Biological thoery

48 Comments

Ok we all know that women like chocolate right? Even if it is a month beside the one their time of the month is on. I was wondering why this is.

One thing has been proven is that women in general prefer sweet food and men salty. Not to say that all generalities do not have an exception. Also it has been proven that women’s metabolism slows as they get older while men’s will tend to speed up.

This also brings into the question in this case "Why do women have to be the thin ones if it is so easy for men to lose weight"? Also brings into question why would that make women more inclined to sugar and not salt?

So I came to this conclusion that maybe women need something in chocolate. What if chocolate in fact has a mineral or vitamin that women crave and need and is not needed in men since biologically men and women are different. What if chocolate is needed more by women.

I agree with this 15
I disagree 19
I have a different theory of why women love chocolate 10
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 48 )
  • dom180
    11 years ago

    Is there any actual, scientific proof that women enjoy chocolate more than men? I know it's something popular culture believes, but that doesn't prove it is true.

    Like the other people here, I'd also like to see evidence for the other things that you've suggested are "proven".

    Chocolate releases dopamine in the brain, which is something I'm surprised nobody has mentioned.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    2
    2
  • howaminotmyself
    11 years ago

    I'm a woman and I don't crave sweet, I crave salty. Probably because my body needs salt more than it does sugar. Although I recognize that I am not a very good example of "normal" when related to food. I like chocolate because it's bitter, not because it's sweet. But most women are probably craving the calcium and/or magnesium present in milk chocolate, not the chocolate itself. Women do need more calcium than men, in general, and the body won't absorb calcium without sufficient magnesium (and vitamin D). And bologically, female hormones contribute to the use of more calcium in the body.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    2
    2
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      I already stated that in every generality that their is an exception. You stated that you think they are craving calcium and magnesium. So that is exactly what I was saying. So you agree with what I was saying?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • howaminotmyself
        11 years ago

        It isn't about what I think, it's a nutritional fact. Chocolate has magnesium and calcium and women use more of both because of hormones. But most chocolate doesn't actually deliver the minerals in which we crave. But that's a different issue.

        There have been a lot of studies on this subject.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        1
        1
  • KeddersPrincess
    11 years ago

    Interesting thought.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • dappled
    11 years ago

    I've never seen any proof that women and men prefer very different food, but you've got me interested. If you can dig any of the research out, I'd love to read it.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • NeuroNeptunian
    11 years ago

    This is kind of already established, dude. You're a few decades too late on this one but nice try.

    Women like chocolate because chocolate has iron in it (serious chocolate craving, especially during pregnancy is said to be a possible indicator of anemia). Women are more likely to be anemic than men and much more likely to suffer from anemia during their period. Intake of iron usually alleviates anemia.

    The body usually craves what it lacks as far as mineral and vitamin content goes and when a female lacks iron (i.e. has anemia), it often reflects in what she craves. Also, food cravings in women can be brought on by the effects that her constantly fluctuating hormones can have on her brain chemical levels. Males do not experience these fluctuations, or at least, not as often or severely.

    You might find this article to be an interesting read

    http://www.womentowomen.com/understandyourbody/symptoms/cravings.aspx

    Google "food cravings explained" and you will find a wealth of articles and literature explaining this that you will find most enlightening.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
      -
    • o_0
      11 years ago

      do you mean that what we crave (food)for signifies some deficiency of particular nutrient in our body,,??

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • NeuroNeptunian
        11 years ago

        Yeah, pretty much.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
      • Anonymous Post Author
        11 years ago

        More like the type of food.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      I had not read that yet. Thanks for the article.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • myboyfriendsbitch
    11 years ago

    I think chocolate has some iron in it, which would make sense for women top crave around their period since we lose so much blood.

    I'm also a salty person, and my boyfriend craves the sweets, so I don't know if these cravings are truly related to gender. However, did you know that during pregnancy salty foods versus sweet foods can possibly decide the gender of your child? I don't think it's proven though.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • Francophile22
    11 years ago

    Before asking this question you could have done your research and have found out what scientists already know, but typical to this site, you had to ask anyway.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • GoraIntoDesiGals
    11 years ago

    Women prefer sweet to salt? Might explain why few women like to swallow. LOL

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • o_0
    11 years ago

    i have heard chocolate contains caffeine which is addictive .may be this is why anyone loves to have them as they might be addicted to them....
    well i am not a chocoholic and i prefer salty and spicy food over sweet being a woman ....
    by the way i have seen many men also who have a craze for chocolates.... !!
    so just leave it..!!! shouldn't anyone enjoy eating a chocolate more rather than thinking about its cause and effect ....

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      Adults discuss things and how they work. If you are not intelligent and mature enough to understand this I ask that you stay out of the conversation. We are not all simpletons.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      -1
      -1
        -
      • o_0
        11 years ago

        ehem ehem... some extra mature people here....!!!
        well you cannot judge me this way ,you don't know how much I'm into this topic.... i was just trying to be a bit humorous that's all.....

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
  • thinkingaboutit
    11 years ago

    I don't like chocolate. I rarely eat chocolate.
    I also cannot stand sweet confectioneries.

    wgaf.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • VioletTrees
    11 years ago

    [citation needed]

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • dirtybirdy
    11 years ago

    Dark chocolate is delicious < Fact!!
    Also, 'even if it is a month beside the one time of the month is on'....its every damn month for most

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • charli.m
      11 years ago

      Hahahaha I read that...and I couldn't work it out. Just put it down to be sick and out of it.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • dirtybirdy
        11 years ago

        Haha I am usually able to decipher nonsense unless its txt spk. Its a gift...??

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
  • Darkoil
    11 years ago

    Where has it been proven women crave sweet more than men. A good paper which looks at the effect choclate has on men and women - Effect of satiety on brain activation during chocolate tasting in men and women.
    BACKGROUND:

    The brain plays a crucial role in the decision to eat, integrating multiple hormonal and neural signals. A key factor controlling food intake is selective satiety, ie, the phenomenon that the motivation to eat more of a food decreases more than does the motivation to eat foods not eaten.

    OBJECTIVE:

    We investigated the effect of satiation with chocolate on the brain activation associated with chocolate taste in men and women.

    DESIGN:

    Twelve men and 12 women participated. Subjects fasted overnight and were scanned by use of functional magnetic resonance imaging while tasting chocolate milk, before and after eating chocolate until they were satiated.

    RESULTS:

    In men, chocolate satiation was associated with increased taste activation in the ventral striatum, insula, and orbitofrontal and medial orbitofrontal cortex and with decreased taste activation in somatosensory areas. Women showed increased taste activation in the precentral gyrus, superior temporal gyrus, and putamen and decreased taste activation in the hypothalamus and amygdala. Sex differences in the effect of chocolate satiation were found in the hypothalamus, ventral striatum, and medial prefrontal cortex (all P < 0.005).

    CONCLUSIONS:

    Our results indicate that men and women differ in their response to satiation and suggest that the regulation of food intake by the brain may vary between the sexes. Therefore, sex differences are a covariate of interest in studies of the brain's responses to food.

    Further reading - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17714197
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22326680
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22775434

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • VioletTrees
      11 years ago

      First of all, that study had 24 participants, which means that it's preliminary at best and isn't conclusive evidence for anything. Secondly, that study didn't measure how much the subjects enjoyed the food, it measured their satiety. It's interesting, but I'm afraid it's not directly relevant to this discussion, because satiety and enjoyment are two very different things.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
        -
      • o_0
        11 years ago

        but you should know that every researcher cant just go and ask every individual he has to select a sample ( here of 24 people) of people to carry his research so as to generalize and prove his theory....so you cant say its not conclusive as then every research is not conclusive.... though i agree this fact is not true for many... but we are saying general here so.....
        secondly i think enjoying food also involves some hormonal actions and mental activities (this point isn't searched )

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
      • Darkoil
        11 years ago

        24 participants is more than enough to get statistically significant results in a fmri study although I agree 1 study alone is not conclusive. I think showing the differences between taste activation when accounting for sex is relevant to this discussion. I'm guessing a person will eat more of a food they enjoy. Whether it's relevant or not doesn't really matter as it's a gay ass discussion in the first place, the op sounds like he has no clue on anything science let alone biology.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • VioletTrees
          11 years ago

          It's relevant, but not *directly* relevant. My point is that satiety ≠ enjoyment. That study didn't measure how much the participants enjoyed the chocolate, it measured their satiety, which is only one element of enjoyment, so it doesn't show that one sex enjoys chocolate more than the other.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      It was a statistic study. Also the women liking chocolate has been done a few times.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • Darkoil
        11 years ago

        Any study which garners results is a statistics study so to speak, are you by any chance talking about the social sciences, questionnaires and all that rubbish. I'm not exactly disaggreing with you but it would be good if you could link us to the study which your entire theory is based on.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
  • [Old Memory]
    11 years ago

    Turn your back on these sciences and other forms of witchcraft.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    -2
    -2
      -
    • Avant-Garde
      11 years ago

      Science has nothing to do with witchcraft. You're an ignorant fool if not a troll with way too much time on their hands.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      2
      2
        -
      • [Old Memory]
        11 years ago

        You are being foolish if you don't believe that sciences and witchcraft have a connection. You should look into astronomy. That used to be considered a science.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        -1
        -1
          -
        • sega31098
          11 years ago

          Yes, it may have HAD a connection, and so did compasses. Compasses played a vital role in the creation of maps. Does that mean that navigation is bad and that cartographers are witches?
          Also, did you know that even many famous Christians played a role in making sciences? Besides, science today considers witchcraft nonsense.

          Potato chips and American chop suey had their origins in getting revenge on the customer. Revenge is a sin according to the Bible. So just because there was a connection between these foods to sin does that mean that Christians must avoid consuming those foods?

          If a terrorist wanted to blow up a city but instead unraveled a gold mine does that mean we must refuse to get the gold because it was shown through evil intentions?

          Just because something had a bad origin doesn't mean that everything to do with it is bad.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          1
          1
            -
          • Avant-Garde
            11 years ago

            *Applause*

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
          • Anonymous Post Author
            11 years ago

            Most intelligent thought in the old days was considered witchcraft. So that goes for everything.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • sega31098
              11 years ago

              And no longer is. Witchcraft is largely considered BS by the scientific community.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
          • [Old Memory]
            11 years ago

            I think you are taking the matters to extremes my brother.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            -1
            -1
        • Avant-Garde
          11 years ago

          I'm no fool.

          I have looked into Astronomy as well as many other ancient "sciences" or fields of thought. But perhaps, you're confusing it with Astrology? The last I checked, Astronomy was still a practiced field and the Scientists that practiced it were called, "Astronomers". The Universe isn't the work of witchcraft. It's real and the bible claims that God made all. So, if he made the Earth, which is a planet, wouldn't he have also made the universe too?

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          1
          1
            -
          • [Old Memory]
            11 years ago

            I can't disagree with that, I did say astronomy when I ment astrology. For that I apologize for misspeaking. No I do think astronomy is valid but not astrology. Sorry, at my age you mix things up.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • Avant-Garde
              11 years ago

              Apology accepted.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
        • Anonymous Post Author
          11 years ago

          Yes they are. Before any science was considered witchcraft. You look at old accounts of alchemy and it is the basics of science. If you look at the symbol on the the bad of a doctor it is a staff(this signifies magic). They use to think that doctors are magic but it is science.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • [Old Memory]
            11 years ago

            Thank you for agreeing with me. I don't believe in doctors either. I am 76 years old and I have never seen a doctor. I feel just fine and I can still jog 2 miles a day. I used to do more but it is natural to slow down in older age.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • Anonymous Post Author
              11 years ago

              Yes it is. I do not see them if not necessary. Also I dislike the fact they are coming even more thorough at the checks. They use to check basic things now they want to do full blood and urine I mean I do not feel like being probed inside out ever time I go for a check up.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0