Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique


#175 Chocolate: Can anything this tasty be good for us?


CLINICAL QUESTION
QUESTION CLINIQUE
Is chocolate consumption linked to health concerns like cardiovascular disease?


BOTTOM LINE
RÉSULTAT FINAL
Chocolate consumption is associated with no change or a small reduction in cardiovascular disease in cohort studies. Evidence is too weak to recommend chocolate consumption for health benefits. Surrogate marker changes are minimal and perhaps unreliable. Chocolate likely increases acne lesions in susceptible individuals.  



CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session



EVIDENCE
DONNÉES PROBANTES
Six systematic reviews:1-6 Each with 5-9 observational studies (mostly prospective cohort) and 75,408-157,809 adultsComparing highest chocolate consumption versus little to no consumption, after 8-16 years 
  • Cardiovascular disease: Relative Risk (RR) 0.63 (95% Confidence Interval (CI), 0.44-0.90).1 
  • Myocardial infarction and angina: RR 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82-0.97).3 
  • Stroke: RR 0.81 (95% CI, 0.73–0.90).4 
  • Heart failure (admission or death): RR 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66-1.01).5 
  • Issues: Overall mortality not reported, individual study results varied considerably,1,2,5 and poor assessment of potential bias.2-6 
    • Non-randomized so imbalanced groups: Chocolate eaters generally younger, lower BMI, active, etcetera (healthy).2,4,5 Although researchers adjust for these factors, it is suboptimal 
    • Unclear if dark or milk chocolate1-5 but possibly ~90% milk.4   
    • Consumption measurement varied considerably but highest’ often >50 grams/week or ≥1-2 servings/week.1-5 
  • Cardiovascular risk factors 
      • Blood pressure (BP)Three systematic reviews (10-20 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), 297-856 patients).7-9 
        • Statistically significantly reduced 2.8-4.5 mmHg systolic and 2.0-2.7 mmHg diastolic.7-9   
        • Blood pressure reductions less if normotensive, studied longer or if comparator included cocoa product (example, dark versus milk chocolate).7 
      • Lipids: Two systematic reviews (8-10 RCTs, 215-320 patients).10,11
        • LDL reduced 0.15 mmol/L but other lipid parameters not statistically different.   
      • Issues: Short-term studies (mean 4.4 weeks),7 study BP results varied considerably.7     
    • Adverse events: Chocolate 5% versus 1% (gastrointestinal, bad taste, headache, jitteriness but numbers small).7 
Context:   
  • Dark chocolate is 50-85% cocoa and milk chocolate is 20-30%.7 
    • Cocoa contains flavanols: A proposed but unproven source of health benefits.  
  • Other health issues: 
    • Depression: Not clinically assessed.12   
    • Migraine: No reliable association.13 
    • Acne: Two RCTs (13 and 54 acne patients): Increase of 4-5 lesions 2-3 days after chocolate ingestion.14,15   
  • Observational studies suggest chocolate consumption associated with lower risk of being overweight/obese, albeit likely confounding bias.16 


Janette Hurley February 5, 2024

Eat more chocolate 🙂

Perminder Sahota October 2, 2024

No need to eat more chocolates

Perminder Sahota October 2, 2024

Weak evidence


Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#379 Bumpin’ Up the Protection? RSV Vaccine in Pregnancy

How effective and safe is the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine (AbrysvoTM) when given during pregnancy?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#378 Tony Romo-sozumab: Winning touchdown in osteoporosis or interception for the loss?

What is the efficacy and safety of romosozumab in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#377 How to slow the flow IV: Combined oral contraceptives

In premenopausal heavy menstrual bleeding due to benign etiology, do combined oral contraceptives (COC) improve patient outcomes?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session


Author(s)
Auteur(s)
  • G. Michael Allan MD CCFP
  • Mary Anne Zupancic MSc

1. Buitrago-Lopez A, Sanderson J, Johnson L, et al. BMJ. 2011; 343:d4488.

2. Kwok CS, Boekholdt SM, Lentjes MA, et al. Heart. 2015; 101(16):1279-87.

3. Larsson SC, Åkesson A, Gigante B, et al. Heart. 2016; 102(13):1017-22.

4. Larsson SC, Virtamo J, Wolk A. Neurology. 2012; 79(12):1223-9.

5. Kwok CS, Loke YK, Welch AA, et al. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2016; 26(8):722-34.

6. Khawaja O, Gaziano JM, Djoussé L. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2011; 13(6):447-52.

7. Ried K, Sullivan TR, Fakler P, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; (8):CD008893.

8. Desch S, Schmidt J, Kobler D, et al. Am J Hypertens. 2010; 23(1):97-103.

9. Ried K, Sullivan T, Fakler P, et al. BMC Med. 2010; 8:39.

10. Tokede OA, Gaziano JM, Djoussé L. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2011; 65(8):879-86.

11. Jia L, Liu X, Bai YY, et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010; 92(1):218-25.

12. Scholey A, Owen L. Nutr Rev. 2013; 71(10):665-81.

13. Lippi G, Mattiuzzi C, Cervellin G. Acta Biomed. 2014; 85:216-21.

14. Caperton C, Block S, Viera M, et al. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2014; 7:19-23.

15. Delost GR, Delost ME, Lloyd J. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016; 75:220-2.

16. Gasser CE, Mensah FK, Russell M, et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 2016; 103:1344-56.

Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Les auteurs n’ont aucun conflit d’intérêts à déclarer.