Cocoa Flavonols Boost Brain Function
February 17th 2012 20:42
VICTORIA, Australia—Older individuals who consume chocolate or cocoa powder containing high levels of flavonols been shown to have better brain performance and as easier time completing memory tasks compared to those who do not eat chocolate, according to a study published in the journal Physiology & Behavior.
Researchers at Swinburne University conducted a study to investigate whether chocolate or cocoa powder containing higher amounts of cocoa flavanols can positively influence brain performance in healthy middle-aged individuals naturally.
For the study, 63 middle-aged volunteers aged between ages 40 and 65 years were administered a daily chocolate drink containing 250mg or 500mg cocoa flavanols versus a low cocoa flavanol (placebo) drink over a 30-day period. Participants were tested at baseline as well as at the end of the treatment period on a test of Spatial Working Memory. Steady State Probe Topography (SST) was used to assess neurocognitive changes associated with cocoa flavanol supplementation during the completion of the Spatial Working Memory task.
Changes in the amplitude and phase of the SSVEP response after 30 days were compared between treatment groups. Behavioral measures of accuracy and reaction time were not found to be significantly different between treatment groups, while average SSVEP amplitude and phase differences at a number of posterior parietal and centro-frontal sites were found to be significantly different between groups during memory encoding, the working memory hold period and retrieval.
In the absence of significant behavioral effects, the differences in brain activation can be interpreted as evidence of increased neural efficiency in spatial working memory function associated with chronic cocoa flavanol consumption.
| 32 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Quintin Watt
And haven't we also discussed there how it is, in fact, all the calorie laden sweeteners and other additives (without which most people would find pure cocoa essence rather too bitter) that will actually DO OUR HEART IN (given a lifetime of pigging on chocolate).
We've even talked about how actually UNnatural it is, if we look at the anthropological and evolutionary evidence, for humans to eat such sweet things - our 'sweet tooth' having evolved for VERY different reasons (when our ancestors were frugivores or fruit and nut eaters) - again see my post on Does Dark Chocolate on Valentine's Day Help Your Heart?.
Let's be cynical here, shall we? Most scientific research today requires private funding (often from big business). I know myself how, as a laboratory technician in the Nutrition Department of a major London University college, the postgraduate work to which I was a technical assistant was, of course, being funded by a food manufacturer - in this case, Cadbury-Schweppes. As far as I know, this big conglomerate makes only, or mainly, chocolate (!) - indeed Cadbury's is FAR the biggest brand here in UK ... and fizzy drinks - neither of these things noted for their great nutritional and health benefits. True?
Wouldn't you, therefore, EXPECT them to fund any and all nutritional research that makes them look good in any way at all - in much the same way, for example, that many tobacco giants now fund sport and sporting events. Who are they kidding?
Enough said on this - surely?
- Jeff Watt, Mental and Spiritual Healer
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
I guess enough said, and I shall continue to pass on any relevant information, what people do with it is up to them.
Comment by Quintin Watt
I respond to this post (as to all your threads, I would hope) with due respect and courtesy and in a spirit of friendship.
I do not, of course, assume that just because you put a thread here on your blog you necessarily agree with the entire contents of every article that heads one. I assume your intention to be to encourage healthy debate - otherwise, I should say, why would you put up threads here at all inviting comments? I hope that I do continue, as is my intention, to contribute constructively to that. I am always grateful for the opportunity to do so, and am thus grateful now. Thank you. I think my posts generally are appreciated by those who subscribe to this blog?
I recall some many months back now - July 2010, in fact, - you put up a thread here headed 'Does Nicotine Paint a Complicated Picture?' which discussed the work of Verner Knott at Ottawa Mental Health Centre and how he seemed to have found certain mental, and even supposed psychological, benefits derived from this drug as imbibed by smokers. I posted on this thread and I think we both firmly agreed, did we not, that Knott's research notwithstanding, the very LAST thing in the world any of us want to do is to encourage people to smoke.
As in your thread preceding this one, 'Does Dark Chocolate on Valentine's Day Help Your Heart?', I note that the dangers, or at least the cautions (in this case, about eating chocolate), are here mentioned, once again, only as a concluding 'aside' - if at all, in fact. We must remember, of course, that these articles are being reported not by the actual researchers themselves giving their objective and more cautious findings (and, if these are neither objective nor cautiously stated then one doubts that they are even ethical science at all), but rather by reporters and journalists who, as we have said, (see, again, my post on the preceding thread), nearly always oversimplify and tend to introduce their own (subjective) interpretations and bias: call it their 'angle' if you wish.
I follow your blog with interest and have done so for more than two years now. I always find these threads interesting (some more so than others, of course) and try to read as many as I can. That I do not post on every one of them does not, of course, mean that these are not interesting to me.
In general, I tend to post only when I have a strong or clear view and/or have something informative to say. Such is my nature. I do not, of course, ever claim any special or professional expertise beyond that which I clearly state in my posts. But this does not prevent me from having an informed view. I would hope that this is what you seek from all posters on your threads.
I am not prone to 'go over the top' (with all due respect), katyzzz. However; dubious scientific findings - and just because these are carried out by qualified, or even respected, scientists does not, of course, ipso facto make them inviolate or inviolable - especially when such apparent findings are apt to become misleading or even dangerous ... as these might be in the hands or minds of the less well-informed or less factually discerning - yes, these do worry me always and I always make a point of sounding a note of caution in such cases.
"Chocolate is great (in all sorts of ways) - that's official" - so get as much as you can, or eat as much as you like !!. No; I know that is not what this article, or the preceding one, says (or what you have said, of course) but nevertheless - NO!! NO WAY!!
Neither, as you say, are the (equally controversial) alleged 'benefits' of drinking red wine a signal to go out and binge on red wine every night, or sink a bottle of it every night at home. But, as you rightly say, there are many who will always interpret such supposed scientific findings in such a crude way, and behave irresponsibly. You yourself, I note, urge caution here (in your above post). Absolutely! As I have also said in my post on the preceding thread ('Does Dark Chocolate on Valentine's Day Help Your Heart?'), there are also, of course, those who are already consuming such things to excess, or to an extent injurious to their health, who will take this merely as a 'green flag' to go on doing so, or even doing more so - and will even encourage others to do the same.
And far more worrying still, though, than even any of this is the danger that these apparent findings may well encourage, for example, diabetics (esp those with 'lifestyle-induced' diabetes - i.e. caused by many years of eating all the wrong things and to excess) to go on eating chocolate .. or that these apparent findings may similarly encourage the morbidly obese to do so.
THIS is why I say: Chocolate - to any excess at all - is BAD news ... and yes, it will eventually DO YOUR HEART IN (so far from being good for it!!!)
I think everyone knows, do they not, that chocolate (unless it be special diabetic chocolate - which is free, of course, from all the calorie-laden additives of conventional chocolate) is absolutely the LAST thing you should give to a diabetic (or to a morbidly obese person or one with a heart and blood pressure problem because of this) - these being the reason, in fact, why the vast majority of hypertension and cardiac problem sufferers in the Western world do so!! So far from 'helping your heart' these many calorie-laden additive-engorged chocolate confections, so especially in evidence on every confectioner's and supermarket shelf at Valentine's Day, Christmas time, Easter and other festive occasions are actually, for this reason, killers!
Yet I see that, astonishingly, these finds presume to suggest that chocolate is, in any way at all, actually GOOD for these things!! If so - then I'm a Martian!! (I would lay a wager that this research was funded by a big chocolate manufacturer) ...
Everyone knows too, of course, that more than a tiny daily trace of salt is bad for us. I myself do not know anyone (I doubt if you do either (!)) who would actually sit down to a little 'snack' or meal of, say, half a bowlful of salt. Yuk!! But many, I think, would actually be amazed to discover that many processed foods - in particular, such things as some brands of instant mashed potato, packet soups and, of course a great many breakfast cereals (most especially, in fact, some of the so-called 'high fibre' ones which therefore, falsely, purport to be 'healthy') - not to mention the many salty snacks which these days tend to fill a whole section on your local supermarket shelves - do, indeed, contain that much salt (or 'hidden' salt) in a single serving!!
And for sure there are people, and I have met some, who will happily munch their way through a bar or more of chocolate every day - or else the equivalent in chocolaty snacks, 'choccie' biscuits (or cookies), chocolate breakfast cereals (doubly bad news - for reasons stated above: double whammy - too much chocolate; too much salt (too much added sugar on top of all that as well!)) .. or else high calorie chocolaty drinks (plenty of those around today, of course). Oh dear!!
Actually, all these can very easily, too, become not only psychologically but, in fact, biochemically addictive - as I have also suggested in my post on the previous thread (which see). There is, as I have said, now considerable scientific evidence of this, and furthermore that the many (often 'hidden') additives now so liberally added to so many processed, even semi-processed, foods which are so very bad for us all are deliberately put there, not so much (as the manufacturers would have us all believe) to prolong shelf life or make products therefore cheaper, but in fact to get us 'hooked' ... to keep us coming back for more .... salt, sugars and all the wrong kinds of fats - most chocolate containing foods have plenty of these. The findings of that research, I doubt, would have been funded by the food manufacturers. They are the culprits! The deeply troubling rise of obesity in the Western world over the last few decades has now been firmly established, by quite a lot of the same research in fact, as being attributable, in main to this. Don't be fooled by the marketing labels which read 'healthy option', 'low fat' (but high sugar!), 'light' or 'natural' or 'this contributes to your five a day' - ignore all that: read instead THE ACTUAL CONTENTS!!!
I would know. I do, as I have said, have many clients come to me who really feel that they have become, literally, 'addicted' to this stuff - and ask for my help (I help many clients with what they may see as all kinds of addictive, compulsive or obsessive behaviours of which they want rid) ...
To this, and to the preceding, post my advice would be to all subscribers (call it my 'angle' if you like): -
LAY OFF the chocolate generally - especially if you are elderly (and I note that, astonishingly, many of the volunteers here were quite elderly) ... but everybody generally ... despite what these findings may seem to claim.. I don't think I can be any clearer than that.
As to drinking PURE UNSWEETENED cocoa (if you can stomach it like that) - and remember: this is the real source of the flavanols about which so much is claimed; remember, too, that the very dark chocolates are only so because they contain more of this dark cocoa bean essence - well, what of all that?
Ward off cancer and possible heart disease? I have my real doubts. Ward off the possible onset of dementia or Alzheimer's disease later in life, or even improve memory? What will next be claimed, I wonder, for this substance so unnecessary as it was to all our forbears? 'Discover the secret of eternal youth' maybe? Or of immortality? Not nearly enough proven I will say. Consider, would you, how tiny were the test populations in this supposed research and how short-term the experiments ...
Interestingly, cocoa (and in this form - as a drink and free from all the sweeteners and additives which eating or drinking chocolate in any form, light, dark or otherwise contains today) was actually brought to Europe in the seventeenth century - by the Dutch, I believe originally - before which it was unknown ... mainly because of its supposed soporific (sleep-inducing) properties. Now this, to me, sounds a lot more feasible. Even until well into the twentieth century, cocoa (as opposed to eating or drinking chocolate) was a popular bedtime drink or 'nightcap' for this reason. You can still get it, you know (if you look around a bit).
Again, with all due respect, katyzzz - and as to a friend (I hope we still can be, despite our differences over emphasis here?) I do not think that I go 'over the top' here at all. Whenever I see what I know to be irresponsible science (oh yes, there is such a thing) or irresponsible reporting of it (not by you, of course) - especially if I see potential real harm in it, or in how it may be interpreted ... yes, I will NEVER omit an opportunity to sound out a caution; just as I appreciate the opportunities which this forum, you blog, provides to post informatively and to seek to be constructive and helpful. Long may it remain so. Thank you.
Regards - Jeff Watt, Mental and Spiritual Healer
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
Many many thanks for all your comments and support
Comment by Quintin Watt
Jeff Watt.