Dark chocolate every day to keep heart disease at bay

[loco]

by Dr. Paul Cribb Ph.D. CSCS.
AST Director of Research

Chocoholics rejoice. However, they probably would have liked this research to stipulate a larger serve. Nevertheless, a recent study has revealed that 6.7 grams of dark chocolate per day is the ideal amount for a protective effect against cardiovascular disease.

This research was completed at the Research Laboratories of the Catholic University in Campbasso and the National Cancer Institute of Milan, it was one of the largest epidemiological studies ever conducted in Europe.

The preventative benefit of dark chocolate resides in its anti-inflammatory phytochemicals that reduce inflammation in artery walls and reduce the build up of disease causing plaque.

Just remember, any type of chocolate packs a heavy caloric punch. Although a 6 or 7 gram serving a day of dark chocolate is very small and only provides 2 grams of fat, I don’t know if many chocoholics could stop at this measly serving . Enjoy, but be aware!

[DK II]

I eat some dark chocolate nearly every day, no problem to stop. I just enjoy the one piece i eat, that's enough.

[Princess L]

[
Just remember, any type of chocolate packs a heavy caloric punch. Although a 6 or 7 gram serving a day of dark chocolate is very small and only provides 2 grams of fat, I don’t know if many chocoholics could stop at this measly serving . Enjoy, but be aware!

That's less than 2 Kisses 

[tinman15]

I eat some dark chocolate nearly every day, no problem to stop. I just enjoy the one piece i eat, that's enough.

Same here.  A diet high in saturated and monosaturated fat helps keep T levels high and I always fit this into my diet.  While there is no science, personally I "feel" like I get the bets results by consuming a variety of fats from Red Meat, EVOO, avocados, and dark chocolate.  I eat the baking kind w/ as little sugar as possible though. 

[loco]

One square(10g) every day after lunch.   

[suckmymuscle]

by Dr. Paul Cribb Ph.D. CSCS.
AST Director of Research

Chocoholics rejoice. However, they probably would have liked this research to stipulate a larger serve. Nevertheless, a recent study has revealed that 6.7 grams of dark chocolate per day is the ideal amount for a protective effect against cardiovascular disease.

This research was completed at the Research Laboratories of the Catholic University in Campbasso and the National Cancer Institute of Milan, it was one of the largest epidemiological studies ever conducted in Europe.

The preventative benefit of dark chocolate resides in its anti-inflammatory phytochemicals that reduce inflammation in artery walls and reduce the build up of disease causing plaque.

Just remember, any type of chocolate packs a heavy caloric punch. Although a 6 or 7 gram serving a day of dark chocolate is very small and only provides 2 grams of fat, I don’t know if many chocoholics could stop at this measly serving . Enjoy, but be aware!

  The theobromine in chocolate not only mitigates all the positives, but actually makes chocolate a detrimental food for the heart. Give a single bar of chocolate to a dog and se what happens: it dies. Humans are larger than dogs and our livers are more well equipped to metabolize posions, but it doesen't change the fact that chocolate is not a good food for the heart.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[loco]

  The theobromine in chocolate not only mitigates all the positives, but actually makes chocolate a detrimental food for the heart. Give a single bar of chocolate to a dog and se what happens: it dies. Humans are larger than dogs and our livers are more well equipped to metabolize posions, but it doesen't change the fact that chocolate is not a good food for the heart.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

You're gonna make a lot of women depressed.   

Thanks!  I always wondered why chocolate was supposed to be bad for dogs.  What I do not understand is why in Venezuela my dogs, not pure breeds, ate what ever I gave them, chocolate, chicken bones, they even ate a whole box of fabric starch that my dad accidentally dropped on the floor.  They all lived very long, healthy and happy doggy lives.   

[suckmymuscle]

You're gonna make a lot of women depressed.   

  Nah, it is exactly because chocolate is a semi-poisonous compound that women are so happy after eating it. Understand that, just because it is bad for your health, it does not follow that it is bad for your mood.

Thanks!  I always wondered why chocolate was supposed to be bad for dogs.  What I do not understand is why in Venezuela my dogs, not pure breeds, ate what ever I gave them, chocolate, chicken bones, they even ate a whole box of fabric starch that my dad accidentally dropped on the floor.  They all lived very long, healthy and happy doggy lives.   

  You've got super-dogs. Even 10 ounces of dark chocolate can kill a grown German sheppard.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[loco]

  Nah, it is exactly because chocolate is a semi-poisonous compound that women are so happy after eating it. Understand that, just because it is bad for your health, it does not follow that it is bad for your mood.

True.  LOL

  You've got super-dogs. Even 10 ounces of dark chocolate can kill a grown German sheppard.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Well, they never consumed large amounts of dark chocolate, only small amounts of milk chocolate.  I did not know chocolate and chicken bones were bad for dogs until I started visiting the US.  I guess 3rd world country mutts are tough.

[Princess L]

  The theobromine in chocolate not only mitigates all the positives, but actually makes chocolate a detrimental food for the heart. Give a single bar of chocolate to a dog and se what happens: it dies. Humans are larger than dogs and our livers are more well equipped to metabolize posions, but it doesen't change the fact that chocolate is not a good food for the heart.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

So you're saying one of the largest medical health studies ever conducted, 4,849 subjects, is wrong in their findings? 

True chocolate is toxic to some animals because they metabolize theobromine more slowly than humans, but that isn't true with all (ie; cats) and certainly not humans.

[suckmymuscle]

So you're saying one of the largest medical health studies ever conducted, 4,849 subjects, is wrong in their findings? 

True chocolate is toxic to some animals because they metabolize theobromine more slowly than humans, but that isn't true with all (ie; cats) and certainly not humans.

  Theobromine is always toxic. Period. It is a pretty toxic alkaloid. It can kill horses and dogs, and it is far more toxic per miligram tnan caffeine. The LD50 of theobromine is much lower than for caffeine. Just because Human livers are formidable - due to tens of thousands of years of Humans living in several different habitats and eating practically all garbage there is, the Human liver became formidable at metabolizing poisons - it does not follow that it is harmless for Humans. Remember that many of these studies were funded by the cocoa and chocolate refining industry, so they are suspect at best. Go ahead and eat your chocolate, but you're slowly poisoning yourself.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Princess L]

   Remember that many of these studies were funded by the cocoa and chocolate refining industry, so they are suspect at best. Go ahead and eat your chocolate, but you're slowly poisoning yourself.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Actually, that study was funded by Pfizer.

[Necrosis]

  Nah, it is exactly because chocolate is a semi-poisonous compound that women are so happy after eating it.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

evidence?

it is likely the phenyethyl amine in the chocolate that has mood elevating properties along with the other compounds. Caffeine is not toxic, it actually has positive effects on liver health, alzheimers,parkisons disease and even cardiovascular health. It has the negatives of possible BP elevation, excessive stimulation etc.. but in moderation neither of these substances is poison as you put it. Start providing some evidence for your claims because you are making alot of wild accusations that go against conventional scientific research.

comparing humans to dogs is almost as ridiculous as using yourself as a research subject for a supplement, seriously, if someone posts something with scientific evidence, rebuttals should be done with scietific evidence, otherwise this board will devolve into hear say.

[suckmymuscle]

evidence?it is likely the phenyethyl amine in the chocolate that has mood elevating properties along with the other compounds. Caffeine is not toxic, it actually has positive effects on liver health, alzheimers,parkisons disease and even cardiovascular health. It has the negatives of possible BP elevation, excessive stimulation etc.. but in moderation neither of these substances is poison as you put it. Start providing some evidence for your claims because you are making alot of wild accusations that go against conventional scientific research.

  I get the feeling that we are going to cross horns a lot in this board, and that's bad because mods shouldn't argue. You claim caffeine and theobromine are not toxic, and yet they fit classicly the profile of poisons. The body reacts to caffeine and theobronine in the same way it reacts to ingestion of strichnine and other poisons: sympathomimetic activity is boosted, vasoconstriction occurs, and liver enzyme levels also increase to metabolize the poison and the blood levels of aldosterone decrease so as to increase urination to expell the metabolites of the posion. Yes, dude, caffeine and theobromine are poisons. They are alkaloids, and all alkaloids are poisononus nitrgenous compounds synthesized by plants as pesticides so that insects and animals won't eat them. You can protest all you want, but facts are facts. Theobromine is not a hard poison, but it is poisonous, yes, and the body reacts as a poison.

comparing humans to dogs is almost as ridiculous as using yourself as a research subject for a supplement, seriously, if someone posts something with scientific evidence, rebuttals should be done with scietific evidence, otherwise this board will devolve into hear say.

  Again, show me an example of a single alkaloid that causes no sympton of intoxication among vertebrates and will give you a public retraction. Just because the toxic effects of theobromine are less acute in Humans than they are in dogs it does not folow that thebromine is not toxic to Humans. There have been cases of Human infants dying from eating too much chocolate, and the when some of them were rushed into the hospital their symptons were of clear poisoning, such as athaxia and high blood pressure.

  And using me as subject is laughable how? So I should trust a study that says that vitamin E increases the risk of dying if I have been taking vitamin E for 6 years daily and my health is perfect, and that my father has been taking it for 30 years and just ran a marathon at age 65? What is so ridiculous about that? I have evidence that you are wrong, and the evidence is that I have a sexagenarian who takes vitamin E for three decades and, not only hasn't died yet, but is healthy enough to run 26 miles in 4 hours. No, dude, what is ridiculous is you telling me that I should trust your studies intead of what my lying eyes tell me.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Necrosis]

  I get the feeling that we are going to cross horns a lot in this board, and that's bad because mods shouldn't argue. You claim caffeine and theobromine are not toxic, and yet they fit classicly the profile of poisons. The body reacts to caffeine and theobronine in the same way it reacts to ingestion of strichnine and other poisons: sympathomimetic activity is boosted, vasoconstriction occurs, and liver enzyme levels also increase to metabolize the poison and the blood levels of aldosterone decrease so as to increase urination to expell the metabolites of the posion. Yes, dude, caffeine and theobromine are poisons. They are alkaloids, and all alkaloids are poisononus nitrgenous compounds synthesized by plants as pesticides so that insects and animals won't eat them. You can protest all you want, but facts are facts. Theobromine is not a hard poison, but it is poisonous, yes, and the body reacts as a poison.

  Again, show me an example of a single alkaloid that causes no sympton of intoxication among vertebrates and will give you a public retraction. Just because the toxic effects of theobromine are less acute in Humans than they are in dogs it does not folow that thebromine is not toxic to Humans. There have been cases of Human infants dying from eating too much chocolate, and the when some of them were rushed into the hospital their symptons were of clear poisoning, such as athaxia and high blood pressure.

  And using me as subject is laughable how? So I should trust a study that says that vitamin E increases the risk of dying if I have been taking vitamin E for 6 years daily and my health is perfect, and that my father has been taking it for 30 years and just ran a marathon at age 65? What is so ridiculous about that? I have evidence that you are wrong, and the evidence is that I have a sexagenarian who takes vitamin E for three decades and, not only hasn't died yet, but is healthy enough to run 26 miles in 4 hours. No, dude, what is ridiculous is you telling me that I should trust your studies intead of what my lying eyes tell me.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

poi·son (poizn)
n.
1. A substance that causes injury, illness, or death, especially by chemical means.
2. Something destructive or fatal.

i am watching a raptors game right now but ill get to your claim of alkaloids and poisons later.

the second part of your comment is non sense. You cannot use yourself as a test subject in a logitudinal study like you have suggested. Say i drink my own piss and my cholesterol is good, my well being likewise. However, there are studies showing piss drinkers have poor health and that the acute effects of piss drinking are detrimental. Which seems more likely to be correct? Science has a method for determining the effects of the independent variable, in this situation, vitamin e, you have not only not met those requirements you have given pure anectdotal evidence which is useless for the gleaning of knowledge.

We dont have to butt heads, provide evidence for your claims and i wont comment. However, caffeine has positive effects on health so i would say it fails the traditional definition of a poison, along with theobromine. However, anything in excess is a poison by definition and gets us no where. Water can cause intoxication and hypoatremia,hypokalemia and death. It is the relative levels of the substances, and i conclude from the research that caffeine and chocolate pose little health risk and offer some novel effects which have shown to increase health.