SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a new study published online in the journal Appetite, researchers found that women's brains respond more to romantic cues on a full stomach than an empty one. The study explored brain circuitry in hungry versus satiated states among women who were past-dieters and those who had never dieted.
...
Specifically, the researchers looked at whether the brain's reward response to food differed significantly in women at risk for future obesity (historical dieters) versus those who had never dieted. All of the study participants were young, college-age women of normal weight.In that study, published in Obesity in 2014, the researchers found that the brains of women with a history of dieting responded more dramatically to positive food cues when fed as compared to women who had never dieted or who were currently dieting.
"In the fed state, historical dieters had a greater reaction in the reward regions than the other two groups to highly palatable food cues versus neutral or moderately palatable cues," she said. Highly palatable cues included foods like chocolate cake; neutral cues were things like carrots.
Ely said the data suggests historical dieters, who longitudinal studies have shown are more at risk for weight gain, may be predisposed by their brain reward circuitry to desire food more than people who have not dieted.
Taking a woman to dinner does seem to predispose her to romance.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 17 2015, @04:11AM
In the US, being well fed doesn't exactly mean wealth, thanks to a number of things, including welfare. But, historically, only a wealthy person could afford to be fat.
What woman, throughout all of history, has NOT been attracted to wealth?
Ka-ching!
Rich men have always had women throwing themselves under their feet.
I'm sure the study is cool, and maybe we've learned something that we didn't already know, but in general, this is old knowledge. In America, we are rediscoving ancient knowledge?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 17 2015, @04:33AM
It's new ancient knowledge. We have to test what works and what doesn't in 2015.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 17 2015, @05:52AM
Do you know what's amusing about that? Women aren't likely to appreciate a clinical analysis of their motivations and responses. There will be someone along soon, bemoaning the fact that this ancient knowledge might enable some men to exploit women. Maybe someone else will complain that women are being stereotyped. A women's libber will complain that women don't have enough money, which explains everything of course.
Or, maybe not. Soylent needs a larger membership to get a really good argument or discussion rolling.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 17 2015, @06:55AM
You can't exploit somebody who doesn't want to be exploited. Sure, every now and then you'll catch a naive person and they'll learn a lesson and never let themselves be exploited like that again, but anyone who keeps repeating the same things that cause them to be exploited and never tries to change anything - like, say, having a string of really shitty relationships/one-nighters with exploitative douchebags picked up at bars, and still goes to bars to pick up, knowing full well what the results will be - is at best acquiescing to exploitation.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 17 2015, @07:33AM
Meanwhile, there are millions of women (AND MEN) who want nothing other than to BE EXPLOITED!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeMFqkcPYcg [youtube.com]