[removed]

From the article: More frequent smartphone checking behavior is associated with greater incidences of daily cognitive failures, according to new research published in the British Journal of Psychology. However, the new findings also indicate that some forms of screen time are actually associated with reduced cognitive failures.

There are concerns that smartphone use is related to the phenomenon of daily cognitive failures. Research has suggested that frequent smartphone use can lead to cognitive overload and decrease attentional control, which may contribute to cognitive failures such as forgetfulness, distraction, and mind wandering. Additionally, smartphone use can be highly distracting and interruptive, which may interfere with the ability to focus and complete tasks.

“This is a very interesting topic given that smartphone use has become ubiquitous in recent years and has dramatically changed the way people communicate and access information,” said study author Andree Hartanto, an assistant professor of psychology at Singapore Management University.

“It has been suggested that smartphone use may have negative effects on our cognitive processes, leading to daily cognitive failures such as forgetfulness and difficulty in paying attention. However, the evidence is mixed. Given the widespread use of smartphones and the potential impact on daily life, we believe that it is important to examine the relationship between smartphone use and cognitive failures rigorously with a better methodology using a daily dairy approach with objective measures of smartphone use.”

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[removed]

For sure, that's a stretch though. Any time of vigorous cardio or sport where you're sweating a lot.. I prefer mostly water but you're generally going to benefit from some electrolytes including sugars. Obviously best to get as much you can from normal diet

This is why we need to ban volcanoes. Just say to no to volcano.

[deleted]

[removed]

[removed]

It's that. Sugar in whole fruit that still has its fiber isn't as bad.

Eat an orange, don't drink orange juice.

Eat grapes, don't drink grape juice.

Eat apples, don't drink apple juice.

My hour long resistance training session at the gym doesn't need gatorade, just some water and a good meal afterward.

That marathoner who is on mile 20 and has hit the wall, pushed through it, pooped himself, and is on the verge of passing out and is only still going due to sheer endorphins? Yep, electrolytes make a LOT of sense.

Big Sugar still trying to do their damndest to make us blame eggs instead.

Dude, hulled hemp hearts are unreasonably delicious!

I agree on all points. 'Sugar' will probably be responsible for more diseases than we currently know .

I Just did a study; IT FOUND THE SAME THING!!!

*HGNUUUUUUUUUUUH*

I could have told you that. It's to the point, living in Michigan where it's legal, where if I'm feeling soreness, pain, headaches, or even slight nausea... I'll take a couple hits off a bowl or a joint and within about 30 I'm usually back on my feet. Works better than any bottle of aspirin or Tylenol ever did.

Doubtful. People don’t chew the food that well for that to be a factor. Plus you can drink 10 oranges of straight juice. You’d never eat that many.

I refuse to believe that a Shih Tzu is closer to a wolf than my GSD (who looks like a wolf and regularly howls at the moon).

So, couch potatoes that eat a lot of sweets tend to have more heart attacks. Got it, good to know.

Yea people don't wanna find out that grandpa held the rope at the lynch mob, etc.

Ignorance is bliss, and people wanna be happy

Not even a little bit.

>When threatened with the possibility of starvation, early humans developed a survival response that sent them foraging for food. Yet foraging is effective only if metabolism is inhibited in various parts of the brain. Foraging requires focus, rapid assessment, impulsivity, exploratory behavior and risk taking. It is enhanced by blocking whatever gets in the way, like recent memories and attention to time. Fructose, a kind of sugar, helps damp down these centers, allowing more focus on food gathering.

>In fact, the researchers found the entire foraging response was set in motion by the metabolism of fructose whether it was eaten or produced in the body. Metabolizing fructose and its byproduct, intracellular uric acid, was critical to the survival of both humans and animals.

>The researchers noted that fructose reduces blood flow to the brain’s cerebral cortex involved in self-control, as well as the hippocampus and thalamus. Meanwhile, blood flow increased around the visual cortex associated with food reward. All of this stimulated the foraging response.

>“We believe that initially the fructose-dependent reduction in cerebral metabolism in these regions was reversible and meant to be beneficial,” Johnson said. “But chronic and persistent reduction in cerebral metabolism driven by recurrent fructose metabolism leads to progressive brain atrophy and neuron loss with all of the features of AD.”

Fructose, as in "high fructose corn syrup"? It may reduce self-control and encourage people to seek out excess food for the mental reward stimulus? And long-term, repeated metabolism of it may contribute to Alzheimer's (which implies that excess consumption of it makes it happen even faster)?

Sigh. If I'm understanding that correctly, I'd think this would count as a motive for various food industries to intentionally use excessive fructose in various food products to manipulate people to buy excess food/drink against their will/better judgment. It would also probably count as evidence of harm caused by including it in food/drink products. One would need harder evidence to prove that they deliberately and knowingly did so, though.

We're fun at parties, right?

the only thing i would be concerned with is how insurance companies could interact with individuals that have a hereditary disease (a.k.a denial of coverage due to a 'pre-existing conditon'). It's illegal for them to deny you *now* but in 5, 10 or even 15 years it could change.