Submit your entries for the Science To Life Banner Contest!
Email your entries to sci2life@aol.com or I've always wondered if chocolate is really an aphrodisiac. So when I recently read a knowledgeable response to this question from author Anahad O'Connor I thought I'd share it with you.
He explains:
Most scientists believe that the aphrodisiac qualities of chocolate, if any, can be ascribed to several chemicals.
1.Tryptophan, a building block of serotonin, the brain chemical that creates feelings of pleasure, helps sooth pain and plays a role in sexual arousal.
2.Theobromine a chemical stimulant similar to caffeine but has a great ability to elevate mood.
3.Phenylethylamine, a chemical that is also released in the brain when people fall in love.
Despite the presence of these chemicals in chocolate the levels found in one serving may not be high enough to significantly increase sexual desire.
| | A study published in the journal Sexual Medicine in 2006, looked at a large sample of women and found no differences in the rates of sexual arousal or distress among those who regularly ate one serving of chocolate a day, those who had three or more, and those who generally ate none. |
While regular helpings of chocolate alone may not be enough to significantly increase sexual desire the simple act of eating chocolate is still a highly pleasurable experience (for me, at least) and maybe that is all it needs to be.
Taken from the book Never Shower in a Thunderstorm by Anahad O'Connor, the "Really?" columnist of The New York Times.
Comments
No matter how thin the connection, if any study may possibly connect something in something to something we care, or worry, about, the press will always play it up as good, or bad, news, worthy of reportage, probably worthy of leading a TV news segment with, and possibly putting on the front page of a paper.
If some chemicals found in chocolate are associated with sexual arousal, the key question for any reporter to ask is how much must be consumed to cross the threshold from negligible effects into observable results? If the answer is 40 pounds of chocolate candy a day, then we know the story isn't important enough to read.
If something found in cranberries is known to correlate with improved health, but to get the benefit you'd have to eat 40 bushels of whole berries a day, then the reporter should stop at that point and refuse to paint cranberries as a healthful food for antioxidant properties.
We've been getting this idiocy fed to us by the media for decades, and all for no good whatsoever to the public. Only the press, and the interests they shill for, make out.
Posted by: Gork | May 17, 2007 10:21 AM
What's wrong with 40 pounds of chocolate candy a day? It would make me so happy I would not even care about sex any more.
Posted by: coturnix | May 22, 2007 1:44 PM
Coturnix, I agree!
Posted by: Frank | May 25, 2007 12:06 PM
Tryptophan is also found in turkey.. Does that mean we should eat more turkey instead of sex? Just wondering :)
Posted by: betul | June 15, 2007 11:19 PM