Hacker News Reader

Comment by m348e912 | Hacker News Reader

Key Takeaway:

Participants consuming ≥5 servings of dark chocolate per week had a significantly lower risk of T2D (21% lower) compared to those who consumed little or none.

View on HN

I always wonder how much is one serving? 1 ounce? Why can't they just say 1 ounce or xx grams? Same goes to "cup", guess it's an American thing.

You're right about the "serving" thing. But in the US, at least, a cup in a culinary context means precisely eight ounces.

Eight ounces by weight or by volume? /s

Volume…sorry, should have made that distinction.

Now we're tempted to go down the ounce rabbit hole (the US fluid ounce is based on the medieval British system, which is based on the density of wine, probably).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_ounce

Brian Regan had a good one on that[1].

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBko_3wT44Q

This is useful because, at a glance, most people would probably assume chocolate is a candy and candy is bad and the study just added another drop to that bucket of evidence.

Milk chocolate is very different. Don't take the wrong lesson from this.

The study says milk chocolate also reduces your risk by 10%.

Where do you see that? I see "No significant associations were found for milk chocolate intake" and "Intake of milk, but not dark, chocolate was positively associated with weight gain."

Ah, I stand corrected: the study starts by stating "After adjusting for personal, lifestyle, and dietary risk factors, participants consuming ≥5 servings/week of any chocolate showed a significant 10% (95% CI 2% to 17%; P trend=0.07) lower rate of T2D compared with those who never or rarely consumed chocolate", but goes on to split by chocolate types and then the positive effect disappears for milk chocolate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com