From the January 2008 Journal of Nutrition:
In a cross-sectional study, we examined the relation between intake of 3 common foodstuffs that contain flavonoids (chocolate, wine, and tea) and cognitive performance. 2031 participants (70—74 y, 55% women) recruited from the population-based Hordaland Health Study in Norway underwent cognitive testing. A cognitive test battery included the Kendrick Object Learning Test, Trail Making Test, part A (TMT-A), modified versions of the Digit Symbol Test, Block Design, Mini-Mental State Examination, and Controlled Oral Word Association Test. . . . Participants who consumed chocolate, wine, or tea had significantly better mean test scores and lower prevalence of poor cognitive performance than those who did not.
Did they control for social class? Otherwise all this means is that consumption of chocolate, wine, and tea are markers of high social class, which correlates with high IQ. Which anyone who pays attention already knew with out having to do a study.
Chocolate is good for you, but trying to spin this research as supporting it is confusing the direction of causation.
Caleb, if the research had found zero connection between chocolate & health, would that have been meaningless? If not, then a failure to find zero connection is meaningful.
I suppose the problem is your headline “Chocolate is Good For You” – there is no justification for choosing that headline rather than “Good means Chocolate For You”
You can draw any conclusion from any data if you want it hard enough and care little enough about actual science. This study shows correlation but you’ve fabricated causation on top of it.
Was there a difference between black tea or milk added to tea? Also green tea? What tea was used in the test?
Also red or white wine?
Did results improve with higher concentrations of cocoa in the chocolate?