Author:
Taxonomy upgrade extras:
"You can prove anything you want with statistics!"
How true... especially when it comes to the Aztec ambrosia - chocolate.
In today's BBC news comes the revelation that chocolate lovers 'are more depressive', according to experts. Similarly...
29 Jul 2009: Calls to downsize chocolate bars
24 Dec 2007: Dark chocolate 'not so healthy'
But then again, taking a "Relevant stories" link trail finds a veritable tsunami of more positive stories regarding most people's definition of "food of the gods":
30 Mar 2010: Chocolate 'can cut blood pressure and help heart
28 Apr 2008: Chocolate 'may cut diabetes risk'
13 Sep 2007: Chocolate cravings come out of the box
03 Jul 2007: Chocolate 'lowers' blood pressure
16 Apr 2007: Chocolate 'better than kissing'
11 Mar 2007: Cocoa nutrient for 'lethal ills'
15 Nov 2006: Chocolate 'cuts blood clot risk'
10 Apr 2006: Chocolate trial on heart patients
20 Dec 2005: Chocolate may cut heart disease
22 Mar 2005: Chocolate 'has health benefits'
01 Jun 2004: Chocolate 'helps blood vessels'
06 Apr 2004: Chocolate 'makes for happy babies'
27 Aug 2003: Dark chocolate may be healthier
05 Dec 2002: Chocolate 'could cure coughs'
03 Sep 2001: Chocolate's double-edged health message:
29 Aug 2000: Chocolate 'keeps heart healthy'
24 Aug 2000: Chocolate 'fights' tooth decay
Meanwhile, anyone detect a theme, or even repetition, in these articles?
19 Feb 2000: Chocolate is good for you
06 Aug 1999: Chocolate 'is good for you'
21 Dec 1998: Chocolate is good for you - official
18 Nov 1998: Official: a little of what you fancy does you good
-oOo-
And in other "Dodgy Science" news, the Daily Wail has hit upon a rather surprising (for it) secret to a happy marriage...
And the New Scientist has found elephants are scared of bees (!) and even make alarm calls to other pachyderms in the area...
Comments
It's possible
It's possible that they were just sugar-loading themselves, too. Too much of any sweet is going to have an inevitable crash that can feel like depression.
The article doesn't say whether they even accounted for other variables, which is unfortunately a growing trend in both "liberal" and "conservative" media. Leave out the facts of the study and just report the findings and commentary.
You said it best yourself; you really can prove anything with statistics. It reminds me of the statistic that "90% of crossdressers are heterosexual." I often wonder how many of that 90% are in fact TS lesbians in denial. But I digress ^_~
Disclaimer: I am not, nor would I ever pretend to be, an expert in medicine, mood, or nutrition, but I am a lifelong chocoholic, so I'm probably biased in defense of the sugary goodness. ;-)
You had to mention the ch word!
Now I'm going to have to go and find myself some. I just hope I don't find too much, or I'll pig out...
Hmmm. Should I be suspicious that you've suddenly managed to find all these references to chocolate, or is it worse? Are you such an obsessive about the stuff that you actively search the interwebs all the time looking for references to keep in a great big list? ^_-
Penny
I know it is a NSFW link
But Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics TVTropes entry contains dosens of relevant examples of how statistics can be used to lie. Just for a couple of them:
And similarily, there are just as many examples that can be made by replacing the actual cause with a fictional one, like I once heard about a survey:
That one failed to put into account that it's sickly and unhealthy people that tend to consume vitamins, and they have shorter life span from that and not from vitamin consumption.
Faraway
Big Closet Top Shelf
Where you can fool around like you want to and most you get is some bemused good ribbing!
Faraway
Big Closet Top Shelf
Where you can fool around like you want to and most you get is some bemused good ribbing!
How to lie with statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics
'Nuff said. A good illustration of "Correlation does not imply causation" is this:
The more health food shops there are in a town, the more crimes will be committed. Therefore, health food shops cause crime.
Of course, what this fails to take into account is the size of the town - as generally, larger towns (with more people in, and therefore more criminals in) will have more health food shops (and, indeed, every other type of shop!) than smaller towns.
As the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body, then only left-handers are in their right mind!
Wait a Minute...
Six one-ounce chocolate bars a month is at the HIGH end of the scale?
Six bars a week, maybe...
Eric
No doubt
Dodgy indeed, because there is much more to science than numbers (such as how one goes about collecting them).
And even more especially in the practice of identity politics, which has for decades relied on dodgy statistics to support their propaganda.