[rael-science] Does chocolate make you clever?

วันจันทร์ที่ 19 พฤศจิกายน พ.ศ. 2555

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Raelian Movement
for those who are not afraid of the future : http://www.rael.org   
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20356613

Does chocolate make you clever?

By Charlotte Pritchard BBC News
A Nobel Prize
        medal and some chocolate coins
Eating more chocolate improves a nation's chances of producing Nobel Prize winners - or at least that's what a recent study appears to suggest. But how much chocolate do Nobel laureates eat, and how could any such link be explained?
The study's author, Franz Messerli of Colombia University, started wondering about the power of chocolate after reading that cocoa was good for you.
One paper suggested regular cocoa intake led to improved mental function in elderly patients with mild cognitive impairment, a condition which is often a precursor to dementia, he recalls.
"There is data in rats showing that they live longer and have better cognitive function when they eat chocolate, and even in snails you can show that the snail memory is actually improved," he says.
So Messerli took the number of Nobel Prize winners in a country as an indicator of general national intelligence and compared that with the nation's chocolate consumption. The results - published in the New England Journal of Medicine - were striking.
Chocolate consumption and Nobel laureates
Graph showing
        countries' chocolate consumption per head and Nobel Laureates
        per 10 million people
"When you correlate the two - the chocolate consumption with the number of Nobel prize laureates per capita - there is an incredibly close relationship," he says.
"This correlation has a 'P value' of 0.0001. This means there is a less than one-in-10,000 probability that this correlation is simply down to chance."
It might not surprise you that Switzerland came top of the chocolate-fuelled league of intelligence, having both the highest chocolate consumption per head and also the highest number of Nobel laureates per capita.
Sweden, however, was an anomaly. It had a very high number of Nobel laureates but its people consumed much less chocolate on average.
Messerli has a theory: "The Nobel prize obviously is donated or evaluated in Sweden [apart from the Peace Prize] so I thought that the Swedes might have a slightly patriotic bias.
Visitors taste
        different sorts of chocolate at the International Salon des
        Chocolatiers et du Chocolat, in Geneva, Switzerland The Swiss eat the most chocolate... and have been rewarded with the most Nobel Prizes, per head of population

"Or the other option is that the Swedes are excessively sensitive and only small amounts stimulate greatly their intelligence, so that might be the reason that they have so many Nobel Prize laureates."
We conducted our own, entirely unscientific, survey to ascertain just how much chocolate Nobel laureates ate.
Christopher Pissarides, from the London School of Economics, reckons his chocolate consumption laid the foundations for his Nobel Prize for Economics in 2010.
"Throughout my life, ever since I was a young boy, chocolate was part of my diet. I would eat it on a daily basis. It's one of the things I eat to cheer me up.
"To win a Nobel Prize you have to produce something that others haven't thought about - chocolate that makes you feel good might contribute a little bit. Of course it's not the main factor but... anything that contributes to a better life and a better outlook in your life then contributes to the quality of your work."
However, Rolf Zinkernagel - the largely Swiss-educated 1996 Nobel Prize winner for medicine - bucks his national trend.
"I am an outlier, because I don't eat more than - and never have eaten more than - half a kilogram of chocolate per year," he says.
Robert Grubbs, an American who shared the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2005, says he eats chocolate whenever possible.
"I had a friend who introduced me to chocolate and beer when we were younger. I have transferred that now to chocolate and red wine.
"I like to hike and I eat chocolate then, I eat chocolate whenever I can."
But this is a controversial subject.
Grubbs' countryman, Eric Cornell, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2001, told Reuters: "I attribute essentially all my success to the very large amount of chocolate that I consume. Personally I feel that milk chocolate makes you stupid… dark chocolate is the way to go. It's one thing if you want a medicine or chemistry Nobel Prize but if you want a physics Nobel Prize it pretty much has got to be dark chocolate."
But when More or Less contacted him to elaborate on this comment, he changed his tune.
"I deeply regret the rash remarks I made to the media. We scientists should strive to maintain objective neutrality and refrain from declaring our affiliation either with milk chocolate or with dark chocolate," he said.
"Now I ask that the media kindly respect my family's privacy in this difficult time."
Visitors enjoy
        the chocolate-spa pool at the Hakone Kowakien Yunessun hot
        springs resort, Japan But while the Japanese clearly enjoy a cocoa-based snack, their chocolate consumption is relatively low - as is their Nobel Prize haul
It might surprise you that we are trying to make a serious point. This is a classic case where correlation, however strong, does not mean causation.
Messerli gave us another example. In post-war Germany, the human birth rate fell along with the stork population. Were fewer storks bringing fewer babies?
The answer was that more homes were being built, destroying the storks' habitat. And the homes were small - not the sort of places you could raise a large family in.
"This is a very, very common way of thinking," he says.
"When you see a correlation, you do think there is causation in one way or another. And in general it's absolutely true. But here we have a classic example where we cannot find a good reason why these two correlate so closely."



-- 
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Ethics" is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and
orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism,
through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and
new technologies.
 
There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history, 
it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.
 
On the contrary, let us embrace Science and the new technologies
unfettered, for it is these which will liberate mankind from the
myth of god, and free us from our age old fears, from disease,
death and the sweat of labour.
 
Rael
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
Tell your friends that they can subscribe to this list by sending an email to:
subscribe@rael-science.org
- - -
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
unsubscribe@rael-science.org
- - -
 

0 ความคิดเห็น:

แสดงความคิดเห็น

Copyright Text

WARNING FROM RAEL: For those who don't use their intelligence at its
full capacity, the label "selected by RAEL" on some articles does not
mean that I agree with their content or support it. "Selected by RAEL"
means that I believe it is important for the people of this planet to
know about what people think or do, even when what they think or do is
completely stupid and against our philosophy. When I selected articles
in the past about stupid Christian fundamentalists in America praying
for rain, I am sure no Rael-Science reader was stupid enough to
believe that I was supporting praying to change the weather. So, when
I select articles which are in favor of drugs, anti-semitic,
anti-Jewish, racist, revisionist, or inciting hatred against any group
or religion, or any other stupid article, it does not mean that I
support them. It just means that it is important for all human beings
to know about them. Common sense, which is usually very good among our
readers, is good enough to understand that. When, like in the recent
articles on drug decriminalization, it is necessary to make it
clearer, I add a comment, which in this case was very clear: I support
decriminalizing all drugs, as it is stupid to throw depressed and sad
people (as only depressed and sad people use drugs) in prison and ruin
their life with a criminal record. That does not mean that there is
any change to the Message which says clearly that we must not use any
drug except for medical purposes. The same applies to the freedom of
expression which must be absolute. That does not mean again of course
that I agree with anti-Jews, antisemites, racists of any kind or
anti-Raelians. But by knowing your enemies or the enemies of your
values, you are better equipped to fight them. With love and respect
of course, and with the wonderful sentence of the French philosopher
Voltaire in mind: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to
the death your right to say it".