[HN Gopher] Chocolate intake and risk of type 2 diabetes: prospe...
___________________________________________________________________
Chocolate intake and risk of type 2 diabetes: prospective cohort
studies
Author : gnabgib
Score : 57 points
Date : 2024-12-05 19:22 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bmj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bmj.com)
| m348e912 wrote:
| Key Takeaway:
|
| Participants consuming >=5 servings of dark chocolate per week
| had a significantly lower risk of T2D (21% lower) compared to
| those who consumed little or none.
| julianeon wrote:
| This is useful because, at a glance, most people would probably
| assume chocolate is a candy and candy is bad and the study just
| added another drop to that bucket of evidence.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Milk chocolate is very different. Don't take the wrong lesson
| from this.
| teractiveodular wrote:
| The study says milk chocolate also reduces your risk by
| 10%.
| murkle wrote:
| Where do you see that? I see "No significant associations
| were found for milk chocolate intake" and "Intake of
| milk, but not dark, chocolate was positively associated
| with weight gain."
| markus_zhang wrote:
| I always wonder how much is one serving? 1 ounce? Why can't
| they just say 1 ounce or xx grams? Same goes to "cup", guess
| it's an American thing.
| scrozier wrote:
| You're right about the "serving" thing. But in the US, at
| least, a cup in a culinary context means precisely eight
| ounces.
| devonbleak wrote:
| Eight ounces by weight or by volume? /s
| daemonologist wrote:
| Now we're tempted to go down the ounce rabbit hole (the US
| fluid ounce is based on the medieval British system, which
| is based on the density of wine, probably).
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_ounce
| magicalhippo wrote:
| Brian Regan had a good one on that[1].
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBko_3wT44Q
| JoshTko wrote:
| Investigator initiated grants from Mars Edge i.e. the Chocolate
| candy company. Mars edge a health focused dept which has like a
| cocoa based health supplement.
| Pigalowda wrote:
| Good catch! This is too much conflict for me to take seriously.
| Like the beverage and tobacco industry studies.
|
| Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE
| uniform disclosure form at https://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-
| interest/ and declare: support from the National Institutes of
| Health for the submitted work. JEM reports receiving
| investigator initiated grants from Mars Edge. EBR is on the
| scientific advisory board and has received research funding
| from the US Department of Agriculture/US Highbush Blueberry
| growers commodity group.
| idontwantthis wrote:
| Perhaps people who enjoy less sweet foods don't eat too much
| sugar.
| jey wrote:
| This sounds extremely confounded by lifestyle, socioeconomic
| status, and overall diet. The kinds of people who eat dark
| chocolate are clearly a self-selected bunch of outliers. Even
| though they tried to correct for some of these covariates, I'm
| personally going to take these results with a pinch of salted
| chocolate.
|
| To be fair, the authors do acknowledge these limitations of their
| methodology, and these kinds of studies are a useful part of the
| overall enterprise of science to explore and propose hypotheses.
|
| > First, we cannot entirely rule out the role of confounding in
| our observed associations. We controlled for multiple lifestyle
| and dietary covariates that might confound the associations of
| interest, although residual or unmeasured confounding, or both,
| may still exist owing to the observational nature of the
| analysis.
|
| Regardless, I'll go ahead and take this finding as a further
| justification to keep eating dark chocolate.
| mrsilencedogood wrote:
| I'm also suspect for similar reasons, but this at least seems
| consistent with lots of other stuff we're finding out about the
| random things humanity has been imbibing for millennia (coffee,
| tea, cacao, etc). Anything that's anti-inflammatory seems to
| help fix a lot of stuff, as long as whatever you do to get that
| anti-inflammatory effect doesn't have too many downsides.
|
| For instance, I wonder if we'll eventually find an NSAID that
| isn't hard on the liver, and low doses end up in things like
| vitamins. (My understanding is that that's the main reason you
| can't just constantly take small doses of advil - the marginal
| positive effects of reduced inflammation are outweighed by your
| kidneys and liver being made to constantly work harder).
| akira2501 wrote:
| To arrive at a conclusion which suggests you should always
| just add a fixed amount of some substance to your diet seems
| generally flawed to me. It treats bodies like they're all
| average machines with fixed inputs and predictable results
| and zero emergent properties.
|
| If wonder if we'll eventually improve genetic and blood
| testing to the point where everyone can have customized daily
| information to help them make the best individual choice.
| FriedPickles wrote:
| Hopefully there will be a follow up RCT. I volunteer for the
| test group.
| fire_lake wrote:
| Dark chocolate often has very high sugar levels. You might try
| to self correct but corporations are always on your heels.
| WoodenChair wrote:
| > Dark chocolate often has very high sugar levels.
|
| Milk chocolate usually has higher sugar levels than dark
| chocolate.
| wyldfire wrote:
| The point you cite was relative to other foods, not other
| chocolates.
| RankingMember wrote:
| If you're going to eat chocolate, dark has by far the lowest
| sugar content among chocolate types.
| bruce343434 wrote:
| That's whataboutism. There's still a lot of sugar in it.
| Additionally, chocolate often has a high amount of heavy
| metals in it.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzWWOQMLttE
|
| I like chocolate as much as the next guy, but personally my
| skin always starts itching all over (inflammation!) and
| breaking out in acneic pustules on the chin, be it dark,
| milk, cacao powder, whatever. It's the same reaction I get
| from other high sugar content candy.
| RankingMember wrote:
| > That's whataboutism.
|
| The discussion is about chocolate in general, so noting
| that one form of chocolate is much lower in sugar than
| another is hardly "whataboutism".
| d1sxeyes wrote:
| Dark chocolate has about half as much sugar as milk
| chocolate. Seems reasonable to be OK with eating a bit of
| dark chocolate but not milk or white.
| Tarsul wrote:
| Dark chocolate cannot have more sugar than 100% minus how
| much cacao is inside. And usually if we're talking dark
| chocolate then we're talking 60%+ chocolate. My personal
| suggestion is to go for nothing less than 80-85% chocolate,
| which certainly does not trigger my sugar addiction (meaning
| it suffices to eat one or two pieces); even more it appears
| to reduce my appetite (similar to tea). And also makes me
| feel happy (there are articles about these effects, but I
| don't know how good the studies behind it are, but certainly
| worth a mention!). Truly a gift.
| moffkalast wrote:
| It's usually almost exactly the amount of sugar that is not
| cacao if you look at the label. Milk chocolate is like over
| half sugar by weight.
|
| There sad reality is that cacao is extremely bitter, so
| every gram of sugar is sorely needed to balance it out.
| I've settled on 70% cacao (so 30% sugar) as a good balance
| of being dark for the endorphins and still enjoyable to
| even eat. Over 90% it stops even being the consistency of
| chocolate and is more like a brick of raw cocoa.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| This is always the top comment on these studies, but come on,
| it's a medical journal. As you already pointed out they did
| adjust for confounding factors, you simply cannot exclude them
| completely with a single study.
| Projectiboga wrote:
| Yes, this also measures how well of these individuals are as
| Chocolate is a luxury product. This needs to be examined
| sorting into economic cohorts.
| helph67 wrote:
| Just a few of the many benefits... "Dark chocolate is packed full
| of important minerals, including iron, magnesium, zinc, copper
| and phosphorus. In your body, these minerals are used to support
| factors such as immunity (zinc), can help keep your bones and
| teeth healthy (phosphorus), and contribute to better sleep
| quality (magnesium)." https://health.clevelandclinic.org/dark-
| chocolate-health-ben...
| alehlopeh wrote:
| Whenever I see a sentence claiming something is "packed" with
| stuff, I wonder why they didn't just say it contains stuff. My
| conclusion is that it was written by marketers to try and sell
| something.
| Modified3019 wrote:
| Dark chocolate also tends to be "packed" with lead, arsenic and
| cadmium.
|
| Funny enough, "organic" certified kinds can end up worse on the
| spectrum. Sometimes the source of the issue is the soil, other
| times it gets contaminated during processing.
|
| Spices have the same problem. As well as anything concentrated,
| like protein powders.
| lifesaverluke wrote:
| Got a (reliable) source?
| MiguelVieira wrote:
| https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-
| and-...
| litoE wrote:
| The dietician at the UCLA Cardio Rehab Center recommended trying
| 95% Cocoa chocolate if you have chocolate cravings because it has
| much less sugar than regular chocolate. My experience (sample
| size N=1) is that if I get a craving for chocolate I can eat a
| single square of the stuff and, because of the high cocoa
| content, it feels like I just ate a whole box of regular
| chocolates.
| neeleshs wrote:
| 95%! Isn't that too bitter? One square of 72% works best for
| me, 85% is pushing it.
| programLyrique wrote:
| I mostly eat 90% and now find 85% too sweet (but 100% too
| bitter). I think our taste just adapts to the level of
| sweetness after some time.
| brink wrote:
| I used to drink coffee with sugar, until I purposefully cut
| it out, and now I can't stand sugar in my coffee.
|
| I can't believe I used to drink those glass bottle
| starbucks coffee drinks at one point.
| ethagnawl wrote:
| > I can't believe I used to drink those glass bottle
| starbucks coffee drinks at one point.
|
| They're unbearable -- like drinking a milkshake. It's so
| frustrating that convenience stores in the US rarely
| stock black cold coffee in cans or bottles.
| djtango wrote:
| Ymmv 99+ with some black coffee is delightful for me
| technothrasher wrote:
| Depends upon the bar. I find some 99% bars very enjoyable,
| and some 70% bars not worth eating, and vice versa. I tend to
| stay away from any bar with too much sugar, or with adjuncts
| like dairy, salt, chili, mint, orange, etc (because I find
| they hide the natural flavors in the chocolate itself), and
| then don't worry about the percentage as much.
| plorkyeran wrote:
| The quality of the chocolate matters a lot more when you
| don't have sugar covering up the problems.
| tptacek wrote:
| 85 is the optimal %.
| Tagbert wrote:
| For me, those high cocoa chocolates taste unbalanced and
| unsatisfying. I quickly stop easting them and look for
| something else. If all I taste is dry and bitter, that is not
| what I am looking for. I want a little cocoa butter smoothness
| and a little sweet, too.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| For me a high cocoa chocoalte tastes unbalanced... and this
| is why I like it. The only problem I have it's sold at the
| same size with 50/50 sugar cocoa chocos and that means I'm
| set after a few chips and the rest is wasted sitting in the
| corner till be disposed.
|
| I would be fine with ~25g one (even at the 1/2 of the cost of
| a 'full' bar) but looks like noone is interested.
| nytesky wrote:
| Really depends on quality of chocolate. Trader Joe's 85% is
| okay but a German bar from Lidl at 85% is amazing.
|
| I find in all cases, mixing dark chocolate with peanut butter
| even without additional sugar evokes a memory of my lifetime
| enjoyment of Reese's and it is delightful. I suspect hazelnut
| or almond are good options too, and reduce sugar ratio
| further.
| gbasin wrote:
| i eat half a bar of it per day, amazing brain fuel
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Dark chocolate covered coffee beans are nice
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Just curious how much is half a bar? I bought a few 100% but
| they look large...
| krackers wrote:
| If you're eating that much, be careful about cadmium and
| lead.
| sgt wrote:
| For dark choc, going for 70% is enjoyable yet also healthy.
| mksreddy wrote:
| I found this Simple way to stop chocolate craving, don't have
| one at home.
| bdangubic wrote:
| they don't have chocolate outside of your home where you
| live? you have access to them only at your house?
| bdangubic wrote:
| "smoking improves short-term memory" - study sponsored in part by
| Philip Morris
| loehnsberg wrote:
| For all those screaming confounds, you can run experiments. Just
| please keep sampling until you get good results for milk
| chocolate as well.
| kjhughes wrote:
| On the other hand, _Lead and Cadmium Could Be in Your Dark
| Chocolate_ :
|
| https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-...
| slwvx wrote:
| On the other other hand rat poop, bug bits, mice hair _can_ be
| in your chocolate. And an asteroid can destroy earth tomorrow.
| I don 't think any of these things should be especially
| worrying.
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/health/insect-rodent-filth-in...
| yosito wrote:
| Well, this explains why I haven't developed type 2 diabetes, my
| dark chocolate addiction!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-05 23:01 UTC)