41–50 of 101 posts
From personal experience, every bite of chocolate provides me a moment of bliss and happiness. I think happiness is the real reason for improved brain function. I find myself most productive and most capable when I am happy.
Just as an FYI, I found a company recently that makes chocolate with zeor sugar, that's sweetened with Stevia: https://www.cocopolo.com/ I didn't like their dark chocolate, but their milk chocolate comes pretty close to regular milk chocolate.
Just as an FYI, I found a company recently that makes chocolate with zeor sugar, that's sweetened with Stevia: https://www.cocopolo.com/ I didn't like their dark chocolate, but their milk chocolate comes pretty close to regular milk chocolate.
What is this current obsession with stevia? It has a very strong, pretty much unpalatable taste that even strong espresso can't mask.
In the current zeitgeist, 'natural' is assumed to be better.
There is a radio program in the UK called More or Less, who''s (whom's?) motto is "Correlation is not causation". Admittedly, I have neither read the paper, nor did I fully understand the section on proving the direction of influence, but I can't help but feel this research makes pretty poor use of statistics and logic, however much I wish to believe the result. Is all nutritional research this bad?
>Is all nutritional research this bad?
From personal experience, every bite of chocolate provides me a moment of bliss and happiness. I think happiness is the real reason for improved brain function. I find myself most productive and most capable when I am happy.
That's called dopamine. The chocolate you eat probably has sugar in it (otherwise it tastes horrible; try raw cacao), and sugar is a drug associated w/ the release of dopamine in the brain.
> otherwise it tastes horrible; try raw cacao
I long for the day when these correlation-digging studies with absurd claims will stop. https://xkcd.com/882/
To pick one at random: "Flavonoids exert a multiplicity of neuroprotective actions within the brain, including a potential to protect neurons against injury induced by neurotoxins, an ability to suppress neuroinflammation, and the potential to promote memory, learning and cognitive function. These effects appear to be underpinned by two common processes . . ."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2593006/
Most of us enjoy eating the stuff so it's no surprise that chocolate as a flavonoid-containing substance gets special attention.
From personal experience, every bite of chocolate provides me a moment of bliss and happiness. I think happiness is the real reason for improved brain function. I find myself most productive and most capable when I am happy.
That's called dopamine. The chocolate you eat probably has sugar in it (otherwise it tastes horrible; try raw cacao), and sugar is a drug associated w/ the release of dopamine in the brain.
Every luxury food or drug tastes horrible until you've learnt to enjoy it. Remember your first beer or coffee? My guess is sugar would initially taste somewhat foul ('sickly sweet') if one was brought up without it.
EDIT: I'm not recommending that people start snorting or imbibing cocoa powder. However I think that if this were the only form of chocolate then one would quickly learn to enjoy it.
There is a radio program in the UK called More or Less, who''s (whom's?) motto is "Correlation is not causation". Admittedly, I have neither read the paper, nor did I fully understand the section on proving the direction of influence, but I can't help but feel this research makes pretty poor use of statistics and logic, however much I wish to believe the result. Is all nutritional research this bad?