right. lets run a case study. go buy yourself a 50lb bag of sugar, a years supply of multivitamins, and report back in a year with how that worked out for you.
Well as a college student who went on a 2 month coco pebble binge (and only ate that because of sheer laziness), I didn't feel significant effects on brain power. But it does trash your body and leaves you feeling lethargic and lose motivation to actually do anything productive. I think the latter effects are just as dangerous as reduced "brain effectiveness". (this is just my experience, certainly not any scientifically proven study)
I didn't make the original claim, so I don't see why it would be my job to prove or disprove it.
That's sort of beside the point though. I'm just tired of the ridiculous amount of misinformation in the diet, nutrition, and exercise fields. It's not like there isn't a long history of claims that are "just common sense" turning out completely wrong ("eating fat makes you fat", "eating high cholesterol food gives you high cholesterol" (mostly genetics), "diet and exercise are equally important to losing weight" (reality is that it's mostly diet), etc.)
Bottom line, if you're going to make a claim that certain food improve your brain's performance, you should have just a shred of evidence.
i'd assumed you were trolling, hence the flippant response. i dont think all statements need to be supported with citations. there's a certain amount of knowledge that at some point has to be considered common sense. wiping your ass is one. not fueling your body with trash is another. i can understand your position of frustration at mis-information and pseudo-science, and appreciate a fellow critical thinker, but i do think it's important to choose your battles, and i do not think that this issue is one that's worth discussing much further, considering the overwhelming amount of data out there. vis a vis. et al. lorem ipsum.
