Quoing from:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12...you_want_macs/

The two salesman-academics ran a study which
involved giving one group of people a chocolate
truffle, and asking another group to be strong
and abstain. It appears that scoffing just one
fancy choc, according to the profs, tends to
unleash a "what the hell" syndrome. The truffle-
gobblers then feel a strong desire for more
treats - for instance ice cream, pizza, and
potato chips - while the puritanical group found
it easy to spurn any further delicious but
possibly nutritionally unwise offerings.

If that was all, frankly we wouldn't have
bothered you. But it's not.

"A second study again had people eat or resist
a chocolate truffle and asked them to indicate
how much they desired several products that are
symbols of status [for example] an Apple
computer... People who ate the truffle desired
the status products significantly more than
those who had to resist the truffle," write
Laran and Janiszewski.

Mark Thorson said...

> Quoing from:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12...you_want_macs/
>
> The two salesman-academics ran a study which
> involved giving one group of people a chocolate
> truffle, and asking another group to be strong
> and abstain. It appears that scoffing just one
> fancy choc, according to the profs, tends to
> unleash a "what the hell" syndrome. The truffle-
> gobblers then feel a strong desire for more
> treats - for instance ice cream, pizza, and
> potato chips - while the puritanical group found
> it easy to spurn any further delicious but
> possibly nutritionally unwise offerings.
>
> If that was all, frankly we wouldn't have
> bothered you. But it's not.
>
> "A second study again had people eat or resist
> a chocolate truffle and asked them to indicate
> how much they desired several products that are
> symbols of status [for example] an Apple
> computer... People who ate the truffle desired
> the status products significantly more than
> those who had to resist the truffle," write
> Laran and Janiszewski.


Cheapskate study!!!

Should've used real summer or winter truffles.

The BUMS!!!

Imho,

Andy

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 23:17:38 +0000 (UTC), Andy > wrote:

>Mark Thorson said...
>
>> Quoing from:
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12...you_want_macs/
>>
>> The two salesman-academics ran a study which
>> involved giving one group of people a chocolate
>> truffle, and asking another group to be strong
>> and abstain. It appears that scoffing just one
>> fancy choc, according to the profs, tends to
>> unleash a "what the hell" syndrome. The truffle-
>> gobblers then feel a strong desire for more
>> treats - for instance ice cream, pizza, and
>> potato chips - while the puritanical group found
>> it easy to spurn any further delicious but
>> possibly nutritionally unwise offerings.
>>
>> If that was all, frankly we wouldn't have
>> bothered you. But it's not.
>>
>> "A second study again had people eat or resist
>> a chocolate truffle and asked them to indicate
>> how much they desired several products that are
>> symbols of status [for example] an Apple
>> computer... People who ate the truffle desired
>> the status products significantly more than
>> those who had to resist the truffle," write
>> Laran and Janiszewski.
>
>
>Cheapskate study!!!
>
>Should've used real summer or winter truffles.
>
>The BUMS!!!
>
>Imho,

You know any study can be skewed... but the food study would fit my
family pretty well. FYI: I think it's unprofessional to call someone
who can resist chocolate truffles "puritanical". No real study would
do that.




--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

sf wrote

> You know any study can be skewed... but the food study would fit my
> family pretty well. FYI: I think it's unprofessional to call
someone
> who can resist chocolate truffles "puritanical". No real study
would
> do that.
>
>

Or one could guess what kind of truffles they were using
--
Vilco
Think pink, drink rose'

sf wrote:
>
> You know any study can be skewed... but the food study would fit my
> family pretty well. FYI: I think it's unprofessional to call someone
> who can resist chocolate truffles "puritanical". No real study would
> do that.

I forwarded this comment to the authors, and
they reply:

Certainly, anyone (chomp!) is entitled to their
(slurp! chomp!) opinions (smack!). We stand by
our (munch!) data, (yum!) analysis, and (smack!)
conclusions. (hey! save one of those for me!)

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:43:39 -0800, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

>sf wrote:
>>
>> You know any study can be skewed... but the food study would fit my
>> family pretty well. FYI: I think it's unprofessional to call someone
>> who can resist chocolate truffles "puritanical". No real study would
>> do that.
>
>I forwarded this comment to the authors, and
>they reply:
>
>Certainly, anyone (chomp!) is entitled to their
>(slurp! chomp!) opinions (smack!). We stand by
>our (munch!) data, (yum!) analysis, and (smack!)
>conclusions. (hey! save one of those for me!)

Heh.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West