In the United States, about 700,000 Americans have a stroke,
while 160,000 die from stroke-related causes every year. Strokes are the most common cause of adult
disability and adult loss of independence.
A stroke can leave one person with a scar, manifesting itself anywhere
from a persons physical appearance to internal damage. It can leave someone with a neurological
problem or a cardiovascular problem.
This “brain attacker” seems find ways to cause more trouble ranging from
disease to death. Neurological
researchers and funded stroke foundations and associations have taken it upon
themselves to find ways to prevent and treat stroke victims, but before one can
attempt to find a cure, one must understand what exactly a stroke is.
A stroke is the when the circulation of blood to the brain
fails, and in turn brain cells die due to lack of oxygen from decreased blood
flow. Strokes are divided into two
categories, which is based on cause: ischemic and hemorrhagic. Ischemic stroke is the lack of blood flow to the
brain due to blockage. Comprising
approximately 80 percent of all strokes, these kinds of strokes can come in
three different flavors: thrombosis, which is a clot in a blood vessel in the brain
or neck, embolism, which is a clot moving from different parts of the body, and
an embolism, which is the stenosis of arteries leading to the brain. Hemorrhagic strokes are termed for bleeding
into spaces around the brain.
Overtime, several warning signs of a stroke have been
discovered and national organizations have published various lists of signs and
symptoms that patients should be aware of.
Some warning signs include sudden numbness (especially on one side of
the body), confusion, vision trouble, motor and balance difficulties, or a
seemingly idiopathic headache.
Risk factors of a stroke can be divided into two different
categories: modifiable (or treatable) and non-modifiable. The
non-modifiable risk factors include age, gender, ethnicity, or genetics. Modifiable risk factors include hypertension,
cigarette smoking, cardiovascular disease, history of having transient ischemic
attacks (AKA “mini strokes”), diabetes, cholesterol imbalance, obesity and
sedentary lifestyle.
In researching on basic information on strokes and such, I
came upon an article in regards a possibility of reducing stroke. It was recently published in an online
journal of the American Acaademy of Neurology that eating a moderate amount of
chocolate weekly can reduce the risk of stroke in men. A
study conducted in Sweden used 37,103
men ages 49 to 75 who were given a food questionnaire on how often they
consumed various foods. After cross-listing
in the hospital discharge registry, they found that only approximately 2000 of
those men had a first stroke in the past 10 years. It was found that the men in this sample who
had the largest amount of chocolate, which was 1/3 a cup of chocolate chips,
had a lower risk of stroke.
It was found in an analysis of 5 studies that included 4,260
stroke cases that the risk of stroke for individuals in the highest category of
chocolate consumption (which is not disclosed) was 19 percent lower than to
non-chocolate consumers. It was found
that “for every increase in chocolate consumption of 50 grams per week, or
about a quarter cup of chocolate chips, the risk of stroke decreased by about
14 percent”.
It is believed that the stroke risk reduction is related to
the flavonoid content of chocolate.
Flavonoids have been found to be protective against cardiovascular
disease via their antioxidant, anti-clotting and anti-inflammatory
properties. It is also believed that
flavonoid content can help reduce the amount of cholesterol in blood.
My issue with this particular article is that they do not
include how they assess the risk of stroke, or try to discuss if or why
chocolate has that effect on ages 49-75.
I do not believe they even cite the studies that they derive the
information from. If they included more details of the study, I believe that
the experiment outcome would be more believable.
The science behind it may be somewhat correct. However, the
research articles that I have been finding that review such things may be
considered weak evidence. There are
still ongoing studies to discover the answer to one question: Could chocolate
really lower your risk of stroke? Or is
it possible that we are we just trying to find an excuse to indulge in the
sweet treat?
I found another article studying the same subject.
To answer, your question ElizabethN495, the ability of chocolate to prevent stroke is dependent on the what type of chocolate. This is often attributed to polyphenols that inhibit LDL oxidation (which is involved in the attachment associated with strokes or heart attacks). Dark chocolate that is limited in consumption has its beneficial effects. However, the key word is "limited". Individuals who eat chocolate in excessive quantities (even dark chocolate because it is still loaded with sugar), can still be at risk for obesity, diabetes, and eventually diabetes and stroke.
ReplyDeleteAnother concern is the manufacturing process of the Hershey, Rolos, or Ghiradelli that people like to consume. The cocoa butter, which is often the major contributor of lipids, is removed and then replaced in different proportions, making it slightly unhealthier than expected. However, other studies have shown that it may place elderly people at risk for osteoporosis, but reduce cardiovascular issues and lower cholesterol levels in adults.
So my main point is that dark chocolate will place you at a lower risk for stroke, but the key part is moderation. There is such a thing as eating too much of a good thing, even if it is chocolate.
This sounds like another candy industry backed study to be honest. I wonder why they only used chocolate when flavonoids are also found in wine, citrus and tea. Did they account for the diet and exercise of the men as well? I really like that you brought up that they didn't cite some evidence and they also did not include how they assessed the risk of stroke. Those seem like SUPER important things to leave out of a study like this. I would love another excuse to eat chocolate, as I'm sure anyone would, but since the science behind these claims is a little iffy I won't be heading to Godiva anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteAshley I totally agree with you, they put a focus solely on the benefits of chocolate without suggesting any other means of getting flavonoids. One thing that I have a problem with that study is the fact that they gathered all the information with a questionnaire. Like we discussed in class last week, self reporting isn't really the best means of getting accurate information since people misreport the amount of any food that is consumed. I also agree with what Alex said about how even though there is a benefit to eating chocolate, people shouldn't take that as it being 100% full proof, and shouldn't be used as an excuse to glut yourself on ridiculous amounts of chocolate. I think that when things like this are published it causes people to just focus on the here and now quick effects and don't think about the long term affects. I think that more studies should be done in order to see the effects and also since this study didn't include women, they should do a study with the effect of chocolate on women and the decreased risk observed if any.
ReplyDelete