One of my favorite early Saturday Night Live skits was featured John Belushi as an Olympic athlete. The scene opens with clips of Belushi doing a high jump and running around a track, then cuts to a shot of him at the breakfast table. Clutching a cigarette, Belushi looks into the camera with complete gravitas and tells about his secret to staying fit: "I downed a lot of donuts. Little chocolate donuts. They taste good and they've got the sugar I need to get me going in the morning."

The commercial played off the classic "Wheaties" ads, which featured Bruce Jenner. The prevailing wisdom in those days stated that top-class athletes had to eat extremely healthy foods, like whole grain cereal and skinless, boneless chicken. However, as I recently read about Michael Phelps' daily eating regimen, I was surprised to see that his diet is much closer to John Belushi's than to Richard Simmons. To begin with, the Olympian consumes approximately 12,000 calories a day, roughly six times the RDA for a man his age. Second, it is heavily skewed towards carbohydrates and fats, which most diets eschew. Given Phelps' amazing energy expenditure (in the average week, the guy swims five hours a day, six days a week!

At any rate, Phelps' average daily menu is after the jump...

When I was in high school, I had a love-hate relationship with science classes. Geology was fine, biology was okay, and chemistry...well, chemistry was hell. Mrs. Olech, the troll who taught the class, regularly flunked half her students and had a teaching manner that made Alan Greenspan seem bouncy and exciting.

Ironically, while I flunked chem, I aced my cooking classes. Even at the time, I thought that this was a little weird; after all, what is cooking if not a chemical process? The subtle adjustment of flavors, the cultivation of certain bacteria, the measured combination of leavening chemicals are all, basically, a mix of applied chemistry and biology. However, cooking class captured my imagination and attention in a way that chemistry didn't.

Reading a recent profile of Alton Brown, I realize that the problem lay with Mrs. Olech and her ilk. The simple fact is that science can be a lot of fun, if it is applied in a way that is relevant and exciting. I was surprised to learn that, like me, Brown found his science classes "boring beyond words." Even now, as he has built his own store of scientific knowledge, he admits to having discarded academic journals and scholarly papers because of their inability to engage his interest.

Over the past few years, as wine has undergone repeated studies, it has started to seem like the modern-day fountain of youth. According to its various supporters, it can fight off streptococcus bacteria, reduce the risk of Alzheimer's disease, and flush one's system with antioxidants. Still, all of these pale beside wine's greatest claim to fame: the so-called French paradox.

For years, scientists have wondered how the French, who have one of the most saturated-fat rich diets in the world, manage to have such a low incidence of heart disease. While they haven't been able to scientifically determine the mechanism at work, anecdotal evidence has suggested that France's impressive wine consumption might have something to do with the paradox. Recently, scientists at Hebrew University in Jerusalem have confirmed the link and have even determined part of its mechanism.

According to the researchers, when the body digests meat, particularly turkey and red meat, it produces two toxic chemicals, malondialdehyde and hydroperoxide. These compounds can cause cancer, inflammation, and heart disease. However, red wine contains polyphenols, a particular kind of antioxidant, that neutralizes the toxins and prevents their absorbtion into the bloodstream.

I love bread, but I don't let myself eat too much of it. The reason? Like so many other people in the US, I am concerned about my waistline. Don't get me wrong, I eat bread. I just try to eat it in moderation. However my days of limited bread consumption may soon be over, as cereal scientists are working on creating a kind of wheat that produces flour with fewer available calories.

When I first saw this article at Inventor Spot, I was mighty skeptical. The title and early portion of the article make it seem as though the wheat being developed actually has fewer calories. However, as I read further, I realized that the wheat simply has fewer available calories. Because of the way the wheat is genetically altered, a portion of the calories are indigestible by our stomach acids and acts more like dietary fiber.

I know that the wheat currently available is genetically modified, but it's not the kind of GM wherein genes from another species is introduced. Instead, certain aspects of the wheat's genetic information have been turned off. Cereal scientists are working on growing this wheat by natural breeding rather than genetic modification.

If you're wondering where I got all this information, I have a secret weapon. My friend the cereal scientist explained Inventor Spot's article, albeit in pretty technical language. If you want to read what he has to say on this subject, just continue reading after the jump.

Do you want to save the world? Dr. John D. Floros, President of the Institute of Food Technologists, believes that if that's the case, you should look into becoming a food scientist. In his opinion, in the coming years food scientists are going to play a huge role in figuring out how to feed the ever-growing world population.

However, the number of food scientists is declining worldwide. According to an article in Confectionary News, numbers are down in Australia, South Africa, the UK, and elsewhere. In the U.S., it is a common misconception that food scientists are the same as chefs.

The Institute of Food Technologists has a plan to turn things around though. They have devised a "three-pronged attack" in which they get information to high school students, urge food science students to more actively recruit their peers, and to build an association or community of young food science professionals.

Their efforts must be working, because food science was recently placed at number three on a recent CNN list of nine well paying cool jobs. At a staring salary of around $53,000, I think that food science may just get some people's attention. Would you consider becoming a food scientist?

As someone with an insatiable sweet tooth, I was fascinated when I found out that hormones in our body affect how we perceive and crave sweetness. They do this according to our body's nutritional needs. Since I have a pretty bad sweet tooth, does this mean my body needs more of it? Not exactly. A recent article in The Economist explains that scientists have done the first step; they've isolated hormones that affect our palate's sensitivity to sugar.

The reason why this study is so important is because it may lead doctors and nutritionists to find a solution for ways of reducing the desire for sugar-heavy foods, and thus reduce calorie-intake. Yuzo Ninomiya, a neuroscientist at Kyushu University in Japan, researched the effects of leptin, a hormone that regulates appetite and metabolism. His results show that when leptin levels are low, we are more sensitive to sugar, which means something tastes sweeter than when our leptin levels are low. The level of the hormone increases over the day. This might explain why we tend to eat lots of sugar in the morning ('cause it tastes so good!).

So, it seems, if scientists can figure out how to raise leptin levels (or at least keep them steady) throughout the day, then all of us sweet-tooth types might have a chance at eating less cake!

In a world full of sweets, it's not easy to avoid them. What are some ways you control your sugar intake?

Gourmet's Barry Estabrook makes sense of the battle over the benefits of organic food. The following is an excerpt of his findings published on Gourmet.com.

It's never a good start to your day when the first email you open is an authoritative-sounding press release forwarded by your boss that directly contradicts something you published on the company's website.

"You know anything about this?" she asked ominously.

The release came from the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). Made public on Tuesday, it was headlined: "Scientist Debunks Myth of Organic Nutritional Superiority," and, not surprisingly, it received considerable media attention.

The myth that was supposedly debunked was featured in this space a few months ago. It was a study co-authored by Dr. Charles Benbrook of the Organic Center, an affiliate of the Organic Trade Association, an industry group, which reported on the results of a review of nearly 100 scientific papers examining levels of nutrients in organic versus conventional crops. Benbrook and his associates concluded that organic food was on average 25 percent more nutrient-dense. Their work was regarded as one of the first scientifically valid research projects that clearly showed such an advantage. Earlier studies had been inconclusive. I felt some vindication for my own preference for organic foods and applauded the findings.

The release from the ACSH sharply criticized Benbrook's paper. Its condemnation of his work was based on a critical review written by Joseph D. Rosen, emeritus professor of food science at Rutgers University. To be kind, it is scathing. Some choice arguments...

The story continues at Gourmet.com: Politics of the Plate: Fighting Words

A little over two years ago, my daughter was born. At the time, I was in moderately decent shape; although I smoked, I ate fairly well, walked all over the place, and generally kept my weight in an area that my doctor and I considered acceptable. However, my daughter's birth, my decision to quit the demon cancer sticks, and the fact that I spent an insane amount of time on the couch with her quickly bore fruit. Within six months of her arrival, I had packed on about 20 pounds.

After I had to buy new, larger pants, I decided that enough was enough. I started going to the gym, watching what I eat, exercising more, and generally trying to regain my svelte, pre-fatherhood body. I spent a lot of time looking in the mirror, looking at my measurements, and looking at my diet. When I moved to New York, however, my weight loss began to slow, sputter, and even reverse a little bit.

It wasn't too hard to figure out why I wasn't losing weight like I used to. While I was busy looking at the scale, I wasn't looking at my neighborhood. On the bright side, the Vietnamese restaurant near my apartment has several relatively healthy offerings and the taco truck a couple of blocks away is great if I don't order cheese, sour cream, and fried meat. However, the Dominican bakery, with its seductive tres leches cake, the Puerto Rican Cuchifritos stands, and the various pizzerias, Chinese food joints, and Gyro restaurants all taunt me with their wares. While I'm pretty good at avoiding the siren song of KFC, Burger King, and all the other fast food places, I am a sucker for homemade, high-fat goodies.

Over the years, I've had a love/hate relationship with coffee. On the one hand, when I worked in a cafe/bakery, the free, unlimited chocolate-covered espresso beans made it a lot easier to bake bread all night. On the other hand, when I developed acid reflux, coffee was the first thing that had to go. Over the years, I've repeatedly reunited with coffee, only to leave it again a few months later. Between warnings about digestion, blood pressure, and various other problems, I've learned to fight my deep love of the beloved elixir, settling instead for water or tea. Right now, I'm drinking one or two cups a day, which seems to be working well, although I have to fight my feelings of guilt and fear with every sip.

Recently, however, a 24-year study by the University of Madrid has given me hope that coffee and I might be able to enjoy a rich, guilt-free relationship. According to Esther Lopez-Garcia, the lead researcher, the scientists have discovered that up to six cups of coffee per day may have a positive effect on one's health. According to their data, coffee seems to lower the chances of heart disease and other illnesses.

The study, which followed the coffee-drinking habits 84,214 American women from 1980 to 2004 and 41,736 American men from 1986 to 2004 showed clear linkages between reduced heart disease and coffee consumption, although it was also clear that decaf had almost the same results as caffeinated coffee. Although I won't be able to drink the full six cups of coffee that the study seems to endorse, it's nice to know that my little 2-cup habit may actually be good for me. The only question remaining is what I'll use to toast the researchers: French Roast or something a little milder?

Exam stress and breakups are notorious for driving people to the ice cream and M&Ms, but did you know that thoughts of mortality can make you hit the Oreos harder as well?

Research from Arizona State University and Erasmus University in the Netherlands observed how many cookies subjects ate while writing an essay on one of two topics: a trip to the dentist or their own death. Those writing about shuffling off their mortal coils ate more cookies than those writing on root canals. The exception? People with high self-esteem, whose consumption was little affected by the essay topic.

The authors hypothesize that people eat to subconsciously escape self-awareness. I think anyone who has ever crammed down another donut in a moment of anxiety or depression (uh, probably all of us) can relate.

About three years ago, my wife and I decided to stop eating high fructose corn syrup. At the time, it seemed like a minor step; however, looking back, I realize that, in that one moment, I transformed from a regular consumer into an insane health freak. While cutting out any type of food is a major step, HFCS was particularly difficult. Unlike meat, cheese, peanuts, or any of the other easily-detectable foods that people cut out of their diets, HFCS lurks in literally thousands of foods. Within a few days of quitting, I found myself obsessively reading labels and cutting out dozens of other foods that I had always taken for granted. I suddenly became one of those people, the ones who read the ingredients on blister packs of preserves at the diner, then sigh and eat their toast with just butter.

I don't mean to make it look like cutting out HFCS has been nothing but misery. In the months following our decision, my wife and I lost a lot of weight, discovered tons of new foods, and ended up enjoying the opportunity to reconsider our diet. While I'm sure that cutting out HFCS isn't responsible for all the health benefits that we experienced at that time, it seems more than coincidental that my nasty headaches went away, we' started getting sick a lot less, and we stopped experiencing major energy crashes. Nowadays, I occasionally notice a stale taste in foods when I eat out, generally followed by extreme sleepiness about an hour later. While I haven't done a double-blind taste test, trial and error has convinced me that HFCS is the culprit.

Recently, the Corn Refiners Association announced that they are launching a $30 million advertising campaign that is aimed at convincing consumers that HFCS is a natural compound, fundamentally the same as honey. Of course, unlike honey, HFCS is the product of a complex, chemical-intensive refining process that takes place in an industrial setting, but why quibble? Strangely, the FDA has agreed with them. Unfortunately, rather than convince me that HFCS is all-natural, the FDA's stance has made me seriously question the integrity of the federal government when it comes to food purity.

They call it stainless steel. But your once-shiny knives, bowls and pots end up with greasy, yellowy splotches. What gives? And what to do?

Last week results from a soil test came back to NASA from the Phoenix Lander, which is currently on Mars. Turns out that the soil is "slightly alkaline" with several different minerals (magnesium, sodium, potassium and chloride) already mixed in. Further test results will tell NASA whether the soil also has nitrogen or sulfates.

Do you know what that means? According to Scientific American, it means that Mars' soil could possibly grow vegetables that we have here on earth. Apparently, veggies like turnips, asparagus, and green beans make the best candidates. They'd have to be grown under the surface or in green houses due to the harsh ultra violet rays that penetrate to the surface of the planet, though.

Who knows, maybe in the next few decades you'll see vegetables indicating they're a product of Mars, right next to those from earthly locations.

Modern science is an amazing thing. Scientists are working on coding the DNA sequences of just about everything, nowadays. You can add cacao to that list.

According to the BBC, the Mars Company, in conjunction with IBM and the US Department of Agriculture, is working on coding the DNA of cacao, which is the tropical tree that we get chocolate from. They're calling it the Cacao Genome Project, and it should take about five years to complete. Some of the aims of the project include finding ways to make the trees more disease resistant and less susceptible to water shortages, as well generally improving crop yields.

One thing about this research project that is particularly admirable is that all of the information will be publicly available as the information comes. Everything they learn will be put into the Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture, so researchers all over the world will have access to the information.

PETA has offered a million dollar prize to the first people to develop artifical chicken meat. To find out how this would go over, a new PBS web TV series, Your Week, hits the streets, farms, and markets asking if people would be willing to eat meat grown in a lab.

The response, not surprsingly, was mixed.

Have a look at the video and let us know if would you eat Frankenmeat. Answer in the poll and leave a comment letting us know why or why not.