Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

How do I have no sugar addicts in my office

magnusthenerdmagnusthenerd Posts: 867Member Member Posts: 867Member 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?
«1

Replies

  • snowflake954snowflake954 Posts: 4,120Member Member Posts: 4,120Member Member
    I would say that your fellow office workers are not addicts. ;)
  • Theoldguy1Theoldguy1 Posts: 597Member Member Posts: 597Member Member
    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.
  • VjmikesellVjmikesell Posts: 12Member Member Posts: 12Member Member
    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🤔
  • Carlos_421Carlos_421 Posts: 4,998Member Member Posts: 4,998Member Member
    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 :#
  • hesn92hesn92 Posts: 5,652Member Member Posts: 5,652Member Member
    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.
  • hesn92hesn92 Posts: 5,652Member Member Posts: 5,652Member Member
    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.
  • magnusthenerdmagnusthenerd Posts: 867Member Member Posts: 867Member Member
    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.
  • psychod787psychod787 Posts: 2,823Member, Premium Member Posts: 2,823Member, Premium Member
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    This thread has taken the most unexpected turn possible. Period.

    Yeah, it's a little padded....
  • Carlos_421Carlos_421 Posts: 4,998Member Member Posts: 4,998Member Member
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    This thread has taken the most unexpected turn possible. Period.

    That's just the flow of conversation.
  • psychod787psychod787 Posts: 2,823Member, Premium Member Posts: 2,823Member, Premium Member
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    This thread has taken the most unexpected turn possible. Period.

    That's just the flow of conversation.

    I'm just "red" with envy that you came up with this topic...
Sign In or Register to comment.