Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
How do I have no sugar addicts in my office
magnusthenerd
Posts: 1,207 Member
So a fair amount of spare Halloween candy has been brought into my office and I've noticed a trend about what doesn't get eaten: Skittles and Starbursts are both seeing a much longer life span than say kit-kats, Snickers, or Hersheys.
It seems that if sugar addiction was more explanatory than just palatability, the Skittles and Starbursts, which are or almost are pure sugar with negligible fats and salt should be equal or most consumed, shouldn't they?
Anyone have an explanation for this office oddity in light of the the absolute, guaranteed, one hundred percent scientific fact that sugar is the same as cocaine in the brain light pictures?
It seems that if sugar addiction was more explanatory than just palatability, the Skittles and Starbursts, which are or almost are pure sugar with negligible fats and salt should be equal or most consumed, shouldn't they?
Anyone have an explanation for this office oddity in light of the the absolute, guaranteed, one hundred percent scientific fact that sugar is the same as cocaine in the brain light pictures?
22
Replies
-
I would say that your fellow office workers are not addicts.
3 -
They are chocolate addicts. My office has people with both addictions. The chocolate as well as the pure sugar candies you speak of were long gone a day or 2 after Halloween.5
-
Do you work with a bunch of females? Over time, the monthly cycles of women who spend a lot of time together start to sync up. If that’s the case, it would definitely explain why chocolate was the first to go🤔3
-
Vjmikesell wrote: »Do you work with a bunch of females? Over time, the monthly cycles of women who spend a lot of time together start to sync up. If that’s the case, it would definitely explain why chocolate was the first to go🤔
The Wellesley / McClintock Effect has generally been found to be statistical noise, and subsequent studies tend to be ambiguous at finding it at best: https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/14/3/579/632869
Even when it has been studied, I think it is in the context of women living together, not working together.
Though our office is slightly more men, which is surprising - an office that does software like ours would usually be overwhelmingly men.6 -
You probably also have a bunch of sugar packets in the break room that people don't compulsively eat. It isn't sugar, it is the taste. Skittles and Starburst aren't as tasty as most of the other Halloween candy (according to many/most people, including me).7
-
I prefer the chocolate too. For me, fat + sugar/carbs tastes way better than plain sugar alone (I eat some candy as my preworkout but only a very small portion, I have so much candy stored up from last Halloween). I am definitely not an addict, I'm actually a candy/dessert/food hoarder.
7 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »So a fair amount of spare Halloween candy has been brought into my office and I've noticed a trend about what doesn't get eaten: Skittles and Starbursts are both seeing a much longer life span than say kit-kats, Snickers, or Hersheys.
It seems that if sugar addiction was more explanatory than just palatability, the Skittles and Starbursts, which are or almost are pure sugar with negligible fats and salt should be equal or most consumed, shouldn't they?
Anyone have an explanation for this office oddity in light of the the absolute, guaranteed, one hundred percent scientific fact that sugar is the same as cocaine in the brain light pictures?
For those who missed it, the bolded was tongue in cheek.9 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »Vjmikesell wrote: »Do you work with a bunch of females? Over time, the monthly cycles of women who spend a lot of time together start to sync up. If that’s the case, it would definitely explain why chocolate was the first to go🤔
The Wellesley / McClintock Effect has generally been found to be statistical noise, and subsequent studies tend to be ambiguous at finding it at best: https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/14/3/579/632869
Even when it has been studied, I think it is in the context of women living together, not working together.
Though our office is slightly more men, which is surprising - an office that does software like ours would usually be overwhelmingly men.
I can't speak to studies done on it but my n=1 leads me to ask whether you have sisters. lol
6 -
Vjmikesell wrote: »Do you work with a bunch of females? Over time, the monthly cycles of women who spend a lot of time together start to sync up. If that’s the case, it would definitely explain why chocolate was the first to go🤔
I have done some googling on this before and everything I read said this isn't really true lol. And I have a sister.2 -
I may be the odd one but I think I would eat the starbursts over the chocolate. I don't care for kit kats and snickers etc. I'm a dark chocolate kind of person.4
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Vjmikesell wrote: »Do you work with a bunch of females? Over time, the monthly cycles of women who spend a lot of time together start to sync up. If that’s the case, it would definitely explain why chocolate was the first to go🤔
The Wellesley / McClintock Effect has generally been found to be statistical noise, and subsequent studies tend to be ambiguous at finding it at best: https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/14/3/579/632869
Even when it has been studied, I think it is in the context of women living together, not working together.
Though our office is slightly more men, which is surprising - an office that does software like ours would usually be overwhelmingly men.
I can't speak to studies done on it but my n=1 leads me to ask whether you have sisters. lol
I'd be worried if you're keeping statistically accurate records of your sisters' menses, but I guess everyone needs a hobby.6 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Vjmikesell wrote: »Do you work with a bunch of females? Over time, the monthly cycles of women who spend a lot of time together start to sync up. If that’s the case, it would definitely explain why chocolate was the first to go🤔
The Wellesley / McClintock Effect has generally been found to be statistical noise, and subsequent studies tend to be ambiguous at finding it at best: https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/14/3/579/632869
Even when it has been studied, I think it is in the context of women living together, not working together.
Though our office is slightly more men, which is surprising - an office that does software like ours would usually be overwhelmingly men.
I can't speak to studies done on it but my n=1 leads me to ask whether you have sisters. lol
I'd be worried if you're keeping statistically accurate records of your sisters' menses, but I guess everyone needs a hobby.
Huh.... good sir, I didn't need to track my sisters. WE all knew when...7 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Vjmikesell wrote: »Do you work with a bunch of females? Over time, the monthly cycles of women who spend a lot of time together start to sync up. If that’s the case, it would definitely explain why chocolate was the first to go🤔
The Wellesley / McClintock Effect has generally been found to be statistical noise, and subsequent studies tend to be ambiguous at finding it at best: https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/14/3/579/632869
Even when it has been studied, I think it is in the context of women living together, not working together.
Though our office is slightly more men, which is surprising - an office that does software like ours would usually be overwhelmingly men.
I can't speak to studies done on it but my n=1 leads me to ask whether you have sisters. lol
I'd be worried if you're keeping statistically accurate records of your sisters' menses, but I guess everyone needs a hobby.
Haha! With my sisters, it's not so much need for a hobby as need for knowing when to stay with friends.
Dear internet, I'm not actually a character from Parks and Rec and I've never actually tracked this sort of thing but I do have really mean sisters.7 -
psychod787 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Vjmikesell wrote: »Do you work with a bunch of females? Over time, the monthly cycles of women who spend a lot of time together start to sync up. If that’s the case, it would definitely explain why chocolate was the first to go🤔
The Wellesley / McClintock Effect has generally been found to be statistical noise, and subsequent studies tend to be ambiguous at finding it at best: https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/14/3/579/632869
Even when it has been studied, I think it is in the context of women living together, not working together.
Though our office is slightly more men, which is surprising - an office that does software like ours would usually be overwhelmingly men.
I can't speak to studies done on it but my n=1 leads me to ask whether you have sisters. lol
I'd be worried if you're keeping statistically accurate records of your sisters' menses, but I guess everyone needs a hobby.
Huh.... good sir, I didn't need to track my sisters. WE all knew when...
Why pubs were invented.5 -
See, I get the joke, but that's actually part of how the Welsley effect seems genuine. If two people's cycles each have a 5 day menstrual window, then just having one day of overlap can look like the cycles are in sync.
It is kind of like the shared birthday problem. Take a class of 20 to 30 people and you probably have people that share a birthday, even though you'd normally want to think it is really rare for 1 out of 365 days to match. Except that's not how the statics work. The chance of someone not matching someone else keeps getting worse with more people, so 1 person 0 chance, 2 people 1-364/365, 3 people 1-364/365*364/365, 4 people 1-363/365*364/365*364/365, and so on.4 -
This thread has taken the most unexpected turn possible. Period.6
-
-
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »
I'm just "red" with envy that you came up with this topic...2 -
psychod787 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
I'm just "red" with envy that you came up with this topic...
Really? I'm a bit anemic on this topic.0 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
I'm just "red" with envy that you came up with this topic...
Really? I'm a bit anemic on this topic.
At least it doesn't have any pregnant pauses.3 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
I'm just "red" with envy that you came up with this topic...
Really? I'm a bit anemic on this topic.
At least it doesn't have any pregnant pauses.
Guess I am 37 going on 14....lol0 -
This thread is raising all kinds of red flags for me.
1 -
Perhaps your fellow co-workers are actually adults that find 'Skittles' and the like simply awful....0
-
Your data doesn't speak to addiction, but it shows that people have a preference for sugar when it's mixed with a lovely fat, such as cocoa butter. Throw in the a bit of cocoa and-- shazam-- all the pleasure centers firing at once!0
-
They're not addicted to sugar, they're addicted to love:
https://scepticalprophet.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/chocolate-artificial-love/
And even more compelling evidence:
https://youtu.be/XcATvu5f9vE 5 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »Your data doesn't speak to addiction, but it shows that people have a preference for sugar when it's mixed with a lovely fat, such as cocoa butter. Throw in the a bit of cocoa and-- shazam-- all the pleasure centers firing at once!
It indicates the issue is not specifically sugar.4 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »Your data doesn't speak to addiction, but it shows that people have a preference for sugar when it's mixed with a lovely fat, such as cocoa butter. Throw in the a bit of cocoa and-- shazam-- all the pleasure centers firing at once!
It indicates the issue is not specifically sugar.
Agreed. It also indicates that it is an issue of food preference, not addiction.3 -
notapilgrim wrote: »They're not addicted to sugar, they're addicted to love:
https://scepticalprophet.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/chocolate-artificial-love/
And even more compelling evidence:https://youtu.be/XcATvu5f9vE
On a related note, I have long maintained that he did, in fact, mean to turn me on.2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »Your data doesn't speak to addiction, but it shows that people have a preference for sugar when it's mixed with a lovely fat, such as cocoa butter. Throw in the a bit of cocoa and-- shazam-- all the pleasure centers firing at once!
It indicates the issue is not specifically sugar.
Agreed. It also indicates that it is an issue of food preference, not addiction.
Does it? Why would you think this?
I would imagine we have all known people who smoke right? Does every smoker you know compulsively choose to have a cigarette every time they see a pack of cigarettes or see someone smoking?
What if they decide to bum a cigarette at a party? What does it indicate if someone who forgot their cigarettes chooses to decline a cigarette if someone offers them a menthol? Does it mean they are not addicted because they declined accepting a delivery method that they don't care for?
That's basically the argument you are making with your candy bowl analogy.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions