Sign up FAST! Login

When Teams Lose, Fans Tackle Fatty Foods


Stashed in: Football, Awesome, Fat!, Psychology!, Football, Psychology, Health Studies

To save this post, select a stash from drop-down menu or type in a new one:

Good to know that SCIENCE confirms what we all know: when a sports team loses, their fans tend to seek solace in fatty foods! Nice that they used French people as a control group.

Yikes.

The researchers found that the greatest divide in calorie and total fat consumption between winners and losers was on Mondays. By Tuesday, the fans’ eating habits paralleled the control groups. Moving past the letdown, they’re getting pumped up for the next week’s game.

Previous studies have linked sports defeats to spikes in alcohol-related crimes, domestic violence and heart attacks, but this was the first to analyze the effects on fatty food consumption. The findings were published last month in the journal Psychological Science.

When my team loses, I usually splurge on iTunes or Amazon. I buy books to forget.  Something about the purchase helps trigger endorphins or something to counter act the temporary onset of depression.

Roughly the same thing though... self-control suffers.

What's wrong with eating fat?

Haha, that article didn't answer my question, Geege: 

"What's wrong with eating fat?" 

The author did speculate about what's wrong with being fat and how did we get there.  And his points hit a couple of my hot buttons...all in a good way.  

It got me stretching into a lengthy riposte.  Maybe I'll post it later.

According this this report, Rob, low-fat diets lead to the growth of longer telomeres, and who doesn't want longer telomeres?

http://www.pcrm.org/health/medNews/low-fat-plant-based-diet-may-slow-aging?

OK, I have to disagree with the way you present the report.  The study you cite was not designed to produce scientific facts of causality, "low-fat diets lead to the growth of longer telomeres", nor was it a study about low fat diets.  

After reading the abstract we can agree it was a descriptive pilot study, titled,"Effect of comprehensive lifestyle changes on telomerase activity and telomere length in men with biopsy-proven low-risk prostate cancer: 5-year follow-up of a descriptive pilot study".

In well-designed research studies, "descriptive" studies can only establish plausible associations between several variables. It takes rigorously designed experiments to establish causality of a single variable, as from the above study abstract:

“We previously found an association between 3 months of comprehensive lifestyle changes and increased telomerase activity in human immune-system cells. We followed up participants to investigate long-term effects.”

We don't even know if this was a well-designed study, and having Dr. Ornish on it doesn't impress us to greater faith in their quality of study methods or lacking an intended bias for using the results.  But we do know that by research category it was not designed to establish causality and it was not focused on one variable, but several "comprehensive lifestyle changes (diet, activity, stress management, and social support)", any of which alone or in combination, or even being absent because of other possible variables present and not studied, could have produced the longer telomeres.

Besides, it has also been studied that plant-based, low-fat diets produce smaller brains in humans over time.  And so if I had to presume a trade-off between a diet that produces a smarter and shorter-lived lifestyle or dumber and longer-lived one, well...I'm eating raw meat and high fat near every day, playing competitive sports, getting out often, taking profitable risks and having fun, reading wide and deep and consistently avoiding reality TV shows.

Perhaps all because I've been doubling down on the raw meat-eating, raw high-fat diet telomeres I've already cultivated for over a decade.  Don't know, but my blood panels, stress test fitness, cardiac health and bone density shows it's been working pretty darn well so far. Maybe I'll get my telomere lengths tested next time and see what they say, if it's not too expensive a test.

So I will propose to you and all others without reservation, 

"Eating more natural raw animal fats in the right historic Omega 3/6 ratio is better for you in every dimension than eating a low-fat, plant-based diet."

.... iIf you exercise strenuously and regularly.

No, it's tested better even if you sit on a couch and drift away entire seasons of the year in total languor--the raw high-fat diet makes you much better off in every way.

You May Also Like: