Comfort Food Is A Myth

The real myth is that psychological studies have any meaning.

Anyone with the ability to reason knows that the comfort provided by 'comfort foods' is not in the food itself, it's in the atmosphere in which the food is served, or prepared, or in the pleasant memories the food provokes.

When I eat a slice of apple pie it triggers the memories about the many apple pies my Mom made over the years, and those are comforting thoughts. I know it's not the apple pie itself that makes me feel a bit happier.

Psychologist who think that it might be the food itself, or think that their studies about this have some meaning, are morons.

i.e. A new study has determined that studies are irrelevant.

I know that I'm a warped individual but I find this study to be nothing but a joke. A psychological study that removes all of the psychological cues to make a level study group produces no psychological effect. Next thing they'll prove is that beliefs are myths.

Morons...

Yeah, those'll make you feel a lot better...

Not too filling, however, you always seem to have the munchies no matter how many you eat. ;)

Haha...lovely answer...!

And it's the stoner- er stone-cold truth too. ;)

I don't think they investigated chocolate properly, which is a proven soother. Ask any 1000/ 1000000 irate women!

My favorite comfort food is Cold Beer. I don't care what their study says, it chills me out. And if I have enough Cold Beer, their study may start to make sense as I contemplate the study under the influence of Cold Beer.

And no obese person, except me, has ever said they felt better after having eaten a favorite food.

Psychologists have their own definitions which no one else uses. For example, they will insist that sound and color exist only in the brain. I nearly stopped reading a very good book, This is Your Brain on Music, because around page 20, the author made the statement that sound only exists inside the brain. My psych major son had to explain that sound and color are "perceptions", and as such, need a brain. To define sound and color as frequencies or wavelengths is not relevent to most of their work because these can exist independent of the brain. If the brain is not involved, it's not important.

the statement that sound only exists inside the brain

BS; sound is a mechanical vibration. Does a tree in the forest when it falls make a sound, sure does.

BS; sound is a mechanical vibration. Does a tree in the forest when it falls make a sound, sure does.

You been eating off #4's plate? Oh I get it....mind-drift huh?

Anyway, if you weren't in the forest, how do you know it made a sound ? Don't bother...I know the answer...your brother-in-law is a lumberjack,and he heard it for you, right?

I have no problem with another discipline, including psychology, making up their own definition for any word for discussions in their realm. Most of the time this is done because the common definition of a word is similar to a new concept they wish to use.

This is an engineering forum not a psychology forum. Sound is a mechanical vibration, often in air. It does not require the perception of a mind for sound to exist. Unless one accepts the idea that electronics has already achieved a mind.

speaking of sound, I was reading about the natural residence frequency as it applies to animals as well as humans.

As I was reading it at first it started to sound like this is way out of here, as though sooner or later aliens were going to be mentioned.

As I read and looked at the studies, Most of it started as a derivative from military development. Then it actually started to make sense where at the right frequency can be pretty bad on a human subject. And bad as in death.

And the natural frequency would not even be noticed, with the exception of failing health that comes on very quickly.

"If a man speaks in the forest, and there is no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?"

On a roll, I see......