“Comments such as ‘The association of diet with acne has traditionally been relegated to the category of myth’ are commonplace in both the past and current literature… the major textbooks of dermatology promulgate the notion that diet and acne are unrelated, yet rely only on 2 primary references”-those two flawed studies.

Textbooks were revised to reflect this new academic consensus, and dermatologists took the stance that any mumblings about the association between diet and acne were unscientific and one of the many myths surrounding this ubiquitous disease.” Nevertheless, these two studies, despite their “major design flaws, were sufficient to dissociate diet from acne in the minds of most dermatologists. However, there was no control group for comparison.

During the 1960s, however, the diet–acne connection fell out of favor.” Why? Because of a study that purportedly “‘ proved ’ that chocolate had no influence on acne by comparing a chocolate bar to a pseudo chocolate bar composed of 28% hydrogenated vegetable oil, a food known to increase inflammatory markers.” It’s no wonder real chocolate didn’t come out looking so bad when compared to that pure trans-fat-laden fake chocolate.Īs well, in another study, small groups of medical students ate a variety of purported acne-causing culprits, and only about a third broke out. Is the link between chocolate and acne due to the sugar, the milk, or the cocoa in chocolate? Researchers put white chocolate, dark chocolate, baking chocolate, and cocoa powder to the test to find out.Ī century ago, “diet was commonly used as an adjunct treatment for acne.

Now unflavored gelatin powder