7 ms·

Chocolate intake is associated with better cognitive function

79 points by brahmwg 11y ago

devNoise 11y ago
And remember that dark chocolate is better for you than milk chocolate.
- brahmwg 11y ago
  > "Chocolate intake was self-reported, and therefore subject to inherent reporting error. The dietary questionnaire used did not require the respondent to differentiate between dark, milk or white chocolate. ... We can therefore make the assumption that the majority of chocolate consumed in this sample was dark or milk, both containing cocoa flavanols to varying degrees." It would be cool to have a study looking specifically at the effects of dark chocolate.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
robertcorey 11y ago
B.S Nutritional study.
fishtoaster 11y ago
I haven't read the study yet, but I'm immediately reminded of the great chocolate p-hacking article from last year: http://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800 http://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-choco...
- raattgift 11y ago
  io9 used to be such a good site. Gawker's merger of io9 and gizmodo is messier and less useful than even the rest of their sites.
keyle 11y ago
Note that it says chocolate as in cacao, not sugar and milk fats. As a fine chocolate connoisseur (ahem), I recommend sticking to 70% cacao minimum. 90% is usually disgusting. Always check the ingredients. A decent commercial international one is the Lindt 70% black. And I don't work for Lindt.
- BoysenberryPi 11y ago
  I love 90%. Lindt 90% with sea salt is the best.
  - contingencies 11y ago
    Himalayan rock salt baby. Pink. Crystals, not powdered.
- GuiA 11y ago
  > As a fine chocolate connoisseur > 90% is usually disgusting Tsk tsk. Amateur.
  - Florin_Andrei 11y ago
    Semi-related topic - hot chocolate (the drink). Am I the only one who actually prefers the taste of the non-dutch (non-alkali-processed)? If it's processed, it loses all its kick. Also I suspect processing reduces whatever benefits it may provide.
    - Gracana 11y ago
      Where can I get some of the hot chocolate you describe? I've never had it and it sounds interesting.
      - raddad 11y ago
        raw cacao nibs, 100% cacao https://nuts.com/nuts/cacao/organic-nibs.html https://nuts.com/nuts/cacao/organic-nibs.html
dj-wonk 11y ago
At first the cynic in me thought, "Scientists find that people with higher cognition like to habitually eat chocolate?" But from the article: "Benefits to information processing speed and working memory were observed in these studies within hours of consuming cocoa flavanols or dark chocolate. Less research has examined the effects from the longer-term consumption of chocolate or cocoa."
- arikrak 11y ago
  But it could influence the longer term effect that they're studying. They address this issue in the section "Secondary Analyses": > In a secondary analysis, we asked whether cognitive performance predicted chocolate consumption rather than the other way round. This analysis was conducted on a sample of participants who had completed a cognitive assessment in waves 1-4 of the MSLS, but also completed the dietary questionnaire at wave 6, a mean of 18.0 years later. Cognition was assessed using the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS)... There were no significant associations between chocolate intake and the total WAIS... Seems like the chocolate eaters weren't more intelligent to begin with.
marcell 11y ago
Doesn't chocolate contain caffeine? Would that fact explain this result? Ie. Is there a similar effect from just consuming the equivalent amount of caffeine.
- yarou 11y ago
  Chocolate contains theobromine, which is a distinct alkaloid from caffeine, although they are both xanthines.
- arikrak 11y ago
  Chocolate doesn't have that much caffeine as normally eaten. An entire bar of dark chocolate has less caffeine than a cup of coffee, but people generally eat much less. https://www.google.com/search?q=caffeine+in+coffee+vs+chocolate https://www.google.com/search?q=caffeine+in+coffee+vs+chocol...
halis 11y ago
Before an interview I make sure that I have caffeine and chocolate while driving to the interview. I always seem to communicate better when I do this.
BurningFrog 11y ago
Of course smart people are better at accumulating chocolate. What else did anyone expect?
- acchow 11y ago
  Kale consumption associated with better cognitive function. Winning competitive chess matches associated with better cognitive function. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
tokenadult 11y ago
We have simply got to stop taking submissions of preliminary research findings from low-impact factor primary research journals for discussion on Hacker News. Let's first of all see a neutral review of the issue by an active scientist or (better still) a competent science journalist (that's a rare kind of person) to see what of methodological problems there may be in this study, and how well it represents the prior literature on the topic.
- mikekchar 11y ago
  I'm not really qualified to comment and I didn't spend very much time analysing the paper. However, I'll comment a bit since reading nutrition papers used to be a hobby of mine. First, the sample size is relatively good - nearly 1000 people, taken from a similar area and over a long period of time (30 years). What's missing is any obvious mention of how the participants were chosen, so it's hard to see if there is any selection bias. However, I didn't look at the links provided, so hopefully it goes into more detail there. I mention this because I have often seen papers published in this area with obviously flawed sample selection. This seems better than most. The main things that stand out for me is that they did not attempt to measure how much chocolate people consumed, nor the type of chocolate consumed. They simply measured the number of times a week "chocolate" was consumed (which could have been a large variety of things). The other main point is that they mention that there was a significant reduction in alcohol consumption in the groups that ate the most chocolate, however they did not try to correct for this. Just scanning through the data they present, I don't think it is possible to tell if the increased cognitive performance is related to chocolate intake, or a lack of alcohol intake. So, it is an interesting paper, but I wouldn't go out and start eating chocolate because of it.
- kriro 11y ago
  I disagree. First of all "Appetite" for which this article was accepted is decently ranked (whatever you think of these rankings). It's in Q1 for both Nutrition and Psychology. H-Index of 80 is pretty solid. It's the 179th ranked Psychology journal which isn't bad for such a niche journal. For Nutrition it's ranked 23rd [1]. So as far as food related cognitive science is concerned I'd call this a pretty decent journal. Since it is accepted it has gone through a successfull review process already. More importantly though...why is it bad that unpublished research is linked to on HN. I'd rather read it and make up my own mind than wait for it to go through a review process. The topic at hand is at least tangentially related to core HN content, too as eating chocolate might make you a better programmer/entrepreneur. [1]: http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=29994&tip=sid&clean=0 http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=29994&tip=sid&c... It has a (whatever you think of these is another matter)
hippich 11y ago
For what it worth - in the span of 1998-2000 I was participating in national programming competitions between high school students in Belarus. On a day of actual event every participants were given bar of chocolate. Can't say if it helped my cognitive function or not, but it was nice to have chocolate snack before working on solving problems :)
andrew950 11y ago
So are blueberries .. much better!

79 points by brahmwg 11y ago

devNoise 11y ago

And remember that dark chocolate is better for you than milk chocolate.

brahmwg 11y ago
> "Chocolate intake was self-reported, and therefore subject to inherent reporting error. The dietary questionnaire used did not require the respondent to differentiate between dark, milk or white chocolate. ... We can therefore make the assumption that the majority of chocolate consumed in this sample was dark or milk, both containing cocoa flavanols to varying degrees." It would be cool to have a study looking specifically at the effects of dark chocolate.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

robertcorey 11y ago

B.S Nutritional study.

fishtoaster 11y ago

I haven't read the study yet, but I'm immediately reminded of the great chocolate p-hacking article from last year: http://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800 http://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-choco...

raattgift 11y ago
io9 used to be such a good site. Gawker's merger of io9 and gizmodo is messier and less useful than even the rest of their sites.

keyle 11y ago

Note that it says chocolate as in cacao, not sugar and milk fats. As a fine chocolate connoisseur (ahem), I recommend sticking to 70% cacao minimum. 90% is usually disgusting. Always check the ingredients. A decent commercial international one is the Lindt 70% black. And I don't work for Lindt.

BoysenberryPi 11y ago
I love 90%. Lindt 90% with sea salt is the best.
- contingencies 11y ago
  Himalayan rock salt baby. Pink. Crystals, not powdered.
GuiA 11y ago
> As a fine chocolate connoisseur > 90% is usually disgusting Tsk tsk. Amateur.
- Florin_Andrei 11y ago
  Semi-related topic - hot chocolate (the drink). Am I the only one who actually prefers the taste of the non-dutch (non-alkali-processed)? If it's processed, it loses all its kick. Also I suspect processing reduces whatever benefits it may provide.
  - Gracana 11y ago
    Where can I get some of the hot chocolate you describe? I've never had it and it sounds interesting.
    - raddad 11y ago
      raw cacao nibs, 100% cacao https://nuts.com/nuts/cacao/organic-nibs.html https://nuts.com/nuts/cacao/organic-nibs.html

dj-wonk 11y ago

At first the cynic in me thought, "Scientists find that people with higher cognition like to habitually eat chocolate?" But from the article: "Benefits to information processing speed and working memory were observed in these studies within hours of consuming cocoa flavanols or dark chocolate. Less research has examined the effects from the longer-term consumption of chocolate or cocoa."

arikrak 11y ago
But it could influence the longer term effect that they're studying. They address this issue in the section "Secondary Analyses": > In a secondary analysis, we asked whether cognitive performance predicted chocolate consumption rather than the other way round. This analysis was conducted on a sample of participants who had completed a cognitive assessment in waves 1-4 of the MSLS, but also completed the dietary questionnaire at wave 6, a mean of 18.0 years later. Cognition was assessed using the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS)... There were no significant associations between chocolate intake and the total WAIS... Seems like the chocolate eaters weren't more intelligent to begin with.

marcell 11y ago

Doesn't chocolate contain caffeine? Would that fact explain this result? Ie. Is there a similar effect from just consuming the equivalent amount of caffeine.

yarou 11y ago
Chocolate contains theobromine, which is a distinct alkaloid from caffeine, although they are both xanthines.
arikrak 11y ago
Chocolate doesn't have that much caffeine as normally eaten. An entire bar of dark chocolate has less caffeine than a cup of coffee, but people generally eat much less. https://www.google.com/search?q=caffeine+in+coffee+vs+chocolate https://www.google.com/search?q=caffeine+in+coffee+vs+chocol...

halis 11y ago

Before an interview I make sure that I have caffeine and chocolate while driving to the interview. I always seem to communicate better when I do this.

BurningFrog 11y ago

Of course smart people are better at accumulating chocolate. What else did anyone expect?

acchow 11y ago
Kale consumption associated with better cognitive function. Winning competitive chess matches associated with better cognitive function. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

tokenadult 11y ago

We have simply got to stop taking submissions of preliminary research findings from low-impact factor primary research journals for discussion on Hacker News. Let's first of all see a neutral review of the issue by an active scientist or (better still) a competent science journalist (that's a rare kind of person) to see what of methodological problems there may be in this study, and how well it represents the prior literature on the topic.

mikekchar 11y ago
I'm not really qualified to comment and I didn't spend very much time analysing the paper. However, I'll comment a bit since reading nutrition papers used to be a hobby of mine. First, the sample size is relatively good - nearly 1000 people, taken from a similar area and over a long period of time (30 years). What's missing is any obvious mention of how the participants were chosen, so it's hard to see if there is any selection bias. However, I didn't look at the links provided, so hopefully it goes into more detail there. I mention this because I have often seen papers published in this area with obviously flawed sample selection. This seems better than most. The main things that stand out for me is that they did not attempt to measure how much chocolate people consumed, nor the type of chocolate consumed. They simply measured the number of times a week "chocolate" was consumed (which could have been a large variety of things). The other main point is that they mention that there was a significant reduction in alcohol consumption in the groups that ate the most chocolate, however they did not try to correct for this. Just scanning through the data they present, I don't think it is possible to tell if the increased cognitive performance is related to chocolate intake, or a lack of alcohol intake. So, it is an interesting paper, but I wouldn't go out and start eating chocolate because of it.
kriro 11y ago
I disagree. First of all "Appetite" for which this article was accepted is decently ranked (whatever you think of these rankings). It's in Q1 for both Nutrition and Psychology. H-Index of 80 is pretty solid. It's the 179th ranked Psychology journal which isn't bad for such a niche journal. For Nutrition it's ranked 23rd [1]. So as far as food related cognitive science is concerned I'd call this a pretty decent journal. Since it is accepted it has gone through a successfull review process already. More importantly though...why is it bad that unpublished research is linked to on HN. I'd rather read it and make up my own mind than wait for it to go through a review process. The topic at hand is at least tangentially related to core HN content, too as eating chocolate might make you a better programmer/entrepreneur. [1]: http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=29994&tip=sid&clean=0 http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=29994&tip=sid&c... It has a (whatever you think of these is another matter)

hippich 11y ago

For what it worth - in the span of 1998-2000 I was participating in national programming competitions between high school students in Belarus. On a day of actual event every participants were given bar of chocolate. Can't say if it helped my cognitive function or not, but it was nice to have chocolate snack before working on solving problems :)

andrew950 11y ago

So are blueberries .. much better!