Halloween is coming up in a few short weeks, and while most of us are past the age of going trick-or-treating , this means that we stay home and pass out candy all night. When a cute little kid rings the doorbell and asks for a piece of candy, we gladly oblige, no questions asked. But what happens when a little guy like this gazes up at us, begging to be a part of the chocolaty filled action?

My dog

 Answer: We don’t acknowledge him. In fact, we don’t acknowledge any dog that wants chocolate. Chocolate KILLS, and here is why:

 What Makes Chocolate Fatal:

Chocolate contains theobromine , which is essentially a chemical found in the cacao plant that is used to derive cocoa beans used for making chocolate. Theobromine often draws comparisons to caffeine, and although while similar, theobromine works to a lesser extent in that regard. So enough with that. We want to know what makes chocolate so dangerous right? So here’s the answer: Like caffeine, theobromine stimulates the central nervous system as well as the cardiovascular system, all of which lead to a slightly higher level of blood pressure. Such effects are much more severe in dogs because they don’t metabolize theobromine as quickly, as the potential side effects of theobromine at toxic levels include but are not limited to diarrhea, vomiting, excessed panting, dehydration, rapid heart rate, and ultimately, death.

The Alternative:

Carob is be-knowingly a healthy substitute for chocolate and nearly as tasty. Carob is gleaned from the carob tree, and thanks to its Mediterranean disposition, Carob is ripe with sweet pulps that are synonymous to chocolate flavoring. Carob is free of theobromines, which make it a safe replacement that can be used to happily feed dogs without having to worry about any potential dangers.

Future Outlook:

Although there haven’t been many studies directly comparing Chocolate and Carob in regards to health benefits, I firmly believe that health-wise carob is the better choice than chocolate not only for dogs (obviously), but for humans as well. That would be my hypothesis, and to study this I would do a double blind placebo trial where the experimental and control groups would eat the same portion of each after a meal. Thanks to lousy intuition by medical conformation biases made evident from cigarette studies all the way to cancer tests, we know that such a trial is ethical because of the lack of accuracy predicted that results in any harm. Third variables are posed everywhere; from each person’s digestive system to the rate of metabolism to the prior meal eaten before the snack is consumed. Another key factor is while chocolate is loaded with caffeine which leads to increased blood pressure, caffeine is also known to be a quick resolution for headaches.

All in all, it is understood why chocolate is terrible for dogs and what the harmful effects could pose. However, after this blog post I’d really like to learn what it is called when something both positively and negatively affects a study (such as the pros and cons of caffeine mentioned above). I think this would be an intriguing concept to learn in class and to apply to future blog posts as well.