As planned, I was able to make it back to the Pemi Loop one final time before fall settles in. I headed up bright and early, sharing a ride with Jamie Anderson.
The high summit forecast for the day was for clear skies, temps in the 50s and 5-20mph winds developing. The clear sky part was correct, but the temps rose much higher than the forecast, there was no breeze to speak of, and the humidity was pretty darn high. I was soaked in sweat by the time I reached the top of Bondcliff.
Jamie and I headed out a little after 6:30am. We slowly made our way up the Wilderness Trail and despite one bio-break (Jamie) we made it to the Bondcliff Trail in about the same time as my previous run of the loop.
I kept a moderate pace up Bondcliff, arriving just before Jamie. We hung for a few minutes to take in the best views of the loop and to snap a few photos. I headed off in front of Jamie and gained a little bit of time on the rocky downhill section.
We met up with a nice woman at the summit of Bond. She was doing a partial Pemi, having camped at the Guyot campground the previous night. We chatted for a few minutes before heading off to Guyot, Twin and the Gailhead Hut. Jamie told me to go at my own pace and not to worry about waiting.
I made good time on the section from Bond to Gailhead, waiting a few times to see if Jamie would catch up, no dice.
I was a little slower getting to the hut, but was in and out quickly. I wanted to get in as much distance as I could given the rapidly rising temperatures.
I made better time on the trip to Garfield than last time. And unlike last time, I topped by bottles off at the Garfield spring. Smart move given the weather.
I made good time up and over Lafayette, but started to fade when I made it to Liberty. I slowed down a lot on the trail to Flume, partially to conserve energy and water, which was almost gone.
I reached the top of the Osseo Trail with 8:15 on the clock and was officially out of water. I so wanted to be done at this point.
It seemed to take forever to reach the Wilderness Trail, despite being one of my fastest times on the section. I ran as fast as I could back the bridge so I could cool off in the river and down some fresh water. The river never felt so good.
Strava
Photos
Cheers!
Pemi Loop
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Death of the Calorie
http://www.philmaffetone.com/death-of-the-calorie
After decades of being led astray by the calorie-counting myth, it’s time to put the idea to sleep.
Dr. Philip Maffetone
In a healthy environment, all animals know how much of what foods to eat. But generations of people have gone astray, taken advantage of by companies selling products and programs based on calorie counting claiming you will lose weight. As most know, this does not really work. Over the last 40-plus years of studying nutrition, food and energy, I have never seen a person successfully count calories to lose weight and maintain it long term while being healthy. In fact, the end result is too often weight gain, along with more body fat.
Writing in Scientific American (“Science Reveals Why Calorie Counts Are All Wrong,” 2013), North Carolina State University biologist Rob Dunn, says that, “Nutrition scientists are beginning to learn enough to hypothetically improve calorie labels, but digestion turns out to be such a fantastically complex and messy affair that we will probably never derive a formula for an infallible calorie count.”
These and other reasons should make one understand that, from a practical standpoint, the calorie is dead.
Not just the calorie, all the ideas surrounding it. Calorie counting is the most common way doctors, weight-loss programs, and people wanting to lose fat have employed for decades. The myth is maintained not because this approach works, but because it’s a big business. Low-cal foods, diet books, drugs, surgery, and multi-million dollar weight-loss companies sell the idea to gullible people. What has evolved is a game played that can’t be won, through a revolving dead-end door that keeps people spinning their wheels. It’s the reason so much money is made on products and programs. In fact, according to Marketdata Enterprises (a market research firm that tracks the industry), Americans spend more than $60 billion annually on this losing game.
Calories In Calories Out
Calories are calculated, worshiped, despised and envied, often all at the same time and usually for emotional reasons. In reality, logic is not part of the calorie game.
Despite this, the simple equation bantered about is that if calories taken in (from food) equal calories out (energy expended), weight loss results. If it were as simple as sixth grade math, the majority of people would not be overfat.
The mighty calorie is a common denominator in many arenas. In addition to the low amounts used for weight loss, weightlifters or football players try to calculate how many more they need to bulk up. For endurance athletes, calculating the necessary calories consumed during a race to maintain energy is also common.
Whether an Ironman athlete planning nutrition for his or her race, or an overfat person trying to lose weight, the calorie approach has been a dismal failure. Sometimes these two individuals are one and the same. The calorie myth has not only significantly contributed to the global obesity epidemic it has also played a large role in producing too many overfat athletes.
During the last few decades, when the calorie was king and queen, there has not only been an explosion of the obesity epidemic, but an overall significant increase in body fat in both sedentary and active people alike. The problem also affects young children—about a third of five-year-olds are overweight.
The Science
Researchers have demonstrated why calorie counting can be a myth. Clinicians have long known that the plan usually does not result in long-term weight control, and often results in a rebound of weight gain that is bad for the body because it can quickly impair health.
Consider these facts:
-While calorie counts are listed on food labels, most can be significantly inaccurate.
-The number of calories we obtain from a certain food varies considerably because we all digest differently. This includes how food is processed, prepared, how well it is chewed, how much energy we use during digestion, the various bacteria in our gut, and other factors.
-Calories consider macronutrient status of carbohydrates, fats and proteins, while ignoring the thousands of other nutrients that include vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients. This is another reason why many low-cal foods and diets are unhealthy—they are void of the necessary nutrition.
-In most people’s minds, calories are intricately linked to scale weight. But this is a measure of mostly water. Instead, body fat is what people really want to lose. Unfortunately, the calorie myth has maintained the false notion that weight is the bottom line, regardless of body fat. While fat does not weigh much, it does take up a lot of space, so waist size may be one of the best accurate indicators of body fat. Even more simple is this: As your clothes get looser or tighter, you are losing or gaining body fat.
A Calorie is a Calorie
Wrong. This would be true if we were making precise measurements in a controlled laboratory experiment, but we’re not. Consider the simple act of consuming 200 calories of carbohydrates from an energy bar, which triggers a moderate to high production of insulin. While this hormone helps utilize half the bar’s calories for immediate muscle energy, the other half gets converted to fat and is quickly stored.
Even worse, insulin makes stored fat less available for energy—the body now relies more on glucose for fuel instead of fat. Body fat accumulates, and endurance, which relies on fat burning as much, if not more, then sugar, diminishes. The same unhealthy consequences would not occur if one ate a 200-calorie vegetable omelet. (See also, “The Insulin Villain.”)
Endurance Sports
As noted above, many athletes want to know how much energy they will need for a marathon, Ironman or other endurance race. Charts on how much energy is used for running or biking, and therefore how much food one must consume to provide that energy, are common. Today, online calculators make it seem easier. But this data is not useful because it's incomplete for at least two reasons:
Developing ones aerobic system—the red, slow twitch muscles that burn fat—is the initial step in evaluating race nutrition. In other words, first train your body to burn more stored fat, which is virtually in unlimited supply, for race energy. Only then can the question of how many calories should be consumed during a race can be better considered.
Determining race nutrition cannot be easily or accurately calculated. The best approach is for athletes to experiment during long, sub-max training by monitoring various signs and symptoms: how they feel (energy), the relationship between heart rate and pace, hunger, recovery, gut symptoms, and other factors.
By doing so, most athletes can get a good sense of what's needed on race day. In addition to, or instead of calories, it’s best to use grams of glucose (along with fat and protein).
The calorie theory has never been a good one. Humans are not like machines. We have ever-changing metabolisms, influenced by training, food, stress and the environment. By allowing the calorie to die, many will be free to eat healthy food, avoid junk, and program the body to burn more stored fat, thereby getting healthier, leaner and with more energy for all endeavors.
After decades of being led astray by the calorie-counting myth, it’s time to put the idea to sleep.
Dr. Philip Maffetone
In a healthy environment, all animals know how much of what foods to eat. But generations of people have gone astray, taken advantage of by companies selling products and programs based on calorie counting claiming you will lose weight. As most know, this does not really work. Over the last 40-plus years of studying nutrition, food and energy, I have never seen a person successfully count calories to lose weight and maintain it long term while being healthy. In fact, the end result is too often weight gain, along with more body fat.
Writing in Scientific American (“Science Reveals Why Calorie Counts Are All Wrong,” 2013), North Carolina State University biologist Rob Dunn, says that, “Nutrition scientists are beginning to learn enough to hypothetically improve calorie labels, but digestion turns out to be such a fantastically complex and messy affair that we will probably never derive a formula for an infallible calorie count.”
These and other reasons should make one understand that, from a practical standpoint, the calorie is dead.
Not just the calorie, all the ideas surrounding it. Calorie counting is the most common way doctors, weight-loss programs, and people wanting to lose fat have employed for decades. The myth is maintained not because this approach works, but because it’s a big business. Low-cal foods, diet books, drugs, surgery, and multi-million dollar weight-loss companies sell the idea to gullible people. What has evolved is a game played that can’t be won, through a revolving dead-end door that keeps people spinning their wheels. It’s the reason so much money is made on products and programs. In fact, according to Marketdata Enterprises (a market research firm that tracks the industry), Americans spend more than $60 billion annually on this losing game.
Calories In Calories Out
Calories are calculated, worshiped, despised and envied, often all at the same time and usually for emotional reasons. In reality, logic is not part of the calorie game.
Despite this, the simple equation bantered about is that if calories taken in (from food) equal calories out (energy expended), weight loss results. If it were as simple as sixth grade math, the majority of people would not be overfat.
The mighty calorie is a common denominator in many arenas. In addition to the low amounts used for weight loss, weightlifters or football players try to calculate how many more they need to bulk up. For endurance athletes, calculating the necessary calories consumed during a race to maintain energy is also common.
Whether an Ironman athlete planning nutrition for his or her race, or an overfat person trying to lose weight, the calorie approach has been a dismal failure. Sometimes these two individuals are one and the same. The calorie myth has not only significantly contributed to the global obesity epidemic it has also played a large role in producing too many overfat athletes.
During the last few decades, when the calorie was king and queen, there has not only been an explosion of the obesity epidemic, but an overall significant increase in body fat in both sedentary and active people alike. The problem also affects young children—about a third of five-year-olds are overweight.
The Science
Researchers have demonstrated why calorie counting can be a myth. Clinicians have long known that the plan usually does not result in long-term weight control, and often results in a rebound of weight gain that is bad for the body because it can quickly impair health.
Consider these facts:
-While calorie counts are listed on food labels, most can be significantly inaccurate.
-The number of calories we obtain from a certain food varies considerably because we all digest differently. This includes how food is processed, prepared, how well it is chewed, how much energy we use during digestion, the various bacteria in our gut, and other factors.
-Calories consider macronutrient status of carbohydrates, fats and proteins, while ignoring the thousands of other nutrients that include vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients. This is another reason why many low-cal foods and diets are unhealthy—they are void of the necessary nutrition.
-In most people’s minds, calories are intricately linked to scale weight. But this is a measure of mostly water. Instead, body fat is what people really want to lose. Unfortunately, the calorie myth has maintained the false notion that weight is the bottom line, regardless of body fat. While fat does not weigh much, it does take up a lot of space, so waist size may be one of the best accurate indicators of body fat. Even more simple is this: As your clothes get looser or tighter, you are losing or gaining body fat.
A Calorie is a Calorie
Wrong. This would be true if we were making precise measurements in a controlled laboratory experiment, but we’re not. Consider the simple act of consuming 200 calories of carbohydrates from an energy bar, which triggers a moderate to high production of insulin. While this hormone helps utilize half the bar’s calories for immediate muscle energy, the other half gets converted to fat and is quickly stored.
Even worse, insulin makes stored fat less available for energy—the body now relies more on glucose for fuel instead of fat. Body fat accumulates, and endurance, which relies on fat burning as much, if not more, then sugar, diminishes. The same unhealthy consequences would not occur if one ate a 200-calorie vegetable omelet. (See also, “The Insulin Villain.”)
Endurance Sports
As noted above, many athletes want to know how much energy they will need for a marathon, Ironman or other endurance race. Charts on how much energy is used for running or biking, and therefore how much food one must consume to provide that energy, are common. Today, online calculators make it seem easier. But this data is not useful because it's incomplete for at least two reasons:
- First, the energy from stored fat is rarely considered. This includes the fact that we all burn varying amounts of both fat and sugar (glucose) at various levels of activity. Trying to figure out how many additional calories will be required becomes a guessing game.
- Second is efficiency. Those with better body economy will need less fat and glucose, and oxygen, to successfully complete a race. Explained differently, an athlete can race faster with the same effort (heart rate) as economy improves. There are many factors that effect body economy, which athletes should focus on most if they want more speed (see “10 Ways to Improve Running Economy”).
Developing ones aerobic system—the red, slow twitch muscles that burn fat—is the initial step in evaluating race nutrition. In other words, first train your body to burn more stored fat, which is virtually in unlimited supply, for race energy. Only then can the question of how many calories should be consumed during a race can be better considered.
Determining race nutrition cannot be easily or accurately calculated. The best approach is for athletes to experiment during long, sub-max training by monitoring various signs and symptoms: how they feel (energy), the relationship between heart rate and pace, hunger, recovery, gut symptoms, and other factors.
By doing so, most athletes can get a good sense of what's needed on race day. In addition to, or instead of calories, it’s best to use grams of glucose (along with fat and protein).
The calorie theory has never been a good one. Humans are not like machines. We have ever-changing metabolisms, influenced by training, food, stress and the environment. By allowing the calorie to die, many will be free to eat healthy food, avoid junk, and program the body to burn more stored fat, thereby getting healthier, leaner and with more energy for all endeavors.
Saturday, August 23, 2014
How Resistant Starch Will Help to Make You Healthier and Thinner
Over the past several years there has been an exponential increase in the number of studies linking imbalances or disturbances of the gut microbiota to a wide range of diseases including obesity, inflammatory bowel diseases, depression and anxiety (1,2,3,4,5). One of the best ways to establish and support a healthy gut microbiome is by providing the right “foods” for your gut bacteria. These “foods” are called prebiotics.
Why you should add resistant starch to your diet.
Prebiotics are indigestible carbohydrates, or at least indigestible to us, that reach the colon intact and selectively feed many strains of beneficial bacteria. Prebiotics are generally classified into three different types: non-starch polysaccharides (such as inulin and fructooligosaccharide), soluble fiber (including psyllium husk and acacia fibers), and resistant starch (RS). Each of these types of prebiotics feeds different species of gut bacteria, but among these, RS is emerging as uniquely beneficial.
The distinctive benefits of RS seem to be unequivocally recognized, even amongst advocates of a low carbohydrate diet.
What is resistant starch?
Resistant starch is a type of starch that is not digested in the stomach or small intestine, reaching the colon intact. Thus, it “resists” digestion. This explains why we do not see spikes in either blood glucose or insulin after eating RS, and why we do not obtain significant calories from RS.
There are four types of resistant starch:
RS Type 1: Starch is physically inaccessible, bound within the fibrous cell walls of plants. This is found in grains, seeds, and legumes.
RS Type 2: Starch with a high amylose content, which is indigestible in the raw state. This is found in potatoes, green (unripe) bananas, and plantains. Cooking these foods causes changes in the starch making it digestible to us, and removing the resistant starch.
RS Type 3: Also called retrograde RS since this type of RS forms after Type 1 or Type 2 RS is cooked and then cooled. These cooked and cooled foods can be reheated at low temperatures, less than 130 degrees and maintain the benefits of RS (6). Heating at higher temperatures will again convert the starch into a form that is digestible to us rather than “feeding” our gut bacteria. Examples include cooked and cooled parboiled rice, cooked and cooled potatoes, and cooked and cooled properly prepared (soaked or sprouted) legumes.
RS Type 4: This is a synthetic form of RS that I’m including for completeness, but would not recommend. A common example is “hi-maize resistant starch.”
Once RS reaches the large intestine, bacteria attach to and digest, or ferment, the starch. This is when we receive the benefits of RS.
How resistant starch impacts our health
The normal human gut has hundreds of bacterial species, some good and some not so good. The overall number and relative quantity of each type has a profound effect on our health and well being. Resistant starch selectively stimulates the good bacteria in our intestines, helping to maintain a healthy balance of bacteria (7).
These good bacteria “feed” on RS and produce short chain fatty acids (through fermentation), the most significant of which are acetate, butyrate, and propionate. Of these three short chain fatty acids (SCFA), butyrate is of particular importance due to its beneficial effects on the colon and overall health, and RS appears to increase butyrate production more when compared with other soluble fibers (8).
Butyrate is the preferred energy source of the cells lining the colon, and it also plays a number of roles in increasing metabolism, decreasing inflammation and improving stress resistance, as described in more detail below and previously in this great article by Stephan Guyenet.
Resistant starch helps to lower blood glucose levels and improve insulin sensitivity
Insulin resistance and chronically elevated blood glucose are associated with a host of chronic diseases, including metabolic syndrome. Several studies have shown that RS may improve insulin sensitivity (9), and decrease blood glucose levels in response to meals (10, 11, 12). In one study, consumption of 15 and 30 grams per day of resistant starch showed improved insulin sensitivity in overweight and obese men, equivalent to the improvement that would be expected with weight loss equal to approximately 10% of body weight (13).
Further, RS has been shown to exert a “second meal effect.” This means that not only does RS beneficially decrease the blood glucose response at the time it’s consumed, but, somewhat surprisingly, blood glucose and insulin levels also rise less than would otherwise be expected with the subsequent meal (14).
Why the popular press has touted resistant starch as a “weight loss wonder food”
RS appears to have several beneficial effects that may contribute to weight loss, including decreased blood insulin spikes after meals (as discussed above), decreased appetite, and decreased fat storage in fat cells. There may also be preservation of lean body mass, though further studies in humans are needed to confirm if there is a significant impact in overall body weight (15).
Further, several studies have shown alterations in the gut microbiome in association with obesity, which subsequently change towards that seen in lean individuals with weight loss (16, 17). For example, one study demonstrated that the relative composition of the gut microbiota of two predominate beneficial bacteria,Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes, varied considerably in association with body composition. Specifically, obese individuals often have a higher proportion ofFirmicutes to Bacteroidetes, which may be reversed with weight loss, gastric bypass surgery, or treatment with prebiotics (3). However, not all studies confirm a significant or measurable change in the composition of the microbiome in obese compared to lean individuals, and further studies are needed (18, 19).
Butyrate plays an important role in gut health and decreasing inflammation in the gut and other tissues
As mentioned above, RS intake allows for increased production of butyrate by our gut microbes. Butyrate acts as a powerful anti-inflammatory agent for the colonic cells, and functions to improve the integrity of our gut by decreasing intestinal permeability and therefore keeping toxins in the gut and out of the bloodstream. (20,21).
The SCFAs that aren’t utilized by the colonic cells enter the bloodstream, travel to the liver, and spread throughout the body where they exert additional anti-inflammatory effects.
Resistant starch is also associated with decreased risk of colorectal cancer, thought to occur through several different mechanisms including: protection from DNA damage, favorable changes in gene expression, and increased apoptosis (programmed cell death) of cancerous or pre-cancerous cells (22, 23).
Adding resistant starch to your diet
Some common food sources of RS include green (unripe) bananas, plantains, properly prepared cooked and cooled parboiled rice or legumes, and cooked and cooled potatoes. See this link for a more complete list of RS quantities in food.
However, if you are on a low carbohydrate diet or don’t tolerate those foods well, you can add RS to your diet without adding digestible carbohydrates.
Bob’s Red Mill Unmodified Potato Starch (NOT potato flour) is one of the best sources of RS with approximately eight grams of RS in one tablespoon. Potato starch is generally well tolerated even by those who react adversely to nightshades.
Plantain flour and green banana flour are also excellent sources of RS, and there may be benefit to including all three of these sources (specifically alternating your source of RS rather than relying on a single one).
These are relatively bland in flavor and can be added to cold or room temperature water, almond milk, or mixed into smoothies. But to maintain the benefits of RS, these should not be heated above 130 degrees.
Tim Steele (Tatertot) has written about some of the research on RS supplementation, and in particular the potential further benefit of combining potato starch with psyllium husk fiber to even further increase butyrate production in the colon.
Take it slow
If you choose to try supplementing with RS, start with small doses of about ¼ teaspoon once daily, and very gradually increase the amount as tolerated. Some increased gas and bloating is expected as your gut flora changes and adapts, but you do not want to feel uncomfortable. If you experience marked discomfort, then decrease the amount you’re taking for a few days until your symptoms resolve, and then try increasing again gradually.
Studies indicate that the benefits of resistant starch may be seen when consuming around 15 to 30 grams daily (equivalent to two to four tablespoons of potato starch). This may be too much for some people to tolerate, particularly in the setting of gut dysbiosis, and going above this amount is not necessarily beneficial.
If you experience marked GI distress with even small amounts of RS, this may be an indication of SIBO (small intestinal bacterial overgrowth) or microbial dysbiosis, and you may need to consider working with a healthcare practitioner to establish a more balanced gut microbiome through the use of herbal antimicrobials and probiotics before adding RS or other prebiotics.
Friday, August 22, 2014
Thursday, August 21, 2014
A Gene That Makes You Need Less Sleep?
http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/a-gene-makes-you-need-less-sleep
Since June, 1957, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been monitoring America’s health habits, tabulating things like whether we smoke, drink, or sit around all day, and how many of us visit our doctors regularly and take our medications at the prescribed times. Until recently, though, one aspect of our behavior largely escaped note: the amount of time we spend sleeping. And so, in 2009, the C.D.C. decided to add a sleep dimension to its survey.
Average sleep length has been declining throughout the country, for all age groups, since the nineteen-eighties, and this shorter sleep duration is very likely making people less healthy. When the C.D.C. surveyed some seventy-five thousand American adults about their sleeping habits, more than thirty-five per cent reported that they regularly slept fewer than seven hours a night. It wasn’t just these individuals who were functioning poorer; even some of their longer-sleeping peers—those who slept more than seven hours, but still short of the recommended amount—were feeling the effects of sleep deprivation. Nearly forty per cent had fallen asleep unintentionally at least once in the prior month, while five per cent—more than fifteen and a half million people nationally—had fallen asleep behind the wheel at least once in the same time frame. When you narrowed the sample to people between twenty-four and thirty-four years old (the group reporting the least sleep), the rate rose to more than seven per cent.
Sleep deprivation can cause actual physical harm, like a car crash, or cause you to hit “reply all” when you don’t mean to—a crash of a different sort. It results in severe cognitive impairments: lower productivity and difficulty concentrating, memory issues, and motivational problems. It even makes you like your hobbies less. That’s not to mention the known increased health risks, like hypertension, heart disease, obesity, stroke, diabetes, cancer, and even neurodegenerative diseases, like Alzheimer’s. Sleep deprivation may be one of our greatest, and often invisible, public-health threats. And, as Ian Parker wrote in the magazine last year, it’s not a threat that’s very easily addressed through our usual approach of more—or better—drugs.
Allan Pack wasn’t always a sleep expert. He started his career as a pulmonologist and came to the University of Pennsylvania, in the late seventies, to study the neurophysiology of breathing. Though the work was interesting, Pack wanted to pursue something with a more direct, tangible impact on patients’ lives. “I realized that there’s not that much clinical significance to pulmonology,” he told me. Around the same time, the clinical community recognized a new disorder—sleep apnea, a chronic condition in which irregular breathing causes severe sleep disruption. This, it seemed, was the perfect application for Pack’s expertise: a breathing issue, but one with wide clinical implications. “I appreciated just how impactful it was on people’s lives and how effective the treatment could be. In the end, I gave up the pulmonary side altogether, and became a sleep person,” he says. In the early eighties, Pack decided to dedicate his lab to the basic questions about sleep: why we sleep; what genes determine sleeping habits, if any; and what happens when sleep is disrupted.
When Pack began studying the nature of sleep deprivation, one fact struck him: when deprived of sleep, some people responded much better than others. After thirty-six hours of sleep deprivation, some might do things like leave their house keys in the fridge or walk to work in slippers. Others would be basically fine. “We knew it was a stable trait: the same person would respond the same way to being sleep deprived on two separate occasions,” he said. “But what we really wanted to know was how much of that is genetic.” Was resistance something heritable that you could pin down—and then use to help better understand the mechanisms of sleep itself, to aid the chronic sleep sufferers who need it most?
After three decades of work, Pack is closing in on an answer. In 2012, he and his colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Sleep and Circadian Neurobiology published the results of an ongoing study of the sleep patterns of identical and fraternal twins. For thirty-eight hours, each twin was kept continuously awake while being carefully monitored by a team of sleep researchers. Every two hours, each one was given a Psychomotor Vigilance Test (P.V.T.), a task in which one must react quickly to a light or a dot that appears on a screen at random times, to determine his reaction time in different conditions. “If susceptibility to sleep deprivation is heritable, the identical twins should be close together on their performance, and the non-identical should be further apart,” Pack said. What the researchers found was that the reaction to sleep deprivation was largely heritable: eighty per cent of the variation among peoples’ susceptibility to the cognitive effects of sleep deprivation was explained by genetics. “The genes people had clearly affected how they responded to sleep deprivation,” Pack said.
But what, precisely, were those genes? And how was the difference actually playing out inside the twins’ bodies? Pack had half the answer—sleep deprivation had a genetic component—but he didn’t know what that other component was. In 2009, however, he got a hint, when Ying-Hui Fu’s laboratory, at the University of California, San Francisco, which is dedicated to the molecular study of human sleep behaviors, noted a curious anomaly in her sleep data. Among the hundreds of people Fu had studied over the years, two individuals stood out: a mother and a daughter in the same extended family who slept six hours a night—a level that is considered sleep-impaired for the overwhelming majority of the population—but who functioned perfectly well. Fu, a geneticist, analyzed their DNA and found one particular mutation in a gene known to regulate circadian rhythms that seemed to separate them from their sleep-deprived counterparts. She then inserted that mutation into mice genomes.The effect was clear: the animals with the mutation not only began to sleep less than their counterparts but continued functioning well even after six hours of sleep deprivation (a long time for a mouse). Those without the mutation showed the usual signs of deprivation.
For Pack, Fu’s work was monumental. If one mutation had such an effect on sleep duration and subsequent cognitive function, couldn’t there be more that did the same? He decided to test that theory with the twins whose sleep patterns he had been studying. His team proceeded to sequence the same gene that Fu had identified in the entire twin sample, to see if they could find the same, or a related, mutation that would replicate the sleep-deprivation effect. Luck was on their side. They found the perfect sample: twenty-seven-year-old male twins, only one of whom had a mutation. It wasn’t the precise variant that Fu had found, but it was related to the same circadian-regulating gene.
As it turns out, the twin who had the mutation slept, on average, two hours less per night than his brother. When Pack looked at how the pair had fared on the P.V.T.—the measure of sleep deprivation used in his earlier study—he found that the twin carrying the mutation significantly outperformed his brother. When the twins were allowed to catch up on the sleep that they had lost in the study, the carrier twin needed far less time to recover—almost a hundred minutes less. Here, then, was a genetic variant that appeared to allow its carriers to derive the same benefit from six hours of sleep as the vast majority of us gets from eight. Pack and his colleagues published the results last month.
Of course, as Pack himself is quick to point out, even combined with Fu’s data the mutation sample remains miniscule. So now, in an international collaboration with existing sleep-study cohorts spanning the U.K., South Korea, and China, Pack is in the process of gaining access to somewhere between half a million and a million participants. The next step is to sequence the twenty or so CLOCK genes (the genes that are involved in regulating circadian rhythms) that have been identified, to look for both the mutations Fu and Pack have found and any new variants that may affect sleep physiology.
The results could be meaningful for professions in which long periods of sleeplessness are necessary. “Identifying these variants can help predict who will be impacted from sleep deprivation and who won’t be,” Pack said. “We can use genetics to help us derive the best schedules for specific people.” Perhaps more important, though, the findings could have implications for improving the quality of life for the millions of people who are chronically sleep-deprived. “Identifying these genetic variants tells us something about the very specific biology of what affects sleep need,” Pack said. Once scientists understand that biology, they can test the specific molecules that affect those specific sleep pathways—a potential road toward new drug targets and pharmaceuticals. Even if we don’t have the relevant mutations ourselves, we can learn from what the mutations tell us about the nature of sleep. If we can mimic their actions, we can potentially sleep better—and function more effectively when we sleep less.
“The texts, the e-mails, all those things we now do at night instead of sleeping uninterrupted—most of us are significantly impaired as a result,” Pack said. “It’s only getting worse. We need help.”
The thing is, though, the best way of helping may ultimately have little to do with pharmaceutical interventions. So far, we know one thing about genetic sleep mutations: they help us function well with less sleep. What we don’t know, however, is whether that ability comes with long-term negative consequences. “It’s conceivable that, even though mutation carriers don’t show performance improvements, they could still experience the same metabolic consequences as the rest of us,” Pack said. “What are the long-term consequences of the mutation? There’s no data one way or the other. But, let me ask this: If this was such a beneficial mutation, why isn’t it more common? I do think it’s an open question.”
Until it’s closed, the best answer may still be the one that we don’t particularly want to hear: get more sleep—as often as we possibly can.
The Best (and Healthiest) Cup of Coffee: Could It All Be in the Brewing Method?
http://greatist.com/eat/the-healthiest-coffee-brew-method
Steadfast standard drip drinker? French press promoter? Swear by the cold brew trend? These decisions might matter for more than bragging rights. Turns out the method by which a cup of coffee is brewed can tinker with more than taste—it can also change some of the drink’s most fundamental elements, including levels of caffeine, antioxidants, and natural oils. And that can mean business for both your taste buds and your health. Read on to learn which cup of coffee (before the milk, sugar, and all those other add-ins) really is best.
1. Standard Drip Brew
You could say standard drip is the all-American brew, since it shows up everywhere from diner and pancake houses to kitchen counters. Standard drip brew calls for an automatic coffee maker. Coffee grounds are placed in a compartment (typically lined with a paper filter), then water is warmed to a near-boiling temperature via heating elements in the machine and dripped over the grounds, quickly brewing them. Standard drip brewing requires a fine ground; the finer the ground, the more surface area there is for caffeine, antioxidants, and oils to seep from.
What Ends Up in the Cup?
Caffeine: Drip brewing packs the most caffeine punch of any brew method. The length of a standard drip brew cycle is between two and five minutes; the longer the brew cycle, the more caffeine is released. The kind of roast used will also impact the amount of caffeine that winds up in the cup: In general, darker roasts contain less caffeine, since caffeine is typically cooked out of the bean during the roasting process.
Caffeine: Drip brewing packs the most caffeine punch of any brew method. The length of a standard drip brew cycle is between two and five minutes; the longer the brew cycle, the more caffeine is released. The kind of roast used will also impact the amount of caffeine that winds up in the cup: In general, darker roasts contain less caffeine, since caffeine is typically cooked out of the bean during the roasting process.
Antioxidants: Levels of antioxidants in a drip-brewed cup are usually above average when compared to other methods (but the longer the coffee brews, the more the antioxidants are, in a sense, cooked away). If you’re looking for an extra boost, choose darker roasts over lighter ones.
Oils: Because of the paper filter, levels of diterpenes (the oils released from grounds that give coffee its aroma and flavor) tend to be low. While this may dull the flavor, it’s a plus for your heart; diterpenes have been shown to adversely affect cholesterol levels (though only for those who drink six to eight cups a day). Some machines come with a specialized metal mesh filter; while these trap the grinds, they don’t always trap the oils.
Taste: The hotter the water and the longer the brewing time, the more bitter a cup of coffee will taste due to overextraction of the grounds. Cleaning the coffee maker monthly will improve the taste; otherwise mineral deposits can build up and throw off the flavor.
2. French Press
While the French press brewing method was developed in France, it was actually an Italian, Attilio Calimani, who brought it to popularity in 1929. Today this super-simple method is popular in homes across the U.S. Toss some coarse grounds into the French press pitcher, add heated water, gently stir, cover, let sit for two to four minutes, push the strainer down, and voila: You’ve got yourself a French pressbrew!
What Ends Up in the Cup?
Caffeine: The caffeine levels of a brew from a French press are relatively high—though that depends to an extent on the coffee grind. Unlike the standard drip brew, in which water is dripped over just a section of the grounds, the French press method submerges the grounds entirely, allowing for more surface area contact between the water and the grounds. The finer the grind and the longer the grounds are steeped, the more caffeine that’s released.
Caffeine: The caffeine levels of a brew from a French press are relatively high—though that depends to an extent on the coffee grind. Unlike the standard drip brew, in which water is dripped over just a section of the grounds, the French press method submerges the grounds entirely, allowing for more surface area contact between the water and the grounds. The finer the grind and the longer the grounds are steeped, the more caffeine that’s released.
Antioxidants: The French press method is believed to produce higher antioxidant levels than most other methods thanks to metal mesh filters, which are standard in French presses. Instead of getting trapped in paper and cloth filters used in other methods, polyphenols and flavonoids make their way straight into the cup.
Oils: This brewing method lets serious amounts of diterpenes trickle into the cup. As mentioned above, sipping on these fatty oils can cause a spike in cholesterol levels—but only if you’re throwing back six to eight cups a day. For those who make it through the day on just one or two cups, there’s little risk to no risk.
Taste: French pressed coffee is one of the richest and smoothest cups of coffee there is—probably because it’s swirling with the very oils that give coffee its luscious taste. However, due to the use of hot water, which can over-extract the grounds, this brew can have acidic notes.
3. Single-Serve Pod Coffee Maker
Peek into any office these days, and you’ll likely spot one of these machines. The brewing process is very similar to the drip method in that piping hot water is dripped over coffee grounds—only in this case, the grounds are nestled in single-cup pods. These pods are often made of plastic or aluminium lined with paper filters, filled with regular or flavored grounds and nitrogen gas, and sealed with foil. Users can also opt for a metal mesh pod that they fill with their own grounds.
What Ends Up in the Cup?
Caffeine: Because the grounds are condensed directly beneath the water source, a notable amount of caffeine is extracted even from this very short brew. The caffeine content also depends on the type of roast inside the pod—the lighter the roast, the more caffeine.
Caffeine: Because the grounds are condensed directly beneath the water source, a notable amount of caffeine is extracted even from this very short brew. The caffeine content also depends on the type of roast inside the pod—the lighter the roast, the more caffeine.
Antioxidants: It really comes down to the roast in the pod. Darker roasts contain more antioxidants than lighter varieties.
Oils: Pods lined with a paper filter will reduce the amount of diterpenes in the cup. If you opt for a metal mesh pod, levels of these oils will be similar to those found in the French press method.
Taste: Plastic and aluminium pods can taint the flavor, and, depending on the roast, this can mean that the coffee tastes flat and dull. However, taste improves when metal mesh pods are used.
4. Cold Brew
Cold brew is hands down the trendiest of brewing methods right now, and quite possibly the tastiest!Cold brewing is pretty similar to the French press method, except cold water is used instead of hot water and the coarsely cut grounds are steeped for 12 to 16 hours. Just because it’s cold brewed doesn’t mean it has to be consumed cold—if hot coffee is your favorite, simply make a stronger cold brew and heat it by mixing it with warm water or milk.
What Ends Up in the Cup?
Caffeine: Since the grounds are submerged in cold- to room- temperature water, cold brew coffee often contains less caffeine than hot brewed methods. Still, the 12- to-16-hour steeping process does extract enough caffeine to get your morning buzz on.
Caffeine: Since the grounds are submerged in cold- to room- temperature water, cold brew coffee often contains less caffeine than hot brewed methods. Still, the 12- to-16-hour steeping process does extract enough caffeine to get your morning buzz on.
Antioxidants: As with other brewing methods, the type of roast partly determines the antioxidant content: The lighter the roast, the more antioxidants. Cold brewers also claim that the lack of heat when brewing allows for the beverage to retain more antioxidants.
Oils: Much like the French press method, cold brewing retains more diterpenes because there are no paper filters involved. If you want to reduce the diterpene levels, strain the brewed coffee through a paper filter.
Taste: This will likely be the smoothest and fruitiest cup of coffee you ever taste—which is actually how coffee is supposed to taste. The acidic bite most of us are used to is a result of overheating oils within the grounds. But without that bite, some find this brew to be too bland.
5. Instant Coffee
There are few things in the world simpler than making a cup of instant coffee. Instant, which comes in powder form, is derived from roasted coffee beans that have been ground into a powder and dissolved in water to create an extract. That extract is then freeze- or spray- dried and packaged. All you have to do is scoop some of the powder into a cup, rehydrate with hot water, and stir—a cup of coffee in a matter of seconds!
What Ends Up in the Cup?
Caffeine: Because it’s just a coffee extract, instant coffee contains less caffeine than all other brewing methods. Adding additional spoonfuls of the coffee powder to the cup can increase caffeine levels slightly.
Caffeine: Because it’s just a coffee extract, instant coffee contains less caffeine than all other brewing methods. Adding additional spoonfuls of the coffee powder to the cup can increase caffeine levels slightly.
Antioxidants: Perhaps surprisingly, instant coffee is not lacking in antioxidants. In fact, because levels of phenols and flavonoids are concentrated during processing, instant coffee actually contains more antioxidants than all other brewing methods.
Oils: Instant coffee contains practically no diterpenes, as they’ve been filtered out during processing.
Taste: If you’re into sacrificing taste for convenience, then this is the brew for you. All hope for tasty instant coffee isn’t lost, though: You can create a richer cup by mixing in a few extra spoonfuls of the powder.
The Takeaway
No two cups of coffee are the same. The roast, method of brewing, and length of brewing can all have an effect on the caffeine, antioxidant, and oil content of a cup ‘o joe. The best way to find the brew that works for you? Experiment with different methods, roasts, and brew times until you find the combination that makes your taste buds say “ahh.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)