The Implications of Caffeine Consumption on Stress and Appetite

Written by Xtine Gary for the Tufts Friedman Sprout

“There’s too much blood in my caffeine system.” It’s the mantra of most graduate students come finals period. Caffeine becomes students’ comrade in arms as they face off against a semester’s worth of lectures. Energy drinks, coffee, and tea intake spike to fuel marathon study sessions that, fingers crossed, consequently spike grades. But is caffeine really helpful? What are the research-based physiological implications of guzzling that venti chai latte?

Many diet pills contain caffeine, fostering the misconception that it is an appetite suppressant. Initially, caffeine does decrease hunger because it acts as a stimulant. It elicits the Central Nervous System’s “flight-or-fight” response. The adrenal glands release stress hormones, epinephrine (adrenaline) and norepinephrine, to ensure “your muscles tense, your blood sugar elevates for extra energy, your pulse and respiration rates speed up, and your state of alertness increases” (Whitaker, page 261). Helpful - when you need to spear a saber-toothed tiger. But when you’re just sitting in the quiet study section of the library, that brief rush will have no release, and may manifest in mental, physical, and emotional stress. (Robertson et al, 1978) (Lane et al, 1990) (Kerr et al, 1993) (Lane et al, 2002). Cue mood swings and adverse health effects (shakiness, dizziness, irritability).

Shortly thereafter, caffeine-triggered release of cortisol can actually stimulate appetite (Takeda et al, 2004) (Epel et al, 2001). Study munchies? Anyone? Feelings of hunger can be compounded by caffeine-induced hypoglycemia (the ensuing crash in blood sugar following its initial spike) (Kerr et al, 1993). In response to hypoglycemia, people often crave higher fat food and sugars (Castonquay, 1991) (Bjorntorp, 2001). If this cycle’s habitual, it could interfere with an individual’s weight management (Strachan et al, 2004) (Dewan et al, 2004).

Regular coffee drinkers can find themselves in a state of chronic stress, predisposing them to seek comfort in emotional eating. The anxiety brought on by stress hormones has been shown to trigger binges and overeating (Krahn et al,1991). And consistently elevated levels of cortisol are associated with increased abdominal fat. Deposition of excess mid-section flub consequently perpetuates the release of more stress hormones (Dallman et al, 2004) and increased caloric intake.

To kick you while you’re down, caffeine doesn’t just raise stress hormones, it also interferes with calming neurotransmitters like serotonin (Simontacchi, page 191) and GABA (Gamma-aminobutyric acid). The brain, nervous system, and heart all produce GABA to aid stress management. It fosters a person’s sense of well being. Caffeine prevents GABA from binding to GABA receptors, compromising its calming effect (Roca et al, 1988).

“Ok, no prob,” you say, “I’ll switch to decaf, and sidestep that slew of physiological stress indicators.” Not to be a buzzkill, but there are other ingredients in coffee associated with stress factors, so decaffeinated coffee isn’t entirely innocent either (Quinlan et al, 2000).

"Well geez, what a doomsday scenario. Surely plenty of college students guzzle caffeine with impunity and it can’t be THAT bad." True, there is a range of caffeine sensitivity and dependence. Certain individuals are more prone to symptoms than others. Some are affected after one cup of coffee. And others need three to feel anything. In a cohort of healthy men, the usually consumed amount of caffeinated coffee increased circulating cortisol, but otherwise did not “have short-term effects on appetite, energy intake, glucose metabolism, and inflammatory markers” (Gavrieli et al, 2011). Moderation is key.

But why risk the rollercoaster ride of elevated blood sugar and stress hormones when there are safer alternatives? Ginseng tea can provide a caffeine-free energy boost. It’s made from the ginseng root, not tea leaves, hence no caffeine (Mindell, page 388).

Green tea can be a good transition step out of caffeine addiction. It still has caffeine, but its caffeine content is about half that of other sources of caffeine (Jones, 2011). Additionally, it is rife with health-boosting antioxidants. Green tea also contains catechins, “particularly epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), which in concentrated supplement form has been shown to increase fat oxidation (Auvichayapat et al, 2008)(Dulloo et al, 1999)(Venables et al, 2008), reduce body fat (Nagao et al, 2007), and increase weight loss (Auvichayapat et al, 2008)” (Dennis et al, 2009). You’d have to drink several cups of green tea to get the catechin levels found in concentrated forms, but hey, the test is tomorrow morning, you have all night! Not to mention, it’s calorie-free. So it beats drinking multiple cups of lattes, espressos, café mochas, and cappuccinos. High consumers of these drinks average a daily energy intake that is 206 kcal higher than nonconsumers (Shields et al, 2004). That adds up to a 20 pound weight gain over the course of one year.

While the science is conflictive at times, the majority expert consensus would seem to be that caffeine does more harm than good – an opinion backed by organizations like the Mayo Clinic. Maybe it’s time to boot the lurking Judas from camp. Ditch caffeine and switch to getting nutrients from a balanced diet. You’ll end up stabilizing blood pressure, balancing hormone levels, and decreasing your stress. After all, finals are stressful enough without any added jitters.

Read More

Fat and Fit?

Written by Xtine Gary for the Tufts Friedman Sprout

Her last name is Bacon, and yet, she’s a nutrition professor at City College of San Francisco, an associate nutritionist at the University of California, Davis, and a private consultant for health care professionals. That name-career combo made me laugh, but it’s rather apropos, considering the message of her recent book and consequent social movement, both titled “Health at Every Size” (H.A.E.S.). For Dr. Bacon, there is no forbidden food, no dieting, and no calorie counting.

From food and body preoccupation to self-loathing and eating disorders, Linda preaches that our obsession with the number on the bathroom scale has done nothing to further our health. Compelling us to rethink our war on obesity, proponents and followers of H.A.E.S. refer to themselves as fat-acceptance activists (reclaiming the word “fat” much as gay right activists have embraced the word “queer”).

The adoption of healthy lifestyle changes simply for the sake of well-being, rather than weight control, may be liberating. But does it have any scientific backing? Dr. Bacon knows that if her message is to be taken seriously, it must have clinical credibility. She enrolled 78 obese women into a federally financed, randomized trial. Half of them dieted. The other half were taught H.A.E.S. precepts. The findings, published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association in 2005, showed that neither cohort lost weight. But thanks to sustained healthy behaviors, the H.A.E.S. participants improved measures of cholesterol, blood pressure, physical activity and self-esteem at the two year follow-up. Meanwhile the only variable that changed for the dieters, among whom there was a 40% drop-out rate, was a decrease in self-esteem.

Adding further credence to the “fat acceptance” philosophy is a 2008 report from the Archives of Internal Medicine. They found normal blood pressure, cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood sugar in half of overweight adults, and in one-third of obese individuals. This means a normal risk for heart complications or diabetes - conditions generally thought to be caused by being fat.

This begs the question of whether epidemiological studies linking fat and disease fail to adjust for non-weight-related risk factors common in fat populations (poverty, fast food diets, sedentary lifestyles, minority-group status, the stress of being marginalized, nonjudgmental medical care, or complete lack of health insurance). Perhaps chronic disease is caused less by fatness itself, and more by confounding variables that afflict predominantly lower socio-economic groups and overweight communities.

Furthermore, findings in a 12-year Canadian analysis in Obesity Journal defy any correlation between weight loss and longevity. They purport that being either extreme, too obese or too thin, may convey a higher death risk, but that being merely overweight would seem protective against mortality.

That one can be healthy at every size is welcome news for those who find no successful combination of diet, exercise, or willpower in lowering weight. In an interview with the NYtimes, Dr. Rudolph Leibel, of Columbia University’s Medical Center, exonerates failed dieters. He alleges that not everyone is capable of lower weight ranges. “The severely obese have some underlying genetic or metabolic difference we’re not smart enough to identify yet.” He continues, “It’s the same way that a 7-foot-tall basketball player is genetically different from me, at 5-foot-8.” According to him then, genetics is responsible for food cravings, levels of physical activity, areas of fat accumulation, and an individual’s natural weight range.

More recently, Dr. Bacon teamed up with Lucy Aphramor, a National Health Service specialist dietitian and an honorary research fellow at the Applied Research Center in Health and Lifestyle Interventions at Coventry University in England, to publish a 2011 paper in Nutrition Journal. They reviewed nearly 200 studies to arrive at a conclusion with which frustrated yo-yo dieters are already all-too-familiar. Dieting brings weight loss initially, and weight regain inevitably thereafter. Bacon and Aphramor implore the health care community to endorse strategies for public-nutrition that “encourages individuals to concentrate on developing healthy habits rather than on weight management.”

Still not convinced? You’re not alone. Since 1998, the Obesity Guidelines put forth by the government’s National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute have used obesity as the scapegoat for a range of chronic disease. Walter Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health, believes that “Virtually everyone who is overweight would be better off at a lower weight.” In an interview with the NYtimes, he explained, “There’s been this misconception, fostered by the weight-is-beautiful groups, that weight doesn’t matter. But the data is clear.” He believes obesity-acceptance findings are merely a trickle next to the waterfall of obesity-condemning results.

Further scientific inquiry is required to clarify conflicting results. For instance, a month after the Canadian mortality report, Science announced results from researchers at the University of Wisconsin that showed calorie-restricted rhesus monkeys lived longer than their amply-fed counterparts.

So it remains unresolved whether a war on obesity need be waged. But there is common ground between opposing camps. Science reliably debunks dieting as a futile endeavor. It’s more effective to instill lifestyle changes. Tenants of Linda’s book supported by both sides include advancing an intuitive eating approach: Eating when hungry, choosing nutritious alternatives to junk food, and ultimately honoring your body. Exercise, rather than being an ends to a (slimmer) means, is encouraged for its emotional and physical benefits.

Many dieters operate on the misconception that if they could just lose weight, all other areas of their life would fall in line. Their problems would whittle away along with their waistlines. They use weight loss as a distraction, and a place-holder for their ultimate desires. It’s far better to uphold a positive body image. Prioritizing loving yourself at any size frees you to act on ambitions you may otherwise put on hold until you attain your “goal weight.” – everything from investing in a new wardrobe to switching careers. Why focus on weight, when you can focus on your dreams?

Read More

Clever Fitness Advertisements

My friend, Melanie, found a great link showcasing some clever fitness advertisements!
http://www.boredpanda.com/fitness-and-yoga-ads/

And here are some others that I dug up. Enjoy!
Nike Advertisement - soccer ball kicked into building

Transparent billboard. Also by Nike. That just strikes me as dangerous, lol. There are too many blonde joggers.

If you cannot tear this phone book then don’t even bother calling him, lol!!

Weight Watchers tear-off ad.

Read More

My gene made me cheat on you. Sooo we cool?

Roses are red, violets are blue.
I cheated on you, a gene forced me to!

Can the propensity for infidelity be found in our DNA? Previous genetic studies on twins show that a philandering twin is 40% as likely to have a philandering sibling - regardless of whether the pair were raised together or apart. Now, researchers at Binghamton University's Laboratory of Evolutionary Anthropology and Health are honing in on one of the genes allegedly linked to promiscuity.

They rounded up 181 college students who disclosed their sexual histories and donated their DNA samples. Researchers then analyzed the DNA, scanning for genetic variations associated with a wandering eye.

“What we found was that individuals with a certain variant of the DRD4 gene were more likely to have a history of uncommitted sex, including one-night stands and acts of infidelity,” says lead author, Justin Garcia, as quoted in a Binghamton University news release. “The motivation seems to stem from a system of pleasure and reward, which is where the release of dopamine comes in. In cases of uncommitted sex, the risks are high, the rewards substantial and the motivation variable – all elements that ensure a dopamine ‘rush.’”

These results align with past research implicating this "thrill-seeking" gene in hedonistic tendencies, and predisposing individuals to sensation-seeking activities like gambling and substance abuse. Coverage by ABC news quotes Garcia further: "The people with the DRD4 gene need more stimuli to feel satiated. Some of us say 'wow,' that was a rush after jumping out of a plane. Others ask, 'When is the plane going back up?'"

The data seemingly suggests that sex drive could operate independently from love. The Binghamton news release writes, "it is reasonable that individuals could be wildly in love with their partners, commit infidelity, and yet still be deeply attached and care for their partners."

The evolutionary advantage of this allele is of course more offspring, but the study's implications extend beyond the bedroom. Drug rehab programs could develop different treatments for DRD4 gene holders. Prescribing antipsychotics that act as dopamine receptor antagonists (turn off biological response that usually occurs when dopamine attaches to receptor).

Now before you arrange a first date at the doctor's office to test your prospective partner-to-be for cheating-risk, consider words from the hope camp. Psychologist Susan Quilliam, author of "Joy of Sex," explained to ABC news that "upbringing, experience and culture may actually wield more influence than the risk-taking gene." Psychotherapist, Jenn Berman, who hosts Cosmo Radio's "Love and Sex Show," echoes Susan's view. "Certain people are vulnerable to affairs, but in the end, it's about personal choice." "And it depends on how well-developed their impulse control is."

Garcia stresses his paper is not a "get-out-of-jail-free card" for (would-be) transgressors. Little is known about how sexual inclinations are influenced by complex neurobiologic and genetic underpinnings. Garcia hopes his study will add to the expanding knowledge base and plans to conduct further research with his co-authors.

For full study, published in PLoS ONE journal, clicky here.

Read More