Chocolat, chocolates, Cadburys, Ferrero Rocher, Godiva or an entire list of brands from A-Z of which some you may chomp on routinely, while ship-loads of others you’ve never even heard of exist in this world, and just as well. No, please do not drool over what you’re about to read. If anything, you may want to stop right here, and read another post instead.

This morning I read that to improve memory, you may want to consider consuming the gooey brown delectable ‘don’t even utter that word’! At this point, I’m irate because based on a ‘research finding’ with the study partially funded by ‘Mars’ (yeah, the confectionery company), they concluded that flavanols would help memory. So, all you old people (and also the not-as-old who’d rather forget some follies and foibles ‘inadvertently’ flaunted on Facebook), please do pause before you rush to grab the bar – no, neither the liquor bar, nor the bar of chocolate.

What irks me is that The New York Times daily displays under its list of most emailed articles this one that screams, “To improve a memory, consider a chocolate”. Knowing full well that attention spans are low, and most people do not read to the end of the article – well, not even up to the middle bulge – editorially speaking, it’s more than a tad irresponsible to pass this article in its current form. The NYT is known to do this often, at least in recent times when readership is floundering, and the respectable paper is not exactly averse to using Murdoch-like murderous editorial stunts to stay afloat.

To improve “a” memory? Personally, I think that’s a gross grammatical flaw. But let’s say we disregard that. Now consider this… The study entailed “a well-controlled randomized trial of just 37 participants”. Wow… and then hear this. You’d need to eat at least seven (7) average-sized candy bars a day for a long time. Insane! There are some caveats to the study.

What is the point in carrying an article in a mainline daily that has so little value at this point and for which much research work is still needed to be of any consumer value! If anything, The New York Times is causing harm to busy readers who have just enough time to speed read or scan the paper for newsworthy articles. Much as I have been an avid reader, in recent times The New York Times has been very disappointing, almost fringing on deceptive tactics to increase their readership. I’m sorry to add that soon I will need to turn to another source for truly newsworthy articles.

Anyone interested can easily run a search to find this article. I will not include a link to that article. Oh yes, I haven’t even stated the obvious ills – high calories, fat, with the inherent risk of being afflicted with diabetes, heart problems or a zillion other ailments. My unsolicited advice on this to anyone reading this page, you’re better off not wasting precious time searching for this so-called sweet solution to regaining memory… forget you read this post. But should someone advise you to eat chocolate, you’ll know better than to pay heed to that advice.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s