Can Chocolate Help You Win a Nobel Prize?

As a self-proclaimed research junkie, I love reading new studies that appear all the time.  One important thing that I try to keep in mind is to be critical of the claims stated and avoid jumping to conclusions.

One study that was recently published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine suggested that if you eat more chocolate, you are more likely to win a Nobel Prize.  The study looked at different countries and found that those consuming more chocolate had higher numbers of Nobel Prize winners.  While chocolate does have some beneficial health effects, I find it unlikely that was these benefits that caused the prize winner’s great accomplishments. 

This brings me to an important point – the difference between causation and correlation.  Causation means that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between two factors.  For example, it’s well known that coffee intake increases our perceived energy level. When someone has their morning fix, their energy increases, but if they miss their morning coffee, their energy is lower.  The change in coffee intake is directly responsible for changes in energy. 

A correlation, on the other hand, simply means that two factors are related in some way.  For example, there is a correlation between ice cream sales and rates of drowning.  Higher ice cream sales, more drowning cases; lower ice cream sales, less drowning cases.  Did the ice cream cause people to drown? Certainly not.  On hot days there is an increased likelihood that people will buy ice cream and an increased likelihood of going swimming where there is a risk of drowning. 

And now back to the case of smart people eating chocolate.  Is it fair to say that the chocolate made people smarter or could there be another factor that we need to consider? Maybe increased wealth allows for more indulgent food choices as well as the funds and tools to support prize-winning research advances.

Another example came up in my previous blog post “The Veggie Factor”. High levels of antioxidants in the blood are linked to lower rates of cancer, however, when people were given antioxidant supplements, the same effect could not be achieved.  It was found that blood levels of antioxidants were a marker for intake of vegetables and fruit.  Thus people who ate more veggies had lower rates of cancer, but the effect was not due to antioxidants alone. 

Next time to read a headline or news story about a new health study showing a relationship between some factor and a health outcome give it some critical thought.  Is it likely that the factor is directly causing the outcome or could it be a case of correlation?