Dark chocolate has been "proven" to increase the performance of (amateur) athletes competing in endurance sports.

Some sources:

What all these articles have in common is:

They are all based on the same study, from Kingston University. The study went on for only four weeks, and there were only 9 cyclists that were part of the study.

I don't doubt that the scientist at Kingston made these observations, and that the athletes did in fact perform better. However, there are many outside factors that could influence these results, and the margins of errors seems to be very high.

Has this study ever been confirmed by any other scientists? I can't find any references verifying the study, only loads of articles saying "Eat dark chocolate!"

  • 3
    It's not banned which makes me think it's not more effective than other food groups en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drugs_banned_by_WADA – daniel Sep 15 '17 at 9:07
  • I wonder if dark chocolate is more or less effective than coffee... theobromine is similar to caffeine I guess – GEdgar Sep 15 '17 at 13:00
  • Psychosomatic effects? :) – user5341 Sep 15 '17 at 13:31
  • 1
    Certain varieties of chocolate apparently contain significant amounts of D-ribose, a sugar which is critical to the function of muscle. Most people do not need supplemental D-ribose, but a few have the genetic disorder myoadenylate deaminase deficiency (MADD) and benefit from extra D-ribose in their diets. However, it's unlikely a person with MADD would become an "athlete", even an amateur one. – Daniel R Hicks Sep 16 '17 at 2:32

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .