Chocolate has long been under debate. Does it increase blood circulation? Will it lower cholesterol? Does the health benefits of chocolate outweigh its consequences? I decided to look more closely at three articles that all give explanations to the question, is chocolate good of bad for your health?
The first article is a report by CNN that outlines only the benefits of chocolate. From increasing blood flow to boosting your memory, this article details a wide variety of reasons why it is advantageous for one to consume chocolate. The fact that "136 studies on coco" (Ingall) were examined makes it appear that these sources are reputable, yet we have no understanding of how these studies were actually conducted. The statement, "In a small study at Indiana..." (Ingall) may also seem questionable. We have no reason to believe that these studies are actually valid. A study that involves only 24 women should also raise some eyebrows. A study this small might not represent the population as a whole.
Another article that appears to be knowledgeable on the topic of chocolate also raises many questions to the critical thinker. Softpedia writes solely of the consequences of chocolate consumption. The article states that chocolate "...could cause weaker bones and osteoporosis" (Anitel) while also saying that it "may induce more harm than increased fatty deposits..." (Anitel). The words 'could' and 'may' should inform the reader that there is no concrete evidence. As with much of science, these statements are just hypothesis that are being developed and examined. This article described a study of 1,001 females, which, when comparing to the study described above with 24 women, seems that the results could be considered valid, but we should still be reluctant. Was random selection and random assignment involved?
Finally I looked at an article by MSNBC that looked at both the good and bad of eating chocolate. The article describes "new research" that eating chocolate may lower the risk of heart disease. Critical thinkers should see this and understand that new research does not provide definite answers. There has yet to be other sources and research that can support its findings. On the other hand, the article later talks of research that "pooled results from 7 studies involving 100,000 people" (Reuters). The large amount of people involved in this study and the fact that 7 studies were looked at total should increase the likelihood of the validity of these findings.
While these articles all propose different answers to the question, there is no clear-cut answer. I think that more studies and better support are necessary to establish any health benefits or consequences regarding chocolate consumption. One must learn from this that not all sources can be trusted. The controversial nature of these articles prove that sources should be looked at closely for their reliability before one can trust its findings.
CNN Report: Marjorie Ingall
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/20/health.chocolate/
Softpedia: Stefan Anitel
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Chocolate-is-Bad-for-Your-Bones-77304.shtml
MSNBC: Thomson Reuters
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44312861/ns/health-heart_health/t/chocolate-may-be-good-heart-dont-go-crazy/#.Ty8jiM1sz8U
I think you did a very good job of critically analyzing these three articles. In my high school statistics class we were warned to be aware of the "lurking" variables that could impact a study and also examine the wording of the conclusions when searching for validity. You did all of these things, way to go! I think that because there is no concrete evidence about the health effects of chocolate, I will continue to eat it.
I found your submission on the effects of chocolate for health enlightening, as I have debated the effects myself. You did a very good job analyzing not just one, but three articles and you were aware of other possibilities to the studies conducted. I have read different articles on health websites about the benefits of chocolate in diets, but I have not given much attention to the ways in which studies were conducted. You asked the questions of random assignment and random selection, which is a very good point to bring up and to look into further when articles mention studies that give their reasoning conclusions. After reading the different articles you analyzed, it still sounds like chocolate has not been proven to be harmful or extremely beneficial, so I will be keeping the occasional piece of dark chocolate in my diet.
This article did a tremendous job of being skeptical with all the studies results! I have a strong opinion that chocolate actually does have some health benefits to it (from caffeine to the cocoa in chocolate). Although I do believe eating TOO MUCH chocolate can harm ones health. What it comes down to for chocolate to be more healthy than harmful - eat within moderation (as with all foods)!
I think this blog entry shows a good example of scientific skepticism. Without the precise details of statistical analysis such as random selection it is hard to simply believe the articles. Also these are news articles without any references as to primary sources. Thus making these arguments more invalid as they lack scientific research background data.
I think this blog entry shows a good example of scientific skepticism. Without the precise details of statistical analysis such as random selection it is hard to simply believe the articles. Also these are news articles without any references as to primary sources. Thus making these arguments more invalid as they lack scientific research background data.