
This is Your Brain on Food - robg
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/this_is_your_brain_on_food/
======
techiferous
"When you eat an unripe banana, its serotonin is free to act upon the
serotonin neurons within your digestive tract. The consequence is...usually
experienced as diarrhea."

This made me curious, so I googled it. The very first result is a scientific
study demonstrating that unripe bananas are a great _remedy_ for diarrhea:
[http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/tcj/2000/aug/aug200...](http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/tcj/2000/aug/aug2000loomis.htm)

I stopped reading the article after this, fearing that the author did not do
his homework.

~~~
MrScruff
It seems strange to disregard an entire article written by a Professor of
Psychology & Neuroscience because a quick google session found a link
suggesting a contrary view to a specific point.

~~~
b-e-p
Indeed; one could say that he himself did not do his homework by reading the
entirety of a text.

------
Cushman
I get skeptical every time someone brings out a list of "chemicals" that are
supposedly all around us— without mentioning their concentrations, of course,
or the threshold dose for observable effects in humans.

But maybe I shouldn't be expecting better from pop science?

~~~
metamemetics
> _I get skeptical every time someone brings out a list of "chemicals" that
> are supposedly all around us_

What is there to possibly be skeptical about in this article? Why did you put
quotes around chemicals? His point was everything that exists is a chemical
and is processed by the body as a chemical. I'm more skeptical as to whether
or not you read the article than anything presented in it.

~~~
Cushman
Where are you reading that "everything that exists is a chemical"? I'm not
sure we _are_ talking about the same article, the one I read definitely
doesn't say that.

I'm putting quotes around the word "chemicals" to refer to the use of the
broad term "chemicals" to mean "chemicals with long names that are
psychoactive, not like water and stuff." Every single use of "chemicals" in
that article could be replaced with that, so I'm pretty sure the author's
talking about "chemicals" and not chemicals.

As for what I'm skeptical of... I thought I made that pretty clear? That
chocolate has some amount of phenethylamine and anandamide in it is
meaningless without knowing a) how much of those chemicals is present in the
food and b) how much of a psychoactive effect that amount of chemical would
have on a human. Just from glancing at Wikipedia from those two chemicals, I'm
guessing it's not as much as that article wants you to think.

~~~
metamemetics
> _I'm pretty sure the author's talking about "chemicals" and not chemicals._

No, you are completely missing the point. He was attacking the mythical
duality you are perpetuating. There is no binary distinction between
psychoactive and non psychoactive chemicals. Water IS psychoactive. Protein in
chicken IS psychoactive. Sugar IS psychoactive.

Let's take chicken for example. We can turn that into a chemical with a long
name quite easily! Assuming you are consuming low fat chicken, the majority is
protein. Protein is a bunch of chemicals called amino acids. One of the most
common amino acids by weight in chicken is
(2S)-2-amino-3-(1H-indol-3-yl)propanoic acid, Tryptophan. Tryptophan is THE
building block of serotonin and all other tryptamines your body produces.

Are you aware 2-(1H-indol-3-yl)-N,N-dimethylethanamine (DMT) is responsible
for dreaming and near death experiences is synthesized in your body directly
from that chicken and could not have been synthesized without it?

Sugar->Glucose-> 6-(hydroxymethyl)oxane-2,3,4,5-tetrol. Sugar has clear and
obvious excitatory psychoactive effects on the brain. Some researchers even
think cognitive decline\Alzheimer's may be related to insulin resistance in
the CNS similar to diabetes.

The author tells you exact dosages in the article for the amount of Nutmeg you
need to consume to hallucinate. He gives more than enough numbers for an
opinion piece.

Regarding chocolate you can test your wrong hypothesis quite easily. Buy pure,
NON-alkalized cocoa powder in the store today and consume 3 tablespoons.

~~~
Cushman
I... guess we disagree? I don't see what you're reading into the article, at
all. As I read it he's _clearly_ referring to long-named, psychoactive
substances with every single use of "chemical". Anyway, not much point in
arguing about that.

Your bringing up tryptophan is the _classic_ example of what I'm talking
about. Someone notices that turkey has tryptophan in it, tryptophan is
psychoactive on paper, and suddenly the reason eating a big dinner makes you
sleepy is because it's _drugged_. (Never mind that turkey doesn't have
significantly more tryptophan than any other meat.)

The point is, as you note, there isn't a binary distinction. The difference is
in dosage— is the amount of this thing that you actually encounter in your
life enough to cause noticeable effects? If not, it may as well be inert. And
nutmeg is a good example: the one chemical that the article _does_ provide
dosing on, and it turns out that it's basically impossible to get an actual
psychoactive effect from it. I wonder what information about the actual
concentrations of these "psychoactive chemicals" would reveal?

