On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 19:47:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J. Williams) wrote: > On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:04:45 +0000, Thom Baguley > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >"J. Williams" wrote: > >> > >> Perhaps, one might replicate the research using candy bars instead of > >> chewing gum as an independent variable. The effect of sugar could > >> be factored out thereby making the case for "chewing" movement as the > >> prime mover. > > > >Not really. I think the argument is maybe that you start to chew > >something and your liver starts to break glycogen down into glucose > >and release into the bloodstream. > > > >Thom > > According to the post outlining the British neuroscience research, > chewers of gum had faster heart rates than "fake" chewers, and > non-chewers. My question with the gum was that sugar intake might be > a contaminating variable. Sugar-free gum might have yielded the
But did they check for the test scores of people sitting *next* to chewers. Or their adrenal levels. I mean, it is not as if the act of chewing gum were a aesthetically neutral activity.... -- Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
