Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

•  

  

  Divide by Zero (profile), Oct 26th, 2012 @ 5:32pm

  
  

  With two screaming under-two's, I would kill any *AA member for a boat load of chocolate. Or even one bite.
  
  I'm only half joking.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2012 @ 6:05pm

  
  

  blah.. blah.. blah.. Nobody cares, at all..

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  ChrisB (profile), Oct 26th, 2012 @ 6:10pm

  
  

  Fat vs sugar

  > Chocolate can be made even healthier by replacing
  > its fat content with fruit juice.
  
  When will this nonsense die? Fat doesn't make you fat. It was removing fat and replacing it with sugar in the 70s that caused the obesity epidemic.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  shawnhcorey (profile), Oct 28th, 2012 @ 6:47am

  
  

  Re: Fat vs sugar

  Cocoa beans are loaded with things that are good for you included saturated and monounsaturated fats. What's bad for you is all the sugar (carbs) they add to cover its bitter taste. You should only eat chocolate that's 70% or higher cocoa.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  mischab1, Oct 26th, 2012 @ 6:21pm

  
  

  "Chocolate can be made even healthier by replacing its fat content with ... a Pickering emulsion of fruit juices and milk"
  
  Not for those of us who are allergic to milk. :-(

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  cm, Oct 26th, 2012 @ 7:08pm

  
  

  chocolate and slavery

  Although I love dark chocolate and think there may be a health benefit, I have recently stopped buying chocolate that isn't certified as Free Trade, since the African chocolate industry still has a substantial problem with both slavery of children and harmful child labor practices.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_in_cocoa_production

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2012 @ 7:58pm

  
  

  Re: chocolate and slavery

  Which will somehow be blamed on the white man.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  choclogic, Oct 26th, 2012 @ 8:08pm

  
  

  Thin people eat more choc than fatties.
  OK, so if rich people eat more caviare than poor people, eating more caviare could make me become a rich person! I love this logic.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  99% of your articles are food ... guy, Oct 27th, 2012 @ 6:24am

  
  

  I haven't had my breakfast yet.
  
  Now I am eating chocolate.
  
  DAMN YOU MICHAEL HO !
  (and your food related Saturday articles)
  (you can pay for my soon to acquire diabetes ; )

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Laroquod (profile), Oct 28th, 2012 @ 1:18pm

  
  

  Cripes Techdirt do you even read this stuff before you link it? The first link specifically says that this was a study designed to demonstrate the *fallibility* of common statistical methods in science. The conclusion that more chocoloate equals more Nobel prizes was intended to so absurd as to demonstrate to the flaws in the methodology. And here you are publishing it as fact and unwittingly proving the scientist's point. LOL!

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Michael Ho (profile), Oct 29th, 2012 @ 12:57pm

  
  

  Re:

  Laroquod,
  
  "This study brought to you by the Correlation Is Not Causation Foundation." -- That sentence was my way of saying this study was specifically designed to demonstrate that statistics are misinterpreted....
  
  You can try to find correlations between almost any two variables, but it doesn't mean there's any kind of causation relationship between them.... and there's definitely no causation relationship between chocolate consumption and winning a Nobel prize.
  
  This is one of my favorite XKCD cartoons:
  http://xkcd.com/552/

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  shawnhcorey (profile), Oct 29th, 2012 @ 1:14pm

  
  

  Re: Re:

  Yes, but the lack of correlation means the lack of causation. That is why correlation is an important first step. Sadly, for many, it's the only step. ☹

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Laroquod (profile), Oct 30th, 2012 @ 8:45am

  
  

  Re: Re:

  You made an oblique reference to the actual point of the study, but you still trumpeted its conclusions, when the whole point of the study was for you NOT to trumpet its conclusions. The point of the study was to produce such an ABSURD result that it would be impossible for the media to trumpet that conclusion. The scientist who did the study expected it to be so ridiculous that chocolate produces Nobel winners, that it would clearly spark a discussion about correlation and causation. But you (and the source article) instead portrayed the conclusion as non-absurd, and relegated the correlation lesson to a footnote.
  
  I hope that you can see how completely backwards and wrong it is, what you have done here.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Laroquod (profile), Oct 30th, 2012 @ 8:47am

  
  

  Re: Re:

  In fact, you have unwittingly proven the scientist's point.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Michael Ho (profile), Oct 30th, 2012 @ 12:16pm

  
  

  Re: Re: Re:

  The title of this post *is* the /unquestioned/ benefits of chocolate.
  
  Sorry for trying to be too clever in this post.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Laroquod (profile), Oct 31st, 2012 @ 7:27pm

  
  

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Is it because of my comments in this thread that my posts suddenly have to be moderated before they are posted? That seems pretty unfair. I don't ever post anything abusive or offensive.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Laroquod (profile), Nov 1st, 2012 @ 8:57am

  
  

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Never mind -- just heard about the moderation bug. Anyway thanks for your responses.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment