E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Getty Images File
Jill, Ann, and Kimberly go off to college with warnings from their parents about sex and the “Freshman 15” ringing in their ears. Months later, Jill has gained 15 pounds and Ann has become a sexual adventurer. Kimberly, on the other hand, has not only maintained her weight, she's been too busy studying in the library stacks to hook up.
What accounts for the differences?
It could be the way each one’s brain reward center responds to food and sexual cues, reports a new study.
According to research out of Dartmouth College, in some people, hyperactivation of the nucleus accumbens, a key reward structure buried within the brain's striatum, predicted the eating and sexual behaviors of people (in this case, a group of freshmen women).
This suggests one’s ability to say “no” is not just a matter of willpower, but brain wiring.
The study, published this week in the Journal of Neuroscience, used fMRI brain imaging and pictures depicting food, erotica, landscapes, and people to gauge how the test subjects' accumbens reacted to each stimulus. (The 48 women who completed the study had no idea what it was actually about.)
Six months later, the women returned to the lab where they were weighed and asked to fill out a questionnaire. Those whose accumbens reacted especially strongly to food cues had gained more weight. And those who reacted to sexual cues most strongly were more likely to have had sex and report stronger sexual desire.
Interestingly, their "appetites" did not cross over. The women with hyperactive responses to sex cues did not have a hyperactive response to food and vice versa.
Bill Kelley, associate professor of Dartmouth's department of psychological and brain sciences, says the study shows that the activation of one brain region proved to be a strong predictor of later behavior, demonstrating that the stronger the “liking” response to a stimulus, the less able we are to “hear” our rational brain saying “no.”
But are we born this way, or do we acquire stronger craving for specific rewards?
“That’s a great question,” said Kathryn Demos, who led the study and is now an assistant professor of psychiatry and human behavior at Brown University.
Kelley thinks that since different women were tempted by different things, their brain wiring has developed through experience, aided by a genetic component.
Luckily, there are tools that can help people blunt the power of their brain wiring. Behavioral therapies, for example, have had some limited success in people who seem strongly stimulated by food.
People can also try to replace various cravings with something more healthful, for instance, going for a run whenever they're tempted to eat a cheeseburger.
As for the findings, Demos says the idea that all people are equally capable of self-control is naïve.
Reward, she says, “is a very powerful system.”
Brian Alexander (www.BrianRAlexander.com) is co-author, with Larry Young PhD., of The Chemistry Between Us: Love Sex and the Science of Attraction, to be published September 13.
Related:
Leave a Comment:
I will be shoving a can into my brain immediately. At least edit your title, ffs.
Yet another silly story that excuses people from poor choices. We are not just a bunch of dumb apes. We can think, reason, and understand the consequences of overeating, overdrinking, and dangerous sex. Next will be a government entitlement program for people with bad brain wiring.
Grow Up people.
I don't think it's excusing anyone. That's why it takes willpower to not get fat for a lot of people!
I knew I shouldn't have read this article, but I couldn't resist. :(
@Gary420... the study shows a significant relationship between the architecture of the brain and how people function. That's it. Everything else you wrote there seems to be the machinations of your own brain. There is a big difference between excusing dangerous behavior and having a functional way to explain that behavior.
Is diabetes research showing poor diets promote poor pancreatic health just another liberal way of waging war on food? Seriously man. I think you need to re-examine your idea of what science is for.
BTW, I find it very ironic that a guy that goes by the name "Gary420" would feel comfortable about lecturing other people regarding the consequences of poor decision making. Marijuana can do a lot for a person; promoting higher standards of life skills isn't usually among them.
Do an internet search on Clive Wearing some time. Really, I cannot fathom why people would be so apt to dismiss research regarding brain function when the fact of the matter is that the conscious actions of every person alive is dictated almost exclusively by their brain.
But let me guess, its for glaucoma right? /sarcasm
I'm not sure about how well the science was conducted in these experiments but from this statement it seems clear either the authors or the journalist (or both) was strongly biased. How is liking and having a lot of sex somehow a bad thing just because mommy and daddy don't want to imagine little Katie having an adult sex life? Why would anyone say "no" or even want to when we're talking about sex? Sex isn't just a reward it is how we as human beings are wired. The notion is almost preposterous. Seriously, this sounds as if it was written by a Puritan and not someone from the 21st century. Oh yeah, I know sex is naughty, dirty and immoral according to the right-wing moral police but even they don't actually believe it.
Draw the conclusions you like from this experiment but the fact that sexual desire was defined as a something our "rational brain" is supposed to reject is absolute nonsense.
"DUH", ...... the brain wiring is what determines one's willpower to say "no", ...... or "yes", ... or "maybe" or to "go to h---".
Another group of Scientist being paid with Tax Dollars justifying their pathetic existence so they can maintain their 6 digit tax supported salaries. EXCUSES,EXCUSES; PEOPLE DO WHAT THEY WANT WHEN THEY WANT BECAUSE THEY HAVE FREELY MADE THAT CHOICE!!!
Chris, my moniker Gary 420 is a combination of my first name and birthday. nothing to do with marijuana. But I was so inclined, I guess I could just blame faulty brain wiring.
Thank you Gary! You hit the nail on the head. No more excuses for those that don't want to do what is necessary. Cheap excuses for weak and mainly lazy individuals.
The article is crap and not founded on anything scientific. Just mambo jumbo for the lazies of society who do not want to take responsibility.
Happy belated birthday.
Gary 420 and others who agree, you're assuming that there is such a thing as free will. Science hasn't found it yet, like the soul or god for that matter. The existence of free will is unnecessary because all human behaviour can be described in terms of genetics, instinct or experience, that doesn't make us any less responsible for our actions. If we want to change human behaviour we need to know how it works, that way we can learn how to improve it, we can learn to be better people. Many forms of discipline including self-discipline can re-enforce bad behaviour rather than deter it, like denying yourself that last piece of cake only makes you want it more. You need the desire to resist the temptation to be stronger than your cravings. Just saying "I'm not going to do it!" quickly becomes "I'm not going to... mmm this cake is delish... oh, damn." I think that science done by scientists following the scientific method in a scientific institution is about as scientific as you can get.
Apotheosis, free will is the foundation of our constitution and is a direct gift from God. Free will allows maniacs like Hitler to perform terrible deeds. Free will also allows a group of leaders and volunteers to work together to take out Osama bin Laden. Even if you are atheist, you can choose to drink 5 beers or 5 bottles of water. You can choose to eat healthy ( without the government making you) or you can choose to eat pizza and ribs every night.
These scientific studies are valid on monkeys, mice, and amoebas, but not so much on humans. I understand the concept that some people may be more predisposed to eat a lot or drink a lot or take drugs. But humans, unlike amoebas can understand and appreciate the consequence of their actions and make choices.
If you actually understood science, you would appreciate the intellect, reasoning, and judgement capabilities possessed by humans far exceed that of other beings on the planet.
If you understood science you would appreciate that humans are not as far removed from other primates and animals as you seem to suggest. In fact, our DNA is so close to Bonobo's that it is difficult to see them as anything but close cousins. Humans far exceed other animals by some measures but certainly not by all.
I didn't even know I had a brain can. All that biology and no one mentioned brain cans. You learn something new every day...lol.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I do my best thinking on the can. . .
Would anyone bother trying to find out why Ann's brother Arnie became a sexual adventurer in college?
In a related study, 99.9% of all straight men want Ann's phone number. :)
Only because they both have something in common: they are both sleeping with men.
Cassandra- nope, because it's expected of boys. Only girls are 'bad' if they have sex.
...good question!
Another good one, why is it I can drink like a fish to the point of falling down drunk and passing out and never lose my inhibitions, yet my neighbor can have just one drink and becomes Insta-slut, coming on to every guy within 50 feet of her??
The reason being is that your neighbor is a slut (your word) at heart, but society does not allow women to just come on to guys without getting that label. So, to make it "acceptable" to come on to guys, she has half a drink and then blames the alcohol.
We all have natural instincts and we all have the "rules" of our societal norms. Our problem is getting our instincts what they need within the constructs of society.
Um, yeah,
So tell me a little more about this neighbor.
Well, guys, it's like the old joke about the Marine drill instructor who tells his men to raise their hands if they were virgins. Not one hand went up. Then he asked them to raise their hands if their sisters were virgins...and of course, every hand was raised.
"I dunno," he remarked. "But it seems to me that someone's sister is awful busy."
or "the internet and the death of proofreading"
Seriously??? "Brain Cans"?? How embarrassing for you MSN! LOL
I have a great answer for my daughter who starts gaining weight or sleeping around: move back home and start taking community college classes.
Yes, because gaining weight is a massive moral failing that needs immediate and drastic correction. *sarcasm*
Why, do freshman women in community college simply snack and masturbate? (Ideally, not at the same time ...)
Depends on how fat his daughter gets. Being overweight is never a good thing.
So it's not that important if your daugher gets the best education available if it turns her into a fatty/slut/fattyslut? Well guess what, despite your grossly misperceived morality, the more educated a woman is, the more likely she is to be healthy and have good relationships.
Some people should not be allowed to be parents, I swear.
Maybe healthy women that make good relationship choices also choose education and make better choices in general.
Is it education leading to good choices or good choices leading to education?
CJ, so why was divorce, lesbianism and pre-marital sex nearly non-existent in previous generations (when morality was more highly regarded)?
So all the pioneer women, even your great-great grandmother were unhealthy, stupid dolts?
C'mon. Your modernist arrogance is palpable.
Divorce wasn't socially acceptable, but it was acceptable that married couples, once they had been married a long time, would "do their own thing". But they didn't talk about it, especially on tv.
Lesbianism was around, again, not talked about.
Pre-marital sex has been around since humans have existed. Don't make me laugh.
People can also try to replace various cravings with something more healthful, for instance, going for a run whenever they're tempted to eat a cheeseburger.
I'd say this in itself would require a large degree of will-power.
Just make the burger shop 2 miles from the student, and take away her car.
I agree; I've never gotten the same "reward" for exercise as I have for food, not that I'm that much of an addict for anything. Guess I'm just not wired that way....
Sure, usually that's what I'm trying to decide on. Hmmm, should I go for a run of have a milk shake? I wonder which would taste better right now.
I often chose sex over a cheeseburger whilst in college, only because the girls were more available than McDonald's.
That's right, you chose.
This article is trying to make it seem like it's something people just cannot resist, and that it's somehow not their responsibility and the consequences of their choices are not their fault.
Ruken,
"This article is trying to make it seem like it's something people just cannot resist, and that it's somehow not their responsibility and the consequences of their choices are not their fault."
I agree that some people will use this *study* to confirm in their minds that they are not responsible for self-control, whether it be overeating or sleeping around. Unlike other animals, humans have the power of reason and choice - and whether or not they choose to make good choices, at least be grown-up enough to own those choices - and don't say the "devil" made me do it...err, my hardwiring is to blame.
I didn't really pick up any implications like that from the article.
My reading comprehension may be poor, but it seemed to me that the article is just saying people are more likely to do certain things because of their brain chemistry. I didn't pick up on any deferral of fault or responsibility in the article.
The peer reviewed paper (that you haven't read) investigated the role that differences in a particular brain region (that you have never heard of) play in a person's ability to resist temptation. It's not an evil plot to rid the world of personal responsibility. I promise.
Seriously, I REALLY wish people would take the time to actually read and understand a scientific paper before criticizing it.
While I haven't read this particular paper, there are many like it (at least in desgin), and it appears to be answering a question of significant inmportance right now in neuroscience. Unfortunately, MSN did not even begin to come close to mentioning that question.
What this study did is link a chemical difference with a behavioral difference. The nuclues accumbens is a very well known structure among neuroscientisits. It is one of the sttructures primarily responsible for produceing dopamine in the brain. More activity in the nucleus accumbens means more dopamine in the brain. Dopamine has a lot of diverse effects on different brain regions. The question this study aswered was whether or not activity in the nucleus accumbens (and thus dopamine levels) are correlated with specific behaviors. The answer appears to be yes.
As to Ruken's criticism, I thought that the MSNBC story did imply that activity in these the nucleus accumbens makes people behave differently. But I think that comes from the (typically) bad scientific reporting than from the scientists themselves.
Dopamine is not made in the nucleus accumbens, it is released there. Dopamine is made in the ventral tegmental area in the brain stem. The nucleus accumbens receives dopamine via the medial forebrain bundle which synapes onto the nucleaus accumbens which in turn releases dopamine into the frontal cortex and other areas.
You are correct about that as well. You're killing me here.
No hard feelings buddy. We all have so much to learn. That is what science is all about;-).
Show off...;-)
Can two people talk to each other using a piece of string tied to their brain cans the way you can with tin cans?
So funny - laughing my butt off.
My theory is Jill was already a closet eater so therefore she just "came out" at school when the parental units were not watching her every move. Ann wised up & realized sex is fun and Kimberly was hit by ugly tree and wouldn't get a date anyway. Just my opinion.
"Months later, Jill has Months later, Jill is low self esteem a binge eater and Ann has become a skank who will end up with a low-level STD - and an inevitable vistit to the abortion clinc . Kimberly, on the other hand, has not only maintained her weight, she's been too busy studying in the library stacks to hook up. and Ann has become a sexual adventurer. Kimberly, on the other hand, has not only maintained her weight, she's been too busy studying in the library stacks to hook up - and is actually putting her parent's money to use, and will have nothing to be ashamed of anything they find out."
There, fixed it fer ya!
You forgot that Kimberly, having not experimented in college, will likely leave her husband after years of marriage, several kids and numerous affairs (or at least one) because she's looking for excitement that she's never experienced.
You totally missed the point, both of the article and my post. I never said "No Fun". Clearly, as the article states, this is about those who "can't resist". It could also be argued that BOTH Ann and Jill will have failed marriages also, because with a Husband/Kid/Job they will be stressed yet have no idea how to channel it without the "instant gratification" quick escape via cheap indulgences. I am sure that Kimberly will have her fun, all things in MODERATION good & bad, I hear she went to Band Camp one year...
I used to date a band camp girl. Then I married a pastor's daughter.
Man, my life was screwed up early.
They did not mention that there are reasons why some people show more reactivity in the nucleus accumbens to certain stimuli than others. It is well known that conditioning will cause (long term potentiation) LTP in the accumbens. When this area is potentiated to certain stimuli, it's reactivity to that stimuli will be great. The accumbens releases dopamine in anticipation of a reward. Hence the girls who are used to having sex with men they desire will have a 'potentiated' accumbens. While girls who have had limited sexual experiences or none will be more likely to turn to food as they have been more sucessful at obtaining food they want than sex.
That isn't truly long term potentiation. LTP technically refers to changes in the membrane properties of a single neuron, and effects all stimuli equally. However, different levels of LTP in different neurons of a network can have the effect you describe. However, to my knowledge, habituation (a decreased response to a stimulus) is more common in reward systems than potentiation, which is why people get bored with things that were once exciting.
Conditioned incentive experiments have clearly shown that LTP does indeed take place in the accumbens (Alexander, G. E. 1995. Basal ganglia. In Handbook of Brain Theory, edited by M. Arbib. Cambridge: MIT Press).
Correction: You are right about LTP. I had long-term and short-term potentiation mixed up. Also, since the study measured something associated with the reward, not the reward itself (sex is very hard in an fMRI machine), it would only be measuring potentiation because the predictor (the pictures) would not be rewarding in and of themselves.
So, you were right on both counts.
I want a brain scan (can) app on my Google Glasses, so I can see which temptation women are prone to.
Letting everyone believe that no real reason exists for self-responsibility implies that the rest of us are responsible for them. Not me, get lost.
That is in no way the point of, or even something that could be rationally implied from, the study. The study is explaining how reward is processed in the brain. In fact, if you boil it down to its simplest terms, the study concludes that some people like sex, some people like food, and some people like to study.
Why were there no men in this study?
Oh, I forgot -- society won't call them fat or slutty if they gain 15 pounds and have a couple sexual partners -- they only beef up and act like men.
What a disgusting article.
Because everyone knows that we men cannot resist temptation. There was no point in studying us.
"It's good to be the King!"
Due to the differences between the brains of men and women, it may be scientifically advantageous to remove variables by looking at only one gender. May be the men are next or they have already done the men in a previous study not reported here.
The difference between Men and Women in intimate situations, let's use the "three-way" analogy:
Man/Girl/Girl: while ego boosting and visually exciting to the man, the women are often having more fun with each other than they are with the man. To them, he is quite literally a "tool" in the situation.
Woman/Man/Man: While enjoyable for whatever reason to the Woman, the true balance gratification happens to the men involved. When asked about the double standard, my answer has been: "If the two guys are getting it on with each other, as would be in the reversed situation, then I will not pass one ounce judgement on the girl".
Seriously, think about it, you KNOW I am right.
A key that opens many locks is a very good key; however, a lock that opens with many keys is a terrible lock.
I have to take that quote.
Great wisdom.
The reason there were no men is because that would double the number of subjects required to publish the paper. It doesn't really matter, there is no convinving evidence that reward works any differently in men than women.
By the way, women have just as much sex as men. Unless the men are having sex with each other.
More junk science to justify lack of character and self control, sin and immoral behavior...
So,
intangible, subjective morality > facts that apply to everyone
Do people who say stuff like this ever have a moment of self-consciousness? Or do they just really like being unjustifyingly superior?
This is good science (well, its okay). It says NOTHING about morality or character. Those aren't even things that science can address. Science determines what is happening, why it is happening, and how it is happening. It does not determine whether or not something should happen. Don't blame the scientists for something that they didn't do.
Hamjam...you're trying to reason with the unreasonable. Don't waste your keystrokes. But, I must agree with you and further point out the irony in azhermit's comment...clearly not very scientific-minded.
The NA is known to be a part of the brain's pleasure and reward circuitry. This is clearly demonstrated in the area of addiction. So, forgive me if I'm not surprised or amazed by these findings.
I think the novel part of this study was the predictive power of NA activity. Although I agree that it is not hugely surprising.
why can't you resist temptation? because you don't want to.
Of course you don't want to. Thats why they are called "temptations" and not "phobias".
Please forgive the bloggers making fun of the word "can." I ran a brain scan on each one and found their brains couldn't resist doing it.
The medical profession will do anything to justify bad behavior just so they can say they have a pill for that.
I think it did much more good when I was growing up for my dad to simply say "Use some common sense, damnit, and get your @!$%# together!"
Regardless of how we are wired we do have free will. We do have the ablility to choose. This does help show us that some people are prone to different disorders and need to make an extra effort to control themselves in certain areas.
Ah, yes! As has been said, we now have yet another reason why our stupidity is not OUR stupidity, but the fault should lie with whomever 'wired' our brains. I wonder why none of these 'experts', doctors and scientists have yet figured out the reasons we do good things, and things we expect to be rewarded for. Are we not 'responsible' for those either?
Heck, it's not my fault that I cheated on my spouse, I have a sex addiction 'disease". So if I don't cheat, is that a disease too? It's not my fault that I sit around all day smoking weed and all night sniffing coke, it's another addictive 'disease'; so if I don't use those drugs, it's just another 'disease', right? It's not my fault that I stole all those televisions; it's a 'disease', right? And you certainly don't think you can blame ME for the 700GB of child porn on my computer, do you? Ha! Fat chance. You know that's not my fault; the scientists just haven't found that rogue gene yet...
I mean, the very idea that I, a human being, should ever do anything negative, self-destructive, counter-productive, immoral or just plain stupid, is patently unthinkable! It must be some genetic, pathological thing, right? Right!
Please forward my Newsvine tag to those participants in the study group that had strong sexual cue responses. We'll review each stimulating factor on a one on one basis. My brain is wired for that. I'd feed them too! Is this from the same study that says women's eyesight suffers when they watch hardcore porn? If so, I have some white canes available on an as needed basis.
Did they seriously do a test that tells us that, if someone likes something more than other things, they're more likely to say 'yes' to it?
Why am I even asking this question?
Hay researchers, next time you do a study like this how about you send me the grant money and I'll tell you the obvious?
Obviously you're an idiot.
It's called "science". Don't worry about it. Go watch TV.
if there is something you are into and there is a correlating area of the brain for that activity is it not common sense that that area will be strongly developed. Why is this moronic article trying to tell people that having strong appetites is a bad thing. People are so dull, why make them any less interesting than they already are. Celebrate people who actually have a strong impetus for the good things in life, they are probably making your dull one better to fulfill their desires
Umm, As far I can tell they study is saying that if you like something more, you are more likely to do it. People whose brains responded more to food were more likely to eat, those whose brains showed more response to sexual stimulus were more likely to have sex.
They needed a study of this? Really?