I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here's How

24

Replies

  • harpsdesire
    harpsdesire Posts: 190 Member
    Oh my goodness, the music videos about using chocolate for weight loss are just... so.... omg. XD
  • crazyjerseygirl
    crazyjerseygirl Posts: 1,252 Member
    It's things like this that make me an *kitten* on the Internet. THIS is why I demand links to papers. This is why I don't take you seriously if you can't provide them. And when you say "do your own homework" I know that you never read or understood the paper and you don't like to admit you might be mistaken.

    (This is a reply to the article, the "you" is general and not pointed at anyone in particular)
  • peter56765
    peter56765 Posts: 352 Member
    Even when researchers aren't promoting an angle, reporters very often misunderstand scientific studies and write sensational stories about the report, rather than accurate ones.

    Reporters are also infamous for printing the "shocking" or "revolutionary" conclusions from studies without doing their due diligence and reporting on the often vigorous peer criticism that follows a study being published. Science very rarely does a 180 degree shift on anything but you'd think that given the way it is reported.

    In a lot of ways science isn't so much about trying to prove as trying to disprove. I take "miracle food" reports with the biggest grain of salt.

    Agreed. And I'd put "demonized foods" in the same category.
  • crazyjerseygirl
    crazyjerseygirl Posts: 1,252 Member
    Does anyone have a link to the published paper? I can't find it!
  • aerochic42
    aerochic42 Posts: 841 Member
    just act like you know what you are talking about and people will follow. Even if you tell them you making it up. then they think you are either lying or excessively modest. It's scary how many people believe some of the stuff that comes out of my mouth and follow me even when I freely admit that I'm full of poop. Of course my husband will call me on it, but it doesn't matter because people follow him even faster.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    It's things like this that make me an *kitten* on the Internet. THIS is why I demand links to papers. This is why I don't take you seriously if you can't provide them. And when you say "do your own homework" I know that you never read or understood the paper and you don't like to admit you might be mistaken.

    (This is a reply to the article, the "you" is general and not pointed at anyone in particular)

    I can use Google as well as anyone, so I'm never too concerned about whether someone provides a link or not. I'm more interested in people and what they have to say about a topic. They could be as wrong as can be and be basing their opinion on something that makes no sense at all, but I find their point of view interesting.
  • maidentl
    maidentl Posts: 3,203 Member
    peter56765 wrote: »
    Even when researchers aren't promoting an angle, reporters very often misunderstand scientific studies and write sensational stories about the report, rather than accurate ones.

    Reporters are also infamous for printing the "shocking" or "revolutionary" conclusions from studies without doing their due diligence and reporting on the often vigorous peer criticism that follows a study being published. Science very rarely does a 180 degree shift on anything but you'd think that given the way it is reported.

    In a lot of ways science isn't so much about trying to prove as trying to disprove. I take "miracle food" reports with the biggest grain of salt.

    Agreed. And I'd put "demonized foods" in the same category.

    Yes! When I had my second son, I was attempting a VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean.) A study came out while I was pregnant that showed the risk of uterine rupture based on various levels of intervention. Despite the fact that no intervention carried about the same risk (less than 1%) of a "normal" pregnancy, all of the articles about this study crowed about how "dangerous" it was to have a VBAC, instead of how dangerous it is for doctors to intervene unnecessarily. And the infuriating part was when I ended up on the table anyway, the idiot doctor tried to talk to me about the study. I quickly shut him up when I was able to rattle off all of the real numbers.

    The moral of my overly long story is, I get why people ask to see the actual study instead of an article or a blog post about the study and I get why they're so skeptical. And yes, doctors are just as guilty of falling for this nonsense. So even if your doctor tells you something, do your own research!
  • scottacular
    scottacular Posts: 597 Member
    I want chocolate.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    I admittedly just skimmed the article (SO long), but who were the millions that beleived this? Or are they just assuming all readers believed it?
  • MsJulesRenee
    MsJulesRenee Posts: 1,180 Member
    jgnatca wrote: »
    I fooled my hubby in to a home "cure" for cold sores that went like this. He could not find any holes in my argument and he remains cured to this day. I shared my "cure" with my (MD) sister and she cried, "unethical!" If I were a doctor maybe, but I made no special claims. Here's my "cure".

    Cold sores can be caused by stress. B vitamins are good for stress. I found a B vitamin formulation that had a large label "STRESS" on it. I told hubby how it worked and I stressed it was to reduce his stress. His chronic cold sores cleared up and he continues to take his "STRESS" pill daily.

    Can you guess how this worked? What are the flaws in my strategy?

    hahaha, awesome! Made me laugh B)
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    edited May 2015
    Does anyone have a link to the published paper? I can't find it!

    It's been pulled but you can see it the Google cache:

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Yg1ecZvTNgMJ:imed.pub/ojs/index.php/iam/article/view/1087+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=de
    Chocolate with high Cocoa content as a weight-loss accelerator

    Johannes Bohannon, Diana Koch, Peter Homm, Alexander Driehaus



    Abstract



    Background: Although the focus of scientific studies on the beneficial properties of chocolate with a high cocoa content has increased in recent years, studies determining its importance for weight regulation, in particular within the context of a controlled dietary measure, have rarely been conducted.

    Methodology: In a study consisting of several weeks, we divided men and women between the ages of 19-67 into three groups. One group was instructed to keep a low-carb diet and to consume an additional daily serving of 42 grams of chocolate with 81% cocoa content (chocolate group). Another group was instructed to follow the same low-carb diet as the chocolate group, but without the chocolate intervention (low-carb group). In addition, we asked a third group to eat at their own discretion, with unrestricted choice of food. At the beginning of the study, all participants received extensive medical advice and were thoroughly briefed on their respective diet. At the beginning and the end of the study, each participant gave a blood sample. Their weight, BMI, and waist-to-hip ratio were determined and noted. In addition to that, we evaluated the Giessen Subjective Complaints List. During the study, participants were encouraged to weigh themselves on a daily basis, assess the quality of their sleep as well as their mental state, and to use urine test strips.

    Result: Subjects of the chocolate intervention group experienced the easiest and most successful weight loss. Even though the measurable effect of this diet occurred with a delay, the weight reduction of this group exceeded the results of the low-carb group by 10% after only three weeks (p = 0.04). While the weight cycling effect already occurred after a few weeks in the low-carb group, with resulting weight gain in the last fifth of the observation period, the chocolate group experienced a steady increase in weight loss. This is confirmed by the evaluation of the ketone reduction. Initially, ketone reduction was much lower in the chocolate group than in the low-carb peer group, but after a few weeks, the situation changed. The low-carb group had a lower ketone reduction than in the previous period, they reduced 145 mg/dl less ketones, whereas the chocolate group had an average reduction of an additional 145mg/dl. Effects were similarly favorable concerning cholesterol levels, triglyceride levels, and LDL cholesterol levels of the chocolate group. Moreover, the subjects of the chocolate group found a significant improvement in their well-being (physically and mentally). The controlled improvement compared to the results of the low-carb group was highly significant (p <0.001).

    Conclusion: Consumption of chocolate with a high cocoa content can significantly increase the success of weight-loss diets. The weightloss effect of this diet occurs with a certain delay. Long-term weight loss, however, seems to occur easier and more successfully by adding chocolate. The effect of the chocolate, the so-called "weight loss turbo," seems to go hand in hand with personal well-being, which was significantly higher than in the control groups.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Does anyone have a link to the published paper? I can't find it!

    It's been pulled but you can see it the Google cache:

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Yg1ecZvTNgMJ:imed.pub/ojs/index.php/iam/article/view/1087+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=de
    Chocolate with high Cocoa content as a weight-loss accelerator

    Johannes Bohannon, Diana Koch, Peter Homm, Alexander Driehaus



    Abstract



    Background: Although the focus of scientific studies on the beneficial properties of chocolate with a high cocoa content has increased in recent years, studies determining its importance for weight regulation, in particular within the context of a controlled dietary measure, have rarely been conducted.

    Methodology: In a study consisting of several weeks, we divided men and women between the ages of 19-67 into three groups. One group was instructed to keep a low-carb diet and to consume an additional daily serving of 42 grams of chocolate with 81% cocoa content (chocolate group). Another group was instructed to follow the same low-carb diet as the chocolate group, but without the chocolate intervention (low-carb group). In addition, we asked a third group to eat at their own discretion, with unrestricted choice of food. At the beginning of the study, all participants received extensive medical advice and were thoroughly briefed on their respective diet. At the beginning and the end of the study, each participant gave a blood sample. Their weight, BMI, and waist-to-hip ratio were determined and noted. In addition to that, we evaluated the Giessen Subjective Complaints List. During the study, participants were encouraged to weigh themselves on a daily basis, assess the quality of their sleep as well as their mental state, and to use urine test strips.

    Result: Subjects of the chocolate intervention group experienced the easiest and most successful weight loss. Even though the measurable effect of this diet occurred with a delay, the weight reduction of this group exceeded the results of the low-carb group by 10% after only three weeks (p = 0.04). While the weight cycling effect already occurred after a few weeks in the low-carb group, with resulting weight gain in the last fifth of the observation period, the chocolate group experienced a steady increase in weight loss. This is confirmed by the evaluation of the ketone reduction. Initially, ketone reduction was much lower in the chocolate group than in the low-carb peer group, but after a few weeks, the situation changed. The low-carb group had a lower ketone reduction than in the previous period, they reduced 145 mg/dl less ketones, whereas the chocolate group had an average reduction of an additional 145mg/dl. Effects were similarly favorable concerning cholesterol levels, triglyceride levels, and LDL cholesterol levels of the chocolate group. Moreover, the subjects of the chocolate group found a significant improvement in their well-being (physically and mentally). The controlled improvement compared to the results of the low-carb group was highly significant (p <0.001).

    Conclusion: Consumption of chocolate with a high cocoa content can significantly increase the success of weight-loss diets. The weightloss effect of this diet occurs with a certain delay. Long-term weight loss, however, seems to occur easier and more successfully by adding chocolate. The effect of the chocolate, the so-called "weight loss turbo," seems to go hand in hand with personal well-being, which was significantly higher than in the control groups.

    Hahahahahaha. It's glorious.

  • ackeejag
    ackeejag Posts: 2 Member
    ackeejag wrote: »
    If you can be fooled into thinking high calorie sugar snacks will make you lose weight, you probably weren't serious about losing weight in the first place.

    tyTc1Nl.jpg
    [/quote]

    Cute. Still stand by my point. All the 'research' in the world isn't gonna fool me into thinking a high calorie sugar snack is supposed to somehow help me lose weight. If people are that easily fooled they deserve to be separated from their money.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    ackeejag wrote: »
    ackeejag wrote: »
    If you can be fooled into thinking high calorie sugar snacks will make you lose weight, you probably weren't serious about losing weight in the first place.

    tyTc1Nl.jpg

    Cute. Still stand by my point. All the 'research' in the world isn't gonna fool me into thinking a high calorie sugar snack is supposed to somehow help me lose weight. If people are that easily fooled they deserve to be separated from their money.
    Snickers is helping me lose weight... for a few more pounds, anyway.

  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    edited May 2015
    ackeejag wrote: »
    ackeejag wrote: »
    If you can be fooled into thinking high calorie sugar snacks will make you lose weight, you probably weren't serious about losing weight in the first place.

    tyTc1Nl.jpg

    Cute. Still stand by my point. All the 'research' in the world isn't gonna fool me into thinking a high calorie sugar snack is supposed to somehow help me lose weight. If people are that easily fooled they deserve to be separated from their money.

    That... was never the point of the fake study.

    And the dark chocolate used in it? Low in sugar and good for you.

  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Does anyone have a link to the published paper? I can't find it!

    It's been pulled but you can see it the Google cache:

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Yg1ecZvTNgMJ:imed.pub/ojs/index.php/iam/article/view/1087+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=de
    Chocolate with high Cocoa content as a weight-loss accelerator

    Johannes Bohannon, Diana Koch, Peter Homm, Alexander Driehaus



    Abstract



    Background: Although the focus of scientific studies on the beneficial properties of chocolate with a high cocoa content has increased in recent years, studies determining its importance for weight regulation, in particular within the context of a controlled dietary measure, have rarely been conducted.

    Methodology: In a study consisting of several weeks, we divided men and women between the ages of 19-67 into three groups. One group was instructed to keep a low-carb diet and to consume an additional daily serving of 42 grams of chocolate with 81% cocoa content (chocolate group). Another group was instructed to follow the same low-carb diet as the chocolate group, but without the chocolate intervention (low-carb group). In addition, we asked a third group to eat at their own discretion, with unrestricted choice of food. At the beginning of the study, all participants received extensive medical advice and were thoroughly briefed on their respective diet. At the beginning and the end of the study, each participant gave a blood sample. Their weight, BMI, and waist-to-hip ratio were determined and noted. In addition to that, we evaluated the Giessen Subjective Complaints List. During the study, participants were encouraged to weigh themselves on a daily basis, assess the quality of their sleep as well as their mental state, and to use urine test strips.

    Result: Subjects of the chocolate intervention group experienced the easiest and most successful weight loss. Even though the measurable effect of this diet occurred with a delay, the weight reduction of this group exceeded the results of the low-carb group by 10% after only three weeks (p = 0.04). While the weight cycling effect already occurred after a few weeks in the low-carb group, with resulting weight gain in the last fifth of the observation period, the chocolate group experienced a steady increase in weight loss. This is confirmed by the evaluation of the ketone reduction. Initially, ketone reduction was much lower in the chocolate group than in the low-carb peer group, but after a few weeks, the situation changed. The low-carb group had a lower ketone reduction than in the previous period, they reduced 145 mg/dl less ketones, whereas the chocolate group had an average reduction of an additional 145mg/dl. Effects were similarly favorable concerning cholesterol levels, triglyceride levels, and LDL cholesterol levels of the chocolate group. Moreover, the subjects of the chocolate group found a significant improvement in their well-being (physically and mentally). The controlled improvement compared to the results of the low-carb group was highly significant (p <0.001).

    Conclusion: Consumption of chocolate with a high cocoa content can significantly increase the success of weight-loss diets. The weightloss effect of this diet occurs with a certain delay. Long-term weight loss, however, seems to occur easier and more successfully by adding chocolate. The effect of the chocolate, the so-called "weight loss turbo," seems to go hand in hand with personal well-being, which was significantly higher than in the control groups.

    Hahahahahaha. It's glorious.

    It's also pretty clear that the fact checking done was minimal. It's pretty grossly written.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Does anyone have a link to the published paper? I can't find it!

    It's been pulled but you can see it the Google cache:

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Yg1ecZvTNgMJ:imed.pub/ojs/index.php/iam/article/view/1087+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=de
    Chocolate with high Cocoa content as a weight-loss accelerator

    Johannes Bohannon, Diana Koch, Peter Homm, Alexander Driehaus



    Abstract



    Background: Although the focus of scientific studies on the beneficial properties of chocolate with a high cocoa content has increased in recent years, studies determining its importance for weight regulation, in particular within the context of a controlled dietary measure, have rarely been conducted.

    Methodology: In a study consisting of several weeks, we divided men and women between the ages of 19-67 into three groups. One group was instructed to keep a low-carb diet and to consume an additional daily serving of 42 grams of chocolate with 81% cocoa content (chocolate group). Another group was instructed to follow the same low-carb diet as the chocolate group, but without the chocolate intervention (low-carb group). In addition, we asked a third group to eat at their own discretion, with unrestricted choice of food. At the beginning of the study, all participants received extensive medical advice and were thoroughly briefed on their respective diet. At the beginning and the end of the study, each participant gave a blood sample. Their weight, BMI, and waist-to-hip ratio were determined and noted. In addition to that, we evaluated the Giessen Subjective Complaints List. During the study, participants were encouraged to weigh themselves on a daily basis, assess the quality of their sleep as well as their mental state, and to use urine test strips.

    Result: Subjects of the chocolate intervention group experienced the easiest and most successful weight loss. Even though the measurable effect of this diet occurred with a delay, the weight reduction of this group exceeded the results of the low-carb group by 10% after only three weeks (p = 0.04). While the weight cycling effect already occurred after a few weeks in the low-carb group, with resulting weight gain in the last fifth of the observation period, the chocolate group experienced a steady increase in weight loss. This is confirmed by the evaluation of the ketone reduction. Initially, ketone reduction was much lower in the chocolate group than in the low-carb peer group, but after a few weeks, the situation changed. The low-carb group had a lower ketone reduction than in the previous period, they reduced 145 mg/dl less ketones, whereas the chocolate group had an average reduction of an additional 145mg/dl. Effects were similarly favorable concerning cholesterol levels, triglyceride levels, and LDL cholesterol levels of the chocolate group. Moreover, the subjects of the chocolate group found a significant improvement in their well-being (physically and mentally). The controlled improvement compared to the results of the low-carb group was highly significant (p <0.001).

    Conclusion: Consumption of chocolate with a high cocoa content can significantly increase the success of weight-loss diets. The weightloss effect of this diet occurs with a certain delay. Long-term weight loss, however, seems to occur easier and more successfully by adding chocolate. The effect of the chocolate, the so-called "weight loss turbo," seems to go hand in hand with personal well-being, which was significantly higher than in the control groups.

    Hahahahahaha. It's glorious.

    It's also pretty clear that the fact checking done was minimal. It's pretty grossly written.

    I was thinking that as I read it. It reads like a parody. It's VERY telling that it was published and that he had a few acceptances, and knew where to send them.

    I've bookmarked the list of bad publishers. I'll be checking posted studies from now on against it.

  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    I admittedly just skimmed the article (SO long), but who were the millions that beleived this? Or are they just assuming all readers believed it?

    Maybe they're just lying to us again.
  • crazyjerseygirl
    crazyjerseygirl Posts: 1,252 Member
    It's things like this that make me an *kitten* on the Internet. THIS is why I demand links to papers. This is why I don't take you seriously if you can't provide them. And when you say "do your own homework" I know that you never read or understood the paper and you don't like to admit you might be mistaken.

    (This is a reply to the article, the "you" is general and not pointed at anyone in particular)

    I can use Google as well as anyone, so I'm never too concerned about whether someone provides a link or not. I'm more interested in people and what they have to say about a topic. They could be as wrong as can be and be basing their opinion on something that makes no sense at all, but I find their point of view interesting.

    Well of course ;)
  • MakePeasNotWar
    MakePeasNotWar Posts: 1,329 Member
    All I can say is I now have TWO new favourite songs. If you didn't get all the way to the videos, you've done yourself a great disservice.

    And I really want chocolate now.