Canadian Researchers Say Hard Thinking Leads To Big Meals 150
Anti-Globalism writes with an excerpt from a story at Ars Technica, according to which "a preliminary study from a group of researchers in Quebec suggest that working on a computer may have an additional impact on our waistlines: taxing mental effort appears to cause people to eat significantly more food, even though it doesn't burn many more calories than sitting around and relaxing. The publication, published in a journal called Psychosomatic Medicine, arose from a pilot study that the researchers were performing in order to determine whether a potential connection between mental effort and eating was worth following up on."
I am an exception (Score:5, Interesting)
Long hours computing causes me to forget food... and sleep... and water... and stretching... but interestingly, not sex! Perhaps there's a study I could take part in?
On the other hand, I'm a vegan, so maybe I'm immune. I don't ever crave cheese or animal fats, having not eaten any of either for many years.
perhaps (Score:4, Interesting)
Weight a minute! (Score:3, Interesting)
I am a _little_ from ideal weight because sometimes coding is mentally exhaustive that I don't feel like doing exercise. However, when stuck into a particular computer task which I want to get out of the way, I don't feel like eating and don't miss food, just need to have a (non soft drink) drink.
Re:Vindication (Score:1, Interesting)
two things have been known for a while now. The first is that the brain's energy usage is relatively constant regardless of the task. However, it has also been clear that severe mental activity can result in... greater energy consumption.
So you're saying we've known "A" but also "NOT A".
What?!
I read the article but it says that people who stress out thinking more eat more. Okay, how does that "break the impasse" described above?
I happen to believe that thinking hard- programming- writing- puzzle-solving for hours on end burns way more energy as opposed to sitting on your ass watching a sitcom. It just has to, right? Yeah it probably also involves some stress which may make you hungrier, although sometimes focused thought promotes meal-skipping when you get in that zone and lose track of time and thus skip meals...
Hard thinking may lead to big meals, but at least in the US, it seems casual thinking or not thinking at all leads to big meals too.
consistent (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems consistent with what I found happened to my body when I changed my eating habits. I now eat only fruit in the morning and after that I eat bread, but only when I feel a bit hungry. As soon as the hunger is over I stop eating. I do not get my 3 meals a day, it is more like 5 or 6 very small meals and one regular one for diner. I now fit the same jeans as 19 years ago (501, 31" / 34") and I feel better during the day; no more cravings.
I have got a hunch that eating small meals keeps one's insulin and glucose levels more constant than eating big meals.
Re:I am an exception (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Vindication (Score:3, Interesting)
Whether it's one day, or 5 days in the week, when I'm at work solving whatever problems show up on network/server/client side, I feel more hungry and eat something several times a day.
I'm much less hungry when I can relax during the day and don't have to sort out a chaos. In the past 3 weeks vacation I've eaten mostly 1 or 2 times a day and lost about 5 kgs. And I'm definitely eating a lot more healthy at work than in these weeks. I've also been a lot less active so that's no excuse either.
Anecdotal evidence... (Score:3, Interesting)
Depends on the person (Score:3, Interesting)
taxing mental effort appears to cause people to eat significantly more food, even though it doesn't burn many more calories than sitting around and relaxing.
For the average person mental tasks do not significantly increase the consumption of energy, however there is a correlation between IQ and amount of energy that can be brought to bear. Moreover, thinking dramatically increases the consumption of glucose by the brain, so feeling hungry after thinking might be a reasonable response from the body to request replenishment of basic sugars.
Tiny study (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Tiny study (Score:3, Interesting)
Wrong. You can state that "more research is needed". Then you write a new grant with n=20. In a decade or so, after a dozen papers, you might approach something like statistical significance. Then you can retire.
Re:Vindication (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember it's currently fashionably to regard sodium as "bad". With KCl or even more exotic salts being used as a replacement for NaCl...
Without knowing what food the people consumed, this study is not very valuable.
This is an issue with many dietary studies.
Together with the simple fact that measuring the "energy value" of food by burning it in pure oxygen is at best an approximation and at worst a complete fiction about what the human body will do with it. i.e. testing the same mass of glucose and cellulose in a calorimeter will give you the same results. But you'd get very different results from feeding them to a human (you probably wouldn't even get the same results if you used termites, which have bacterial symbiotes which enable the digestion of cellulose.)
Re:I am an exception (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Vindication (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I am an exception (Score:4, Interesting)
That's because being moderately fat used to be a healthy and attractive trait. So the geek stereotype was the opposite of that: the scrawny weakling.
These days being thin is suddenly fashionable, so the stereotype of the geek changed to be the converse of the new desirable trait.
Neither of these has anything to do with actual changes in geeks' or non-geeks' bodies. Just the whims of fashion.
Re:Big_Fat_bullshit! (Score:2, Interesting)
Coca Cola Zero is only 'unhealthy' when you drink about 2L of it in a day. Sweeteners cause diarrhea, but that's all.
Mind the tea too. Take bastard sugar instead of regular sugar. Normal sugar makes your insulin levels rise, which is going to result in more fat, but it takes two hours for the insulin to disappear, so you'll get hungry for more sugar, so your insulin levels are rising higher and higher, making you even more hungry for sugar, etc, etc. That is where the "Once I start eating [sugar food] I just can't stop" comes from. Bastard sugar stays in your blood for allmost the entire day, so you aren't getting even more hungry.
But that's not all... When you are drinking sugar than your kidney gets 'upset' from all the sugar and wants it 'cleaned', which means you'll get thirsty so you can 'wash it away' with water. But instead of drinking water, most people drink sugarwater (soda or tea with regular sugar), etc, etc.
Re:Vindication (Score:3, Interesting)
>Or maybe current ideas about "healthy eating" are incorrect in some ways.
Probably not... the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet [nih.gov] which forms the basis of current National Institutes of Health dietary guidelines has been shown to lower blood pressure, cut the risk of having a stroke by 18% and the risk of a heart attack by 24% over a period of 24 years.
The diet consists of lots of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and up to 2 servings of meat a day; dairy should be low-fat or non-fat. In other words, lots of vitamins, fiber, and complex carbs. Moderate protein content, low in fat and sodium.
What does your fad diet do for you?
Re:Vindication (Score:3, Interesting)
First, I want to say that I hope your brother made a full return to health and is doing well, and secondly, that I assume you are very proud of your father. Working people have been the backbone of all civilizations that ever amounted to anything.
But, you know, there are some 'cracks' in our system. I acquired a disease in Canada, from tainted blood, 15 years ago, and now that I have been back home in the States for 7 years, the virus went deadly on me. Through a bankruptcy of a company I worked for in Florida, and an extended period of serious unemployment in Upstate New York, I found myself having to shut down a new company of my own, in order to be clearly poor enough to qualify for Medical Assistance here in Minneapolis.
On the one hand, I am very grateful that the State has found a way to cover my chemotherapy. I'm indebted to them for that. But I should have been able to get some sort of affordable coverage AND continue to work. But that wasn't possible in NY, and furthermore, they wanted me to sue my ex-wife, who is 20 years separated, and the mother of my daughter, or NY State would turn me down. Which they did, twice. Minnesota, on the other hand, said my wife was in the clear as long as there was no joint property.
So, here I am, on very heavy chemo, living on $203 and $162 of food support, per month. It is tough, my friend, I kid you not. I am actually entitled to a payout, in a settlement of a class action, from the funds set up by the Canadian Red Cross, but need a lawyer to do the deal. I missed two payouts (the last being in 2004) already, due to my misreading of the days of qualification. I had thought it was from 1986 to 1990, but, in fact, it was from before 1986, or after 1990. I got my disease in the Vic, in Montreal, during 18 operations and 5 weeks in ICU, from December '92 to March '93.
The disease has been undetectable for four months now, but I still have 5 months of Interferon/Ribavirin to deal with yet. I consider myself very fortunate. But, in all honesty, I see room for improvement in the system, itself.