 95% blends are and I'm glad lindt's aren't up to the challenge. It is hard enough to travel with a 90% addiction.
I think that gives the perception and benefits of being high end to the high volume but lower blends, but means the over 90s seem a bit too poor. But I'm not really sure how the botique 95% blends are and I'm glad lindt's aren't up to the challenge. It is hard enough to travel with a 90% addiction.
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.
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?
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?
> 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.
> 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.
> Why? What difference would that have made?
It makes it easier for other people to determine the likelihood / difficulty of them finding this recommendation of yours.
The hyperbolic passion conveyed by 'hate' and 'taste like car battery' to describe a luxury item you are not compelled to consume meant I wasn't about to put much effort into looking anyway.
However, I've just now tried to locate a 'black panther bar' and have discovered it would cost me US$50+ in order to obtain.
Presumably because I'm not 'around here'.
> What's your point?
That popularity does not imply, let alone guarantee, quality.
> Possibly. I don't really know enough about the respective bars to really speak to that.
Could you perhaps review the nutritional information on one of your packets?
Reviewing their website, Endangered Species Natural Dark Chocolate (72% Cocoa) is about 27% sugar.
The Black Panther variety (88% Cocoa) is 11% sugar.
In the plain dark chocolate market there doesn't seem to be much variety - or indeed much room for variety - of ingredients:
Black Panther: BITTERSWEET CHOCOLATE (CHOCOLATE LIQUOR, CANE SUGAR, COCOA BUTTER, SOY LECITHIN, VANILLA).
Lindt does not seem to include soy lecithin in their comparably dark (90% Cocoa) chocolate. (Of course they may use it but not mention it -- this seems unlikely as around here (Australia) we're fairly strict on nutrition and ingredient advisories on processed foods.)
So, it might be informative for you to work out if soy lecithin's presence is the key.
I don't have a particularly acute sense of taste, and haven't eaten chocolate for a couple of decades, but some casual googling on the subject turns up some quite passionate tomes in both directions (no difference, lots of difference). Impossible to summarise, so I'll let you do your own research & taste tests if you're so inspired.
It makes it easier for other people to determine the likelihood / difficulty of them finding this recommendation of yours.
The hyperbolic passion conveyed by 'hate' and 'taste like car battery' to describe a luxury item you are not compelled to consume meant I wasn't about to put much effort into looking anyway.
However, I've just now tried to locate a 'black panther bar' and have discovered it would cost me US$50+ in order to obtain.
Presumably because I'm not 'around here'.
> What's your point?
That popularity does not imply, let alone guarantee, quality.
> Possibly. I don't really know enough about the respective bars to really speak to that.
Could you perhaps review the nutritional information on one of your packets?
Reviewing their website, Endangered Species Natural Dark Chocolate (72% Cocoa) is about 27% sugar.
The Black Panther variety (88% Cocoa) is 11% sugar.
In the plain dark chocolate market there doesn't seem to be much variety - or indeed much room for variety - of ingredients:
Black Panther: BITTERSWEET CHOCOLATE (CHOCOLATE LIQUOR, CANE SUGAR, COCOA BUTTER, SOY LECITHIN, VANILLA).
Lindt does not seem to include soy lecithin in their comparably dark (90% Cocoa) chocolate. (Of course they may use it but not mention it -- this seems unlikely as around here (Australia) we're fairly strict on nutrition and ingredient advisories on processed foods.)
So, it might be informative for you to work out if soy lecithin's presence is the key.
I don't have a particularly acute sense of taste, and haven't eaten chocolate for a couple of decades, but some casual googling on the subject turns up some quite passionate tomes in both directions (no difference, lots of difference). Impossible to summarise, so I'll let you do your own research & taste tests if you're so inspired.
So much condescension for an opinion. What exactly have you apointed yourself to teach me?
The original parent asked for an opinion, and I gave it. Perhaps hyperbolic, but also concise in its description.
It would not be “informative” for me to research anything, since I already know about the soy lecithin angle and didn’t think it was worth mentioning.
What makes each bar taste differently wasn’t part of the discussion until you brought it up, and you obviously have answers to that question, so there’s no need to belabor it.
The original parent asked for an opinion, and I gave it. Perhaps hyperbolic, but also concise in its description.
It would not be “informative” for me to research anything, since I already know about the soy lecithin angle and didn’t think it was worth mentioning.
What makes each bar taste differently wasn’t part of the discussion until you brought it up, and you obviously have answers to that question, so there’s no need to belabor it.
> It would not be “informative” for me to research anything, since I already know about the soy lecithin angle and didn’t think it was worth mentioning.
Whereas I would suggest it's precisely the kind of interesting insight that you should have shared, given its potential importance to the discussion, and the fact the word lecithin doesn't appear anywhere in TFA or HN comments (at the time).
Anyhoo, ultimately I did manage to learn something interesting from your 'where I'm standing right now there's shops nearby that sell chocolate that I like' contribution. So that's good.
Aside -- can hyperbole be concise? Brief, certainly. Concise to me suggests accuracy.
Whereas I would suggest it's precisely the kind of interesting insight that you should have shared, given its potential importance to the discussion, and the fact the word lecithin doesn't appear anywhere in TFA or HN comments (at the time).
Anyhoo, ultimately I did manage to learn something interesting from your 'where I'm standing right now there's shops nearby that sell chocolate that I like' contribution. So that's good.
Aside -- can hyperbole be concise? Brief, certainly. Concise to me suggests accuracy.
I think my next crazy taste test will be straight cocoa nibs whole.
You can buy them fairly readily. They're good in yogurt.
crush toasted cocoa nibs with some agave nectar and they are great on spreads.
So take the sugar out of chocolate, then add it back on top?
82% can be found in common drug stores; at least in SF Bay Area and Portland area.
70%, 85% and even higher are available at the regular grocery store (Publix here in the Southeast). Lindt is one of the available brands.
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.
Trader Joe's has a 72% bar that is really good.
The first 100% cocoa bar I've had that was actually pretty good was: Montezuma Absolute Dark Chocolate Black from the UK. I found it once at my Trader Joe's and sadly haven't seen it since. Seriously tempted to order a supply from abroad despite the high shipping cost.
For a short while, we had some of those bars on sale at our local Trader Joe’s grocery store in Brooklyn, New York. They were pretty good.
I have a friend that runs a coffee shop, where he also makes chocolate. The 100% chocolate he made was really, really good.
I have a friend that runs a coffee shop, where he also makes chocolate. The 100% chocolate he made was really, really good.
My wife has a square or two of Ghirardelli 86% dark chocolate each day - one square being about 60 calories. I can't imagine eating over a dozen per day!
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.
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.
What does 70 calories of chocolate weigh, and what's chocolate's LD50?
...What's the maximum number of heart-healthy flavanol doses?
...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.
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.
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/
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/
Nowadays I'm eating pure chocolate beans directly. One can even get them in 'nib' form at the supermarket (not cheap but it lasts a while).
It's actually really good, though not a candy anymore, more like nuts. I can recommend mixing with yoghurt and banana.
It's actually really good, though not a candy anymore, more like nuts. I can recommend mixing with yoghurt and banana.
> I'm eating pure chocolate beans
You probably meant CACAO beans (note: not cocoa, which is a product made from cacao). There are actually products called chocolate beans, but they are typically just pieces of chocolate that have been formed to look like beans.
You probably meant CACAO beans (note: not cocoa, which is a product made from cacao). There are actually products called chocolate beans, but they are typically just pieces of chocolate that have been formed to look like beans.
Jibes with your first thought.
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 "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.
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.
Suppose that cocoa does not have direct effects on health. Recruit 60 people, give 30 of them cocoa and 30 of them placebo.
Due to random chance, you'll sometimes get positive results, and sometimes get negative results. If all of those studies are published, then there isn't a huge problem -- a metastudy would show that on average cocoa doesn't affect health.
But instead, support that only the positive studies are published. A third party reviewing the relevant literature will assume that all studies conducted showed a positive result, when in fact they were only the studies that were published.
This is the problem with having sponsored research: the research itself can be done properly, but a bias in publishing can give an inaccurate view of the true science at hand.
Due to random chance, you'll sometimes get positive results, and sometimes get negative results. If all of those studies are published, then there isn't a huge problem -- a metastudy would show that on average cocoa doesn't affect health.
But instead, support that only the positive studies are published. A third party reviewing the relevant literature will assume that all studies conducted showed a positive result, when in fact they were only the studies that were published.
This is the problem with having sponsored research: the research itself can be done properly, but a bias in publishing can give an inaccurate view of the true science at hand.
Yours is a good description of publication bias. I think it's worth mentioning that funnel plots can give you a visual sense of whether there is publication bias, and tools such as Egger regression can help to try to tease out a less biased estimate in the face of publication bias.
Someone has to do the research and "Big" whatever seems to be the ones with the money to do so.
Ask yourself why this is so. Could it have to do with a reduction in public investment in original research, or, alternatively, an overall reduction in investment in unencumbered research?
Point being: this work used to get done by non-corporate scientists, too.
Ask yourself why this is so. Could it have to do with a reduction in public investment in original research, or, alternatively, an overall reduction in investment in unencumbered research?
Point being: this work used to get done by non-corporate scientists, too.
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.
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?
That's just a more efficient way to propagate the preferences of whoever gets to control the computer system.
The computer would just be set to maximize the "common good", of course.
As defined by whom?
That is the hard part, isn't it? The previous statements were a bit tongue-in-cheek, but also serious.
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.
You basically just answered your own question. You hate it when Big (Whatever) does the research, but you are actually more distrusting of a small operation.
I have spent a lot of years getting myself healthier. I have gone through something like 5 iterations of a health blog to try to talk about that and share information completely for free with people who desperately need a better answer than society is giving them currently.
I kept redoing the blog in part because it was such a total and complete shit show. I got all kinds of open hatred from people for trying to say "X, y and z were helpful for me. I think thus and such is why. Here is supporting research I found that fits with my experience." and making that information available absolutely for free.
I don't know an answer for you. But maybe think about how you are part of the problem here. Ask yourself: What would it take for you to trust a small operation? You are simply dismissing them out of hand. What if a small operation could be useful? What would they need to do to be useful and get taken seriously?
You basically just answered your own question. You hate it when Big (Whatever) does the research, but you are actually more distrusting of a small operation.
I have spent a lot of years getting myself healthier. I have gone through something like 5 iterations of a health blog to try to talk about that and share information completely for free with people who desperately need a better answer than society is giving them currently.
I kept redoing the blog in part because it was such a total and complete shit show. I got all kinds of open hatred from people for trying to say "X, y and z were helpful for me. I think thus and such is why. Here is supporting research I found that fits with my experience." and making that information available absolutely for free.
I don't know an answer for you. But maybe think about how you are part of the problem here. Ask yourself: What would it take for you to trust a small operation? You are simply dismissing them out of hand. What if a small operation could be useful? What would they need to do to be useful and get taken seriously?
> "All research should be taken with a grain of salt"
It's hard for any one person to read tens or hundreds of papers on a subject and critically examine them for fallacies, look for fake data, etc. It's just not plausible.
At this rate, if us commonfolk are just expected to take a default position of not believing a scientific study or consensus until we personally vet them, what are we to actually believe? Do I need to go out and personally vet that evolution is real by personally reproducing some fruit fly studies?
We're heading down a scary road if we cannot trust our scientific institutions to be unbiased.
It's hard for any one person to read tens or hundreds of papers on a subject and critically examine them for fallacies, look for fake data, etc. It's just not plausible.
At this rate, if us commonfolk are just expected to take a default position of not believing a scientific study or consensus until we personally vet them, what are we to actually believe? Do I need to go out and personally vet that evolution is real by personally reproducing some fruit fly studies?
We're heading down a scary road if we cannot trust our scientific institutions to be unbiased.
It's a scary road if everyone is just blanket assuming their sources of information are correct. We're living it.
There are NO institutions WHATSOEVER that we should trust.
There are NO institutions WHATSOEVER that we should trust.
My suggestion is to ignore anything that's not a meta study.
Material science puts out thousands of papers a year, and ignoring them is easy because I lack context to understand them. IMO, the same is true of any field without a lot of study and literature review.
Material science puts out thousands of papers a year, and ignoring them is easy because I lack context to understand them. IMO, the same is true of any field without a lot of study and literature review.
Government funding, universities and charitable foundations are the traditional model for research.
> All research should be taken with a grain of salt.
The very fact of science is that you can take the same experiment and under the said assumptions; you can repeat the same experiment yourself and come to similar conclusions as the one done by the original scientists.
> 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.
AD Hominem fallacy - the status of someone has no relation to the outcome of a scientific experiment.
The very fact of science is that you can take the same experiment and under the said assumptions; you can repeat the same experiment yourself and come to similar conclusions as the one done by the original scientists.
> 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.
AD Hominem fallacy - the status of someone has no relation to the outcome of a scientific experiment.
It has a relation to the ability of someone to actually conduct an experiment... Larger groups have more resources, from knowledge to experience to money.
It is not an ad hominem fallacy. I don't know how you twisted his meaning to come to that conclusion.
It is not an ad hominem fallacy. I don't know how you twisted his meaning to come to that conclusion.
Louis Pasteur and Pierre & Marie Curie fit the description of "mom and pop research", as compared to today's labs, yet their findings are still valid.
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 systems in Indiana (dams and whatnot, where the mussel would need to have been introduced to the lake). Microscopes capable of counting the young, ventilation hoods (for preservation chemicals), scales, and methods of disposing of biowaste from the traps for adults? Yeah, that's even more - and this dude had a pretty low budget. What he did have was the time to put into the research which is yet another thing that alludes folks. Some fields of study really needs better equipment than we were using - plus it has been 20 years since then.
It isn't that the low-budget stuff or the "mom and pop research" is less valid or not good enough. It is that even that level is cost-prohibitive.
Not to mention supplies. I worked as a lab assistant for a dude studying the effects of zebra mussels in closed freshwater lake systems in Indiana (dams and whatnot, where the mussel would need to have been introduced to the lake). Microscopes capable of counting the young, ventilation hoods (for preservation chemicals), scales, and methods of disposing of biowaste from the traps for adults? Yeah, that's even more - and this dude had a pretty low budget. What he did have was the time to put into the research which is yet another thing that alludes folks. Some fields of study really needs better equipment than we were using - plus it has been 20 years since then.
It isn't that the low-budget stuff or the "mom and pop research" is less valid or not good enough. It is that even that level is cost-prohibitive.
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
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
That was then, now is now. There are few low-hanging fruits left these days. Especially in a field where showing any effect practically requires a sample size of dozens to hundreds and an observation period of years to decades.
> I don't know how you twisted his meaning to come to that conclusion.
Because the comment also mentioned this
> And I sure as hell won't trust any mom and pop research about pharmacology.
The comment essentially means that peer reviewed scientific experimental results from mom & pop are untrustworthy over big companies.
Because the comment also mentioned this
> And I sure as hell won't trust any mom and pop research about pharmacology.
The comment essentially means that peer reviewed scientific experimental results from mom & pop are untrustworthy over big companies.
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 much in research.
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 much in research.
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.
Many do via donations to charities.
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.
> 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.
The very fact of science is that you can take the same experiment and under the said assumptions; you can repeat the same experiment yourself and come to similar conclusions as the one done by the original scientists
Except that you can't: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39054778
Science is facing a "reproducibility crisis" where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests
Except that you can't: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39054778
Science is facing a "reproducibility crisis" where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests
The only alternative is public funding.
Just like how "big business" has a motivation to fund certain types of research, people in media have ideological and business motivations for only investigating certain types of organizations and people.
some random thoughts:
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!
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!
I noticed a while ago how every three months or so a new big study would be at the top of google news about how great coffee is for you. I decided one time to dig into the sources and of course the study was funded by a coffee industry consortium.
I recently pondered the possibility that this is happening in the vegetable industry right now. There are seemingly endless documentaries on Netflix at the moment promoting better health through vegetables (What the Health, Forks vs. Knives, etc). They have some compelling evidence towards their claims, but also towards possible corruptions within foundations such as the AHA and the Beef, Pork and poultry industries.
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?
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?
>It may be that chocolate eaters are wealthier or have other characteristics, aside from their chocolate-eating habit, that protect them from disease.
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.
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.
If Big Chocolate wants to spend money to help me rationalize my 2nd (or 3rd) Twix, who am I to get in their way?
(De Nile is not just a chocolate river in Egypt.)
(De Nile is not just a chocolate river in Egypt.)
This is a very common move by food companies right? Curious as to what can be done to stop it?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-in...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-in...
Stop perpetuating the cultural idea that 'anything white collar is OK as long as you do it for money.' The corrupt researchers should be left without a job, just as, say, a food truck worker who plotted to intentionally profit from selling expired products would be fired and criminally charged. In both cases the actors are unethically profiting from your misfortune.
Surely it is primarily the organization which deserves censure, rather than individuals operating within the system. Unless you basically want to lock up entire fields' worth of scientists I don't see how individual responsibility is a solution.
Isn't this part of the problem? When we (Americans) work for money, we don't do much investigation of where that money comes from. And really, how could we? It would take forensic accountant type of skills to really do that job. Maybe that's the fundamental cultural basis; if people felt it was important to know where the money comes from that is paying them they might think more about what work to take.
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.
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.
> 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.
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
“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.
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.
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.
Fair enough. I am actually somewhat with you on that. So defund other gov spending to fund BI. Transfer payments alone are already getting close to 10k/US citizen, so it's not like we don't have the money to do it.
Society either has to fund more researchers with more money and accept the ramifications of that or accept companies funding their own interests. The same applies to campaign funding.
This seems like a more serious answer to me.
Also, stop reading the news, when you see someone healthy, ask them what they do and/or pay for their advice. (A lot of healthy people are in the wellness industries)
Being healthy isn't rocket science, but on the other hand it involves a lot of lifestyle changes.
Being healthy isn't rocket science, but on the other hand it involves a lot of lifestyle changes.
Better bibliographic metadata and links, recording authorship, funding and affiliation. This is what organisations like Crossref (where I work), DataCite, ORCID etc are trying to do. Setting standards for, collecting and making available this information makes joining the dots and scrutiny easier.
If you're interested in this kind of thing I recommend PIDapaloooza conference. https://pidapalooza.org
(Posting in a personal capacity)
If you're interested in this kind of thing I recommend PIDapaloooza conference. https://pidapalooza.org
(Posting in a personal capacity)
Would be less of an issue if society valued research properly, and enabled scientists to refuse corporate funds
http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
" 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."
" 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."
Upon re-reading that, I wonder how often "politics, crimes, or disasters" occur in the _same_ stories ... ;)
It seems most nutritional advice is somehow skewed by commercial interests. The fat vs sugar discussion was influenced by industry and the sugar industry just had better lobbyists.
> "... New York University nutrition researcher Marion Nestle (no relation to the chocolate maker)"
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
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
Revelations like this are why I'm skeptical about the current science on eggs. The existence of a huge, well-funded egg lobby makes me wonder whether we'll find out in 20 years that dietary cholesterol is actually bad for you after all.
Who knows? Plenty of manufacturers stand to benefit from selling low-cholesterol alternatives to dairy and eggs too, no?
There's a story (urban legend?) in Ireland that the Mars company forced a pub to changed it's name from "Mahr's Bar" to another name.
I've always wondered if that was true, or even possible.
I've always wondered if that was true, or even possible.
I was eating a chocolate bar recently and I had this exact thought. Don't trust articles that say "X is good for you" when X is a commonly advertised commodity. Which is most things.
> [Fill in the blank company] has sponsored hundreds of studies to show [fill in the blank] is [good/bad]
Now it's applicable to nearly everything
Now it's applicable to nearly everything
Besides the sugar my main concern with chocolate is that a lot of it is contaminated with toxic levels of cadmium & lead.
That's why it's called Cadbury's.
OP means cacao
> Cadbury Jr.’s newest confection loaded just about every buzzy health trend into a fresh green-and-white package: vegan, ethically sourced, organic dark chocolate and creamy, superfood avocado.
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.
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.
Yeah that's exactly what the article says two sentences later.
I think it says exactly the opposite.
> Wait, what? Make no mistake: This vegan avocado chocolate bar is candy. With nearly 600 calories and 43 grams of fat per 100-gram serving, the bar packs more fat and calories than Cadbury Dairy Milk, and just a little less sugar.
> So how in the world could a chocolate bar be convincingly sold as a health food? You can thank a decades-long effort by the chocolate industry.
I say candy (some, not stuff with lots of refined sugar) & fat can be healthy (in moderate doses, obviously).
> Wait, what? Make no mistake: This vegan avocado chocolate bar is candy. With nearly 600 calories and 43 grams of fat per 100-gram serving, the bar packs more fat and calories than Cadbury Dairy Milk, and just a little less sugar.
> So how in the world could a chocolate bar be convincingly sold as a health food? You can thank a decades-long effort by the chocolate industry.
I say candy (some, not stuff with lots of refined sugar) & fat can be healthy (in moderate doses, obviously).
The latest research seems to claim that fat has been unfairly maligned and you should actually be eating more of it.
An extra 600 calories from whatever source is not going to be healthy.
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.