Joy Victory is Deputy Managing Editor of HealthNewsReview.org. She may or may not occasionally hide her dark chocolate stash from her family.
Want a simple way to know if you should be skeptical about a health claim?
Look for the word “support” used as a verb. As in, USA Today’s claim on Twitter that “Research suggests chocolate with a minimum of 70% cacao can support cognitive, endocrine and cardiovascular health.”
How does dark chocolate “support” your health? According to USA Today, it can do so because an unpublished pilot study involving just five people–yes, five–showed eating lots of it over a few days “influenced gene activity, increased anti-inflammatory agents and increased infection-fighting cells.” A second pilot study also showed it can “positively impact brain function” on five people, the paper reported.
It’s unclear, of course, if it actually made anyone healthier, despite the “support” it may have provided. Simply having more white blood cells isn’t necessarily a good thing, nor is having fewer anti-inflammatory agents. And I’m not sure what “influencing” gene activity involves, unless it’s to convince me to eat chocolate, because I’m pretty sure I want to blame my genes for that.
Dark chocolate may have health benefits, but don’t proceed wantonly with diet changes based on this skimpy news story that’s based on a preliminary study. After all, eating loads of chocolate also “supports” weight gain.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
“Just one example of a wider phenomenon in which science is spun for the benefit of companies marketing clinical tests.” https://t.co/QqenHVKWLr
Journalist-patient @journotwit writes: “Like most men, I'll never forget my first time.” He’s done a great job chronicling his prostate patient experiences. https://t.co/JRNMxfKXa6
Why you should be a "medical conservative" - Lown Institute https://t.co/tipZeyuPp5
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like