Do you know how much sugar is in a can of soda? Sure, a drink like Pepsi Throwback lists the contents, but do you really know how much 40g of sugar is?
The other day I borrowed my roommate’s scale and weighed out 40 grams of sucrose (table sugar). Yes, that is 40 grams. That is how much sugar you ingest when you drink one 12-ounce can of soda. That’s about nine teaspoons of sugar. NINE! The entire drink is 240ml (~240g), so 1/6 of the drink is sugar!
Unless you just finished a bout of exercise, the majority of that sugar will get stored as fat. Much more so than other forms of carbohydrates (think pasta).
With more than half of Americans overweight, and a staggering 25% of the population obese, I’d almost begin to think of soda as a form of poison. Current epidemiological studies also indicate the staggering incidence of childhood obesity, as explored in a recent NY Times Blog.
Now consider that Pepsi and Coca Cola are two of the most recognized American brands in the world (for instance, see the current issue of National Geographic and the article on Pakistan, page 93) and that obesity is quickly becoming a world problem. Though I do not want to delve too much into a geopolitical discussion about nutritional globalization, I would like you to consider the consequences of your consumption. Please, do not support these brands.
Obesity carries a higher risk of cardiovascular problems, cancer, non-impact injuries, and a slew of other health issues. As we become a more socialized democracy, more and more we will bear the burden of the health of others. Bottom line: soda is costing us money.
Though this might not be as telling to most of my readers’ demographic (as I’m sure everyone reading this has perfect health and nutrition) please do pass on the visual to your friends!
If you haven’t read this Washington Post piece by Gene Weingarten (especially if you’re currently procrastinating), I suggest you take a look. Though a tad lengthy, it is definitely worth it. Joshua Bell, musical prodigy and one of the most accomplished modern violinists, dresses up in street clothes and plays for 45 minutes in the Washington DC metro. Of the hundreds, if not thousands of people that pass through the subway station and right in front of him, hardly anyone stops to listen.
Although the article is about recognizing art, one can easily extrapolate this to innovation and science in general. In lab, at least once a week, I’ll be searching for a reagent for a good 5-10 minutes, searching drawers, shelves, desks, benches, before realizing that it was right in front of my nose. Have you ever looked for your car keys frantically before realizing that they were in your left hand or back pocket? Often, the solution to a problem is literally hidden in plain sight.
If we are focused on our goals at hand, we can often miss the obvious. I draw parallels to this video about the dancing bear:
But how is this essential for scientific innovation? I argue that focus stifles creativity. Google recognizes this, noting how “We offer our engineers “20-percent time” so that they’re free to work on what they’re really passionate about. Google Suggest, AdSense for Content and Orkut are among the many products of this perk.”
At my Biological Sciences graduation ceremony at UC Irvine, Dr. Michael Leon stressed many times that the common thread among great scientists was not intelligence, but curiosity.
Plus, innovation is often spontaneous, if not accidental. Think of penicillin or the discovery of vaccines. While investigating something unrelated, a small accident, combined with curious inquirers, lead to two of the most significant medical breakthroughs in the history of mankind.
In short, I think it’s healthy and constructive to let your mind wander. Have you taken your mind out for a walk today?
This just would not be a science blog without weighing in on the first “Synthetic Cell”
From the NY Times: Researchers Say They Have Created a “Synthetic Cell”
——————————-
The genome pioneer J. Craig Venter has taken another step in his quest to create synthetic life, by synthesizing an entire bacterial genome and using it to take over a cell.
Dr. Venter calls the result a “synthetic cell” and is presenting the research as a landmark achievement that will open the way to creating useful microbes from scratch to make products like vaccines and biofuels. At a press conference Thursday, Dr. Venter described the converted cell as “the first self-replicating species we’ve had on the planet whose parent is a computer.”
——————————-
I recognize that this is a huge technological achievement, but they didn’t create new life. They just replaced the DNA in the cell of an organism with synthetic DNA, using gene codes developed by nature and evolution, not humans.
Venter and his team did not re-invent the wheel for every gene in the organism, they borrowed heavily (if not completely) from nature.
Sure, the genomic DNA is completely synthesized, but the cell membrane and all the organelles were not. Those were synthesized by nature.
To truly be a synthetic organism, Venter and his team would have to at least make the cell membrane from scratch, if not other organelles as well. (endoplasmic reticulum, mitochondria, etc..)
As for the promise of better means to engineer organisms for biofuels, to clean landfills, and curb global warming… Other groups have been making a lot more progress than Venter using “conventional” recombinant DNA techniques for genetic engineering.
A great Tour de Force, but overstated and lacking in practical application.
Researchers at Princeton may have finally found solid proof to implicate High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) as a potent cause of obesity, in a study outlined here.
Today, almost one in three American adults are Obese. By all means, this is a staggering statistic. There have been numerous epidemiological studies to implicate the mass consumption of simple sugars (i.e. soda) as being unhealthy and leading to weight gain. What is controversial is the notion by many that it is the higher content of free fructose in HFCS is at fault.
HFCS is used as a low-cost sweetener in many applications, such as soda.
But, correlations without experiments are just that: correlations. Correlations can be found for many things; that does not necessarily make two clauses dependent or causative.
The researchers at Princeton fed rats equal amounts of HFCS and regular “sugar”: sucrose. What they discovered is that the HFCS group gained more weight than the sucrose test group, and the HFCS group also displayed other phenotypes of obesity, such as elevated blood triglyceride levels.
So there we have it, ladies and gents: Hard, in-vivo data implicating HFCS as an obesogen. Lay off the soda and get some fresh air. (future) doc’s orders. : )
Some people are fat. Some people are not. Some people make lifestyle decisions to moderate their health and weight. Some do not. There is a stigma ageist the Overweight, highlighted here .
I had the fortune of coming from a middle school and high school that had fairly good physical education. In my middle school PE class there were some fat kids, some skinny kids, some fast kids, some slow kids, etc… Running was an integral part of the day. At least 1/2 mile for warmup before anything. We were tested on our 1/2 mile and 1mile times as well as our 30-minute distances. We were graded on our improvements. Though this method was great at fostering an appreciation for health and athletics, even a progressive PE program like mine could have done more to help the overweight kids.
The logical thing would be to make the fat kids run more laps to help burn away the fat, but the author (and those from the perspective of the Overweight) might find that marginalizing and stigmatizing.
Here’s an idea: As part of Physical Education, we teach kids that all of us are NOT genetically endowed the same way. Some people will be naturally thin, others not, and this has a lot to do with genetically heritable metabolic differences. Make it part of the curriculum to teach that “thin” and “healthy” are not exclusively linked. There are many thin people that could not run around a city block.
At the same time, I would love to teach that, although out inherited genes are not a choice, the way we act, is. Anyone can chose to do aerobic exercise. Anyone can also chose to make excuses.
In our society, people should be accountable for their actions, not their genes. Aerobic activity is a choice. Nutrition is a choice.
Part of becoming an adult is learning how to perform conscious actions and unlearn impulsive tendencies from childhood. Holding oneself accountable is perhaps one of the greatest things an adolescent can learn. To quote Plato: “For a man to conquer himself is the first and noblest of all victories.”
Many people go though life in a state of constant denial: about their health, about relationships, about financial situations… but I degrees. Being honest to oneself takes a huge amount of courage, and it is the pusillanimous tendencies of America that bother me the most.
Let’s tackle this problem head-on. Physical Education needs to be mandatory. Aerobic exercise needs to be mandatory. A healthy amount of bluntness needs to be applied to Obeseity.
It has now been 10 years since the human genome was released. 10 years and more than $500 million was spent in hopes of finding a smoking gun for chronic diseases. There have been some resounding successes, and there is no real way to measure the actual impact of the human genome sequence and the scientific and medical progress it has allowed.
10 years later, Cancer is less enigmatic, but ironically more frustrating from a scientific standpoint. A recent article in the New York Times highlights why this is so.
We must not forget that in the 20th century science essentially eradicated Polio and Smallpox, and has Mumps, Measles, and Tuberculosis on the ropes. Vaccinations and public policy adopted from the understanding of these diseases merited an enormous victory against these afflictions. But they have one thing in common: a pathogen.
Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and most types of Cancer are not caused by infectious pathogens. The causes lie deeper: in our genes. Inherited or developed over a lifetime, most cancer is caused by mutations in our DNA.
So, the good scientists of the late 20th century proposed a hypothesis: Sequencing the entire (healthy) human genome, and comparing it to sequenced cancer specimens could yield common cancer-causing genes.
With that impetus, we undertook a trek that resulted in one of the most resounding technological achievements of mankind: the sequencing of our own genome. It took 10 years to do, and about another 10 years to interpret. What we have found is this: there is no smoking gun for most cancers. It appears that cancer can be caused by many more combinations of mutations than previously thought.
These results suggest that we as a species are a lot better than we thought at weeding out bad mutations from our genome, and many speculate that we are capable of evolving to resist pathogens, disease, and changes in our environment faster than ever imagined. It appears as if our genes are in a constant flux in the battle against disease, and we are pretty good at weeding out bad mutations from our gene pool. New mutations will constantly arise, and become removed.
But, this realization is a tough pill to swallow. It is much more difficult to therapeutically intervene against a genetic disease if there are many targets. Developing just one drug for one target often takes a decade and hundreds of millions of dollars.
So, there is no smoking gun for cancer. But why are we not screwed? In the process, we have gotten so good at sequencing our genes that the cost for sequencing has dropped to about $5000 for an ENTIRE genome. Compare that to $500 million of a decade ago. It is likely that we will see a sub-$1000 genome in the near future, and the cost could go even lower.
So, why search for a smoking gun if you can prevent the trigger from being pulled? It is not too inconceivable a decade from now to predict the types of cancer that a child could develop over his or her lifetime, and monitor more closely for the particular symptoms over decades. Catch cancer early, and it is often an inconvenience, not a death sentence.
Are you planning on having kids (or grandchildren)? Is conservation a factor in your decision? Perhaps these two points might not immediately seem related, but I will start by borrowing an illustration from the blog of Marc Roberts , a cartoonist for the NY Times.
It personifies two sides of the debate over food stewardship. On one side is a hippie and the other, a suit. Both embrace science… selectively. One wants to use high yield genetically modified (GM) foods to combat the problem, the other (we’re believed to be opposed to GM) is paranoid of copyrighting the planet 2.0.
Food stewardship is a paramount issue for mankind in the 21st century. How exactly are we going to feed 9 billion people? (and beyond!) Fertile topsoil won’t last forever, and arable land is a finite resource. Throw in climate change and a growing global population, and it gets thicker and thicker.
Beyond food stewardship there are other hurdles that mankind will have to overcome in the coming decades: deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and energy consumption.
All of these issues revolve around the central problem of consumption. There are few people who will argue that the current levels of consumption in these realms (food, water, energy) are unsustainable; there are simply not enough resources to keep supplying what mankind uses from year to year.
Problems with consumption can be addressed in two fundamental ways:
1) develop more resources
2) consume less
Though few have been implemented, I’ve seen some very clever propositions to address #1. One option is GM food: crops could produce more, be easier on the soil, use less water and grows in less-arable land. There is a raging debate on the matter that I will not summarize here, but what is important to address is that there is a lot of resistance to GM foods, and to many other parallel propositions.
#2 is also fairly tough. It’s hard to rebut the notion that mankind is terrible at conservation. Take the recent Copenhagen Summit as an example, of for my readers here in San Diego: the water crisis. Voluntary reductions in consumption often do not work very well.
Here is a proposition that I really wish would get more attention: POPULATION CONTROL.
As our massive population that is the problem, how ethical is it to bare more children?
With finite resources, what makes one more worthy of procreation than any other denizen of the Earth?
Consider this a prologue. As with many things I write about I want to encourage thought and discussion, and I will explore these issues more in coming weeks and months. Please, let me know your thoughts on the issue. I would love to hear them.
Kombucha is a fermented tea of Chinese, Japanese, or Russian origin, depending on your source. It often contains cultures of several microbes, including several varieties of Yeast. Kombucha was recently brought to my attention via colorful marketing in Whole Foods.
Claims of supporting “Digestion, Metabolism, Immune System, Cell Integrity, Healthy Skin, Healthy Liver Function and Weight Control” sat adjacent to an extra-large photo of Thomas Dave and his mother, to whom he attributes Kombucha to curing her cancer.
I’m not sure what Cell Integrity is, but it sure sounded nice, so I paid a visit to the altar of PubMed to seek enlightenment on Kombucha.
Currently, there are no large-scale, double blind studies to evaluate any of the health claims of Kombucha by Millennium Products. Technically, anything you eat or drink promotes digestion and metabolism. Claims of liver function, healthy skin and and weight control are completely baseless and unconfirmed. A few in vitro pilot studies were performed on the effacy of various Kombucha chemicals in cancer, but no large follow-up studies or clinical trials have been performed in the last 10 years. In other words, much of these leads were probably dead ends.
In addition to Laraine Dave’s story of Kombucha-powered cancer defeat, there exists other anecdotal testimony to alleged health benefits to Kombucha. However, SungHee et al 2009 produced other “anecdotal” avoidance: a case study of a 22 year-old man that died of liver failure and extreme acidosis after ingestion of Kombucha tea.
Forbes.com reported back in September about competitive developments between Coca-Cola and Millennium Products, Mr. Dave’s Kombucha company, which brought in $50 million last year. Apparently Kombucha is a commodity on the rise in the United States. Be warned, this drink might show up in major retailers near you.
It’s difficult to come up with a title for this one without sounding too cliche. I work in a lab whose primary pathological focus is Neuroblastoma, one of the most deadly childhood cancers. More than 90% of cases are diagnosed before age 2, with only a 35% survival rate. Fortunately, there are only about 650 new cases in the U.S. every year. As a contrast, Breast Cancer and Prostate Cancer present about 160,000 and 140,000 new cases per year.
In a perfect world, society would value research so immensely that funding would not be a limiting factor. In the real world, researchers, labs, and those afflicted with diseases fight over a limited supply of funding for medical research.
At a recent social event, a colleague asked me to justify the millions of taxpayer dollars spent studying this rare disease. My initial gut response could have taken an emotional tone, as the patients are all kids. Rather, I responded with a question:
Are all lives equal?
It is borderline taboo to propose such a question. The American egalitarian view on life and liberty could make for an easy rhetorical write-off. But consider this: Is there a difference between extending the life of a grandfather vs. a child?
Most prostate cancer does not manifest itself until at least the 5th decade of life, as does breast cancer. The difference between your typical Neuroblastoma patient and Beast Cancer patient is about 60 years. Now for the ethical question: Why would children be more deserving of funding than the elderly?
I argue that pediatric cancer deserves special attention because of the number of quality years of life afforded by better therapy. I.e. curing your typical breast cancer patient affords a decade to two more life. Though not insubstantial, contrast that to curing a Neuroblastoma patient, which affords seven or eight more decades. And these are productive years; in that time, said individual could contribute to society, whereas said older cancer patient has less productive years left.
My arguments may sound cold and morbidly pragmatic, but these questions are very important as medicine becomes more socialized. I want to see more enlightened debate on the quantity of quality of life afforded by advances in therapy.
As a curious experiment, one week ago an open question was posted on a reputable online forum for intellectual discourse: Facebook. “What is natural food” The term “natural” is both ubiquitous and highly subjective in meaning. The words “natural” and “food” together are highly politicized and emotionally charged. I have the pleasure (or bane?) of knowing many individuals who are very serious about what they consume, as am I.
L Bullock defines natural food as: “Food indigenous to a particular area, or that grows organically without manipulation to its genetic structure.”
A Hopwood weighed in on the matter: “In my opinion natural food is anything edible by a human that has not been processed, at all. ”
T Haag was even more specific: “The stuff our ancient ancestors ate as they evolved, pre-agriculture.”
I often see the world defined by genes and evolution. My major in college was Genetics. My research involves use of genomics (genetics on a global scale) and I tend to not see organisms as static, but as combinations of genes that merely exist in one place at one time. With a constant flux of shapes and forms over time, it puzzles me that anything can be considered “natural”; one would have to write the definition in sand. But I degrees…
Long before the age of recombinant DNA there existed artificial selection: selective matings of wild and/or domesticated plants and animals for desired traits. Man had been manipulating his environment (and his food) to his needs since before civilization.
Given that, it would be difficult to come up with anything readily edible that has not been through rounds of selective matings. Unless you went out and caught a fish, shot a migrating goose or felled a wild deer, all the meat you consume has been genetically engineered. The breed of chickens that produces most of the chicken breasts (and most white chicken meat in the U.S.) has been selected so heavily that they are defective walking and cannot mate on their own. Without man, this chicken breed would cease to exist, and certainly would not have existed (for long…).
Grains are the same way: Wheat, Barley, Corn, Rye, and Oats have been genetically modified for millennia. In corn, the male and female organs are several feet apart and require manual fertilization. Corn as we know it would cease to exist without man.
Are these foods any less safe than what our ancient ancestors ate? Or perhaps they are more safe, at least to us? It is distinctly possible that man has evolved to the tune of his palate. In evolution, it is very easy to lose the function of a gene that is not needed. Thus, the enzymes that could allow us to digest a lot of “natural” things might be lost from the current human gene pool. That’s right: we might have evolved to be dependent on our own domesticated species.
And, in the course of natural selection, the varieties, strains, and species our ancestors ate might be lost to the sands of time.
I would go so far to say that “natural” is a misnomer when used in the context of anything related to man, especially food.
.jpg)
