Chocolate contains chemicals which are nearly identical to caffeine (not quite, though). Caffeine is already known to increase blood flow in the brain. This shouldn't come as a surprise, really. What would be interesting would be a comparison between chocolate and coffee.

Chocolate contains sugar, your brain runs on sugar...

I'm no expert but... it seems sensible enough.

"Sadly for anyone who relishes objective science, the work has been funded by Mars.

Even more sadly, the research is being used to promote an actual product, taking it from the realms of science and straight into marketing."

Yep, same thing has been going on all over France for

a great deal of the past 5 years, now.

This is to the point some sarcastic paper, here, is usually

dedicating a whole articles section to the food study of the

week

(http://www.canardenchaine.fr, in case you want to know).

As long as authorities allow marketing to be actually

fueled by unofficial para-science, we'll see it ...

Wrap the Mars bar in tinfoil.

"Sadly for anyone who relishes objective science, the work has been funded by Mars."

I know of no objective reason why Earth should object to the objectivity or lack thereof, of Martian scientists.

Please refrain from planetism - good grief, gentlemen, surely Earthly racism is blight sufficient?!

Your argument:

1. Chocolate contains sugar

2. Brain runs on sugar

3. Therefore you agree : chocolate protects your brain.

OMGWTFBBQ: How on earth could you come to such a conclusion?

By this logic, you might as well consume sugar instead of chocolate or other goodies. I can assure you of this. You will not be more protected than any joe on the street from dementia.

Taken to the extreme and I grant you this is extreme, what you may find is you may develop all the complications of a high calorie diet - obesity, high insulin resistance maybe eventually diabetes et cetera.

You may say, "Ah, I forgot to mention a hidden premise". Fair enough then, what is it?

Could it be : whatever your brain runs on is neuroprotective?

Well think again: sugar is VITAL for brain survival, like 02. The issue in the article was does chocolate provide additional protection from events or pathology.

Consider this too: If I take out your pancreas and render you diabetic and you don't keep good sugar control ie your average blood sugar being higher than the average normal joe, what do you figure your odds are for cardiovascular events or strokes? You have MORE sugar in your system? Shouldn't that be better?

Plainly it is not this simple.

L2Logic. Go get a book and broaden your mind.

Wanna check up on what I wrote? Get any textbook on physiology and pathology.

Or trust me, I'm a Lvl 70 durid <--- definite argument from authority.

Lastly and unrelatedly, I will say this:

sugar and milk does not chocolate make.

Mars bars is chocolate? WTF???? Since when?

Mars bars = Milky bars = FTL

Lindt Dark Chocolate FTW

I say batter... Deep fried.