Sorry, No Proof Chocolate Prevents Stroke

(AP)  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.

They looked through 88 publications and narrowed them down to three that were relevant.

But even after that, Dr. Gustavo Saposnik, a self-described chocoholic and neurologist at St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto, said, "You can't draw conclusions."

The review was released Thursday and will be presented at the American Academy of Neurology's annual meeting in Toronto in April.

"More research is needed to determine whether chocolate truly lowers stroke risk, or whether healthier people are simply more likely to eat chocolate than others," said study author Sarah Sahib of McMaster University in Hamilton, who worked alongside Saposnik.

One study published in 2007 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition looked at more than 34,000 postmenopausal women in the Iowa Women's Health Study, and found that those who ate one serving of chocolate per week were 22 per cent less likely to have a stroke than people who ate no chocolate.

Another study published last year in the Journal of Internal Medicine involved more than 1,100 people in Sweden, and found that those who ate 50 grams of chocolate once a week were 46 per cent less likely to die following a stroke than people who did not eat chocolate.

A third study found no link between eating chocolate and risk of stroke or death.

In the first two studies, the findings are associations, not cause-and-effect. And there's an important caveat, Saposnik cautioned.

"There is some confounding issue here ... you can't control in these studies for what people may also eat outside of a study."

As well, subjects did not identify what kind of chocolate they had eaten, and Saposnik notes there are differences.

"Milk chocolate or white chocolate or dark chocolate have completely different compositions," he said, and probably have a completely different profile on risk of stroke.

Chocolate - in particular dark chocolate - contains flavonoids, compounds known for their antioxidant properties, and also found in varying degrees in fruit, vegetables, tea and red wine. They've been linked to potential benefits for human health.

In terms of long-term cardiovascular risk, Saposnik said there are some components of chocolate, such as saturated fat, that are associated with an increase of bad cholesterol, the LDL cholesterol.

"The recommendation is do not eat chocolate," he said, adding he tries to consume it only "in moderation" and chooses dark chocolate that's low-fat.

To reduce stroke risk, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada recommends, among other things, eating a balanced diet that's higher in fruit and vegetables, reducing saturated and trans fats, reducing sodium consumption and increasing fiber.

[philandolina]

Here is a quote from this article: One study published in 2007 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition looked at more than 34,000 postmenopausal women in the Iowa Women's Health Study, and found that those who ate one serving of chocolate per week were 22 per cent less likely to have a stroke than people who ate no chocolate.

And here is a quote from an NBC article the previous day whose headline states chocolate may lower stroke risk: One study with more than 44,000 participants found that those who ate a weekly serving of chocolate were 22 percent less likely to suffer a stroke than those who ate no chocolate. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35354279/ns/health-heart_health/)

Is it a coincidence that some details (22 percent) are exact and others so far away (34,000 versus 44,000)? Are these actually from the same study? What of the overarching conclusion of one media outlet stating chocolate may lower a risk of stroke while the other states that there is no conclusive proof?

There is little chance that the American public can show any consistency in good decision making with a media that competes for what is fact, what is fiction and what is speculation with results that demonstrate inaccuracies and conflicting media opinions on something as important as health. There is no real service to the public for the media to decide for the public in lieu of reporting all the facts accurately and there is no effective accountability for your conclusions. You in the media create many conflicts among the rest of us and then fan the flames. You make the cost of freedom of the press a better informed public leading to real social progress.

[rwsmith29456]

You right. Unless these studies are corroborated by other parts of the medical community they aren't worth the paper they are printed on. I don't pay any attention to them.

[erasmus111]

I'm getting sick and tired of all these different studies. One study says one thing, another says something different. One minute dark chocolate is good for you, the next it isn't, then it is, then it isn't. Same with broccoli and red wine. And the thing with red wine is that when you tell people red wine is good for you, but only a glass a day, all the lushes ignore that and think it's okay to drink a gallon.

It's pathetic. Shut up, already!

[ToolMangler1]

It doesn't matter, I am a Chocoholic and will be one till I die.
There is no "Chocoholics anonymous", We don't want to quit.
BTW: I am one pound underweight for my 5' 11" frame.