The science of "Bet you can't eat just one!"

A few years ago, Lay's Potato Chips threw down the gauntlet in a new advertising campaign:  "Bet you can't eat just one!"


It was a clever slogan--and had a clever commercial to match.  But I think the line resonated so much because it's true.  It's quite difficult to eat just one chip.  You open the bag and, before you know it, you've somehow eaten the whole bag.  Even when you didn't think you were all that hungry.

(Full disclaimer:  My personal downfall lies in a bag of Doritos, not potato chips, but the rule still applies).

The act of eating for pleasure, without hunger and often to excess, is called "hedonic hyperphagia."  And researchers at FAU Erlangen-Nuremberg decided to take a closer look at why snacks like potato chips often prove to be so irresistible. 

Tobias Hoch and colleagues used magnetic resonance imaging to compare groups of rats:  some who received a feast of potato chips and others who had plain old rat chow.  They found that the chips' high ratio of fats and carbohydrates led to the reward centers of the brain lighting up more than when the animals had access to just the chow.

But Hoch thought there must be something more to it than just fat and carbs--the leading hypothesis of why we love our chips so much.  So he and his colleagues then compared animal chow, a mixture of fat and carbs, and potato chips.  The rats still went crazy for the chips.  And when they looked at the imaging results, they found that there was more than just the reward centers being activated in those potato chip loving brains--food intake, sleep activity and motion centers also received extra blood flow.

Why this is happening is still up in the air.  But if scientists can get a better handle on what is in these snacks that triggers overeating, they can perhaps develop compounds that can block them. 

Photo credit:  Aerostato/Shutterstock.com

In 1999, David Bowie knew the internet would change the world

Musican. Actor. Fashion Icon. Internet Visionary?

Technology & Innovation
  • David Bowie was well known as a rock star, but somehow his other interests and accomplishments remain obscure.
  • In this 1999 interview, he explains why he knows the internet is more than just a tool and why it was destined to change the world.
  • He launched his own internet service provider in 1998, BowieNet. It ceased operations in 2006.
Keep reading Show less

People who constantly complain are harmful to your health

Moans, groans, and gripes release stress hormones in the brain.

Photo credit: Getty Images / Stringer
popular

Could you give up complaining for a whole month? That's the crux of this interesting piece by Jessica Hullinger over at Fast Company. Hullinger explores the reasons why humans are so predisposed to griping and why, despite these predispositions, we should all try to complain less. As for no complaining for a month, that was the goal for people enrolled in the Complaint Restraint project.

Participants sought to go the entirety of February without so much as a moan, groan, or bellyache.

Keep reading Show less

​Is science synonymous with 'truth'? Game theory says, 'not always.'

Good science is sometimes trumped by the craving for a "big splash."

Videos
  • Scientists strive to earn credit from their peers, for grants from federal agencies, and so a lot of the decisions that they make are strategic in nature. They're encouraged to publish exciting new findings that demonstrate some new phenomenon that we have never seen before.
  • This professional pressure can affect their decision-making — to get acclaim they may actually make science worse. That is, a scientist might commit fraud if he thinks he can get away with it or a scientist might rush a result out of the door even though it hasn't been completely verified in order to beat the competition.
  • On top of the acclaim of their peers, scientists — with the increasing popularity of science journalism — are starting to be rewarded for doing things that the public is interested in. The good side of this is that the research is more likely to have a public impact, rather than be esoteric. The bad side? To make a "big splash" a scientist may push a study or article that doesn't exemplify good science.