I don't understand it. I know it's how we get wine and baked bread, chocolate and yogurt. I've heard the word, but confession time: I have no idea what it actually means. And recently I've been hearing a lot about a drink called KOMBUCHA. Have you heard of it? Apparently probiotics and healthy gut bacteria are good for us, and it's crucial to add fermented foods like these to our diet. So I ask. What is fermentation? And why is it good for us? 

Fermentation is the process of transforming. It is most commonly used to turn a CARB into an ALCOHOL. The ones who do the fermenting are usually one of three actors: yeast, bacteria, or an oxygen-starved muscle cell. Basically, a little live bug that intakes (a CARB) and outputs (an ALCOHOL). 

I visualize FERMENTATION as a machine. In this scenario, the yeast, bacteria, or muscle cell would be the machine. The CARBS enter the machine. And inside the machine is where all the action happens to output that ALCOHOL molecule. 

So, why is that important? 

Well, apart from converting CARBS to alcohol, other by-products of the fermentation process include beneficial compounds such as enzymes, B-vitamins, Omega-3 fatty acids, and probiotics! Now I KNOW you've heard of those :) 

So basically, with fermentation, we can produce foods that are teeming with GOOD bacteria that are producing these healthy compounds for us! Crazy cool.  

There it is. Fermentation in a nutshell. Whichever way you slice it, it is definitely a crucial process for healthy digestion!

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-fermentation.htm

When you think of a walnut, what do you think of? It's good for your brain, right? 

I'm about to introduce you to some new thoughts on the wondrous walnut. Unbeknownst to us before, new research is finding that a walnut could actually be a POWERFUL SOURCE OF ANTIOXIDANTS for us. They may, in fact, produce more antioxidants than traditionally known sources, such as fruit. Could walnuts really replace oranges and acai berries in the symbolic antioxidant role?  Could a walnut give you more antioxidants than a blueberry? ?

If you think fruits and vitamin C are your best bet for antioxidants, think again. 

New research, largely promoted by David Perlmutter's new book, "Grain Brain", proves that our struggle to get antioxidants from diet alone is just that: a struggle (Perlmutter, 142). 

"Our DNA can actually turn on the production of protective antioxidants in the presence of specific signals, and this internal antioxidant system is far more powerful than any nutritional supplement" (143).

...what does that mean? 
It means that we are constantly trying to "outrun" the amount of free radicals our bodies encounter by eating foods rich in "antioxidants". However, Perlmutter explains that this strategy is not realistically feasible. He does the math. 

Our body, on a daily basis and according to normal, daily, processes, produces: 10, 000,000,000,000,000,000 damaging FREE RADICALS per day.
And because it takes 1 ANTIOXIDANT to combat 1 FREE RADICAL,
that means we would need to eat that many ANTIOXIDANTS PER DAY just to compete!
Considering our fruits only give us hundreds, if not thousands of ANTIOXIDANTS a day (1 apple =1,500 mg ANTIOXIDANTS. Multiply that by the 5 fruits and veggies you're supposed to eat a day, and you're ideally only consuming about 7,500 mg. That's nothing compared to the 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 FREE RADICALS  we're producing!), we just can't keep up this way. 

So, how can we compete?  

"Far from being entirely dependent on external food sources of antioxidants, our cells have their own innate ability to generate antioxidant enzymes on demand" (144). 
                                             And how do they generate those? 
New research has discovered a protein "switch" in our cells that induces certain genes to produce powerful "antioxidant and...detoxification defense systems" (145). If you're not familiar with biochemistry, just know that our bodies are a complex system of chemical processes, with millions of chemical reactions, each triggering the next to produce a desired product. They have found that omega-3 fats are the trigger that start the necessary reactions for these antioxidant products. Think of the domino effect: The omega-3 may not directly produce the end result (the antioxidant), but it definitely is the first one to fall. 

If you're not such a fan of walnuts, no worries. Look for other foods that contain a certain omega-3 fatty acid called DHA (this will include your salmon and fish). They also found that foods such as green tea and broccoli can trigger the same pathway (146). So do a little research and go explore! 

You've heard me talk a lot about antioxidants by now (see Coffee: Part III & The Magic Onion), so I'm guessing you can tell why I'm so excited. Since opting for more walnuts and foods rich in omega-3's, I've been able to both lower my sugar intake (avoiding barreling down those fruits) and have honestly felt a significant difference in my immunity. I feel confident to share this info because I really do feel stronger and healthier. I'd encourage you to check it out!

Did this start off as a MAGICAL-ONION-FAIRY-CARRIAGE? No.
Was that the only plausible thing to make it when I learned of this vegetable's magical properties?
Maybe.
Yes?
Aghh I don't know...

Either way, here it is! Inspired by its magical properties, THE ONION. 

If you don't already associate ONIONS with ANTI-INFLAMMATION, then let me introduce the idea. ONIONS contain a signature ANTIOXIDANT called QUERCETIN [for a review on what an antioxidant is/how it works, check out "COFFEE: PART III"]. 

Why is this special, you ask? Because (other than elderberries), onions have the highest known levels of this ANTIOXIDANT [33 mg compared to the 7.7mg of kale, or even just 5.5mg of blueberries]. 

Quercetin, like all antioxidants, has the ability to fight damaging particles in our body (free radicals) as a result of our internal and external environments. That is expected...and needed! 

What I didn't expect to find was the suggestion to use onions to fight chronic asthma. As part of their ANTI-INFLAMMATORY processes, onions are considered BRONCHODILATORS. If you have any experience with asthma, you may already be familiar with this term. This just means it opens up (dilates) the bronchioles (the passageways that support air to the lungs). Because asthma constricts those bronchioles, consistent consumption of onions will help keep those lungs open and make a person less likely to suffer asthma attacks. Neat. 

Bet you didn't know how great onions were for you. Learning about this vegetable made me think about the saying encouraging you to eat well, "fill your plate with color!" Well, now don't forget to add that white to your plate too! 

Does this fly freak you out a little? 
Maybe cause you a bit of ANXIETY?

I was hoping it might elicit some feelings for this next post, and I thought it would be a great way to segment into this week's question:

What happens in our bodies when we experience ANXIETY, and is it actually the same as EXCITEMENT?

Could ANXIETY and EXCITEMENT actually be the same thing? What would be the difference then? And how could we use that to our advantage?

ANXIETY can be defined as a response to a danger or a threat. The same can be said of stress: it is a response to any DISRUPTION of your NORMAL state of functioning. This can come in a thought, a conversation, or an experience. Do any examples come to mind? Think back to the last time you were consciously stressed. Maybe it was a conversation...And maybe through this conversation you learned some information about a friend that slightly distressed you. This new information can be considered a threat to your NORMALCY--what you knew and were comfortable with just a minute ago. How did you respond? 

ANXIETY and EXCITEMENT react similarly, if not exactly, alike in the body. They are both high stimulant reactions that stem from the sympathetic nervous system ("fight or flight" response). They both release hormones such as ADRENALINE and CORTISOL. In both of these situations, your body does an amazing thing. It releases glucose (sugar) into your blood to prepare your muscles, and raises your heart rate, cortisol, and adrenaline hormones to sharpen your mind. Again, this is all meant to prepare you to handle the "threatening" experience at hand. 

However, the interesting thing is that though the physiological principles are the same, our MENTAL associations with the two events are different. When positive thoughts are associated with a "threatening" experience, it is considered EXCITEMENT. But when negative thoughts are associated with a threatening experience, it is called ANXIETY. 

BUT, what if we could change our idea of "normal"? 

What if we could change our survival tendency that attempts to return to some baseline, comfortable place. This would include adopting a frame of mind that prepares for--and maybe even welcomes--those changes. I propose that if we are able to do this--to prepare and be willing to change our mind about "threatening" situations--then we can change the outcome of our body's reaction to "stressors".

A recent study suggests this. Before performing in different situations, such as singing karaoke or giving a speech, participants were asked to either verbally announce "I am excited" or "I am calm" (trying to remain in that baseline place we talked about). Those who stated "I am excited" performed significantly better than those who did not step into their body's responses and use it to their advantage.

This kind of thinking, I believe, transforms us from living REACTIONARY lives to ones of ACTION. By adopting these mental habits, we practice no longer living IN REACTION to things, but instead move INTENTIONALLY and FEARLESSLY into the people we want to become. 

Whether by nature or nurture, I have always tended to lean towards introversion in my social life. However, about a year ago, as I began to uncover these neurologic secrets, I made the decision to practice these habits for myself. I decided I would channel the NERVOUSNESS I experienced during a social situation into EXCITEMENT instead. And what did I find? 

           That I have an "extroverted" side to me
           That I am more social than I ever imagined
           That maybe a lot of my believed INTROVERSION was really just FEAR

From this experience, I learned that maybe sometimes we opt out of situations because subconsciously we are afraid of the multitude of "threats" or "stressors" that situation will inevitably bring. And that consequently, we can suffer from the loss that belief furnishes. I'm afraid (no pun intended) this can have deeply detrimental effects on our life, because we have the potential to miss out on so much! But I'm hoping to change that. 

In short, this practice brought me into deeper relationships with people and taught me a lot about myself. In all, it was FUN. And I'd encourage you--especially if you ever crawl a little too close to that introverted line--to do the same!

According to the FDA, here are the facts: 

ADI (Acceptable Daily Intake) = 3,750 mg for an average, 165 lb person
SO this person would have to drink:
 19 diet sodas 
OR
107 sugar-substitute packets 
to go over the daily limit.

I think it's safe to say none of us consume that much, right? The American Cancer Society seems to think so too. In fact, according to the ACS (remember, our STANDARD for cancer research. So, I would say, VERY CREDIBLE), "no health problems have been consistently linked to aspartame use." The American Diabetes Association supports aspartame use as well, and has been promoting this sugar substitute to diabetics for years. 
Alright, moving on. 

Apparently there isn't much more to say about sorbitol than was already said about aspartame. It is another sugar substitue, but the same opinions are held by the ACS as with aspartame: "all of these sweeteners appear to be safe when used in moderation".

A study in 2011 looked at the "controversial" as well as the "safe" perspectives on artificial sweeteners and explained it all nicely here. While they did not conclusively support either side, they did point out that in the negative reports on artificial sweeteners, "most of the studies have limitations such as effects shown only in animals not in human, small sample size, high doses, statistically non-significant or borderline significant, etc.". In other words, the methods of these studies were questionable for our purposes. Very telling...

What is it?  Another sugar substitute. How is it different?  It's actually good for your teeth! Unlike ASPARTAME and SORBITOL, Xylitol is a naturally occurring compound. It is produced in your body, as well as being present in small amounts in fruit and other foods! I had no idea! Naturally suhweeeet. 

Apart from looking at the main ingredients in gum, I also promised to see what research has to say about chewing gum as a whole. Well, it turns out, the research is either pretty safe OR inconclusive on that end. 

All medical opinions I found tended to agree with this particular radiation oncologist: "No clinical studies or reviews have shown that chewing sugar free gum has a causal effect on cancer" There you have it, folks. 

While researching these answers, I couldn't help but browse through the "holistic" sites that condemn gum for all its "chemicals". Although being on these sites and hearing these holistic pundits sparks a certain fervor to ban all things "un-natural", I have to stop and remember the research I've already found. The TRUTH is that whether in portion or observed effects, the "damaging" science just isn't there. 

To wrap up this topic, I found a woman after my own heart. Alice over at GoAskAlice confirmed every suspicion I've had about the benefits of chewing gum. In brief, she reminded us that humans have a tendency to want to chew, whether on "leaves, grains, waxes, or various types of sweet grasses". She also praised sugarless gum for its ability to curb cravings and prevent consumption of excess calories.

In conclusion, I'm happy to say I've let go of my anxiety surrounding gum. While my research had its limitations because I didn't extensively process ALL  ingredients in chewing gum, I did complete my purposes of finding the link between gum and cancer risk. I'm not going to let sugar substitutes off the hook for other reasons (weight gain, effects on metabolism), but for now I say enjoy your chew and GO GUM!

Out of all this, I wanted to know: Am I being exposed all the time? Or just when my phone is active, like in making a call?

Umm unfortunately, YES, the phone is always active. Even while not in use. So even while it's resting in just, say, your pocket. It is still emitting radiation. 

My final question then was: ugh, well what can I do now? How far should my phone be?
And I found the simple guideline that "distance is your friend". Devices such as bluetooth, headsets, and speakerphone allow this more easily. Also, to reduce your exposure, turn off your WIFI before you go to bed!

Though these sources say the data does not conclusively prove a connection between cellphone use and cancer, they all credit it to there not being enough research.  They seem to hint that there is a likely connection, but that we just haven't had enough time or studies done to prove that yet. For these reasons, I personally am going to resist keeping my phone in the most convenient places. Unfortunate, but necessary.

Before we dive into this conversation, I have to remind you that we talked about microwaves in our last post. We wanted to know whether microwaves "killed" the nutrients in our food, rendering our meals useless (takeaway: no, not always). Today we wanted to specifically look at microwaves as a possible carcinogenic factor and discover whether microwaves cause cancer. In order to answer this question, we first need to understand how a microwave works.

Imagine the box above represents a microwave.  Here you can see one electromagnetic wave representing the many heat waves that travel through the box to heat the food. This is RADIATION. 

I would say that the very term "RADIATION" is what causes people to fear microwaves. In order to relieve ourselves of any fear, we have to understand it. So let's break it down.  

RADIATION is just "energy that comes from a source and travels through some material or through space" (REAC/TC). With this definition, the wave above is that ENERGY (heat) that travels from the SOURCE (microwave) to the MATERIAL (food). 

So that's what we're talking about when we talk about RADIATION: the waves that travel through the food fast enough to heat up its molecules. 

Notice also that with this definition, we could describe the heat produced by a convection oven the same way! As RADIATION. Does that remove some of the fear? 

Alright, but we still can't ignore the concern specifically with MICROWAVE RADIATION (the heat waves produced by microwaves). What is that? Well, you see, lightwaves move at different FREQUENCIES. The kind that we have to worry about are the HIGH FREQUENCY waves. These include X-RAYS and UV RAYS, (which makes sense since you've probably heard that we shouldn't be exposed to too much of these kinds). 

Why are HIGH FREQUENCY WAVES more "dangerous"? Because a higher frequency wave has the potential to knock off electrons from an atom. This is called IONIZING RADIATION. (Need a visual? Check out the electrons circling the atoms in COFFEE: PART III). In a human body, IONIZING RADIATION can damage the DNA in our cells. And if a cell with this damaged DNA does not die, but instead replicates uncontrollably, it is called CANCER.

Unfortunately, microwave machines do use this type of heat radiation. HOWEVER, the crucial difference is this: the microwave radiation DOES NOT MAKE CONTACT WITH OUR SKIN. Unlike an X-RAY or a UV RAY, the microwaves are contained within the machine. They heat up the molecules in the food, and that is it. This is why even the American Cancer Society confidently tells us that "when microwave ovens are used according to instructions, there is no evidence that they pose a health risk to people" (ACS). 

Ta-daaa. There you go people. The only concern we have is with possible slight radiation leakage that can occur through the front of microwave machines when they age. But even with that, "federal standards limit the amount of radiation that can leak from a microwave oven to a level far below what would harm people" (ACS). As a result, we are recommended to stand a few feet from the microwave when it's on. And that's about it. 

Woohoooo. So are microwaves carcinogenic?
I think we have our verdict. 

NO, microwaves are NOT "bad" for you. They do not inherently strip your foods of nutrients---that depends on the way the food is cooked. And often, because of the quick heating methods of microwaves, they are actually the best way to preserve the nutrients in your most nutritious foods (SEE MICROWAVES: PART I).

As far as being carcinogenic, that fear probably initiated from a misunderstanding of how microwaves heat food (radiation and things like that sound cancerous!) But, as we've learned, the greatest health risk in using a microwave is the radiation emissions from the machine (not the electromagnetic waves inside it). However, the exposure is relatively low AND drops off only a few feet from the machine. So stand a few feet from the microwave (don't sit and watch your food! I know...difficult) and you should be fine :)

Are microwaves really the UFO's of our kitchens, as depicted here?  (Okay, maybe without the "flying" part). 

I've been asked a lot of questions recently concerning the effects of this technological revolution. Does it kill the "good things" in the supposedly "healthy" foods we're heating up? Isn't this counterproductive? Are we exposing ourselves to cancer by using it?

I started thinking about these questions when I moved into my last place. It was temporary, and lacked a microwave when my roommates and I moved in. Being the broke and somewhat misguided college students we were, we never got around to buying one. 

I never quite understood the saying, "you don't know what you have until it's gone" until I lived without a microwave for a year. Before, I never thought twice about heating up my coffee. But suddenly, I had nowhere to turn. No screen to stare at, no conveniently labeled settings to press. 

I'm slightly ashamed to admit that the question of how-one-actually-heats-up coffee-without-a-microwave did initially pass my mind. But I quickly kicked into gear, grabbed a small pan, and set my heat to low. 

I cannot lie, heating food on the stove does take longer. At times (again, ashamed to admit) I wouldn't bother because I knew it would take the time. But soon, I found that heating my food on the stove made my food taste better. And as I learned the satisfaction of patience, I began touting the belief that I would never return to the microwave ever, ever again. And enlightened-ol'-me moved off...to her next place...with a microwave. 

While at first I resisted, it soon became too tempting to pop my coffee in the microwave rather than to forget I left my coffee heating on the stove (again) to find it burnt (again). 

So I made the decision to only use the microwave to heat coffee.
Coffee. Only.  

Then one day I found myself late, running out the door, holding a cold plate of leftovers in my hands. I looked at my food. I looked at the microwave. I looked at the time. 

That's it, I caved. But if it is any consolation, I didn't want to! I still don't, but the truth is that the microwave is so much easier. But because I am devoted to the best ways of life, and not the easiest, I decided to find out the truth about these little heating devices. 

So from my most devoted attempts to be unbiased about this situation (though you can see where I lean), I present the research:

It appears the debate between whether-microwaves-leech-ingredients-out-of-your-food-or-not isn't actually much of a debate at all. 

It turns out, there is really only discretion between scientific opinion and pseudoscience. The Harvard Medical School Family Health Guide  (June 2008 update) encourages families to use microwaves if they are cooking healthy meals. Apparently, some vitamins and minerals break down under heat, but that applies to any type of cooking, whether in the microwave or the oven (Harvard 2008). In fact, in general, the longer these nutrients are cooked, the more they deteriorate. Because microwaves heat foods in a significantly shorter amount of time, medical journals have gone so far as to say, "cooking with a microwave probably does a better job of preserving the nutrient content of foods because the cooking times are shorter." (Harvard 2008). 

Can you believe that?!

I couldn't. So I looked some more. 
But It turns out that the more science-based sources actually do agree with this opinion. 

The opposing views were not able to retaliate this conclusion quite so well. They mostly condemned microwaves for their radiation levels (more on this in a minute). When they did decide to blame microwaves for destroying the nutrition itself, they used a lot of questionable language, such as quoting an Australian study that claimed microwaves "cause a higher degree of 'protein unfolding' than conventional heating" (Mercola). Here, one has to be aware of scientific jargon because really, any cooking of a protein will cause protein unfolding. But like in a beaded bracelet (where the amino acids are the beads and the whole bracelet is the protein), changing the shape ("unfolding") of the string (the protein) will not add or delete any of the beads (the amino acids--the important part!). 

Another specific word chosen by "all-natural" sources for this pseudoscience debate is "dead". Specifically, they claim that microwaves cause food to be "dead". CAUTION: this is a vague attempt to persuade readers that there is no nutritional value in a food, when, as Steven Novella of the Science-Based Medicine site explained, food cells are nearly ALWAYS DEAD WHEN THEY REACH YOU. In most cases, they have been killed or started dying once picked! In any case, it is not nutritionally valuable that a cell is alive or not--the importance lies in the nutritional components of that food (Science-Based Medicine). Still, in any case, cooking alone will kill the cells of the food you are choosing to cook, whether in a microwave or oven. The fear of a food being "dead" is another matter altogether (one that would lead a person to choose a "raw" diet or not). 

So we now know that microwaves don't necessarily deplete the nutrient content of our foods! That really depends more on the effects of our cooking method (cooked, raw, steamed, boiled, etc). 

If you want to hear about our last concern with microwaves--whether or not they're considered carcinogenic--come back next week! We're going to simplify how a microwave works in order to investigate! Stay tuned :)

http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/Microwave-cooking-and-nutrition.shtml (accessed Aug. 31, 2014).

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/microwaves-and-nutrition/ (accessed Aug. 31, 2014).

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/21/health/upwave-microwaving-food/ (accessed Sept. 1, 2014).

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/studies-show-microwaves-drastically-reduce-nutrients-food (accessed Sept. 1, 2014).

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/05/18/microwave-hazards.aspx (accessed Sept. 1, 2014).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp33ZprO0Ck (accessed Aug. 31, 2014).

After all this negative caffeine-talk, I’m excited to finally share why I’m SO EXCITED about coffee…and it has to do with ANTIOXIDANTS, baby! 

First, I want to clarify that there are a variety of benefits to coffee. I strongly believe it is a key social instrument, fit to tune only the best conversations. It offers comfort. It creates a habit of peace. The smell alone contributes to positive mental-health. 

While I promise to talk more about these in the future, right now I am going to focus on my main love affair with coffee: ANTIOXIDANTS.

We’ve all heard of antioxidants....but.
What exactly is an antioxidant, and why does it matter??

In order to describe the antioxidant, we have to explain what OXIDATION (through FREE RADICALS) is. What exactly are we “anti” anyway? 

I think what surprises most people is that OXIDATION is a normal product of metabolic processes. People tend to think that oxidation is always bad—a product of the polluted world we live in.

But the truth is that our cells always produce OXIDATION—and thus need ANTIOXIDANTS—on a normal basis.

Usually, our body is able to combat this damaging oxidation (more on what that looks like in a minute). But unfortunately, our world operates in an environment increasingly more exposed to such oxidative conditions. And problems result when these conditions (like pollution and preservatives) produce more OXIDATION through FREE RADICALS than we have a supply of  ANTIOXIDANTS.

Here’s a cell. Specifically, one in a membrane. 

Now here is that same cell attacked by FREE RADICALS. 
BAM.

If we zoom in to one of these tiny little lights, we will get the free radical (surrounded by its electrons) we see in the upper right corner of the image below. 

Free Radicals work (or I should say DON'T WORK) like this: 
They are lacking an EVEN number of ELECTRONS (the charged particles that go zooming around them like rings around a planet, which is kinda what they ended up looking like in this picture...). 
 
So instead of, say, 4 electrons, they come into the cell with only 3. This makes them highly UNSTABLE. In order to get stable again, they go bumping around and STEAL ELECTRONS from the cell membrane, which end up damaging the cell (like in the lit-up cell above). It's also important to note that those damaged cells aren't just damaged themselves; the DNA inside them can get damaged as well, leading to replicas of damaged cells! 
Basically, this problem multiplies, people.

"OH NO, WHAT IS THE CELL GOING TO DO?!"

Wait, all is not hopeless!
This is when our mighty ANTIOXIDANTS come in with plenty of electrons to donate to the free radicals. That's right, the free radicals no longer need to steal them from the healthy cells! Problem solved.  

Now can you see why I'm so excited about antioxidants?! 

All of this culminates in a study I found recently concerning coffee drinkers. It explains that drinking 3-6 cups of coffee a day showed a 20% reduction in the likelihood of developing major degenerative diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and Type II Diabetes. How is this related to antioxidants? Because in all these cases, coffee was shown to reduce some type of inflammation in them (what ANTIOXIDANTS address, remember). You see, the antioxidant- inflammation-fighting properties in coffee is powerful!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotransmitter_receptor (accessed May 13, 2014).

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/this-is-how-your-brain-becomes-addicted-to-caffeine-26861037/?no-ist (accessed May 13, 2014).

 “Principles of Anatomy and Physiology”. ed. Grabowski, Sandra Reynolds. Tortora, Gerardo J. e. 8. Harper Collins. 1996.

http://lifehacker.com/5585217/what-caffeine-actually-does-to-your-brain (accessed May 13, 2014).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2343424/If-coffee-perks-you-need-STOP-drinking-it.html (accessed May 13, 2014).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotransmitter_receptor (accessed May 13, 2014).

http://www.news-medical.net/health/Caffeine-Pharmacology.aspx (accessed June 23, 2014).

http://ep.physoc.org/content/82/2/291.full.pdf (accessed July 16, 2014). 

All coffee drinkers have probably experienced them… fatigue, irritability, fogginess, confusion: the symptoms of skipping your morning cup of joe. Did you know that the effects are so significant that the American Psychiatric Association actually considers it a mental disorder?

Now you have a medical excuse. You’re welcome.

Last week I introduced my complicated relationship with coffee by explaining how caffeine works in the body. Today, if you haven’t figured it out already, I want to address what is happening when you go without your usual caffeine. This involves all the negative withdrawal symptoms :/
PS if you really haven't  figured it out already, the owl is how you feel on coffee withdrawal. Suh-LEEEE-py. ZZzzzzzz.

When you drink caffeinated drinks regularly, your body starts to adapt. Your brain actually begins to grow adenosine receptors in order to receive the caffeine chemical*. (You’re putting in all this caffeine, and the body needs a place to store it, right?). This means that over time, you need more caffeine  to fill those receptors to get the same effect. That’s the addiction.
*(See previous post for image)

So here’s the withdrawal part:

You’re getting more and more of these adenosine receptors. (Remember that adenosine is meant to signal to your body that it’s tired and slow your body down. Again, read Part I). Remember that, because of your coffee drinking, you have grown all these receptors that are shaped to receive adenosine--this hormone that signals “you’re tired!”. But when you don’t receive the expected caffeine (like not drinking your regular coffee), here’s what’s happening: you have all these receptors meant to take caffeine, but no caffeine comes. And remember that those receptors are ADENOSINE receptors in the first place. Caffeine fits into them, but they really are meant for ADENOSINE.
So ADENOSINE floods right in.

SO NOW not only do you NOT have the caffeine blocking the “tired receptors” and increasing levels of adrenaline in your brain (see previous post), you now have tired signals there telling you to SLOW DOWN.

Again, before you get too alarmed, you should know that these effects are reversible. Your body is amazing. When you cut out caffeine, your body will notice and eventually decrease those extra adenosine receptors. BUT just note that this’ll take 1-2 weeks.

Because you can increase receptors for caffeine, my suggestion is to drink caffeine in moderation and most especially not to increase your intake over time. I only say that because you do create those receptors with regular caffeine intake, and unfortunately rely on them to be filled to even function normally. So according to this, I figure, “why help increase the amount you rely on?” Accept that cup of coffee for everything good that it is (more on this in the final, part-III post next week on caffeine!) and stay away from excess consumption!