it is surprising, and a bit disheartening, to see the august New York Times promoting such mixtures, tasty as they might be, as intrinsically healthy. NYT: please stick to evidence-based reporting. You can do better than such undeclared "advertorials" for humbug healthcare.
30
Aren't there ethical or integrity concerns when a newspaper like the Times prints articles like this, which are basically ads for fad diets supported by pseudo-science or nothing at all? It's one thing to represent new age fad diets as a taste, religious or spiritual matter, but throwing in scientific-sounding gibberish like 'neurotransmitter-boosting properties' and 'adaptogenetic' isn't just silly, it's borderline misleading. This is just the "patent medicine" of our times. I'm not saying that the typical Times reader is naive enough to buy this tripe, but presenting what is essentially advertising copy for something so transparently bogus is ethnically questionable.
23
My god. It's a scam. Look at those prices. They are taking a buck or 2 of ingredients and putting it in "pretty" packaging, making completely dubious if not outright false health claims and marking it all up 20, 30, 40 times. And the Times is right there to prop it up with no criticality whatsoever.
25
"Superfood" is a psuedo-scientific term and has no real meaning in nutrition. Our diets are healthy or unhealthy based on the sum of what we eat, not on individual super-things. Anytime you see this term being used it means the person does not have an actual background in nutrition or more cynically they have a product they wish to sell. This is not too say the food is or is not healthy; it is just to say that the overall concept is bogus.
38
A new religion, a new god. Our bodies, ourselves, along with chocolate mixed with spinach and kale. Whoopee.
12
Interesting article. But there is no such thing as a sugar crash, proven with Harvard research.That is a myth. But these chocolates sound great.
5
As a calcium oxalate kidney stone former, recently I SADLY found out that chocolate contains a large amount of oxalate. One more thing on the "NO" list. Boohoo.
6
$8 for chocolate. Great, another food trend only the rich can afford.
20
No, it's not the 'new, healthier chocolate.' Nothing tops plain dark chocolate, preferably at leat 70% cacao, with almonds. A combo shown by medical researchers to benefit the cardiovascular system. This other stuff is right out of Food Fantasies 101.
26
Health food for the rich.
In as much as I can't stand Trump, sometimes I can see why he's appealing.
11
Ketogenic brown rice is mentioned as an ingredient in one of the protein mixes. It's supposed to be so healthful. Unfortunately brown rice generally has high levels of arsenic as do all types of rice.
17
Brown rice from India has far lower levels of arsenic than brown rice grown in the U.S.
6
Oh! Thanks for this chocolaty health article. I can't wait to try these products :)
5