Neat Post on Stumptuous.com

No Snacks, no sweets, no seconds. Except on Days that start with S. Too simple for you? Simple is why it works. Look here for questions, introductions, support, success stories.

Moderators: Soprano, automatedeating

Post Reply
User avatar
Hunter Gatherer
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:30 am
Location: Texas

Neat Post on Stumptuous.com

Post by Hunter Gatherer » Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:26 am

This is back from December so forgive me if someone already posted this.

Artificial sweeteners not a “get out of bad habits free†card

But then, we knew that already, right? :wink:
"You've been reading about arctic explorers," I accused him. "If a man's starving he'll eat anything, but when he's just ordinarily hungry he doesn't want to clutter up his stomach with a lot of candy."
Dashiell Hammett

ShannahR
Posts: 314
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:51 pm

Post by ShannahR » Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:33 pm

Wow. That part of that that really got me was:

“[T]he absolute preference for taste sweetness may lead to a re-ordering in the hierarchy of potentially addictive stimuli, with sweetened diets. . . taking precedence over cocaine and possibly other drugs of abuse.â€

Digest that for a moment. Sweetness beats out coke.


Yikes :shock:

User avatar
reinhard
Site Admin
Posts: 5921
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:38 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA
Contact:

Post by reinhard » Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:22 pm

Thanks for the great link, HG. Nice to see some evidence for my intuition!
Digest that for a moment. Sweetness beats out coke
I guess that's why coke was able to get rid of the coke :-)

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola
Coca-Cola did once contain an estimated nine milligrams of cocaine per glass, but in 1903 it was removed.
Reinhard

User avatar
Hunter Gatherer
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:30 am
Location: Texas

Post by Hunter Gatherer » Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:26 am

I liked her comment
If we constantly hammer our taste buds with simplistic, blunt-instrument flavours, we don’t develop the ability to appreciate the subtler flavours that occur in the natural world.

The sad irony, of course, is that the natural-world flavours are infinitely more interesting. Developing sensitivity to real-world flavours actually makes you a more careful, nuanced eater who focuses on food quality, and ultimately enjoys food more. After all, be honest: have you really savoured the bouquet of cheezies? If you really focused on the scent and taste notes of Rock Star drink, or Twizzlers, you wouldn’t touch the $#!^ because you’d start to notice the waxy mouth feel or the chemical aftertaste. But if I handed you a $10 Godiva truffle, you’d certainly spend a little quality time with that bad boy before snarfing it down.
And I thought that it was funny that the authors of the paper referred to "limited tolerance for complex tastes" as your tastes being in an "infantile state." Probably a good description, but not very flattering.

I also thought it was cool that our taste-buds are so much more effective at picking out bitter than sweet.
"You've been reading about arctic explorers," I accused him. "If a man's starving he'll eat anything, but when he's just ordinarily hungry he doesn't want to clutter up his stomach with a lot of candy."
Dashiell Hammett

Post Reply