I usually don’t cite studies or researches in my posts. After all, this blog is about the life and experiments of the bloggers.
But today, a Tweet got my attention. It was about this article:
Title: Sorry, No Proof Chocolate Prevents Stroke
Summary: Just shy of Valentine’s Day, a holiday known for the sale and consumption of copious amounts of chocolate, Canadian researchers have released a review of studies to assess whether eating chocolate is associated with a lower risk of stroke.
A couple of hours later, I received an email about another article:
Title: Chocolate Linked to Lower Stroke and Stroke Mortality Risk
Summary: Just in time for Valentine’s Day, a new systematic review from Canadian researchers suggests higher chocolate consumption may be associated with a lower risk for incident stroke and stroke-related mortality.
(I think access to the second article requires an account on Medscape.com)
I’ll let my readers draw their own conclusions but it looks like the 2 articles contradict each other.
Of course, in order to have the final word, the full text is required. But more often than not, studies are complex readings. Sometimes, studies are criticized by peers and the findings or conclusions might be erroneous…
Where I want to go with this is, I usually use common sense about everything I try or do. For example, to stay in Valentine’s day spirit, I like to eat a little square of dark chocolate daily. If it’s bad, then that’s OK, I don’t eat much. If it’s good, then that’s OK, I eat some. In the end, I will never know if I consume the right amount, but I like a small piece after diner and everything is fine.
Until next post, Lift Consciously ![]()