This is what Dr John McDougall says, and he and other eminent docutors such as T Colin Campbell and Neal Barnard would profoundly disagree with the above research. Chocolate generally consists of sugar, fat and salt, and although there are possibly some benefits from cocoa. Nutritionalist Jeff Novick sums it up on Vegsource.com:
http://www.vegsource.com/talk/novick/messages/1042.html

"Chocolate is made with cocoa which comes from the cacao bean. The cacao bean, like all beans (including the coffee bean, kidney bean and all others) are a rich source of many nutrients, flavonoids and phytochemicals

Because they are rich sources of these beneficial nutrients, when you use them as a base of some food product or beverage (coffee, chocolate), and feed them to people, these foods may show some benefit.

The cacao bean has even become a fad amongst certain fractions of the health food movement, which is unfortunate.

The benefit you most hear in the news, and the one shown in a few studies, is that cocoa has been shown to lower blood pressure though the effect is very small (an average of 5 points for systolic and an average of 2 points for diastolic blood pressure). In addition, to get this mediocre benefit, the subjects had to consume 100 grams of dark chocolate each day, which is the equivalent of 3.5 ounces which is 500 calories.

Cocoa powder is also over 50% fat of, of which 60% of the 50% is saturated fat, which means 32% of the total calories in cocoa are saturated fat. In addition, because of the high fat content, it is very high in calorie density/calories.

So, in order to get the small benefit to blood pressure, the subjects had to consume 500 calories a day from the chocolate, and they also took in around 19 grams of saturated fat from the chocolate each day.

Cocoa also contains a small amount of caffeine and few people eat pure cocoa as it is very bitter. So to eat it, they mix it with Sugar and sometimes milk or cream. In addition, dutch processed cocoa powder, which is very common in the USA, is cocoa that is processed with alkali. This greatly reduces the antioxidant capacity as compared to "raw" cocoa powder.

A recent peer-reviewed publication found significant amounts of lead in chocolate.

Rankin CW, Nriagu JO, Aggarwal JK, Arowolo TA, Adebayo K, Flegal AR. (2005) Lead contamination in cocoa and cocoa products: isotopic evidence of global contamination. Environmental Health Perspectives Oct;113(10):1344-8. [2]

So we have lots of Americans eating lots of chocolate thinking they are getting some sort of benefit, but do not understand the real story behind the news and the potential health concerns.

If someone wanted to include some cocoa, the safest way might be to find some pure cocoa powder that is not processed with alkali (like Hershey's powder) and use a TB or 2 /day. You can add it to hot water with your sweetener of choice (go easy) and have a hot cocoa, or add it to your non dairy milk. There are also some chocolate bars sold out there that are 100% cocoa and nothing else added that you can get. However, its consumption should probably be no more than 3/4 of an ounce a day (which is around 100 calories or 5% of a 2000 calorie diet).

I once tried an experiment with some clients as they wanted to include some cocoa but did not want to use any sweeteners, natural or artificial. So, I mashed up a large banana (or 2), added in a TB (or 2) of pure cocoa powder, and mixed them together. Then I added in some fresh blueberries, and it was fairly good. Then, the next day, we did the same thing but this time topped it with some toasted oats (regular rolled oats we toasted) and then some cinnamon. This was also fairly good.

Almost to good, though, as now they wanted to go top it with some ice cream. smile

Personally, I do not think the benefit outweighs the concerns.

Now, having said all that, adding in some berries, or anti-oxidants does not take away from everything I said above, nor does it make chocolate a "super" food. We have to move away from industry manipulated products that are only highlighting the nutrient of the day or month, and return to a diet of real natural foods as produced in nature.

In Health
Jeff

------

Jeff worked for Kraft Foods for many years before deciding to blow the whistle on the Food Industry, then he was forced so sign a gaging clause, but he ignores that because he knows that if Kraft sue him it will be worse for them. Besides, as he points out, he has no money. His stuff is generally very reliable.

Now, regarding "the science". Ask yourself who would pay for such research, to say that a collection of raw materials such as sugar, fat and salt is a healthy food?

Well, to me it's obvious. But I looked into it. I found the abstract of the report here http://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/pr900607v

and Supplementary Material in this PDF:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/pr900607v/suppl_file/pr900607v_si_001.pdf

I don't have the full study, you have to buy it.

So I looked at the signatories to the study. They are:
Francois-Pierre J. Martin,†a Serge Rezzi,†a Emma Peré-Trepat,† Beate
Kamlage,‡ Sebastiano Collino,† Edgar Leibold,§ Jürgen Kastler,‡ Dietrich
Rein,‡ Laurent B. Fay,† Sunil Kochhar†*"

Looking ast the people involved, the research seems to have been funded by the Nestlé Research Center, Vers-chez-les-Blanc, CH-1000 Lausanne 26, Switzerland

metanomics GmbH is mentioned, this one of the largest and most innovative mass-spectrometry based metabolite profiling companies worldwide. They would probably have processed the data.

BASF SE is simply the European arm of BASF, a chemical company (SE stands for Sociatas Europaea - Eurpopean Union)

Metanomics Health GmbH is associated with Metanomics GmbH

Looking at the reserachers, the first name:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/francois%20pierre/martin

Francois-Pierre MARTIN
Title
Research Scientist at Nestle

Second name, Serge Rezzi:
http://www.research.nestle.com/NR/rdonlyres/4DBF7AD1-F2E0-4BAA-9A41-88051E8AD...

Yup, it's Nestle again, he has a Nestlé email.

T Colin Campbell tells people how any research can be twisted and basically how money talks. If you look at the world health organisations recommendations, and of course many other government bodies, the same pattern alsways shows up.

If you look at his video on Youtube, and play it from about one hour onward, you'll get a flavour of how this research is manipulated:



For those who don't have the time to watch it, I have loosley transcribed the bit in question, with some of my own words to summarise:
The nutritional effect is greater than the sum of its parts. It's like a symphony.
Slide: NUTRITION
* Involves INTEGRATED effects of COUNTLESS food products.
* Involves INFINITELY COMPLEX MECHANISMS to produce COMPREHENSIVE health.
"You don't go to a symphony to hear one person banging away on one note. That's not a symphony. But that's how we study nutrition. We might add another note, or so. But we are not looking at the symphony"
The symphony is marvellous. The integration of it all. This is why Esselstyn and other physicians have had such great results. You can take diet and do marvellous things with it, NOT THROUGH SUPPLEMENTS. Whole grains, whole veg, whole fruits. Not plant parts, like Sugar and white flour, whole foods. Don't add back salt, sugar, fat and dairy. [1 hr 0 mins]

So why is this information so invisible? I will share ideas, I have been involved in national policy. Really troubling... I get excited about the information we are working on. I KNOW it's there, and my colleagues, but it is DANGEROUS to talk about this in the current climate. They could lose funding, reputation, be kicked out of research, school... I am serious about that. But I am recently retired so... (audience laughs). [1 hr 1 mins]

2 committees set food policy. One is the Food Nutrition Board (FNB), they get the data, set the numbers, RDA etc. Then they give this report to 2nd committee (IOM?) on food who make pretty shapes with it such as pyramids. He completely trashes the report, words like "ludicrous", "absolutely nuts" 25% of calories from candy!! When US body was deciding, Sugar industry got word and influenced the UN to raise this bar from 10% to 25%, and threatened to use "friends" in congress to withhold UN funding. BUT, the UN guy was Welsh and the research institute was in Scotland, tough people there. They stood their ground at 10% max. He then shows a diet full of crap that complies with the governments recommendation and the audience laugh. The government say this is what you eat to stay disease free, no wonder people are confused. We are going nowhere with this kind of diet. [1 hr 2 mins]

IOM Funding
1. Dannon institute. Represent dairy industry. Want protein increased to justify their products.
2. International Life Sciences Institute. Fancy name, but this is the coalition of soft drinks companies. Coca cola, Pepsi etc. They want to get sugar up there.
The first two - almost seems as if they want to promote sickness, then the next can put out the drugs to make us well:
3. Corporate Donor's Fund (bunch of food and drug companies)
4. Roche vitamins Inc.
5. Mead Johnson Nutrition Group.
6. M&MRs??
7. Academic people, who he calls charlatans
This is where the problem is. The committees are put together by someone in Academia (charlatan) who is a consultant to industry, and there is financial interest, not the interests of health. The individuals are generally honest and hard working, but the system is at fault, and just a few individuals, these charlatans. This is why much of the information we get is confusing, troubling, and damaging, because of the way policy is set. [1 hr 9 mins]

So for me, when I see good news about bad habits, I simply don't believe it. But if you need convincing, find the original research and follow the money trail, and look at a broader field than the researech itself.

That's my 02 cents

EDIT:
I am pleased to say that our UK's NHS (National Health Service) Knowledge Service has picked up on this to a certain extent, and because they have access to the full report, they provide some further enlightenment on this.

CHOCOLATE GOOD... SAYS CHOC MAKER

Dark chocolate cuts levels of stress hormones and rebalances other body chemicals, according to the Daily Mail. The Daily Express also featured the claim that chocolate reduces the risk of heart disease and high blood pressure and improves brain function.

The research behind these reports was commissioned by Nestlé. Researchers gave 30 healthy people 40g of dark chocolate a day for 14 days. They examined changes in metabolism and chemicals that are reportedly related to stress. The study’s methods have numerous limitations, including its small number of participants, short study period and selection of only young, healthy people to take part. Also, while the researchers measured levels of the “stress” hormones in urine, they did not directly look at changes in the participants’ stress levels.

By itself, the study is insufficient to provide evidence that dark chocolate has any benefits or effects on stress, psychological or mental health, or cardiovascular health.


Where did the story come from?

This research was conducted by Francois-Pierre J Martin and colleagues from Nestlé Research Center in Switzerland, and Metanomics GmbH in Germany. No external sources of funding were reported for this study. The study was published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Proteome Research.

Newspaper reports have mostly focussed on details from the presentation and conclusion of the study. However, the articles did not discuss the numerous limitations of this research. For example, while the Daily Mail mentions that the researchers work for Nestlé, it does not mention the small number of participants or the fact that effects were only measured over 14 days.


What kind of research was this?

This was a non-randomised experimental study in 30 individuals, which looked at the metabolic response to consuming 40g of dark chocolate a day for up to 14 days. The researchers particularly looked at how participants’ initial anxiety levels may affect changes in chemical measures related to stress.

This research model had a number of methodological flaws, including the small number of participants, the very short follow-up period and the lack of randomised groups. As such, only limited conclusions can be made from its results.

The trial could have been improved by randomising a larger number of people with equivalent anxiety levels to consume either dark chocolate or a placebo (if possible) and considering longer-term clinical effects (such as stress levels, weight gain and changes in cardiovascular health) over a longer follow-up period. The effects should also have been assessed by a researcher who was blinded to which group each participant had been assigned to.


What did the research involve?

The study recruited 30 ‘healthy and free living’ young adults: 19 women and 11 men, aged 18 to 34. The researchers excluded people who smoked, drank excessively, were overweight or obese, were on a diet or had medical disorders (including metabolic or eating disorders).

A validated psychological questionnaire was used to classify participants as having either low or high anxiety traits. According to the questionnaire, there were nine high-anxiety women, 10 low-anxiety women, four high-anxiety men and seven low-anxiety men.

Participants did not eat any chocolate in the eight days before the trial. They then received 40g of dark (74% cocoa) Nestlé chocolate a day for 14 days. They ate 20g mid-morning and 20g in the afternoon. On days one, eight and 15, the researchers took blood and urine samples. Metabolic changes following chocolate consumption were assessed using a number of different laboratory tests.

The study only analysed blood and urine samples, and did not provide any indication of the effects of chocolate consumption on the participant’s health, psychological status or wellbeing. This was another of the study’s limitations. It is also not known what other factors may have differed between the study participants, for example intake of other food and drinks or activity levels during the study period. In any case, the study’s duration was too short for questions about longer-term effects, such as cardiovascular disease or psychological changes, to be answered.

Stress hormones and energy levels in those who had higher anxiety at the start of the study were perceived to approach normal levels following chocolate consumption. However, as a psychological assessment was not performed at the end of the study, it is not clear whether these metabolic changes produced meaningful clinical differences.


What were the basic results?

The researchers noted that those who had higher anxiety traits initially demonstrated differences in energy metabolism in the body, hormone metabolism and microbe activity in the gut. Following dark chocolate consumption, there was a reduction in stress hormones excreted in the urine (cortisol and catecholamines) and reduced difference in energy metabolism and gut microbial activities in all participants.


How did the researchers interpret the results?

The researchers say that their study provides “strong evidence that a daily consumption of 40g of dark chocolate during a period of two weeks is sufficient to modify the metabolism of free living and healthy human subjects”. They say that these changes, seen after only two weeks, had “potential long-term consequences on human health”.


Conclusion

This study has numerous methodological flaws, and when considered in isolation does not provide any evidence that dark chocolate has benefits or effects on stress, psychological or mental health, or cardiovascular health.

* Although the researchers refer to their study as “randomised” in their report, there does not appear to be any control group, so it is unclear exactly what they mean by this term.
* The trial involved a small sample of 30 people. The effects of chocolate were assessed in even smaller subgroups of people with different anxiety traits.
* All the people in this study were healthy young adults who were not overweight or obese, did not drink excessively or smoke, and did not have conditions such as diabetes. These results cannot be applied to people who are older, unwell or have less healthy lifestyles.
* While the researchers observed changes in metabolism or stress hormones, it is not definite that chocolate consumption was responsible for this. For example, being part of a trial situation and removing participants from everyday life may have caused this effect. Additionally, other measures that may have played a role in the metabolic changes, such as diet and physical activity, were not reported.
* A follow-up period of 14 days is far too short to make any conclusions about how long-term daily consumption may affect stress, mental health, cardiovascular health or weight gain. The researchers themselves do not state that dark chocolate has any of these effects.
* As the trial was conducted by the food manufacturer and confectioner Nestlé, the researchers may have had a vested interest in promoting the positive results of their trial.

Although this study provides little evidence to show that daily consumption of chocolate promotes mental or cardiovascular health, chocolate may still be enjoyed as part of a balanced diet. However, chocolate (including dark chocolate) is high in fat and calories and should be eaten only in moderate amounts.