This isn't a strong study (only 30 people) but it's a good start and provides the basis for another study (I point this out because frequently people online dismiss studies that have small sample sizes: the point is to provide the basis for more study, not to be finally authoritative).
I believe, but may be wrong here, that the bigger picture here is that the study is saying eating dark chocolate makes people "less diabetic."
For a larger context: there is lot of thinking right now in the nutritional community about how many many things have a similar appearance to diabetes (alzheimer's is one that's getting a lot of attention right now) and we are starting to see a lot of similar problems from different diseases, which are starting to be lumped into the "general metabolic syndrome" category.
So when I say "less diabetic," in this context I mean this study is showing that eating dark chocolate helped improve one of the symptoms of diabetes (and many other things that fall into metabolic syndrome).
The thing I don't like about this study is that it tries to act like dark chocolate is some kind of magic bullet. It's the stuff that Dr. Oz builds his career on. The truth is we don't understand a lot about metabolic syndrome, but we do understand that there are some basic things you can do to improve and they aren't a surprise. Basically: lose weight, eat better foods. It's interesting that dark chocolate may affect this more than other foods, but if you eat like shit and still eat dark chocolate it wont matter. It's a tiny micro-optimization.
It's probably the case that if you are eating dark chocolate, you AREN'T eating sugary milky chocolate (or other candies), reducing your overall sugar intake.
* That isn't the case in this study, though, since the control group was instructed to eat NO chocolate. So, the dark seems to have a positive effect.
I have a condition that predisposes me to diabetes. I have seen articles that connect diabetes and inflammation. I have eaten an antiinflammatory diet for a long time, including good quality dark chocolate, which is high in antioxidants. I am more sugar tolerant than I used to be. So I don't think that your supposition, which largely dismisses the data, is likely to really account for the difference.
I do not have to be as careful about consuming sugar as I used to be. I no longer have blood sugar crashes.
I was severely hypoglycemic when I was younger. My condition predisposes people to a non-standard form of diabetes. It may also predispose them to a condition that I am not sure of the name of, where you can experience both hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, in turns.
You might want to google "diabetes and inflammation." There are articles and research on the connection. I was not specifically trying to fix my blood sugar problems. I was trying to address other issues. The freedom to be more carefree about eating sugary foods was an unexpected bonus. I was never identified as diabetic, but I do have a long history of blood sugar problems, mostly in the other direction, if that makes sense.
If you don't mind me asking, what is your diagnosis? I don't ask to be nosey, insulin sensitivity is something I'm extremely interested in and would just like to read more about this. The diabetes/inflammation connection especially is extremely interesting to me because I think it probably has some kind of connection to muscle protein synthesis and growing in general that I'd like to learn more about.
My official diagnosis is "atypical cystic fibrosis." It predisposes me to CFRD -- Cystic Fibrosis Related Diabetes -- which is neither Type I nor Type II diabetes, or so I have heard.
I did read an article on protein and the role it plays in insulin resistance. I have no idea how you think that connects to inflammation. Care to share?
Sure, but I want to be totally clear that I am totally not a scientist or anyone who knows what he is talking about before I do so. I just read a lot of nutritional science because I'm interested in it and so I've strung together some high level patterns. Reading quickly about CF and ACF, I don't think it's related to what I'm talking about, but I'll explain my thoughts on diabetes and how it connects to MPS and growth. I also want to make it clear I'm talking about adult-onset, type ii diabetes. So probably not CFRD, and probably not type i.
On a high level the pattern I see is that growing is one of many intense metabolic stressors, and that there are other things that can approximate that stress once you stop growing, specifically strength training, although I think other forms of fitness are probably helpful as well, though less so. Inflammation is the major biproduct of strength training, and is a crucial part of the muscle building process, and yet we don't think of this inflammation as unhealthy (unpleasant, sure) and it doesn't cause diabetes. The most anabolic diet you can eat is one that causes huge amounts of inflammation (high carbohydrate, high protein). So you have this intense metabolic stress of growing and then it stops in your early 20s and you keep up the inflammation cycles with the same diet and you get diabetes. You remove this metabolic stress without adding another one and inflammation is bad, you add it and it's good (crucial, even). And finally, someone who has low insulin resistance is going to be the most affected by a highly inflammatory diet. In a healthy person lowering your body fat percentage is one of the main ways you can increase your insulin sensitivity (and thus muscle building potential). Spiking your insulin is terrible if you are overweight, but it's great if you are trying to build muscle.
Anyway, that's all very vague and I'm just some dog on the internet, but I think basically there's a scientific opportunity to show that strenuous exercise, specifically strength training, can have a much bigger impact on metabolic syndrome than the science currently gives it credit for.
I believe, but may be wrong here, that the bigger picture here is that the study is saying eating dark chocolate makes people "less diabetic."
For a larger context: there is lot of thinking right now in the nutritional community about how many many things have a similar appearance to diabetes (alzheimer's is one that's getting a lot of attention right now) and we are starting to see a lot of similar problems from different diseases, which are starting to be lumped into the "general metabolic syndrome" category.
So when I say "less diabetic," in this context I mean this study is showing that eating dark chocolate helped improve one of the symptoms of diabetes (and many other things that fall into metabolic syndrome).
The thing I don't like about this study is that it tries to act like dark chocolate is some kind of magic bullet. It's the stuff that Dr. Oz builds his career on. The truth is we don't understand a lot about metabolic syndrome, but we do understand that there are some basic things you can do to improve and they aren't a surprise. Basically: lose weight, eat better foods. It's interesting that dark chocolate may affect this more than other foods, but if you eat like shit and still eat dark chocolate it wont matter. It's a tiny micro-optimization.