So good and yet so bad
This is not good news for me in the middle of winter when there is nothing to look forward to but another "weather event" and then temperatures in the 20s Sunday.
Two respected medical journals have published articles questioning the health benefits of chocolate.
Now I'm not saying I ever ate chocolate because I thought it was good for me, but still it was nice to hear medical professionals saying positive things about it.
But now...
...the British journal Lancet suggests that many manufacturers remove the flavanols, which help neutralize free radicals that damage human cells, from the chocolate because of their bitter taste. Without mentioning it. The flavanols were why doctors were recommending a little dark chocolate in the first place.
However, you'll still get the sugar, fat and calories.
Even worse, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published research this month suggesting that eating chocolate actually has negative effects. The scientists found that women who indulge in chocolate daily have an overall bone density 3.1 percent lower than those who eat chocolate less than once a week. The study wasn't huge, though -- 1,001 women aged 70 to 85 participated -- so maybe there's still hope.
(Algerina Perna/Sun photographer, chocolate pate at Annabel Lee Tavern)
Comments
This simply confirms my suspicion that if it tastes good then, by definition, it is bad for you.
Posted by: matt hudock | January 18, 2008 1:54 PM
So, the lesson here is we should only eat free-range grass. Yummy.
Posted by: Robert (the Single One) | January 18, 2008 2:51 PM
Another argument against intelligent design!
It's too early in the morning to make me laugh out loud.
Posted by: HKM | January 19, 2008 8:14 AM