Sunday, December 15, 2013

The Sweet Lure of Chocolate

Story by Jim Spadaccino. Photos by Amy Snyder

Read the full story here.
Cacao Fruit Amazon

Chocolate. There are few foods that people feel as passionate about -- a passion that goes beyond a love for the "sweetness" of most candies or desserts: after all, few people crave caramel, whipped cream, or bubble gum. Chocolate is, well, different. For the true chocoholic, just thinking about chocolate can evoke a pleasurable response. You may want to grab a bar or make a nice cup of hot cocoa before you begin exploring here.

This special online-only edition of Exploring takes a closer look at the sweet lure of chocolate. We'll examine the fascinating -- and often misreported -- history of chocolate, follow the chocolate-making process, and take an online visit to a chocolate factory. We'll also look at the science of chocolate, and find out about the latest research into the possible health effects of its consumption. Lastly, we'll explore the somewhat controversial question of why chocolate make us feel so good.

Cacao Beans
What's Inside:




Try This!
Tempering Chocolate
In this activity, you'll learn about "tempering" -- a delicate process of melting and cooling chocolate that not only produces delicious results, it's also an opportunity to learn a little science!

 © Exploratorium

Sunday, December 8, 2013

New Hints Seen That Red Wine May Slow Aging


Published: June 4, 2008

Read the full article here.

Red wine may be much more potent than was thought in extending human lifespan, researchers say in a new report that is likely to give impetus to the rapidly growing search for longevity drugs.

The study is based on dosing mice with resveratrol, an ingredient of some red wines. Some scientists are already taking resveratrol in capsule form, but others believe it is far too early to take the drug, especially using wine as its source, until there is better data on its safety and effectiveness.

The report is part of a new wave of interest in drugs that may enhance longevity. On Monday, Sirtris, a startup founded in 2004 to develop drugs with the same effects as resveratrol, completed its sale to GlaxoSmithKline for $720 million.

Sirtris is seeking to develop drugs that activate protein agents known in people as sirtuins.
“The upside is so huge that if we are right, the company that dominates the sirtuin space could dominate the pharmaceutical industry and change medicine,” Dr. David Sinclair of the Harvard Medical School, a co-founder of the company, said Tuesday.

Serious scientists have long derided the idea of life-extending elixirs, but the door has now been opened to drugs that exploit an ancient biological survival mechanism, that of switching the body’s resources from fertility to tissue maintenance. The improved tissue maintenance seems to extend life by cutting down on the degenerative diseases of aging.

The reflex can be prompted by a faminelike diet, known as caloric restriction, which extends the life of laboratory rodents by up to 30 percent but is far too hard for most people to keep to and in any case has not been proven to work in humans.

Research started nearly 20 years ago by Dr. Leonard Guarente of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology showed recently that the famine-induced switch to tissue preservation might be triggered by activating the body’s sirtuins. Dr. Sinclair, a former student of Dr. Guarente, then found in 2003 that sirtuins could be activated by some natural compounds, including resveratrol, previously known as just an ingredient of certain red wines.

Dr. Sinclair’s finding led in several directions. He and others have tested resveratrol’s effects in mice, mostly at doses far higher than the minuscule amounts in red wine. One of the more spectacular results was obtained last year by Dr. John Auwerx of the Institute of Genetics and Molecular and Cellular Biology in Illkirch, France. He showed that resveratrol could turn plain vanilla, couch-potato mice into champion athletes, making them run twice as far on a treadmill before collapsing.

The company Sirtris, meanwhile, has been testing resveratrol and other drugs that activate sirtuin. These drugs are small molecules, more stable than resveratrol, and can be given in smaller doses. In April, Sirtris reported that its formulation of resveratrol, called SRT501, reduced glucose levels in diabetic patients.

The company plans to start clinical trials of its resveratrol mimic soon. Sirtris’s value to GlaxoSmithKline is presumably that its sirtuin-activating drugs could be used to treat a spectrum of degenerative diseases, like cancer and Alzheimer’s, if the underlying theory is correct.

Separately from Sirtris’s investigations, a research team led by Tomas A. Prolla and Richard Weindruch, of the University of Wisconsin, reports in the journal PLoS One on Wednesday that resveratrol may be effective in mice and people in much lower doses than previously thought necessary. In earlier studies, like Dr. Auwerx’s of mice on treadmills, the animals were fed such large amounts of resveratrol that to gain equivalent dosages people would have to drink more than 100 bottles of red wine a day.

The Wisconsin scientists used a dose on mice equivalent to just 35 bottles a day. But red wine contains many other resveratrol-like compounds that may also be beneficial. Taking these into account, as well as mice’s higher metabolic rate, a mere four, five-ounce glasses of wine “starts getting close” to the amount of resveratrol they found effective, Dr. Weindruch said.

Resveratrol can also be obtained in the form of capsules marketed by several companies. Those made by one company, Longevinex, include extracts of red wine and of a Chinese plant called giant knotweed. The Wisconsin researchers conclude that resveratrol can mimic many of the effects of a caloric-restricted diet “at doses that can readily be achieved in humans.”

The effectiveness of the low doses was not tested directly, however, but with a DNA chip that measures changes in the activity of genes. The Wisconsin team first defined the pattern of gene activity established in mice on caloric restriction, and then showed that very low doses of resveratrol produced just the same pattern.

Dr. Auwerx, who used doses almost 100 times greater in his treadmill experiments, expressed reservations about the new result. “I would be really cautious, as we never saw significant effects with such low amounts,” he said Tuesday in an e-mail message.

Another researcher in the sirtuin field, Dr. Matthew Kaeberlein of the University of Washington in Seattle, said, “There’s no way of knowing from this data, or from the prior work, if something similar would happen in humans at either low or high doses.”

A critical link in establishing whether or not caloric restriction works the same wonders in people as it does in mice rests on the outcome of two monkey trials. Since rhesus monkeys live for up to 40 years, the trials have taken a long time to show results. Experts said that one of the two trials, being conducted by Dr. Weindruch, was at last showing clear evidence that calorically restricted monkeys were outliving the control animals.
But no such effect is apparent in the other trial, being conducted at the National Institutes of Health.

The Wisconsin report underlined another unresolved link in the theory, that of whether resveratrol actually works by activating sirtuins. The issue is clouded because resveratrol is a powerful drug that has many different effects in the cell. The Wisconsin researchers report that they saw no change in the mouse equivalent of sirtuin during caloric restriction, a finding that if true could undercut Sirtris’s strategy of looking for drugs that activate sirtuin.
Dr. Guarente, a scientific adviser to Sirtris, said the Wisconsin team only measured the amount of sirtuin present in mouse tissues, and not the more important factor of whether it had been activated.

Dr. Sinclair said the definitive answer would emerge from experiments, now under way, with mice whose sirtuin genes had been knocked out. “The question of how resveratrol is working is an ongoing debate and it will take more studies to get the answer,” he said.

Dr. Robert E. Hughes of the Buck Institute for Age Research said there could be no guarantee of success given that most new drug projects fail. But, he said, testing the therapeutic uses of drugs that mimic caloric restriction is a good idea, based on substantial evidence.

Sunday, December 1, 2013

Is Chocolate Good for You? or Bad?

By bon appétit magazine | Healthy Living – Tue, Apr 30, 2013 2:54 PM EDT

Written by Sam Dean

Read the full article here


A Box of Chocolates
We like science as much as the next guy, but historically, it hasn't been the most consistent when it comes to telling us what we should and shouldn't eat. Even though ingesting (and digesting) food is key to the biological definition of life itself, scientists just can't seem to make up their minds about what happens to us when we put things in our mouths.

We already went through wine's up-and-downs (poison! medicine! kinda both!), but what about chocolate? Going way back, chocolate was thought of as medicine. The Aztecs used it as a religious energy drink, and old-school quacks wrote that chocolate helps digestion, coughs, jaundice, the "New Disease" (i.e., syphilis), and gout, among other things. Some said it was perfect for pepping up the constitutionally frail; others said it was perfect for calming down the overstimulated. Either way, everyone agreed that it was probably good for something, and it tasted great.

 Then milk chocolate, science, and dieting came along. Chocolate used to come either solid and pitch black or (more commonly) as a drink, but in the 1870s, a Swiss confectioner figured out how to make solid bars of chocolate combined with milk: milk chocolate! With fewer expensive cocoa beans per bar, milk chocolate was a far cheaper product than its dark predecessor, and chocolate changed from a dish for the rich to a more democratic treat.

 But with milk and ubiquity came worries about fat, and by the early 20th century, chocolate's supposed health effects had taken a backseat to its perception as a kind of candy. It also picked up a bad reputation for triggering acne outbreaks, contributing to migraines, and giving people heartburn. And besides its value as a treat, it didn't come up too much for most of the 1900s. If you look at a chart of "chocolate" mentioned in Google's book archive, you can see two spikes around both of the World Wars, when chocolate was rationed and advertised as gifts for overseas soldiers, but things take a massive dip between 1945 and the early 80s.

 Which is when science started kicking in. In 1988 alone, chocolate was scientifically accused of causing itching, causing migraines, and causing indigestion. In 1989, science found that the fat from cocoa butter is good for you, but since most chocolate also has milkfat in it, it's bad! And a 1990 article called "New Insights on Why Some Children Are Fat" continued the chocophobic trend, with a Dr. Stunkard noting that "no one binges on hard candies, which are pure sweetness...ice cream and chocolate are more often the villains."

Harsh words. And things weren't getting any better. In 1992, science found that chocolate makes you fatter than alcohol if you're an alcoholic (but failed to mention if the inverse holds true for chocoholics), and followed up in 1993 with the painful finding that a chemical found in chocolate might give you kidney stones.

But soft! What light through yonder science breaks? It is 1996, the year that things started looking up for chocolate again! First, science found that chocolate definitely does NOT cause acne outbreaks (though it can still get stuck in your braces). Then, in what might be the best chocolate-related study of all time, science also discovered that chocolate could be used not only as a shock absorber in cars but as a quick way to fill potholes.

Okay, this has nothing to do with health, but two researchers at Michigan State found that, according to the Times, "when a moderately high-voltage electric field was applied to molten Hershey bars, an almost instantaneous change occurs: the thin chocolate liquid becomes a stiff gel. The warm, tasty fluid is transformed into a semisolid within a few thousandths of a second after the electric field is applied, and it reverts to a liquid just as fast when the power is shut off." Paging any molecular gastronomists out there: please make a table out of electrified chocolate.

But all good things must come to an end. Later that year, science decided to remind everyone that chocolate still causes heartburn, and that it still has a lot of fat in it.

Oh, but wait, 1998 brought things back around: chocolate was proven to not actually cause migraines at all, and a study found that chocolate-eating men might live longer lives!

Uh oh, but then 1999 both found that chocoholism is cultural, not genetic, and that chocolate somehow proves the non-existence of free will, based on your brain chemistry. Is eating too much chocolate our fault or not, guys! Jeez. Oh, and it still might cause heartburn.

And then, in 2001, the New York Times came out and admitted that science has no idea what it's talking about when it comes to chocolate.

 Case in point, 2002 brought news that antioxidants in chocolate are healthy and that chocolate might trigger something called "cyclic vomiting." Ditto 2003, when the "acute embarrassment" of IBS was linked to chocolate, dark chocolate was praised and milk chocolate damned in the same breath, and one guy proposed a new law to deal with science flip-flop fatigue: "foods and beverages of wide appeal, once officially deemed harmful, must continue to be viewed that way for at least a generation, so the people who have avoided them can die believing they did the right thing."

The next couple of years were once again a golden time for pro-chocolateering, with scientists finding that a chemical in chocolate is better than codeine at stopping coughs, cocoa lowers blood pressure, and that the benefits of one compound found in cocoa "are so striking that it may rival penicillin and anaesthesia in terms of importance to public health." Wow!

Then: "The Problem With Chocolate." The Lancet, one of the world's premiere science journals, published an editorial raining on everyone's chocolate parade. Turns out that all the stuff in chocolate that might be good for you--the flavanols--are typically stripped out of commercial chocolate by the manufacturing process. Womp. Womp.

 The next couple of years drift by with the science equivalent of static fuzz. Plus side: synthetic cocoa might help cure some cancers, chocolate milk might help fight atherosclerosis, and the Swedes are sticking to their heart-healthy guns. Bad side: chocolate ruins sleep, it's only good for you if you have it occasionally, not every day, and, most frightening of all, "Chocoholic Mice Fear No Pain."

In 2011, though, a bolt from the blue! A meta-study from Cambridge found that chocolate does probably definitely lower stroke rates, coronary heart disease, and high blood pressure. And the next year, settling the debate for once and for all, another study found that regular chocolate eaters are, improbably, thinner, and that "chocolate makes snails smarter." And if it makes snails smarter, why not us, too?!

So there you have it! Chocolate makes snails smarter. Wait, what was the question? Oh right, yeah. Here's your final answer: chocolate probably helps with vascular problems, but only in super-dark form, and only if you don't eat too much of it, and even then all that sugar and milk fat are bad for you, and if you want to be healthy you should probably just exercise more. Or, in short: Enjoy in moderation!