This will cheer you ladies up

IamME

Too sick for an identity
Messages
110
Likes
6
The other point I would make is that if it's so hard to find/source "good" chocolate then that's another reason why it's not such a great idea. And I'm sorry but saying very sick people should go on some ridiculous psuedo spiritual mythic quest to find the rarest most hard to get "perfect" chocolate just *in case* it has some miraculous result is daft. Some people don't even like chocolate! The argument that food intolerances are just due to the wrong variety is nonsense also.

It would make much more sense, to put research money into looking at the already identified detox pathway problems with glutathione, B12 etc before looking at superfoods. After you've looked at the fundamental and all important immune, metabolic and neurological problems of course.

It sounds to me that this is more of a benefit to the beleagured chocolate industry than to a bunch of sick people that haven't even been (officially) well defined.
 

eric_s

Senior Member
Messages
1,925
Likes
75
Location
Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
I don't want to take the thread off topic, but can somebody quickly answer that question? Those people with ME/CFS that have food intolerances, did they usually already have them before developping ME/CFS or did those intolerances only come after the onset?

Luckily, i don't have any of that, i think. Sometimes when i eat something hot, my nose gets a little bit runny, but it does not happen with a specific type of food only. And at the beginning of my CFS i sometimes had digestion problems but that stopped by itself later, as i improved over time, and there also it seemed to occur totally randomly. I don't have any known allergies whatsoever.
 

alice1

Senior Member
Messages
457
Likes
6
Location
Toronto
I read somewhere that sex,exercise,chocolate and now ldn are endorphin releasers.If you can find a chocolate that agrees with you that is.
 

Mark

Senior Member
Messages
5,238
Likes
6,199
Location
Sofa, UK
After a little more web research into Dark Chocolate Science, I've come to the conclusion that all the complaining about this chocolate research has more to do with prejudice about nutrition science (which all the other severe illnesses benefit from), and ignorance of the myriad of extremely well-evidenced health benefits of dark chocolate, than it has to do with ignorance and prejudice about ME/CFS on the part of a team of nutritionists who wondered whether ME/CFS might get similar benefits from dark chocolate to those found for heart disease, AIDS, obesity and a range of other conditions, and set out to test it unaware that they would only be widely criticised by patients for not being virologists.

So I'll spend a little time responding to IAmME's harsh criticism of me for suggesting this research may not be worthless...

That's the worst! Dark chocolate is a potent migraine inducer. I didn't have migraine before ME, but it's pretty common as also has a connection to cardiac abnormality. Chocolate also relaxes the blood vessels, potentially making OI worse
Thanks for reporting some detail of the potential downsides to dark chocolate, I was expecting to find more of that on wikipedia but there was almost nothing mentioned. It's not suprising if there's another side to the story and I'm very interested to hear it.

So a link to migraines may be a key problem for those who can't tolerate chocolate: that makes sense I guess; migraines have never really been a major feature for me, apart from a period of a year or two around onset and a fair few splitting headaches that come and go from time to time. Btw there's been a recent genetic breakthrough re: migraines I think, which may ultimately prove relevant to all this detail.

To be as clear as I can: I'm obviously not intending to say "everyone can eat chocolate, it's good for all of us", I was only wanting to relate my experience of having had to go off chocolate for years and then later finding that it was the other things in the chocolate that were the problem and not the chocolate itself. I just thought that since chocolate is so potentially beneficial, not to mention enjoyable, I should describe my experience in case it could help somebody out of the same misconception I laboured under for a few years. Being able to eat chocolate again is such a boon for me, especially since there are only 5 or 6 foods that I know are safe for me and my diet is necessarily so narrow. But I'm sure there are some people who just can't do chocolate at all, even when it's free from soy lecithin.



Well I think it's pretty easy to tell if you're reacting to soya or not, as long as you're already experimenting with diet. And if you're not experimenting with diet there's less likelihood of consuming soya, unless you're really careless about diet.
Well I didn't figure out my soya sensitivity for years, it was one of 2 or 3 sensitivities that I had missed. Only after I'd progressed bit by bit by eliminating other things did I begin to suspect soya, but I still couldn't confirm the effect by experimentation, it was on a list of 4 or 5 suspects. Only Allergy UK's testing finally nailed those last few details for me.

And I'm not sure why you would say there's little likelihood of consuming soya unless you're experimenting with diet, because soya is in absolutely masses of stuff; eliminating soya eliminated more than half the stuff left in the shops that I could safely eat. Pretty much all the veggie products I was eating had to go.




"A nice detailed resultset on those dimensions might actually yield some strong and reproducible data."

No data from this sort of stuff can ever be strong because it's frivolous research based at best on faulty premise (we've just gotten a bit toxic - like drunk people) that traduces the gravity of the subject in every way imaginable. (If they ever start getting positive results for "treating" leukemia, AIDS and lupus with choc I might change my mind). There is just simply no way someone with genuine severe ME can be resurrected from bedbound to working/school by a few polyphenols, although people with unexplained fatigue/PVF maybe. Remember this is a serious multi-systemic chronic relapsing neuro-immune disease.
There's so much in this paragraph that I have to question. I was suggesting that comparative detailed studies of specific chocolate ingredients, and comparative studies of other foods, could reveal patterns of food intolerances that are specific to ME. Why can no such data ever be strong? Why is that a frivolous question to explore? The implication would seem to be that you must therefore think that any research on nutrition/dietary effects is frivolous. Why? It's well known that we have lots of food and other intolerances, but is there actually any good research documenting and proving that? Those intolerances are generally not accepted by medicine in the UK as genuine because they are very often not actual allergies, as in my case. This is a medically unaccepted phenomenon, widespread in us - what is wrong with actually proving that and exploring any patterns?

Then you say the research is based on a false premise that we've just gotten a bit toxic. What? Where is that coming from? Unless it's in the paper and I missed it, it sounds like that's just your guess at what they were theorising. But I see no reason to conclude that these researchers had any particular theory about what ME/CFS is.


"If they ever start getting positive results for "treating" leukemia, AIDS and lupus with choc I might change my mind"
Regarding research into the effects of different foods on other serious illnesses, it took me about 10 seconds to find this one in a PubMed search on "AIDS chocolate":
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1367748

"A sodium hydroxide extract from cacao husk inhibited the cytopathic effect of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) against HTLV-1-transformed T-cell lines MT-2 and MT-4. It also inhibited syncytium formation between HIV-infected and uninfected lymphoblastoid T-cell line, MOLT-4."

How will that do? Is anybody feeling any less singled out and trivialised by chocolate research yet?

I bet there is absolutely stacks more where that came from. Stacks of it, for illnesses that are properly researched. The newspapers are full of "this food can protect against that" all the time! Why do you think researchers do all those studies about the effects of certain foods? Because they are trying to get clues to how all those medical problems work, at the same time as researching dietary advice that can help with those conditions. Which is all totally sensible.

I almost feel like I could pretty much rest my whole case about how misguided the kneejerk reaction against this study has been with the above paper. Sure, it's a more weighty academic paper than the one we're discussing, which came from a nutrition journal. But don't blame journals for writing about us just because the major ones don't, it's hardly fair on the people who are at least choosing to do something.


"There is just simply no way someone with genuine severe ME can be resurrected from bedbound to working/school by a few polyphenols"
...and whoever claimed they can be? Not me and not the research paper. We both observed a small beneficial effect. It is a clue, a piece in the puzzle, a bit of evidence. If you're going to pounce on anybody who produces such bits of evidence, the jigsaw is going to take a very long time...


"Remember this is a serious multi-systemic chronic relapsing neuro-immune disease"
A bit sharp of you to ask me to remember that point, I am hardly likely to forget any of those aspects since I have it myself. I don't need you to remind me thanks. What does the "relapsing" part suggest to you? Do you think the relapses and remissions happen spontaneously for no reason, or do they have triggers? If they have causes, have you ever tried or succeeded in identifying any of the triggers yourself?


"One of the recurring themes in ME is that we don't seem to be allowed to call a spade a spade. If something looks like bobbins in the world of ME it probably is, and then some!"
Of course you're allowed to call it a spade if that's what you see. Others are allowed to call it as they see it too. Most people have called this one as bobbins, nobody stopped them. But it seems that you want a unanimous verdict, you want to be allowed to call it a spade and not have any contrary response made to that.


"...that's a million miles away from suggesting some "super food" can rehabilitate..."
Again, nobody has suggested this and I am not doing so. All anybody's said is that the right kind of chocolate can have positive effects for many of us. That will be all the anti-inflammatories and anti-oxidants and flavinoids and so forth, presumably. I think we can all agree that it's not a huge surpriseif naturally-occurring anti-inflammatories are helpful against an illness characterised by chronic inflammation.Nobody mentioned rehabilitation though.

"Are people bedbound because they've got a food intolerance(s)? The resounding answer, re M.E. is no, we know this from decades of study and clinical observation."
Correct, but again, nobody was arguing they were.

"If the answer was as simple as giving pwME a bunch of plant antioxidants we wouldn't need WPI and probably wouldn't be here having this discussion. "
And nobody was saying that chocolate or plant antioxidants are "the answer" either.


This goes for most if not everyone with ME -- I use bedbound because some of the people in this study IIRC, were reportedly severely affected. I can gaurentee you that "severe" cases in the these sort of studies always turn out to have few, undistinguished symptoms and signs and better match severe "fatigue".
I think these people were all Fukuda criteria. Even if they weren't severe enough to include the group of patients you consider to define "ME", these other Fukuda patients do NOT just have "fatigue", and every one of us knows how disgraceful that insult is so there's no excuse for levelling it at other patients because you guess they aren't as sick as you.


If these researchers were serious about ME they'd know about food intolerances and probably be looking in the first instance at supplementation rather that whole chocolate. But then that wouldn't shift boxes of chocolate.
You've checked, presumably, to see what else these researchers have been looking at previously and what angle they really are coming at this from? Are they ME/CFS researchers, chocolate researchers, nutritionists, or a mixture? If they are just nutritionists, is the idea that nutritionists ought not to research ME/CFS?

ETA: Also I don't see what is so much more noble about shifting boxes of supplements or shifting packets of pills than shifting boxes of chocolates. The fact of being dieticians might suggest why their focus is on foods rather than supplements. And there is plenty of reason to suspect that natural foods that we've evolved alongside might be a preferable way to fix dietary deficiencies than breaking down all the consituent ingredients of foods, trying to work out which ones are giving the most benefits, re-mixing and re-manufacturing the ones you want, making them available in pill form, and hoping the result is still as bio-available as the natural food was in the first place. I reckon they must have had some clue about food intolerances as well, or they wouldn't have managed to get a mix out of Nestle that the test subjects could tolerate. btw the negative effect of the white chocolate is most probably lactose intolerance I suppose.


No it's not really a positive contribution, because at best all this will do is galvanise study in micromanagement through diet rather than bring in the heavy hitters (immunotherapy, virology, neurology, cytopathology, cardiology etc) that are depserately needed to get to the root of the disease and understand it's many complicated sequelae.
I think you see it as an either/or though: a programme of study exploring micromanagement through diet does not have to stop all those other heavy hitters getting involved in ME/CFS research. And actually, it's not all just about micromanagement at all, as I've tried really quite hard to explain, it's also about getting clues that help you understand the nature of the condition.


And there's no doubt that it will have contributed to the trivialisation of ME as "CFS", the "chronic tiredness" illness in the UK, and helped put off more serious research.
There is ample doubt as far as I'm concerned. I really doubt that a tiny study like this one has the power to trivialise anything, and I don't think that more heavyweight research is less likely to happen as a result of this study taking place. If some people do see the whole thing as trivial - and I honestly think the reason people are doing that is because of this weird giggly reaction to the word "chocolate" some people have - then that's a great shame but that doesn't mean that nutrition or dietetics or the medicinal properties of chocolate are trivial issues.


As I say no other serious diseases are treated like this.
Of course we are treated differently to other serious diseases and that's scandalous. And indeed other serious diseases get vastly more serious research than us (it would be hard not to). For example, they get vastly more nutritional research...

Google Search: Nutrition Journal AIDS: 308,000 results:
Google Search: Nutrition Journal AIDS Chocolate: 69,000 results:
Google Search: Nutrition Journal CFS Chocolate: 5,000 results:

In this latter search of course, reports about this particular study dominate the first page at least. And in there, I'll concede, there is one rotten interpretation of the news as "Chocolate for Treating CFS" from about.com. All the other links have it reasonably right though: "may ease symptoms".

Just google around nutritional research, chocolate, and serious medical conditions and there is masses of serious research into nutrition and serious medical conditions...just one more I'll pick out now:

http://www.ajcn.org/content/88/1/58.abstract

Just interesting to me really because they are recommending acute ingestion of dark chocolate and liquid cocoa for overweight adults - improved endothelial function and lowered blood pressure - especially in sugar-free chocolate preparations - so it echoes my earlier points about how muddled the popular conception of chocolate as a supposedly 'bad', 'naughty', 'fattening' food really is - dark chocolate is found here to be beneficial for overweight adults!!


Then of course I surely don't need to list the social consequences of this "news".
I'm afraid I don't really know what you mean but if you mean that people are going to read this and start suggesting to dark chocolate to people with ME/CFS, maybe buy them bars of dark chocolate for Christmas, then that's all to the good for those who can tolerate it and don't get the migraine reaction because dark chocolate can ease some of the symptoms of ME/CFS, and to me that seems like a good thing for people to know - although personally, I knew it already purely from my own experience, though it took me more than a decade to get to a chocolate that didn't worsen my condition due to the soya sensitivity effect, and I also knew that it's very hard to find stuff free from soy lecithin and I need something using sunflower lecithin.

ANd I'd rather this stuff wasn't promoted by repeating it or "marvelling" at it like the MEA have done. Not every bit of junk is news worthy.
And the MEA didn't 'marvel' at it whatsoever!

The story was in the Daily Telegraph (and doubtless in other papers too). The MEA posted the story verbatim on their site, just as I'm sure many other ME sites have done. And then there are (currently) 5 posts about it on that page, all of them critical.

Remind yourself of the MEA link here please:
http://www.meassociation.org.uk/?p=3075
and then feel free to explain which bit is "marvelling" at the study...if you can't find one, please ponder the accuracy or otherwise of your characterisation of the MEA there.


The other point I would make is that if it's so hard to find/source "good" chocolate then that's another reason why it's not such a great idea. And I'm sorry but saying very sick people should go on some ridiculous psuedo spiritual mythic quest to find the rarest most hard to get "perfect" chocolate just *in case* it has some miraculous result is daft. Some people don't even like chocolate! The argument that food intolerances are just due to the wrong variety is nonsense also.
Wow! So if it can be hard to track down a good source then it's not a good idea to try. And just because somebody is urging you that they've found something they think might ease your symptoms, based on their 15-year experience, isn't a good reason to try it. Much better to re-characterise the claimed easing of symptoms as a claim to a "miraculous result", ignore their attempt to save you the trouble of the long and difficult process they went through before figuring out the complex answers, take the opportunity to sound off about a "pseudo spiritual mythic quest" (WTF??!!), call it all nonsense, and carry on waiting for the government to save you.

You seem to know so much more about all this through not trying than I learned through long and expensive years of frustrating experimentation, I don't know why I bothered. Still, at least I no longer sleep 14 hours a day, and the pain is no longer unrelenting, so I guess it wasn't a total waste.


It would make much more sense, to put research money into looking at the already identified detox pathway problems with glutathione, B12 etc before looking at superfoods. After you've looked at the fundamental and all important immune, metabolic and neurological problems of course.
There's a long list of overdue research backed up there, as we all know. Suggest you email the nutritionists and explain why they shouldn't expand on their research into ME/CFS until all this other stuff has been done. Explain that ME/CFS patients aren't interested in "relieving their symptoms" (pah!) - they want a total cure or nothing, and they should wait until ME/CFS has been solved and cured before exploring how the symptoms can be relieved.

As you know, all that stuff about detox pathway problems, glutathione and B12 isn't accepted by the UK health authorities, and you can't get treatment that way on the NHS. I presume you've tried Dr Myhill though, since she treats ME/CFS based on all that science? Now that year really did see miraculous results, for me. Being able to eat chocolate again is trivial in comparison (although as a tool to stave off depression I'm glad it's back in my armoury), but I've long known that it helps take the edge off most of the problems I'm still left with, so whatever anybody else thinks, I still think it's very nice to see the effect confirmed in research.
 

eric_s

Senior Member
Messages
1,925
Likes
75
Location
Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
What bothers me a bit is that in other illnesses you have a treatment that will seriously change the illness. And then, you might add things like chocolate etc. to help in addition.
We, on the other hand, don't have anything that really works and adresses the main problem yet. At least not something that is really proven, Ampligen and ARVs might be it, we will hopefully see rather soon.
So it just made me angry that things like that should satisfy us. It certainly does not, it's the same untolerable situation we've had for too long. Tens or hundreds of leads you can pursue, if you like and can afford it, but that probably won't help at all or won't help much. So i for myself more or less right from the start decided that this does not make sense for me, because the effort to go to places and try those sorts of things would deteriorate me more than i'd probably benefit.
Of course that's no reason not to publish that study, this is just not the really big thing that we need.
In other illnesses you try to fix the problem and only if that's not possbile you will only try to suppress the symptoms. That's why i always liked the CAA. Their website clearly says "it's our goal to conquer CFS", " to conquer", not "to make a bit more tolerable".
 

eric_s

Senior Member
Messages
1,925
Likes
75
Location
Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
Probably it also depends on what type of PWC you are. I don't have neither pain nor depression (of course i'm not always happy, but i'd have to be crazy to be:Green hat:). I have some headache every now and then, like right now for example, but usually i exactly know why that is, i get it the day after pushing myself too hard. On those days i especially love it, if somebody then tells me it's the weather... as i never have it, when i stay at home...
So that sort of thing is really not what i need. For others it might be much different.
 

Cort

Phoenix Rising Founder
Messages
7,361
Likes
2,068
Location
Arizona in winter & W. North America otherwise
I couldn't get through all this thread but about a year ago I was very pleased to find good dark choc (love Green:Black) did give me a nice little boost. I tried different kinds - getting as dark a chocolate and as little sugar as possible. I think over time I could have become a dark chocolate connosieur -spending outrageous amounts of money (if I had it) on the best stuff - but alas, as with anything that has caffeine in it, it eventually triggered IBS symptoms....It was fun while it lasted :)

I think of CFS treatment as more doing alot of the right little things than finding the one big thing.....every little bit helps - maybe alot of little bits do end up -slowly - with a big bit.
 

IamME

Too sick for an identity
Messages
110
Likes
6
And I'm not sure why you would say there's little likelihood of consuming soya unless you're experimenting with diet, because soya is in absolutely masses of stuff; eliminating soya eliminated more than half the stuff left in the shops that I could safely eat. Pretty much all the veggie products I was eating had to go.
As I think I said, if someone is careful enough to care about food intolerances they're probably already reading labels and experimenting already. If they're reacting to something so small in quantity it's a contamination then that's probably an allergy rather than a food intolerance, which is dose-dependant.

"Then you say the research is based on a false premise that we've just gotten a bit toxic. What? Where is that coming from? Unless it's in the paper and I missed it, it sounds like that's just your guess at what they were theorising."

Well they were theorising that the polyphenols are antioxidants and we have high oxidative stress. If they have some other theory they should probaby say it. I don't think you can get money for a study without some sort of theory or hypothethis.


Regarding research into the effects of different foods on other serious illnesses, it took me about 10 seconds to find this one in a PubMed search on "AIDS chocolate":
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1367748

Probably because you're the only person other than the researcher who would put together AIDS and chocolate in the same sentence... People don't get diagnosed with AIDS and fasttracked onto chocolate by the NHS, in otherwords, this is fringe stuff, which is around twenty years in a queue behind behind antiretrovirals etc, as it should be. This probably amounts to, oh, 0.00000001% of AIDS research budget.


" "A sodium hydroxide extract from cacao husk inhibited the cytopathic effect of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) against HTLV-1-transformed T-cell lines MT-2 and MT-4. It also inhibited syncytium formation between HIV-infected and uninfected lymphoblastoid T-cell line, MOLT-4."

How will that do? Is anybody feeling any less singled out and trivialised by chocolate research yet?"

No and I'm not convinced by that research, if immunologists en masse start stuffing mars bars into capsule casings for AIDs sufferers to take along with the rest of their case I'll reconsider it. Extracting sodium hydroxide from the cacao husk sounds a bit different from normal edible chocolate anyway.

"The newspapers are full of "this food can protect against that" all the time!"

Most of it's hype and is aimed at the "healthy unwell" of people who eat too much salt or whatever. Hardly any of this super foods stuff has ever become a medical treatment. Tomato puree was a case in point, the researchers greatly exaggerating the benefits.

If I had AIDS I'd want antiretrovirals, not a Mars bar.

I have ME and I want antivirals, immune therapies, mito treatments etc.


"I almost feel like I could pretty much rest my whole case about how misguided the kneejerk reaction against this study"

I could rest my whole case on your admitted vested interest and the effort you put into defending this . Who gives a fig about sodding chocolate, this is an ME forum. I'm sure you're right and all that the subject is hard done by and yes, chocolate can make you feel good (but not vanish disability), but there are a million good causes out there,t he one we're interested is in ME.


"And nobody was saying that chocolate or plant antioxidants are "the answer" either."

You seem to be spending an awful amount of energy and enthusiasm on defending somethign that isn't then.


"I think these people were all Fukuda criteria. Even if they weren't severe enough to include the group of patients you consider to define "ME", these other Fukuda patients do NOT just have "fatigue", and every one of us knows how disgraceful that insult is so there's no excuse for levelling it at other patients because you guess they aren't as sick as you."

I'm not guessing anythign, the hard fact is if a single quite common foodstuff got them out of bed and back to work they don't have something as serious and chronic as I or any other pwME does. I'm the one whose being caused offense everytime someone suggests diet/pacing/CBT/GET/LP should do so. If their health is now so great they shouldn't have the temerity to be "insulted" by the very outcome that they're claiming and the irrationality of the claim ("ME as good as cured by chocolate"). The history of ME is replete with such "recovereds" going on to attack the remaining sick -- hopefully these people won't be alike but I don't owe them anything and won't feel grateful if they get all evangelical about their road to damascus on the TV or radio.

"I think you see it as an either/or though: a programme of study exploring micromanagement through diet does not have to stop all those other heavy hitters getting involved in ME/CFS research."

ANd the CBT therapists claim the same thing... The fact is all this stuff feeds back into the perception of what ME is, what it's like and what they should be looking at.

"dark chocolate is found here to be beneficial for overweight adults!!"

Sorry but I couldn't give a damn about the "healthy unwell"'s problems and the media's hysterical tub-thumping over them.


"I'm afraid I don't really know what you mean but if you mean that people are going to read this and start suggesting to dark chocolate to people with ME/CFS, maybe buy them bars of dark chocolate for Christmas, then that's all to the good for those who can tolerate it and don't get the migraine reaction"

But as you said yourself it's not as simple as that, people will buy the wrong kind, it'll have soya in it, the sufferers will get sicker, the buyers will get frustrated, etc. (BTW not just about migraine, many PWME have a bad reaction to most types of sugar even if it may be a temporary boost). Anyway surely people will have tried some dark chocolate themselves? CHocolate for energy is a no-brainer and dairy is not an unknown intolerance.


"feel free to explain which bit is "marvelling" at the study...if you can't find one, please ponder the accuracy or otherwise of your characterisation of the MEA there."

Have a look at the online magazine article Dr Shepherd wrote a while back (can't recall the name but it was mentioned on here), which started with mention of an ME death and ended with chocolate therapy. Unless the intent was to end on a ridiculous note that seems to be giving it far more parity than it deserves.


"Wow! So if it can be hard to track down a good source then it's not a good idea to try."

To be honest yes, I think sufferers have more pressing concerns with their limited abilities than searching for the holy grail of chocolate, and there are more well researched ME therapies to try first if they want to.

"call it all nonsense, and carry on waiting for the government to save you."

I didn't say anything about waiting on the govt. It's not a choice between choc and govt anymore than it's a choice between LP and the govt. There are a gazillion alternative treatments out there, I'm sure you must think some of them are pants yourself.


"You seem to know so much more about all this through not trying than I learned through long and expensive years of frustrating experimentation, I don't know why I bothered. Still, at least I no longer sleep 14 hours a day, and the pain is no longer unrelenting, so I guess it wasn't a total waste."

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I have just as much a right to be vociferously anti your opinion as you are to be pro- it. Many sufferers have had to see a plethora of treatments, cures and suggestions being pushed just a little bit too evangelically a common theme being the promoter feels he can save pwME, and won't take no for an answer. Like eric_s I get annoyed when these "leftfield" ideas that distract and distort the picture of the illness and steal oxygen from the more substantial, if limited, eveidence for existing biomedical (eg mitochondrial) therapies and research

"Not trying" makes you sound uncomfortably like the evangelical types attacking I mentioned above. I already said migraine and sugar made chocolate difficult for me (but I still try sometimes ;) so not sure what you want. But if I had discovered chocolate helpful I doubt I'd publicise it much given the associations and inferences the public/media/GPs would damagingly infer from it.


"they want a total cure or nothing, and they should wait until ME/CFS has been solved and cured before exploring how the symptoms can be relieved."

See above for my example re mitochondrial therapy for why that's a mischaracterisation of what I'm saying. But maybe you should email them and tell them you agree patients are too unresourceful to try a bar of dark chocolate without it being researched first ;)

"As you know, all that stuff about detox pathway problems, glutathione and B12 isn't accepted by the UK health authorities, and you can't get treatment that way on the NHS. I presume you've tried Dr Myhill though, since she treats ME/CFS based on all that science? Now that year really did see miraculous results, for me. Being able to eat chocolate again is trivial in comparison (although as a tool to stave off depression I'm glad it's back in my armoury), but I've long known that it helps take the edge off most of the problems I'm still left with, so whatever anybody else thinks, I still think it's very nice to see the effect confirmed in research.[/QUOTE]

Well that's great I just think it's not a priority for research and given the severely unfavourable comparisons made with ME, it WILL strengthen already extant notions of ME being a bit lightweight or fake or just about severe tiredness. As you say yourself chocolate is trivial in comparison so lets promote the most effective, most medical, stuff first, no?
 

WillowJ

คภภเє ɠรค๓թєl
Messages
4,940
Likes
4,830
Location
WA, USA
I don't want to take the thread off topic, but can somebody quickly answer that question? Those people with ME/CFS that have food intolerances, did they usually already have them before developping ME/CFS or did those intolerances only come after the onset?

Luckily, i don't have any of that, i think. Sometimes when i eat something hot, my nose gets a little bit runny, but it does not happen with a specific type of food only. And at the beginning of my CFS i sometimes had digestion problems but that stopped by itself later, as i improved over time, and there also it seemed to occur totally randomly. I don't have any known allergies whatsoever.
Canadian diagnostic criteria list getting new sensitivities to foods (or other things) as a feature of ME/CFS. I had a few sensitivities previously, but many more sensitivities and more types of reactions since.

Runny nose with hot food is not considered a sensitivity, just normal (as far as I know).

Digestion problems occurring totally randomly can be IBS or a tricky sensitivity... sensitivity issues can occur up to 3 days later and it can be hard to pin down. Or, if a problem food something you are having all the time, it can also be hard to identify. Fructose issues are also hard to identify (because the related foods are not logically connected and it's dose-dependent, so apple can not bother you one time but bother you the next).

But I'm glad your digestion issues smoothed out. It's much simpler not to have a bunch of intolerances to deal with.
 

WillowJ

คภภเє ɠรค๓թєl
Messages
4,940
Likes
4,830
Location
WA, USA
as far as migraine, happily chocolate isn't a trigger for that for me. Pretty sure it's on my doctor's "foods that can potentially trigger migraine" list, though (if only for the caffeine, which can either trigger or help fight a migraine).

I do have to watch for soy (a little lecithin is ok), and the kinds that don't list chocolate liquor separately are generally better (not sure why). I try to buy from a brand I believe to be using fair practices in source countries, when possible. This isn't restricted to those with a "Fair Trade" label.
 

Glynis Steele

Senior Member
Messages
404
Likes
95
Location
Newcastle upon Tyne UK
I found this study on pubmed, it is however, from Nestle.

Glynis

Metabolic effects of dark chocolate consumption on energy, gut microbiota, and stress-related metabolism in free-living subjects.
Martin FP, Rezzi S, Per-Trepat E, Kamlage B, Collino S, Leibold E, Kastler J, Rein D, Fay LB, Kochhar S.

Nestle Research Center, Vers-chez-les-Blanc, CH-1000 Lausanne 26, Switzerland.

Abstract
Dietary preferences influence basal human metabolism and gut microbiome activity that in turn may have long-term health consequences. The present study reports the metabolic responses of free living subjects to a daily consumption of 40 g of dark chocolate for up to 14 days. A clinical trial was performed on a population of 30 human subjects, who were classified in low and high anxiety traits using validated psychological questionnaires. Biological fluids (urine and blood plasma) were collected during 3 test days at the beginning, midtime and at the end of a 2 week study. NMR and MS-based metabonomics were employed to study global changes in metabolism due to the chocolate consumption. Human subjects with higher anxiety trait showed a distinct metabolic profile indicative of a different energy homeostasis (lactate, citrate, succinate, trans-aconitate, urea, proline), hormonal metabolism (adrenaline, DOPA, 3-methoxy-tyrosine) and gut microbial activity (methylamines, p-cresol sulfate, hippurate). Dark chocolate reduced the urinary excretion of the stress hormone cortisol and catecholamines and partially normalized stress-related differences in energy metabolism (glycine, citrate, trans-aconitate, proline, beta-alanine) and gut microbial activities (hippurate and p-cresol sulfate). The study provides strong evidence that a daily consumption of 40 g of dark chocolate during a period of 2 weeks is sufficient to modify the metabolism of free living and healthy human subjects, as per variation of both host and gut microbial metabolism.
 

maryb

iherb code TAK122
Messages
3,597
Likes
3,109
Location
UK
eric - I could eat anything and everything before getting ME, not only that but in great quantities, I loved food. I suffered with migraines on and off before getting ill but just used to limit chocolate and cheese if under any stress or over-tired.
Since becoming ill the world of food intolerances has opened up a new chapter for me, awfully small window of foods I can eat, I don't just get digestion problems I become very ill, eating a strawberry made one of my eyelids droop for 3 days, one small piece of chocolate put me in bed for a day and so on............
Friends say to me how can you stand missing out on all the lovely foods, easy really when you have a choice of staying as you are or risking becoming worse. So no chocolate - no way.
 

carolwxyz99

Senior Member
Messages
114
Likes
25
I can't have most types of chocolate becuase of the sugar and intolerances.

However Sarah Myhill suggested to me to have coconut oil and lecithin daily for brain food. And she suggested mixing the cocounut oil with cocoa powder - its delicious - can do 2 things in one. I add a bit of xylitol as a sweetener. Its possible to get Green & Blacks cocoa powder.

I also whizz up some banana, coconut milk and cocoa to make icecream another delicious way to have chocolate.

For anyone in the UK with sugar and food intolerances like me, I have found this website with some healthy chocolate recipes. All dairy, gluten and sugar free.

http://www.sweetsensations.uk.com/index.html