Why do men have nipples?

Like all "why" queries, the question of why men have nipples can be addressed on many levels.
My four-year-old daughter, always suspicious of a trick when asked such obvious questions, answered: "because they grow them."
In search of the trick answer, she quickly added that "chests would also look pretty funny with just hair."

Evolutionary biologists, whose job it is to explain variety in nature, are often expected to provide adaptive explanations for such "why" questions. Some traits may prove—through appropriate tests—to be best explained as adaptations; others have perfectly good evolutionary, but nonadaptive, explanations. This is because evolution is a process constrained by many factors including history, chance, and the mechanisms of heredity, which also explains why particular attributes of organisms are not as they would be had they been "designed" from scratch. Nipples in male mammals illustrate a constrained evolutionary result.

A human baby inherits one copy of every gene from his or her father and one copy of every gene from his or her mother. Inherited traits of a boy should thus be a combination of traits from both his parents. Thus, from a genetic perspective, the question should be turned around: How can males and females ever diverge if genes from both parents are inherited? We know that consistent differences between males and females (so-called sexual dimorphisms) are common--examples include bird plumage coloration and size dimorphism in insects. The only way such differences can evolve is if the same trait (color, for example) in males and females has become "uncoupled" at the genetic level. This happens if a trait is influenced by different genes in males and females, if it is under control of genes located on sex chromosomes, or if gene expression has evolved to be dependent on context (whether genes find themselves within a male or a female genome). The idea of the shared genetic basis of two traits (in this case in males and females) is known as a genetic correlation, and it is a quantity routinely measured by evolutionary geneticists. The evolutionary default is for males and females to share characters through genetic correlations.

The uncoupling of male and female traits occurs if there is selection for it: if the trait is important to the reproductive success of both males and females but the best or "optimal" trait is different for a male and a female. We would not expect such an uncoupling if the attribute is important in both sexes and the "optimal" value is similar in both sexes, nor would we expect uncoupling to evolve if the attribute is important to one sex but unimportant in the other. The latter is the case for nipples. Their advantage in females, in terms of reproductive success, is clear. But because the genetic "default" is for males and females to share characters, the presence of nipples in males is probably best explained as a genetic correlation that persists through lack of selection against them, rather than selection for them. Interestingly, though, it could be argued that the occurrence of problems associated with the male nipple, such as carcinoma, constitutes contemporary selection against them. In a sense, male nipples are analogous to vestigial structures such as the remnants of useless pelvic bones in whales: if they did much harm, they would have disappeared.

In a now-famous paper, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. Lewontin emphasize that we should not immediately assume that every trait has an adaptive explanation. Just as the spandrels of St. Mark's domed cathedral in Venice are simply an architectural consequence of the meeting of a vaulted ceiling with its supporting pillars, the presence of nipples in male mammals is a genetic architectural by-product of nipples in females. So, why do men have nipples? Because females do.

.

Why is life expectancy longer for women than it is for men?

Men dying sooner than women makes sense biologically: because 105 males are born for every 100 females, it would assure that there are about the same number of men and women at reproductive ages.

But even though women showed a longer life expectancy in almost every human society in the last decade of the 20th century, the size of the advantage varied greatly.

For example, in the U.S. male life expectancy was 73.4 years for males and 80.1 years for females, a difference of 6.7 years, whereas in France it was 7.8 years and in the U.K., 5.3 years. The discrepancy was much greater in some countries, with the difference in Russia reaching more than 12 years, but in others, such as India (0.6 year) or Bangladesh (0.1 year), it was much less.

The diversity in worldwide longevity alone indicates that the difference in mortality between the sexes is not purely biological and that there are intervening social factors. The current range of situations actually reflects different stages of a three-part historical evolution. Women most probably have a biological advantage that allows them to live longer, but in the past--and in several places, still today--the status and life conditions of women nullified this benefit. Today, given the general progress in female life conditions, women have not only regained their biological advantage, but have gone much beyond it, both because they tend to engage in fewer behaviors that are bad for health than men do and because they better profit from current advances in health care and living conditions.

The biological advantage that women have is taken as a certainty, because the mortality of males is higher than that of females from the very outset of life: during the first year of life, in the absence of any outside influence which could differentiate mortality between the sexes, male mortality is 25 to 30 percent greater than is female mortality. The genetic advantage of females is evident. When a mutation of one of the genes of the X chromosome occurs, females have a second X to compensate, whereas all genes of the unique X chromosome of males express themselves, even if they are deleterious. More generally, the genetic difference between the sexes is associated with a better resistance to biological aging. Furthermore, female hormones and the role of women in reproduction have been linked to greater longevity. Estrogen, for example, facilitates the elimination of bad cholesterol and thus may offer some protection against heart disease; testosterone, on the other hand, has been linked to violence and risk taking. Finally, the female body has to make reserves to accommodate the needs of pregnancy and breast feeding; this ability has been associated with a greater ability to cope with overeating and eliminating excess food.

Even though many biological and genetic factors have been identified, their overall effect is impossible to measure, especially given the influence of social factors on mortality. The extraordinary economic and social progress that has occurred since the 18th century has been accompanied by a dramatic reduction of the social differences between men and women and of the burden of motherhood, which had previously negated women's biological advantage. But the recent mortality trends have gone much farther than the mere recovery of an original advantage, creating instead a new advantage of greater magnitude for women. Observations indicate that the growing excess male mortality in industrial countries could be explained by the rise of so-called "man-made diseases," which are more typically male. These include exposure to the hazards of the workplace in an industrial context, alcoholism, smoking and road accidents, which have indeed increased considerably throughout the 20th century.

But if these diseases are the only explanation for longer female life expectancy, why has the gap continued to grow even though male and female behavior and life conditions have been converging in recent years? Part of the paradox can certainly be explained by the fact that this convergence is not absolute: male smokers tend to smoke more cigarettes than female smokers do, and men drive more recklessly than females drivers, for instance.

French demographer Jacques Vallin has long been monitoring longevity in general and sex differences in mortality in particular. He adds to the above an interesting explanation of women's current mortality advantage that could explain the more recent trends: the dramatic increase in excess male mortality emerged as an equally dramatic progress in the general health conditions of our societies was taking place. He thus argues that beyond the negative behavioral or environmental factors that affect men more than they do women, there could be very well be a more fundamental difference in lifestyles that allows women to better benefit from the general progress in health. For example, although women now participate massively in the work force, their roles remain different and their professional activities are, on average, less prejudicial to their health. In addition, women often relate to their bodies, their health and their lives in general in a much different way than men do.

To caricature, women seek beauty, men seek strength and power; thus, a woman's body must remain young and healthy as long as possible, whereas a man's body must be submitted to risks and challenges from an early age. The result is that women, much more than men, are attentive to their bodies and their needs and often carry on deeper dialogs more easily with their doctors. Hence, women, being more inclined to take care of their bodies and to prolong their lives, may be better able to glean greater profit from modern medical and social advances by practicing activities that are healthier and better protect their bodies. In this context, women's biological advantage now appears relatively minor in the total mortality differences between the sexes.

.

Sex Organ Up Your Nose

We humans have a bunch of highly-developed senses, but most of our communication happens with sound and vision.

Not much communication between people happens with smell.

But now we are beginning to prove that we humans can influence each other with our smells - and, that we pick up these smells with a strange sex organ inside our noses!

The anatomy scientists have known for a long time about the "olfactory epithelium". "Olfactory" means "related to smell". The olfactory epithelium is a patch of yellowish tissue high up in "ceiling" of the nose. Normally, it is poorly ventilated, but when we sniff deeply, we pass lots of air over it. In this yellow patch, there are sensory cells specially adapted for smelling. Chemicals in the air enter the nose, excite the sensory cells, and then we get the sensation of "smell".

There is also another area in the human nose that we can detect odours with - but until recently, most scientists didn't believe it existed! This is the VNO, which stands for "vomeronasal organ". Fishes, birds, and some mammals don't have a VNO, but it is very well developed in snakes and lizards.

It was first discovered by the Dutch anatomist, Ruysch, way back in 1703. It's right next to the wall that separates the nostrils, on the quot;floor" of the nose, and about a centimetre inside the nose. There's one in each nostril. It looks like a hollow tube, with only a very small opening (about one tenth of a millimetre across) into the nose. Each VNO is very small, and hard to see.

This might be why the vomeronasal organ fell out of favour, and soon the anatomists didn't even believe it existed. By the 1930's, physiologists said hat not only did we humans definitely not have a VNO, but there was no structure in the brain to process the information from any such organ. However, in 1991, a careful study found that 910 out of 1,000 people had an easily-found VNO. But the fact that we humans have a vomeronasal Organ, does not mean that it does anything.

In 1994, Luis Monti-Bloch and his team from the University of Utah actually managed to thread very fine insulated electrical wires into the VNOs of volunteers. They then wafted various smells up the noses of their volunteers, and looked for electrical activity in the cells of the VNO. These smells were various odourless chemicals from the skin of men and women. The volunteers had absolutely no conscious idea that they were getting these smells - in other words, their olfactory epithelium which smells perfumes and pollutants, did not trigger. The cells in the males' VNOs fired when they got female skin smells, and female VNOs responded to male skin smells. But the VNOs did not respond to skin smells from the same sex.

It was odd that the volunteers didn't consciously realise that their VNO was being stimulated. We can waft a smell up their nose, and their VNO can fire frantically with electrical activity - but all the volunteer gets is a vague, generalised emotion of feeling fine.

But in early 1998, an excellent experiment showed a more definite effect - that some female smells could trigger women's menstrual cycles. Kathleen Stern and Martha McClintock from the Psychology Department at the University of Chicago did the experiment. They had some "donor" women, who gave away the smells in their armpits (via a pad that they wore for 8 hours per day). They also had some "recipient" women, who were exposed to these smells. The smells were completely odourless, as far their conscious brains were concerned. And of course, the two groups, donors and recipients, never met face-to-face.

The smells were taken from the donor women at two different times in their menstrual cycle. When the smells were taken before the donors ovulated, the ecipient's menstrual cycles became shorter. But when the smells were taken right on the donors' ovulation, the recipient's menstrual cycles became longer. The overall effect was to synchronise the cycle of the recipient, with the cycle of the donor.

This was a pretty good experiment, but we're still not 100% sure that the smells from one human can influence another human. For one thing, this effect happened to only 70% of the volunteers - so what's going on in the remaining 30%? For another thing, our neuroanatomists have not yet proved that nerves from the human VNO go to the relevant parts of the brain. The only way to do that is to get several corpses, add some dye to the VNO, and wait a few month for the dye to migrate, and then very carefully cut open the brain.

So if your boyfriend or girlfriend gets up your nose, it may not be their fault.

.

Why are over 250 million sperm cells released from the penis during sex?

The average male will produce roughly 525 billion sperm cells over a lifetime and shed at least one billion of them per month.

A healthy adult male can release between 40 million and 1.2 billion sperm cells in a single ejaculation.

In contrast, women are born with an average two million egg follicles, the reproductive structures that give rise to eggs. By puberty, a majority of those follicles close up and only about 450 will ever release mature eggs for fertilization.

But if it only takes one sperm and one egg to meet and create a baby, then why do men produce such a whopping number of sperm? Wouldn’t it be less wasteful for a man to release a single sperm, or at least fewer, to meet one egg?

The reason for this predicament boils down to two words: sperm competition. Since the dawn of the sexes, males have vied with each other to get as many of their own sperm near a fertile egg as possible. Getting more of your sperm closer to an egg means there is a greater probability that it will be you and not your neighbor fertilizing it.

This kind of competition is an evolutionary imperative for males of any species. If a rival’s sperm fertilizes an egg, then an opportunity to pass on your genes is lost. Through many generations, as the reproductive spoils continually go to the highest sperm producers, their genes are passed on. The genes of the smaller sperm producers are eventually weeded out of the population and become a footnote to evolutionary history.

But if it was just a matter of ‘more is better,’ then animals of all species would have evolved ridiculously large testicles in a bid to overwhelm the competition. But it’s not quite that simple—numbers are important, but so is proximity. Fertilizing an egg is not just about how much sperm you can produce. It is also about how close you get your sperm to it.

In the early 1980s, researchers in the United Kingdom and the United States realized that both proximity and number were important factors in the physiology of primates, including humans. In primate societies with rigid social structures and one dominant male who mates with all the females, testes trend towards the small. In gorillas, for example, they are very small relative to body weight. (Don’t tell them that.) In gorilla society, one male defends a harem of females to ensure only his sperm gets anywhere near their eggs. In this case, making a lot of sperm doesn’t really help the male gorilla get the job done.

For chimpanzees, on the other hand, sperm competition is a serious issue. In chimpanzee society, many males and females live together in large troops, and females have sex with many males in a short span of time. This is why male chimpanzees possess the largest testes of all the great apes, weighing in roughly 15 times larger than gorillas, relative to their body weight. This gives them a better shot at swamping out the competition.

Human males fall somewhere in between gorillas and chimps. The average man’s testes are roughly two and a half times as big as a gorilla’s but six times smaller than a chimp’s, relative to body weight. This has led some researchers to question whether sperm competition was ever at work in human societies, or whether our relatively large testes are just a hold over from an earlier period in our evolutionary history.

.

Why do we get bags under our eyes?

If the eyes are the window to the soul, then what do those hefty bags beneath your eyes say about you?

Co-workers, loved ones and even your coffee shop barista might be quick to point out that they make you look like a sleepy soul.

While people often associate under-eye bags with lack of sleep, one main cause may actually be much more fundamental: gravity. The gravitational pull weighs down on all Earthly objects, including your skin. The longer you’re exposed to gravity (i.e., the older you get) the more your facial tissues sink toward the floor.

But prolonged exposure to gravity is not the only bag-forming effect that the aging process bestows on us. As we get older, the tissues around our peepers change.

The upper and lower eyelids are composed of skin, muscle and fat. With age, the muscles weaken and can’t hold up the skin as tightly. Skin also changes because the collagen inside it degrades. Collagen is a protein that gives structure to our cells. In skin, it provides elasticity. With less collagen, the skin starts to wrinkle and sag.

Beneath the skin and muscle, the main culprit for under-eye puffiness is fat. “As you get older, your fat, like everything else, starts drooping,” says Dr. Melanie Grossman, a dermatologist in New York.

Fat deposits around our eyes help protect them. But in our 40s and 50s, these cushiony fat pockets can escape from the membrane that normally contains them. As the membrane weakens with age, the fat slips out and occupies new spaces under the skin. “When people have puffiness it may be misplacement of the fat,” says Grossman.

A new study by plastic surgery researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles shows that this long-accepted theory may be off the mark. Rather than the membrane weakening with age, the scientists report that the amount of fat beneath the eyes actually increases to cause baggy lower eyelids. More research is needed to pin down the exact mechanism to explain droopy lower eyelids, but scientists agree that as the calendar pages turn, the bag-forming process naturally progresses.

So is it fair when friends point fingers at your puffy eyes and tease that you’re not sleeping enough? Dr. David McDaniel, a dermatologist in Virginia Beach, says that while there is no proof of a relationship between snoozing and under-eye bags, it does seem that a lack of sleep affects the severity of the condition.

Some other behaviors that appear to affect puffiness are eating salty foods, which causes your body to retain water, and rubbing the eyes because of allergies. Irritants in the air such as pollutants and mold also seem to exacerbate the bags.

But changing your behavior won’t obliterate sagging lower lids from your face. There is a genetic factor at play as well. If your parents puffed up, then you probably will too at around the same age.

Envy those lucky individuals whose genes predict that their eye fat will remain at bay and the skin below their eyes will stay nice and tight. For the rest of us, there are remedies that people claim can at least minimize the bags.

Plastic surgery called blepharoplasty can remove or reposition the fat that creates under-eye bags. Sometimes surgeons pair this with Botox or facelifts to revitalize the face. Some specialty eye creams found on drugstore shelves claim to reduce puffiness.

Cheaper alternatives include folk remedies like cucumber slices and tea bags laid on top of closed eyes. People use them because they think the cooling from the cucumbers or the natural anti-diuretic in caffeinated tea might help. But there’s no proof that these techniques work, says Grossman. It’s not clear whether the caffeine can even penetrate the skin and, if it can, whether it has any effect.

If you’re genetically predisposed to get under-eye bags, there is not much chance of avoiding them. But maintaining the health of your skin can play down their appearance. “Overwhelmingly, good diet, exercise and sleep are probably the things you can do to help yourself,” Grossman says.

While there’s no definitive link between healthy behavior and smooth skin surrounding the eyes, that advice seems to echo the common refrain from doctors. “Your eyes reflect the health of your skin and your body,” says McDaniel.

And one more thing: dark circles under the eyes often coincide with bags, but these two ugly features occur separately. Aging is partially responsible for both. So what we see in others seems to be older (not sleepy) souls.

.

The Trust Hormone

Oxytocin may make you more trusting, but is that a good thing?
Between emails from Nigeria promising millions of dollars in exchange for your bank account number and advertisements proclaiming the deal of a lifetime, someone is always after your money.

While no one is immune from the occasional bad investment, most of us pride ourselves on being too smart to be duped out of our hard-earned cash.

Recently though, researchers have discovered that the naturally occurring hormone oxytocin might make us more trusting with our money—even after someone betrays us. A Swiss study detailed in the May issue of the journal Neuron showed that volunteers who were given the hormone oxytocin through a nasal spray were more trusting than those given a placebo.

Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, a scanning technology that measures neural activity, the researchers found that the amygdala, the brain’s fear center, was less active in the group that received oxytocin.

Reducing amygdala activity lowers social fear and anxiety, says Markus Heinrichs, author of the study and psychology professor at the University of Zurich. Eventually, he thinks oxytocin could be used to treat disorders characterized by an overactive amygdala, like social phobia.

However, the prospect of inducing trust with a hormone—particularly if administered without consent—raises a few eyebrows. Ethicists worry about the potential for misuse, and one company is already marketing a “trust perfume” made with oxytocin.

“If it turns out that oxytocin makes someone more pliable and receptive, one can think of nefarious uses,” says Paul Root Wolpe, a neuroethicist at the University of Pennsylvania. For instance, he says it would be inappropriate to use oxytocin on prisoners or criminal suspects to elicit a confession because it is unethical to give drugs without consent, not to mention a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Other researchers assert that oxytocin research is much more likely to lead to useful therapies than abuses, and they say the Neuron study was an important step. They think oxytocin could be used as a treatment for disorders such as social phobia and even autism. Those disorders are characterized by fear, so some think oxytocin could help make people more trusting and less fearful in social situations.

“People are very excited about oxytocin’s use,” says Adam Guastella, a senior clinical research fellow at the Brain and Mind Research Institute at the University of Sydney, Australia, who is not connected with the study. “There are many potential applications.”

***

Oxytocin is a mammalian hormone produced in the hypothalamus, an almond-sized area at the base of the brain. The hormone is released by the adjacent pituitary gland, particularly during labor and breastfeeding. It has also been associated with sexual arousal, giving it the nickname the “love hormone.” But oxytocin’s function extends well beyond love, and recent studies have examined its role in trust and social interactions.

A 2005 study in Nature, for example, found that participants who received oxytocin were more likely to trust other people than participants who received a placebo. The recent Neuron study expands on the earlier experiment, showing that not only are people more trusting, but they are more trusting even when they know they are likely to be betrayed. The study also combines brain imaging data with the behavioral data to see which regions of the brain are affected by oxytocin.

“This was the first study where we combined brain imaging, social behavior and substance administration,” says Heinrichs.

Heinrichs and his colleagues performed the experiment on 49 male volunteers. Half of them received a nasal spray of oxytocin and half did not. Then each group played a trust game. The men had to decide whether or not to invest money with another volunteer in hopes of gaining more money. The amount they chose to invest would automatically be doubled. Then the volunteer receiving the money could decide how much, if any, to give back to the investor. The more money the volunteer invested, the more he stood to gain or lose.

The two groups played a round of six games and afterwards were told how often their investments paid off. About half the time, the trustee betrayed the investor. Each group then played another round of trust games with different trustees, and in this round the investors in the placebo group invested less often. But the oxytocin group continued to invest the same amount of money with the trustees.

After learning that their trust had been betrayed, the placebo group’s average investment dropped from about 7.7 to 6.5 out of a possible 12, while the oxytocin group’s average stayed about the same.

All participants were hooked up to a scanner while playing the trust games so their brain activity could be monitored. Researchers found that the amygdala was much more active in the placebo group than in the oxytocin group.

“The amygdala is very clearly identified with fear and anxiety,” says Ron Stoop of the Center for Psychiatric Neuroscience at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland. “When it is activated you get a fear response; when inactivated, people get very calm.”

***

Oxytocin binds to proteins embedded in the cell membrane of the amygdala. This binding activates neurotransmitters that inhibit cells in the amygdala, reducing neural activity. The exact length of oxytocin’s inhibitory effect is unknown, but Stoop says it appears to only be short-lived.

Researchers are now trying to figure out whether oxytocin affects other areas of the brain, says Stoop. Oxytocin could be specific to the amygdala or it could have a general effect on the entire brain, he adds, noting that there are receptors in other parts of the brain like the hippocampus, where memories are formed, and the stria terminalis, which is a band of fibers that connects the amygdala to the hippocampus.

Oxytocin could eventually be used to treat social disorders characterized by excessive fear, such as social phobia, autism and post-traumatic stress disorder. Heinrichs says that the feeling of fear in these disorders is caused by a hyperactive amygdala. He thinks that oxytocin could help reduce that hyperactivity.

But Paul Zak, a neuroeconomist at Claremont University who studies how neural activity influences economic decisions, says it is premature to speculate on clinical uses of oxytocin. The study only evaluated its effects on men, and since oxytocin has a role in breastfeeding and childbirth, it would be important to determine whether the hormone has a different effect on women, he says.

Zak was also critical of the neural imaging used in the Neuron study. One effect of oxytocin is that it lowers a person’s heart rate. Since imaging shows brain activity based on the amount of blood flow, the activity in the amygdala might be lower not because it is being inhibited by oxytocin, but simply because there was less blood flow to the brain in general, according to Zak.

Sydney’s Guastella says it is also important to understand whether or not oxytocin increases pleasure or feelings of reward from social interactions. He says that for oxytocin to effectively treat social disorders, it will have to increase the person’s desire to interact with others, not just increase their likelihood to trust.

So far, giving people extra oxytocin has not produced any harmful side effects, but this needs to be researched better before being used as treatment.

***

Still, researchers are taking oxytocin seriously, and not just as a potential clinical treatment. They also acknowledge that its ability to shape behavior raises certain ethical questions. “You can imagine a wide range of scenarios,” Stoop says. He points to politicians potentially using oxytocin to gain voters’ trust or executives who might use it to garner trust in a business deal.

“The danger would be if you could administer oxytocin in a way that someone would not realize it,” Heinrichs says. But, he says, that would be difficult to do since oxytocin has to be administered through a nasal spray to be effective.

However, the Florida-based company Verolabs is already marketing a “liquid trust” perfume. Company officials would not return phone calls, but their website boasts that the perfume will help wearers gain the trust of others in both their professional and romantic lives.

Heinrichs and others dismiss this idea, saying that aerosolized oxytocin would not affect the brain because it quickly degrades. Oxytocin in a perfume spray would diffuse rapidly in the air and it wouldn’t reach the brain in high enough concentrations to have any effect, researchers say. Companies are just looking to make a quick buck, Heinrichs says. Even so, the University of Pennsylvania’s Wolpe still has concerns. “It does raise a number of questions on how it is we form relationships with other people and why some people are more trusting and others are more suspicious and wary,” he says.

But, he also points out that the effects shown in the Swiss study were relatively mild. Oxytocin didn’t cause a dramatic change in behavior, so it would be premature to jump to conclusions on how it could be used, he says. “This isn’t a magic bullet to put something over on someone,” he says.

It is important to figure out the context in which oxytocin could or should be used, says Eric Racine, director of the neuroethics research unit at the Institute of Clinical Research in Montreal. “This study really reflects the exciting advances that have been made in neuroscience, but also the potential ethical implications of knowing how we think, feel and behave,” says Racine. While other fields of science such as genetics and stem cell research have long spurred ethical debates, advances in neuroscience are just starting to raise similar ethical questions, Racine says. Just because we can shape behavior and feelings, he adds, doesn’t mean we should.

The Perfect Chocolate

Chocolate is the new ‘Black’. Its making waves in all the health circles, as its health benefits appeal to medical and health practitioners with diverse educations and specialties. Laboratory studies reveal its potent anti-oxidant actions, and ‘chocolate parties’ reveal a great many other positive effects.

We’ve all seen the surveys where many women would prefer chocolate over love making (this does not seem to be the case in European countries, however); add to this the results of an Italian study mentioning that women who eat chocolate have enjoyment in the bedroom, and the subject gets a little spicy. Spicy enough even to consider adding a healthy dose of chocolate to your life? Need more reasons? Chocolate makes your bones more dense, it prevents heart disease, its thought to attract abundance, and its full of mood-boosting and intelligence-boosting neurotransmitter precursors. Healthy, wealthy, wise and happy. So it is as easy and eating all the Hershey’s bars you can get a hold of? Well, not quite…

Like so many things in our modern world, its the processing of chocolate that makes all the difference. This isn’t just the New Age Hippy types saying this either (as one, the author feels comfortable making this statement). The scientists measuring all the chemicals in our food, telling us which bits are good and which are bad are saying it too. It’s RAW, minimally-processed chocolate that’s the miracle food. Un-roasted, un-cooked plain old powdered chocolate, better known as ‘Cacao’, is far superior in every way for your health. Cacao is one of the few foods on the planet now being called a ‘super’-food, as it’s nutrient density is so high and its health benefits are so great. Note that ‘organic’ does not mean ‘raw’. Even the premium organic hot-chocolate powders found in the high-end health food stores is still roasted and usually processed with alkali (called ‘Dutch Processing’, making it easier to dissolve in water, and destroying most of the antioxidants at the same time). This means that 99% of the chocolate products on the shelves are NOT the superfood you wished they were, but it also points the direction to how to include chocolate in your life on an exceptionally health daily basis. We’ll get to some recipes in a moment, but first a few points to help you remember why raw chocolate is where it’s at.

First the question of Caffeine. Many folks are sensitive to caffeine’s effect on their nervous system. It raises blood pressure, shortens tempers and keeps people awake. There are however, significant differences in the alkaloid structures of raw and roasted chocolate. Raw chocolate’s stimulation comes primarily from theobromine, which has little anxiety producing effects. Studies by natural wellness professionals and user reports both note that while commercially prepared dark chocolate has a very stimulating action that caffeine sensitive individuals may find too strong, an equivalent amount of raw cacao does not. The stimulating effects are reported mild, gentle, and without a ‘crash’ that is often associated with caffeine. A reason for mothers to think about creating their own raw chocolate treats for their children, too. The jury is still out on the actual amount if caffeine in raw chocolate; some investigators have found none, some have found small amounts in the ‘skin’ of the cacao beans, and others of found only small amounts in beans that have fermented somewhat (an indication of a lower-quality cacao). Either way, if you’ve refrained from chocolate because of it’s caffeine content, raw cacao may just be your answer to enjoying this treat again.

The really big news about chocolate has been it’s antioxidant profile. Chocolate contains significant amounts of polyphenols—the same important antioxidants found in green tea, red wine and green apples—but in greater amounts. Dark chocolate contains an impressive 5% of these compounds, yet raw chocolate is made up of an incredible 10% concentration of these possibly life-extending molecules. Both roasting and processing with alkali (to make Dutch cocoa) reduce antioxidant concentration. Further, the increased absorbability of powdered raw cacao (perhaps the most versatile form of raw chocolate) over cacao nibs give them an edge in ORAC value, a measure of Oxidative Radical Absorbance Capacity.

Maybe the most intriguing constituents of chocolate are it’s mood-altering chemicals besides its stimulation. Many users of raw chocolate find and even greater boost than from commercial chocolates. Like caffeine, some of the molecules attributed to mood-enhancement are also heat sensitive. Tryptophan, a precursor to serotonin, is present in significant amounts and is known to be broken down by heat (and apparently it’s not the Tryptophan in the turkey dinners that makes one tired, it’s the three servings followed by pie and ice cream!). Other natural constituents are dopamine and precursors to dopamine, one molecule called the ‘love chemical’ and another called the ‘bliss chemical’. Add to these monoamine oxidase inhibitors which actually enhance the activity of all of the above mood brighteners. Finally, there’s lots of easily absorbed magnesium in raw chocolate, a mineral associated with serotonin production (many pharmaceutical antidepressants increase serotonin activity), and the ability to relax. Raw chocolate offers the healthiest and most effective means of adding these happy-making nutrients to your daily diet.

Need more be said? Ready for some recipes? The simplest means of eating raw chocolate is snacking on cacao nibs. These are small pieces of cacao beans that mix well with natural granolas or dried fruit. To really get the most benefits, and for the most delicious raw chocolate creations, find yourself a source of raw organic cacao powder. The powder can be added to any drink, or easily made into bars, drops or other shaped candies. By far the most often enjoyed recipe for raw chocolate powder is the simple chocolate drink: Put one heaping tablespoon raw cacao powder, one teaspoon raw agave nectar, and one teaspoon high quality coconut oil in a blender (note that coconut oil quality varies greatly - a good coconut oil should taste pleasant by itself and have no chemical or rancid flavor which would otherwise be noticed in your chocolate drink). Add eight to twelve ounces of hot (but not boiling water) and blend at low speed for about ten seconds. That’s it; Chocolate magic that’s easily adjusted to your tastes—experimenting in whatever way comes to mind is highly encouraged.

There are lots and lots of recipes out there, and great reading on raw chocolate’s health benefits and preparation. You’ll cacao powder often combined with other super nutritious foods in smoothies and good-for-you deserts. Natural organic candies start with the same ingredients as the drinks, but without the liquid. Mixing the chocolate and coconut oil is easiest with your hands (as this gently melts the coconut oil)—making a paste to which you can add any little natural crunchy treats. As you’re not baking anything, there’s little to go awry, and really, so many possibilities. By using raw chocolate, you’ll open up a whole new world of cooking for yourself and your family—and if you hadn’t before, you might just find yourself really motivated to treat yourself to natural health and wellness.

.

Impact Of Viagra On Love And Relationships

Viagra was first introduced to the world in 1998 and it is fair to say that the world has not been the same since. The impact of this medication has been enormous, not just in the narrow area of treating erectile dysfunction (ED) for which it was approved, but also in the way we think of sex and sexuality, and even in the realm of relationships between men and women.

Millions of men in the United States have tried Pfizer's wonder drug, sildenafil, better known as Viagra, and there are thus millions of women who have also seen its effects on their husbands, boyfriends, and lovers. Many other millions of men and women wonder about whether Viagra can offer a solution for their own sexual and emotional problems or for the problems of their partners. We human beings are sexual animals, after all. And unfortunately, our sex lives are not always the way we want them to be. So it's no surprise that when sex goes sour, relationships suffer in other ways as well.

Everyone wants to know about Viagra, and many are interested in trying it, whether or not they think they have an erection problem. There are always a good number of Viagra questions, such as, "What happens when a young, healthy man with normal sexual function takes Viagra?" Or "Can a woman tell during sex that her partner has taken Viagra?" Or "Is it true that Viagra increases a man's sex drive?" Viagra quickly tapped into a set of wishful fantasies that mirrored our culture's hunger for certainty and the quick fix. Supported by stories that described elderly men restored to such sexual vitality by Viagra that they abandoned their wives in favor of younger women, a conventional wisdom arose that Viagra was a fountain of youth, a sure cure, the real deal. Baby boomers could now look forward to fabulous sex well into their nineties. Men shared Viagra stories with each other at cocktail parties or around the office water cooler.

"All we can say is 'Wow!'" says one man, and other men listening in wonder how their lives might be different if they also took the magic blue pill. Women too have been targeted to confirm Viagra's ability to create satisfaction and serenity within a relationship where frustration and friction had once been the rule. One of the most successful early Pfizer ads showed a series of couples happily dancing together after Viagra apparently cured the loss of rhythm in their relationship.

Viagra jokes became a staple of comedy acts on late-night television (Have you heard the one about the man who swallowed Viagra, but it stuck in his throat? He wound up with a very stiff neck!), thus ensuring its place in our cultural lexicon. Viagra tapped into both our fantasies and our embarrassment about sexuality in a way that no other drug had ever done. When, for example, was the last time you heard a joke about a new cholesterol-lowering medication?

Skillful marketing contributed to our perception of Viagra as the pill that put the "man" in "manly." Star professional athletes-vigorous men such as baseball's Most Valuable Player Rafael Palmeiro of the Texas Rangers and NASCAR driver Mark Martin-endorse the medication in widely seen advertisements. Other kinds of athletes use Viagra as well. Hugh Hefner, the aging head of the Playboy empire who is known for his bevy of beautiful blondes, gives Viagra credit for maintaining his pleasure quotient. Rumor has it that he provides bowls of Viagra tablets at his famous parties.

Yes, the drug is enormously powerful, and it can be a lifesaver for many men, but it has also turned a bright spotlight on previously hidden areas of sexuality and relationships. In particular, it forces couples to decide what is real in their relationships and what is not. I have come to see Viagra as providing a window into the psyche of men, and perhaps indirectly into the psyche of women as well, since women are not immune from unduly high expectations regarding the benefits of Viagra and its potential to provide sexual healing.

.

The Pill: A Blessing And A Curse

We know the pill’s safe in the short term, but what happens to long-term users?

Birth control pills decrease the risk of certain cancers but increase the risk of others the longer they’re taken, according to the longest study ever done on the hormonal contraceptive.

For long-term users, the benefits of the pill are still seen in diminished ovarian and endometrial cancers; but women who took the pill for more than eight years were twice as likely to get cervical cancer.

The study, published in the British Medical Journal, comes 50 years after the pill garnered FDA approval to help regulate the periods of women with menstrual disorders. Since then, it has also helped more than 300 million women worldwide avoid pregnancy by blocking ovulation. Because of controversy surrounding its use, researchers kept meticulous data about the women who first took it and the conditions they developed. Now the data have been analyzed, and findings indicate that the pill offers protective benefits for women who’ve used it: a reduction of cancer incidence between 3 percent and 12 percent. But long-term pill takers were 20 percent more likely to develop cancer.

The way birth control protects or damages a woman’s body is not known. One hypothesis suggests that by stopping ovulation, the pill protects the ovaries from the monthly damage caused by an egg breaking through the ovary during a woman’s natural menstrual cycle, thus preventing ovarian cancers. Another theory is that the hormone regulation induced by taking the pill protects organs, possibly through changes in the production of other non-sex hormones or the body’s ability to process sugar from foods, although both causes are purely speculative. “None of the mechanisms actually fit all the data, so we just have to say no one knows its precise beneficial or harmful effects,” says Dr. Philip Hannaford, a professor of General Practice and Primary Care at the University of Aberdeen and the lead author on the study.

Hannaford’s team analyzed data from more than 1 million British women who began taking the pill just after it was commercially introduced in 1968. “This study is good news for women,” Hannaford says, mentioning that for many women who worry about increased risk of breast cancer—previously linked to hormone therapies—the findings came as a relief.

However, increased cancer among long-term users was primarily cervical cancer, which was not aggressively screened for until 1975. “Cervical cancer can be picked up early and is eminently treatable,” says Hannaford. He recommends that women using the pill for a long time recognize they have an increased risk and remember to go in for their annual screenings.

Dr. Miriam Cremmer, a family planning specialist at New York University Medical Center, agrees that long-term pill users should not be too concerned. “I wouldn’t tell women to get off it at any point because of increased risk of cancer,” she says. Cremmer noted that she and her colleagues were not concerned because the risk increase was relatively small and only found for easily identified cancer types. “I don’t think it’s going to change prescriptions at all,” she says.

.

Why do people sneeze?

God bless you! Gesundheit! Cover your face!

When you sneeze, you are likely to hear one of these responses, ranging in inspiration from the medieval to the hygienic. Different cultures throughout history have interpreted a sneeze as either an auspicious sign or a bad omen, but it may be said that both are right: Sneezing is the good that gets the ill out.

“Sneezing is basically ‘nature’s broom,’” says Dr. James Banks, an allergist and immunologist in private practice in Arnold, Md. “It is a way our bodies purge foreign matter that has invaded our noses.”

Particulates are the usual suspects, including dust and common allergens like pollen or animal dander. Sneezing also expels unwelcome germs when we are sick, which has given rise to the sanitary concerns about honking away in public places. And for good reason: a single sneeze can produce some 40,000 aerosolized droplets containing a hefty amount of infectious organisms, according to a 1998 article in the American Journal of Infection Control.

It’s not just allergies and illnesses that can produce that familiar tickling in the nose. Banks explains: “People sneeze for a lot of reasons other than just getting something up their noses. Clinically speaking, we consider sneezing a non-specific reaction, because there are a lot of sources that irritate.”

For example, some people experience a round of sneezing after a large meal, which has led to the coining of the term snatiation, a combination of sneeze and satiation. There is also a phenomenon with a known genetic basis called the photic sneeze reflex, which causes about one-third of people to sneeze from looking at a bright light source, such as the sun. Sigmund Freud has even speculated on the kinky psychological origins of an otherwise innocuous sneeze.

“Overall, it is not a clear-cut reflex,” says Dr. David Kaufman, an associate professor in the department of otolaryngology at New York University Medical Center (an otolaryngologist is most often referred to as an ear, nose and throat specialist).

Like blinking or breathing, sneezing is a semi-autonomous reflex, meaning we exercise some conscious control over its mechanism – we can try to restrain ourselves or submit and start reaching for a tissue.

The act of sneezing itself, technically called sternutation, usually begins as an electrical signal that is triggered by a trespassing particle’s contact with nerve endings in the mucous membranes of our sinuses. This neural message then travels to the brain stem, which is located in the lower rear of our head where the spine connects to the brain and controls rudimentary bodily functions such as respiration and swallowing.

Once the command for a sneeze has reached the brain stem, an “all points bulletin” is sent throughout the body’s musculature and a powerful, coordinated contraction takes place. Our eyes are forced closed, and other facial, chest and abdominal muscle groups are recruited as well. Some muscles actually anchor and brace us while in the throes of a nasal outburst to avoid unintended bodily injury.

“They keep us from jet-action, throwing ourselves across the room,” says Banks. A typical sneeze has a velocity of about 100 miles per hour (160 kilometers per hour), an impressive hurricane squall, while a regular breath idles along at just 5 mph. That 20-fold increase usually serves to eject whatever it is that is causing the offense, but some people have to blast out several sneezes, oftentimes hilariously, before finally getting a well-deserved break.

Scientists have yet to come up with a good explanation for why most people sneeze the predictable two or three times, while others are wracked by staccato attacks. But the answer seems to lie in an individual’s unique immunological and neurological constitution.

“Multiple sneezes are more common in allergenic individuals, especially those with an ongoing chronic stimulus of some sort,” says Banks.

What if you hold in a sneeze? There is the often-repeated fear that an internal backfiring can burst capillaries in the sinuses or eyes, injure the delicate inner ears or even cause a stroke.

Dr. Clark Kaufman, a pediatric allergist in private practice in Lancaster, Pa., thinks this is unlikely. “It’s not dangerous,” he says. “Most people do it all the time and get away with it.” But he cautions that as your body may be trying to dislodge something, it’s probably not a good idea to hold back on a routine basis.

So chances are you won’t do any permanent damage if you quash that sneeze during a job interview or a date. To help suppress the urge, try placing your index finger under your nose.

“This sends sense signals to your brain using the same neural pathways that a sneeze does,” advises Banks. By doing this, you can “overload your neural circuitry” and prevent the sneeze from occurring.

In lieu of putting a finger to the face in a gesture that unintentionally mimics a mustache, Banks also recommends breathing through one’s mouth, as this will decrease turbulence in the nose and may help thwart the impending “atchoo.”

On the other hand, if you have a sneeze that refuses to come out or go away, and you’re grimacing awkwardly in public, close your mouth and inhale through your nose to further excite the nerve endings. This will assist in getting you across the threshold so the sneeze reflex kicks in, and then you can just let ‘er rip.

After all, if Freud is to believed, sneezing is actually sort of sexy – though don’t expect to hear “hubba hubba” the next time you do.

.

Why do people cry?

You’re watching the final scene in Thelma and Louise, and you’re on your third handkerchief. You turn your tear stained face to the side and look through blurred, saline-flooded vision at your cat, who is staring back at you witnessing the curious spectacle. Why is it that humans can be reduced to blubbering messes, while other members of the animal kingdom don’t seem to let out even a sniffle?

We have tear ducts to lubricate and protect our eyes from dust and other particles. The ducts are under the upper eyelids and produce a salty liquid—a tear-–-that gets spread throughout the eye after each blink. Animals too have the ability to produce tears, but not necessarily for the same reasons that we humans produce them.

Three types of tears are generated by the human eye. Basal tears protect the eye and keep it moist. Reflex tears flush out the eye when it becomes irritated. And emotional tears flow in response to sadness, distress, or physical pain.

Studies have shown that emotional tears contain more manganese, an element that affects temperament, and more prolactin, a hormone that regulates milk production. Sobbing out manganese and prolactin is thought to relieve tension by balancing the body’s stress levels and eliminating build ups of the chemicals, making the crier feel better.

But this minor physiological benefit aside, the most likely reason we produce emotional tears is because it’s a means of communication. Before babies can speak, they can cry. The only way for infants to express frustration, pain, fear, or need is to cry. Adults may use crying to bond with other humans. Expressing sadness can prompt comfort and support from peers. Different languages can provide barriers to spoken communication, but emotions are universal. There are also culturally acceptable reasons for crying that bring people together, such as at funerals or weddings.

Though there is a significant debate over whether animals have emotions and can express them, some animals do appear to cry for emotional reasons. Elephants seem to grieve when a family member dies and will guard the body and travel long distances to view it. Elephant experts at the London Zoo once told Charles Darwin that the animals do indeed mourn. Chimpanzees also appear to cry, but some scientists still insist that the tears released by these animals are strictly for cleaning the eye.

Whether or not animals shed tears for emotional reasons has yet to be scientifically proven. Humans, however, can and do dissolve into tears for any number of reasons. Cleansing the eye, relieving stress, conveying pain, communication, and societal assimilation can all lead to an empty tissue box. So weeping after that sappy movie might not mean that you are a total wuss after all. In fact, it may mean that you are behaving like a perfectly normal human being.

.

Smoking Gene

There are a lot of ways to quit smoking: patches, gums, lozenges, inhalers, prescription pills, self-help books and many more. The proliferation of these products illustrates the simple truth that it’s very tough to quit. Smokers rarely succeed on their first try, and fewer than one-third are ever able to give up cigarettes using these available methods.

With such a low success rate, how would a smoker know which one would work the best? The answer might be in their genes.

Bupropion (marketed under the name Zyban), a popular drug prescribed to help patients quit smoking, has been shown to be more effective in people that possess certain “smoking genes,” according to a study published late last year in the journal Biological Psychiatry.

“We believe [the results] are an exciting step forward in seeking information about how one responds well to which drugs – the holy grail of personalized medicine,” said Rachel Tyndale, author of the study and professor at the University of Toronto.

These results suggest that by using genetic testing at the outset, patients can bypass some of the early false starts of smoking cessation. If they have the right genetic variant, then they know that bupropion works well for them and can tailor their treatment plan accordingly. Patients can opt for the drug before buying nicotine replacement gum or pursuing counseling options.

Tyndale’s team chose to look at the gene CYP2B6, which is associated with the body’s ability to process nicotine. They recruited 326 moderate-to-heavy smokers who smoked half a pack a day or more. The participants were divided into two groups: one that was given the standard two-month course of bupropion and another that received a placebo. The researchers monitored their progress over a six-month period.

About half of the smokers in the buproprion group had a variant of the gene CYP2B6 that made them almost three times more likely to be able to quit smoking using bupropion when compared with the placebo group. After six months, those with the smoking gene were still much more likely to have avoided cigarettes.

Smoking cessation expert Douglas Jorenby, director of clinical services at the University of Wisconsin Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention in Madison, agrees that “a major goal now… is to connect [the patients] with the correct treatment.”

While this development is a step forward, Jorenby would like to see the experiment replicated in order to verify the results.

Jorenby also had concerns that genetic testing is not yet cost-effective. Currently, the kind of genetic testing needed for this study is not commercially available, and it will be expensive when it does eventually enter the marketplace. For comparison, it costs around $2,000 to test for the breast cancer genes.

While this initial study shows hope for everyone struggling with smoking addiction, there is still a lot more to be done before its lessons can be implemented. In the meantime, Tyndale’s group is gearing up to repeat their study on this smoking gene.