Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday August 17 2015, @04:02AM   Printer-friendly
from the hungry-for-love dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 17 2015, @05:52AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 17 2015, @05:52AM (#223779) Journal

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Flamebait=1, Funny=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 17 2015, @06:55AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 17 2015, @06:55AM (#223804)

    this ancient knowledge might enable some men to exploit women.

    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.