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 same results...maybe not. Another question, would not performing calisthenics (instead of chewing) before the memory tasks accomplish the same increase in heart rate and in turn send increased glucose to the brain? Could it be that any simple physical motion increasing the heart rate subsequently improves short-term memory, recall, etc.? In short, why is it "fake" chewers don't do as well as those chewing gum? Both are using motion. Might not the sugar component in the gum be the difference? Possibly, the researchers addressed this issue and it was not explained in the original posting. . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
