Social media plays a huge role in the life of high school and college kids. Many of us can’t even imagine our lives without the use of Facebook, Instagram and twitter and it is somewhat pathetic. I am constantly on social media, I’m on it before bed and it’s probably the first thing I check when I wake up in the morning. Curious as to what effects it had on me, I came across an article that said Facebook lowers grades by 20%, compared to those who do not use it. I never thought about this before, could it be true?

The study was conducted by Paul A. Kirschnera and Aryn C. Karpinskib. Paul is a psychologist from the Center for Learning Sciences and Technologies in the Netherlands and Aryn a professor at Ohio State. According to the article, they studied 219 college students (University not mentioned), the participants ranged in age from 19 to 54, so I’m assuming graduate students were involved also. After analyzing the results, they were able to conclude that the students who used Facebook had an average GPA of 3.06, while non Facebook users has an average of 3.82.

The experiment mentioned was very vague, we don’t know how it was conducted or how they gathered their results. Only 219 students were tested, this may have just been the case at the specific University they were at. The students with lower GPA’s could just in fact be less intelligent then those with higher GPA’s, and it not have anything to do with Facebook at all. Maybe it is due to reverse causation, and those that are less intelligent use Facebook more often than those with greater intelligence. Do the students just need to have a Facebook, or do they need to use it frequently. Did the participants who used Facebook more have lower GPA’s than those who had one but barely used it? We do not know how long the participants were studied for, maybe they just had a bad semester. We cannot just assume that Facebook is the reason for the lower GPA, there are other factors that can lead to it such as lack of studying. If Facebook is the absolute cause, it can maybe be due to the fact that us young people are the Queens of double tasking. Doing homework online and switching back and forth between writing a paper and checking what’s going on on Facebook. Maybe it is the distraction that causes that lower grades and not just Facebook, perhaps a game tab could be open instead and they would be just as distracted from their work.

We need a lot more information on the study to conclude that the lower GPA’s are due to Facebook. If I were to do the experiment, I would probably take a larger sample size from various Universities. I would give them some sort of IQ test to see the range of intelligence of my participants. Then, I would have them fill out a questionnaire that allowed me to understand their Facebook usage. With permission, I would maybe even get access to their computers to track when they worked on assignments and how long it took. I would record my results and see if Facebook and other distractions played a role on their GPA. I do believe that Facebook can play a role in lowering GPA, but I feel like it is distractions as a whole that do this. When completing work we should try and blur out distractions, although it is defiantly hard when we are bored. There are studies to show that less work gets done containing more mistakes when we multi task. After analyzing this study, I would not blame the lower GPA on Facebook itself but a compiling of distractions, a cell phone, a TV, anything. The article is not saying get rid of your Facebook, but instead suggesting that it could be negatively having an effect on your grades. So maybe keep the usage to a minimum and see if this helps get work done.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39038581/ns/technology_and_science-back_to_school/t/facebook-use-can-lower-grades-percent-study-says/#.VIFFxEup3wI

When listening to your parents bicker in the room next to you, your never thinking anything good of it. Family arguments aren’t ever enjoyable and you never really see them helping you, but instead taring you apart inside. Look on the bright side of things, if your one always listening to these arguments you may be in luck… studies show that children who experience them are more likely to be able to handle conflict in their own future relationships.

According to Huffington Posts article, “Family Fights May Have A Surprising Upside For Children,” published November 30, 2014 by David Freeman, “Research has linked relationship conflict to anger, depression, anxiety, and other psychological problems.” Although these are all negative aspects to conflict, the study suggests a new uplifting one. The researchers of the experiment are actually from Penn State, they studied 50 couples who are in college and attend Penn State. To begin the experiment, samples of saliva were taken from each individual to determine stress level. Next, individuals were asked to fill out surveys about their childhood family conflicts followed by interviews about their relationships. After all this information was gathered, the couples were required to discuss a conflict between them for ten minutes. Another sample of saliva was taken and the results indicated that the couples who tended to have greater conflict had higher levels of cortisol(stress hormone) then earlier. Although there was an increase of stress levels in everyone, it was smaller in those who admitted to experiencing family conflicts at home during childhood.

First off, I think the sample size needs to be much larger to conclude that this information is true. The fact that only college students were tested could have also changed the results. Maybe the number of cortisol was lower in the college kids because they just care less. Maybe there were other things causing the stress besides the argument, such as school work, which caused a rise in cortisol. The study does not include how much smaller the cortisol levels were in the individuals that experienced conflict as a child. Without this vital information, we aren’t able to tell how effective it is. The participants could have just been nervous under pressure which caused them stress. The participants who had lower stress levels may not be due to the fact that they experienced conflict like this as a child, but instead due to the fact that they just don’t really get stressed out. We don’t know how bad things really were at home, maybe the intensity of the arguments effect people differently. We cannot just conclude that childhood incidents can make us less stressed, we have to take into consideration the fact that these people may just be better at dealing with conflicts in general, regardless of their past.

In order to make the conclusion more accurate, I would definitely test more people at different colleges and even couples beyond college. I feel the only way to have complete accuracy is to follow people throughout their lives. To see what they experienced at home first hand and to see how it has impacted them in the future, and there really is no way of making this happen, it is far fetched. I just do not feel there is enough information to prove this true and that there are other factors that help to deal with conflict. I feel there are more negative effects on witnessing a family argument than positive.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/30/family-fights-new-study-children_n_6220090.html?utm_hp_ref=brain

Transitioning from high school to college isn’t the easiest thing to do, and the work load difference can be a big adjustment for many. As I begin to stress about all my work and finals approaching, I began to think if there were any tips on getting better grades. As I looked for my answer, I came across the article, “Vigorous Exercise Linked With Better Grades.” I found it very interesting that they could link these two things together, but as I read through the article I began to second guess the conclusion. Let’s take a further look.

Exercise and physical activity has obviously been around since forever. According to Mayo Clinic, exercise controls weight, improves mood, boosts energy and even promotes better sleep. Now to add to the list… does it really also increase that GPA?

A study done by Saginaw Valley State University(located in Michigan) consisted of 266 students, specifically undergrads. The researchers kept track of how much they exercised and their grades. From this, they concluded that students who vigorously worked out seven days a week had higher GPA’s by about .4.

I feel there are other things to consider before assuming that exercising gives you a higher GPA. Maybe the results can be due to reverse causation, in that people who had higher GPA’s tended to be more physically active and exercise more. That in fact it wasn’t the exercise making them smarter and maybe it was the high grades that made them exercise. We also are unaware of what “vigorous exercise” the students did and if it mattered what kind of exercise was done. Maybe people who exercised just happened to be smarter in general or it was just in fact due to chance. To me, .4 does not seem that drastic and another larger study would have to be conducted to help prove this. The study was also only done at one University, so maybe this is just the case there. Setting up the experiment at another larger University can be effective. I wonder if this holds true to both male and female and if exercise effects their grades differently. Exercise may not have the direct cause on higher grades, maybe it is the fact that exercising can cause us to have things like improved moods and better sleep. Maybe these are the things that help our grades. The article does not mention how much we need to exercise in order to improve our grade either, we are left wondering.

In all, exercising is beneficial to our health so it should definitely be done regardless if it can help our grades or not. I can’t see it hurting us. If I were to do this experiment over I would take a large number of students, make them exercise once a day for an hour and see if their GPA’s improved at all. We need to see if there is a link between exercising and grades. Maybe if people start to exercise their grades will go up.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/vigorous-exercise-linked-with-better-grades/?_r=0

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/fitness/in-depth/exercise/art-20048389?pg=2

With the increasing obesity rate in the United States and the vast abundance of sugary sweets all around us, diabetes is becoming more and more of a common thing. My grandmother and good friend at home have diabetes and my grandfather passed away from it. This article from the New York Times sparked my attention on the topic in which it stated that yogurt can actually reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, could this be true?

According to Biomed Central, Type 2 diabetes affects 366 million people around the world and about 26 million just in the United States. These numbers seem frightening as is and the bad news is that the number is just continuing to rise. With this nonstop rise in number, we are trying harder and harder to find a cure. Good news is Dairy products may help to lower this risk and even more specifically yogurt. According to Biomed, The whey protein in these products are said to contain insulinotropic and lower glucose levels which is beneficial for diabetes.

A study was conducted to help prove this true. 200,000 participants(male and female) aging from 25-75 for time periods up to thirty years long. During this time, the participants were tracked, their health was kept on file, they received various surveys about their diets, and even were interviewed frequently. After gathering all the information, the researchers were able to conclude that dairy intake did in fact not have any association to type 2 diabetes as once believed, but yogurt did. When the study was completed 15,156 cases of type 2 diabetes were concluded. Researchers noticed that when people ate 12 ounces of yogurt a day they had an 18% less chance of getting type 2 diabetes. Although they found this information, the researchers do not want to conclude that it is true yet, it is just a suggestion.

I think the sample size of the experiment is large enough to say these results can be accurate but we defiantly need to take other things into consideration. Diabetes can be hereditary, so it is hard to say if the yogurt is helping or if people just didn’t really have a chance of getting diabetes to begin with. I also think that it is hard to base information on just surveys, people can falsely fill them out which can mess up the results. I wonder if other habits like exercise were taken into consideration, maybe the people who exercised more ate yogurt and it looked like the yogurt was decreasing the diabetes risk. We can’t say this experiment can be reverse causation in which having diabetes causes you to eat more yogurt.

Eating yogurt may help but why? According to Fitness Magazine yogurt is a high protein food, may prevent high blood pressure, naturally contains calcium, loaded with vitamins, contains good bacteria and more. Maybe these reasons can help prove that it can decrease diabetes rates. I do not feel that the study conducted gave enough information to prove it fully true, the article was very vague. Although I can’t completely doubt it, there could be other factors besides eating yogurt that are decreasing the risk of diabetes.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/yogurt-may-lower-diabetes-risk/?ref=health\

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/215

http://www.fitnessmagazine.com/recipes/healthy-eating/nutrition/health-benefits-of-yogurt/

Good news for all you people 60 years old and up who just love your alcohol so much you can’t even think about giving it up— studies suggest that drinking over the age of 60 actually be good for your health, increasing your memory!

The Framingham Heart Study Offspring Cohort studied a group of 660 people. According to Fox News, “Scientists surveyed the participants on their alcohol consumption and demographics, a battery of neuropsychological assessments, the presence or absence of the genetic Alzheimer’s disease risk factor APOE e4 and MRIs of their brains.” The article does not mention male or female. It seems to be an observational study to me, the researchers did not set up and experiment to get the results, they based results off of the surveys.

In Medical Daily’s article on the same topic and study they mention the results,“late life, but not midlife, alcohol consumption status is associated with episodic memory and hippocampal volume…moderate consumers had larger hippocampal volume, and light consumers had higher episodic memory.” This consumption would be no more than two drinks a day for a man and one for a woman.

Although they got results from a wide range of people there could defiantly be other variables affecting them. Things that need to be taken into consideration is their past with drinking, do people who were heavy drinkers in the past also have higher memory? Why people over age 60, does it help to have a drink or two a day at age 21 too? This link can just be due to chance, maybe the older people who drink get, the less alcohol they start consuming and things start looking up for them— hence the increased memory and hippocampus size. I feel the study was lacking information to share with its readers, they just mention that there were assessments done without stating exactly how they were. I can’t doubt their accuracy but I feel I need more information to assess the study.

If I were to do the study over again, I would take a large number of women and men starting at age 50 and watch them until age 70. I would record their drinking habits of the past by giving them a survey of how many drinks they averaged on a daily basis, I would separate the group into drinkers and nondrinkers. I would give the drinkers each a drink or two—depending on their sex—daily and record the results of their memory. I would also do this to the nondrinkers. I think that the experiment mentioned earlier needs to have a control group to compare the results too. I also think that it needs to include the drinkers history of drinking because heavier drinking in the past may have a huge effect on the brain. After doing so I would compare the results and see if they were improving. Usually memory starts to go as you get older and genetics may also play a huge role, so I am confused as to how the results said that memory increased.

I find this crazy because alcohol is usually linked to things like brain damage and negative effects on the body. The studies and articles are not suggesting that you should go drink one/two drinks a day because not drinking at all is obviously better then drinking, but instead letting you know that it may not be the worse thing to do if its already being done. I don’t feel the study gives enough information to prove that it is in fact good for your memory over age 60. But then again it is suggesting that it really can’t hurt. Moderation is key to this!

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/10/23/drinking-alcohol-after-age-60-can-boost-your-memory-study-suggests/

http://www.medicaldaily.com/alcohol-linked-better-memory-bigger-hippocampus-among-people-older-60-307840

I can’t really begin to say that I have a story to tell that made me think of this topic to blog about, because I simply just came across it as I was searching for something, But I happened to find it very interesting. According to the article from cbsnews, people who have sex four or more times a week make more money. Crazy to think about right? Well, lets explore it further and see if the study is actually accurate.

According to the article written by Michelle Castillo on August 15, 2013,”Having an active sex life may make you happier, healthier and wealthier.” The study was conducted by Nick Drydakis of England who according to cbs is,”an economics lecturer at Angila Ruskin University in Cambridge, England.” In 2008, he studied 7,500 people in Greece(gay and straight), the ages ranged from 26-50 years old. It was an observational study in which Drydakis just collected the information he asked for from the participants. The 7500 participants were asked about their life: health, employment,income, and sexual activity.

The results were as follows, people who had sexually active lifestyles(sex four or more times a week) made 5% more than those who did not. And those who didn’t have sex at all made less than those who did by 3.2%.

I don’t know how accurate we can say this experiment is, and since the percentages are so low it can in largely be due to chance. First off, by giving the study to the participants it leaves room for error, many can lie on these types of questionnaires which would skew the results. Secondly, there are larger factors to consider. People who make more money may be more prone to being in relationships because money often attracts a partner and thus causing them to have a more sexually active lifestyle. Or maybe it can be due to reverse causation and people who make more money have sex more. I do not see how having sex four or more times a week can be directly linked to higher salary, it seems like such a ridiculous thing to say. We have to take into consideration education level also. One may have a sexually active lifestyle but make more than someone who doesn’t simply because they have a better degree than them. The article mentions,”those who had more sex were also more likely to be outgoing and had lower rates of diabetes, heart disease and arthritis,” and thus makes them more money? I am just slightly confused on the facts they are providing to try and prove this true. The study was also conducted only in Greece, maybe people who live in Greece are more sexually active in general or make more money. There are so many things that can be taken into consideration that can say this study is a false. Although I wouldn’t agree that a sexually active lifestyle can make you more money, I would say that it couldn’t hurt. Sex can’t really hurt the amount of money you are making.

In all, I think that the study needs to be done differently. People in different areas need to be tested and a better way of gathering the information from participants needs to be done so we know it is accurate. In this study, there is defiantly room for chance and there can defiantly be other variables leading to a hire salary besides a sexually active lifestyle. They are not saying go have sex because you will make more money, that is not guaranteed at all, the study was just suggesting that with the information they found that was the consensus.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-people-who-have-sex-four-or-more-times-a-week-make-more-money/

Long, stressful, never ending day at work? Bad grade on your midterm exam that you’ve studied for, for weeks now? Just want to go home, relax with a nice glass of wine or drink to relieve some stress, put your worries to the side, but feel like it’s not the healthiest choice? Well, you’re in luck, turns out that “myth” that a glass of red wine can actually be beneficial to your health may be in fact, true! So kick back, relax, put your feet up, and gladly sip on the wine after a long stressful day— you deserve it and it can be healthy for you!

In High School there are many times I would come home from my sports to my parents sipping on some wine. I always heard that a glass of wine a day can be beneficial to your health, but I never actually looked into it. After doing some research on the topic, I was actually surprised that an alcoholic beverage—something that is frowned upon by many— can actually be “healthy.” Clearly, many people have had the same concerns as me regarding wine because there are several studies on it, check out a few that I have found!

According to the American Heart Association’s Cardiology Patient Page, a study was conducted to see if wine was beneficial. It tested a total of 13,285 men and women for 12 straight years. It states,“patients who drank wine had half the risk of dying from coronary heart disease or stroke as those who never drank wine.” I found this information very vague. I don’t even know if the study was observational or experimental. I believe the only effective information they gave us was the population size tested and the time period it took place in. Without vital information such as how much wine they drank makes their claim weak. Did someone who drank one glass of wine opposed to someone who drank 5 both half the risk of dying from coronary heart disease or stroke? Maybe coronary heart disease and stroke are hereditary in which wine intake wouldn’t really effect them anyway. The people in the study could have also exercised, or ate healthy to reduce their risk of these health issues so the wine wasn’t entirely the reason.

Another study proved that wine decreased atherosclerotic disease. 209,418 people were studied and the study concluded that there was a 32% risk reduction for the disease for people who drank red wine. In this study, the time period was not included, nor was the amount of wine consumed. Since the percentage is pretty low for the reduced chance of atherosclerotic disease, I think that it could largely be due to chance. So many people were tested that there could be other factors such as exercise, diet, genetics (as I mentioned earlier) that could play a role in lowering the chance of getting this disease.

To give reasoning behind why wine may be healthy, it is because of what it is made out of. According to the article the,”polyphonic compounds in red wine, such as flavonoids and resveratrol,” help make the red wine healthy, heres how:

• By limiting progression of atherosclerotic disease

• By “maintaining healthy blood vessels (vasculature) by promoting the formation of nitric oxide (NO), the key chemical relaxing factor that plays a pivotal role in the regulation of vascular tone.”
• By “ increasing in levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, or the ‘good cholesterol.’”(Paul E. Szmitko)

I do no think that these studies done were very convincing, at least the way they were presented on this website. They were lacking a lot of information to fully prove that wine is beneficial, but just because of this does not mean it isn’t. I think that following the information of the studies with facts about wine composition helps to make the studies stronger. But, if I were to do these experiments or studies over again, I would find participants who have no family history of coronary heart disease, stroke, and atherosclerotic disease, have them keep a log of what they ate each day, how much they exercised, and how much wine they drank each day. I would then compile the information and see if the wine drinkers had less people who suffered from these health issues.

Various other websites(ones which didn’t include studies) state that drinking wine can be good for your health. This is not suggesting that non drinkers start drinking wine because it is healthy for you, it’s definitely healthier to not drink at all, but suggesting to drinkers that it may not be that bad.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/111/2/e10.full

Left it until last minute to study for that eight AM exam you have tomorrow morning? You decide to pull an all nighter to make sure you get through every piece of information and are well prepared for your test. While doing so, your eyes begin closing after each sentence you read, but the satisfaction that you’re studying will make you not feel as bad when you get your test scores back. You’ll be able to say, “Well I studied all night.” At least that’s what I do. Ever think that getting more sleep and putting your books to the side would actually be more beneficial to you? Well believe it, it actually may work!

Although studying is a key factor to academic success, believe it or not, so is an efficient amount of sleep. Here is one study I found: 535 students were chosen ranging from grades 10th-12th grade from three schools in California.The study wasn’t necessarily done in a lab, but instead in the homes and throughout the daily routines of these students. For 14 days, the students were asked to keep track of the amount of sleep they got, amount of studying they did, and their performance in school the next day, either their ability to grasp something taught in class or their outcome of graded assignments (tests,quizzes or homework’s)(Weeler para. 10). Researchers  concluded that students who spent more time studying/preparing for the next day, had worse results(poorer test scores and etc.) They also mentioned that as students get older, they tend to get less sleep, therefore their performance the next day is worse.

I do not think they can entirely blame sleeping on poor performance, the study conducted was so vague. Basing the results off students journal entries leaves a lot of room for error, the students could have lied about the information. They also have to take into consideration the fact that as you do get older the work load increases and so does the difficulty. This may be the third variable leading to the increase of poor results. Although more sleep can be linked to better performance through this experiment, it needs to be conducted better. I think that the students need to be kept track of by the researchers instead of keeping track of themselves.

This experiment is not saying you shouldn’t study, but instead that you should manage your time wisely because lack of sleep due to cramming in can be very ineffective. Lack of sleep lowers our levels of alertness and this is why many may do poorer on tests when staying up late cramming everything in. Lack of sleep may not only effect performance but it also effects other things as well. According to this article provided by Harvard, “Sleep deprivation negatively impacts our mood, our ability to focus, and our ability to access higher-level cognitive functions.” So next time you are studying for a test, don’t cram it all in for last minute. Manage your time wisely and rest up! Plus, an efficient amount of sleeping can improve your overall mood and well being the next day!

“Sleep, Performance, and Public Safety.” Healthy Sleep. Division of Sleep Medicine at Harvard Medical School, 18 Dec. 2007. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.

Wheeler, Mark. “Cramming for a Test? Don’t Do It, Say UCLA Researchers.” Newsroom. 22 Aug. 2012. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.

My cell phone is constantly attached to me regardless where I go. It’s to the point that If I’m sleeping, it’s always with my cell phone. I don’t know what it is about electronics, but they are always by my side. My mom is always constantly complaining that I am going to get cancer one day from all the radiation that is constantly effecting me pretty much 24/7, even in my sleep. With this being said, I was curious to find out if these things can actually cause cancer and effect my body.

With the use of cellphones increasing rapidly in the United States the question of whether they are safe or not has also increased. Cellphones give off a form of electromagnetic energy known as radio frequency, aka radio waves. These waves can seep into the tissue in your head. According the this article, “In the last five years with the advent of wireless devices, there has been a massive increase in radiofrequency (RF) exposure from wireless devices as well as reports of hypersensitivity and diseases related to electromagnetic field and RF exposure.” With that being said, I wondered if cancer was one of the diseases related to this kind of exposure.

There are several studies done on the link between cancer and cells phones. I was able to find one solid study that was discussed through various details the steps of the experiment and who was involved. In the United States from 1994- 1998, 469 men and women (total) stretching from young adult(18) to older aged (80) citizens with brain cancer and 422 people without brain cancer(controls) were watched. The hours each group used their cellphones a month were rounded on average, 2.5 for people with cancer and 2.2 for people without. Since cell phones were just starting to be introduced, both groups reported that they had only been using their cellphones for about 2.75 years. The study showed that tumors on patients were more common on the side where they held their phone to their ear, however, patients who had earlobe cancer tended to have it more so on the side opposite where their phone was held.

Here are a few other brief studies I found helpful from one of Mayo Clinic’s articles written by Timothy Moynihan, “Is there a link between cellphones and cancer?”:

•“In one study that followed more than 420,000 cellphone users over a 20-year period, researchers found no evidence of a link between cellphones and brain tumors.”

•“Another study found an association between cellphones and cancer of the salivary glands. However, only a small number of study participants had malignant tumors.”

•“Another recent study suggested a possible increased risk of glioma — a specific type of brain tumor — for the heaviest cellphone users, but no increase in brain tumor risk overall.”

All in all these studies prove that cancer due to cell phones is largely in fact due to chance. The first study was an older one and underwent research shortly after cell phones started becoming used. It studied individuals who reported using their cellphones for less than 3 years, this could be why they were not able to link usage to cancer. Cell phones are a moderately new introduction to the world in which we haven’t had enough time to study the long term effects of the usage of them yet. So, to conclude with my findings, there has not been enough time to study the long term effects of cell phone usage and there are no studies that link cancer directly to cell phone usage. Not saying they can’t be related, but if they are it is most likely due to chance.

“Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Fields Effect on Human Health.” :: The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM). Web. 23 Oct. 2014.

Moynihan, Timothy. “Is There Any Link between Cellphones and Cancer?” Cellphones and Cancer: What’s the Risk? Mayo Clinic, 20 Nov. 2012. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.

Valhalla, Dana. “Handheld Cellular Telephone Use and Risk of Brain Cancer.” National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 20 Dec. 2000. Web. 23 Oct. 2014.

Are you in the gym struggling to pedal on the bike, or just want to give up on your treadmill run? Lifting those weights as sweat drips from your forehead onto your T-shirt just doesn’t seem enjoyable to you? Trust me, you’re not alone. Here lies my problem: I hate running, I hate losing my breath, I hate sweating, so I guess you could say I hate working out, however— I want to stay fit. So I find myself in the gym and doing workout tapes but always giving up and only applying half the effort I should be. I decided that I needed to find a way to push myself to work harder in the gym, after all, if I’m making the effort to go, I might as well make the most of it. After doing some research on the topic, I found that there is a way to improve your workout intensity at the gym— music! In this day and age, music is available to most of us at the tips of our fingers. With technology advancing so frequently, our latest iPhones, ipads, droids— you name it— can most likely hold music or play the well known application, Pandora. With this access, we might as well tune to our favorite song while we work out to make it that much better!

Exercise with music has been around for years and years, as far back as 3000 B.C! In this article, it states that during rowing, a Roman would beat their drum not only so the rowers continued rowing together, but to keep study rhythm flowing so the rowers could follow tempo, (Foster and Pocari para 2). This means that even back in that day and age, music was a crucial way to get people to follow the beat of music. When the beat is played, the romans are going to naturally want to row to the beat. This old discovery has been researched from years and years, music can definitely make our workout more enjoyable, but it can also give us better results! Check it out.

A study conducted by Stork took 20 young healthy adults (ages not mentioned nor what he defined healthy as) to see the effect of music on their workout. The study consisted of three rounds. The first round the 20 adults rode bikes, 30 seconds of fast peddling followed by 4 minutes break. Breaks consisted of walking and or doing something slightly active. During breaks, researchers gathered the output of peddling power. After this first round, the adults informed researchers of their favorite songs and playlists were created. The second and third round followed the same format as the first, but instead the second round included listening to their favorite music. They found that the power output during the second round (with music) was much more intense than the others. What I found interesting was that all the adults said that all the work outs felt the same, listening to music or not. But in reality, when listening to music the pedaling intensity increased and they were getting a better work out without even realizing it. Music was a distraction here, it got peoples minds off the fact that they were working out and they just moved along to the beat. From the article I mentioned earlier, Costas Karageorghis a Ph.D. from London’s Brunel University School of Sport and Education identified three primary things that could possibly influence exercise performance. They are as follows:

1. “the tendency to move in time with synchronous sounds (e.g., tapping your toe in time with music or the beat of a drum)”
2. “The tendency of music to increase arousal (e.g., the desire to move rather than to sit)”
3. “The tendency for music to distract the exerciser from discomfort that might be related to exercise.”(Karageorghis)

I felt this experiment was lacking some information to prove it 100% accurate. How the intensity was measured wasn’t stated along with how the data was collected. I also think that there is a always a possibility due to chance, due to the fact that the individuals were aware that they are being tested, when one put their headphones in they may have tried harder to skew the results, who knows. Also, the individuals being tested could have done something differently on the day they were peddling with music, for example, what they ate could effect how intensely they worked out. I think that studying the results after a 20 minute treadmill workout would be more effective because not many people go to workout and pedal on a bike for only 30 seconds. The time interval needs to be larger to prove more accurate results. Although the experiment was pretty vague, I still do believe  that music has a direct relationship with the intensity of a workout.

Pocari, John, and Carl Foster. “ACE-sponsored Research: Exploring the Effects of Music on Exercise Intensity.” ACE Fitness. Web. 23 Oct. 2014.

REYNOLDS, GRETCHEN. “How Music Can Boost a High-Intensity Workout.” New York Times. 22 Oct. 2014. Web. 23 Oct. 2014.

Mouth watering, minty goodness costs just about $1.25 at our local G2G. Is that pit stop at the convenience store for a pack of gum worth it before your next exam? I would say yes, studies suggest that chewing gum before a test improves your score.

I never really find myself wanting or needing gum, unless I have it on me. When I do, I find myself shoving piece after piece in my mouth as if I’m addicted to it. As I was sitting in my math class the other day, I began to wonder if chewing gum was related to our ability to focus, but even more so on our ability to do well on tests. After doing some research I was able to find that people have the same question in mind as me, because research has been conducted on it already.

According to the article, “Gum-Chewing Improves Test Performance, Study Suggests,” written by Jane Welsh (A LiveScience Staff Writer) published December 16, 2011, a study was conducted on undergrads attending St. Lawrence University. 224 of them were split into three groups; group one chewed gum before and during testing, group two 5 minutes before testing, and group 3 was the control (didn’t chew gum at all). Each group was given multiple tests and the results as followed: the group who chewed gum before testing (group two) scores were higher then the rest. However, “Within the 15-to-20-minute ‘window’ of the effect, the chewing-gum group recalled 25-to-50-percent more items than the controls.” After 20 minutes the gum tended to wear off. This could in largely be due to chance. All the undergrads in group two could just be naturally smarter than the other groups in which their performance on the test would be better with or without chewing gum.

So how and why does this work? Chewing gum can clearly have a positive outcome on us in many cases. According to Welsh, “The chewing motion gets blood flowing to the head.” It increases blood pressure and heart rate during the short 15 to 20 minute time period after chewing the gum. This increase of blood flow coincides with increased performance on tests.

Although this experiment was conducted amongst a large sample size and the way it was conducted seems pretty accurate, there is still room left for some flaws. The undergrads are aware of the experiment which may skew the their test results. The students who are not chewing gum may have it in their head that they are going to do poorly and the students who chewed gum before may have it in their head that they need to do better. The students who chewed gum during the test may not have improved due to the distraction of chewing. The students in group two who preformed better could have also been naturally smarter on average then the other groups and therefore the gum had no effect.

The experiment showed that chewing gum was only effective for a short time during the test, I wonder if that is just because people tend to lose focus and get antsy when sitting taking a test for too long.

I am not trying to say go chew gum before taking your next exam, but it can’t hurt. The people who did not chew gums results did not change but the people who did tests results went up. It is not guaranteed to work, but, it’s worth a try.

Onyper, Serge. “Commentary: Chewing Gum May Improve Test Scores – NBC News.” NBC News. 10 Feb. 2014. Web. 23 Oct. 2014.

Welsh, Jennifer. “Gum-Chewing Improves Test Performance, Study Suggests.” LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 16 Dec. 2011. Web. 23 Oct. 2014.

Every time I’m getting ready to go for a run I can hear my dad’s voice in the back of my head saying, “You’re better off jumping around for an hour instead of going for a run, it’s so bad for you’re knees!” Ever since my father said this to me, I have been curious if running is actually bad for you but never actually looked into it. Is running really bad for you? Does it have more negative effects then positive? We’ll see!

We have runners, people who love to partake in marathons and all that fun runner stuff; and then we have people who run in moderation— short distances here and there, and then there are those that don’t run at all. Are the runners healthier or is it too much running harming their health? According to an editorial recently published in the British journal Heart, “People who work out too hard for too long may be less healthy than sedentary people, and are more likely to die than moderate exercisers.”

An observational study was conducted to study the risk that comes with running, or in some cases; the benefit. According to Active, 52,000 people were tracked by a number of researchers for over 30 years. To me, these numbers seem insane. I do not understand how someone could track that many people for that long of a time frame; I believe this leaves room for error. Alex Hutchison says,“It suffers from a serious error in statistical analysis: the failure to distinguish between confounding variables and mediating variables.” There could be another variable z linking running and health together, such as, other exercise, family history and etc. Continuing on, the study showed the runners of the experiment had as much as a 19% death risk rate lower than people who didn’t run. Runners are also said to have a greater buildup of coronary plaque which can lead to heart disease.

Another study tested heart attack survivors. About 2,000 of them ran to a certain extent and it actually benefitted their survival. As the distance of running increased, the benefits began to decrease. 6.5 miles a day is where we should draw the line.

So taking into consideration the question,“Is running bad for you.”I found in these studies that running and exercising is good for you up to a certain extent, just like everything else. Pushing yourself too far can break you down in the long run. Running in moderation is the best choice, but if you choose to run excessively it is better than not running at all.  Exercising makes you healthier and can actually cause you to live longer, if you choose not to exercise you can die prematurely; take action now.

Everywhere I go I’m constantly thinking about how filthy the things are that I’m surrounded by and touching all day. After a google search of how dirty the bottom of my pocket book was, I began to remember a study I read about earlier relating to ice cubes and toilet water and I figured I would share it with you guys instead.

Going into your favorite fast food joint, perhaps ordering that big mac combo with a large drink, filling it up with some ice and fountain soda and not even thinking about how dirty that ice is, is a common task. Ever think of something being dirtier than the water found in a toilet?! Well, think again, abc News says, “70 percent of the time, ice from fast food restaurants is dirtier than toilet water.”

Jasmine Roberts decided to take on the challenge in her middle school years, she was curious to see the comparison between ice cubes in fast food places and their toilet water. Living in Florida, she collected ice cubes from five fast food places and a sample of toilet water from each. It was noted that all evidence was gathered using sterile tools. After bringing these materials back to the lab at University of Southern Florida, where she was able to get help from people with experience, she was able to determine that 70% of the time the toilet water was cleaner than the ice cubes. E.coli was found on 70% of the ice cubes she tested. How gross!

This experiment can definitely be due to chance, she only tested fast food restaurants in her local area so perhaps there could be extremely clean toilets there or they could have really dirty ice machines, either or. If more studies were done across the nation, then maybe we could say that in most cases, the ice is dirtier than the toilet water. The size being tested makes it hard to say that 70% of fast food restaurants have ice cubes that are dirtier than their toilet water.

Now, this study is not trying to say you should go put toilet water in your drink instead of the ice cubes, it is just a study done to make you aware of what you are putting into your body. This case is most likely accurate because according to abcNews, “Roberts and Katz said that the ice is likely dirtier because machines aren’t cleaned and people use unwashed hands to scoop ice. Toilet water is also surprisingly bacteria-free, because it comes from sanitized city water supplies.”

I still find it hard to believe that toilet water could be cleaner than things you potentially consume. The thought of that makes me cringe, luckily I’m not a big fast food person but next time I go fill my cup up with some ice i’ll be sure to use a small amount. I hope this news alarmed you and the next time you go fill your cup up for a nice cold drink you reconsider your choice!

Five hours or less of sleep a night just isn’t cutting it for my 8 am Econ class, followed by english, math and science. As I go through my day I find myself constantly yawning and watching the chain of yawns followed by mine. This lead me to wonder why we yawn and if it really is contagious.

So what exactly is a yawn? Did you know that you began yawning at just 11 weeks old as a fetus? A yawn is more than just a deep breath with an awkwardly wide open mouth.  According to Melanie Radzicki McManus, “First, your mouth opens, and your jaw drops, allowing as much air as possible to be taken in. When you inhale, the air taken in is filling your lungs. Your abdominal muscles flex, and your diaphragm is pushed down. The air you breathe in expands the lungs to capacity and then some of the air is blown back out.” Your whole body is engaged in yawning.

Why do we do it? There are many theories as to why we yawn because many scientists aren’t exactly sure. One theory stated that yawning is due to a lack of oxygen in the brain. This theory was sought to be used to explain why we yawn in a chain reaction. In areas with an abundance of people, there is more CO2 in the air due to more exhales. The brain supposably is lacking oxygen so you yawn. Robert Provine did a study on this to see if it was actually true. His study was done on college students, doesn’t specify how many or where the study was located, nor the ages so the data is weak. Students were given one of the gasses to breath with for 30 minutes. Here were the options:

• Gas #1 = 100% Oxygen
• Gas #2 = 3% Carbon dioxide, 21% Oxygen
• Gas #3 = 5% Carbon dioxide, 21% Oxygen
• Gas #4 = Normal Air

Provine said that the change of gas levels did not effect yawning. I think that this experiment is hard to be accurate because a student can go into it having yawning on their mind, or make an effort not to yawn at all. I wonder if this was a blind procedure in which the students were unaware they were being used in  a study.

This still leaves me questioning, why do we yawn? A more recent study, which has not been proven wrong yet, suggests that yawning is done to cool the brain. A cool brain is said to think more clearly and efficiently so we yawn when our brain is hot, or to me “burnt out.” The brain needs to be rebooted just like a computer, when a computer gets over heated it can process slower, just like our brains. A yawn wakes us up a little.

Is it contagious? We also don’t know if it is contagious but there is an interesting study I found to link that it may be. Melanie Radzicki McManus states that younger children don’t find yawning contagious because they are less empathetic than their elders. A study was done to show if empathy really effected whether a yawn was contagious or not. Autistic kids and non-autistic kids were given a film to watch of people yawning, as a result the non-autistic kids yawned more through out the film then the autistic kids. Autistic kids often have trouble understanding the feelings of another and therefore didn’t yawn as much. I think that it is crazy that they can say the chain reaction of yawning is based on empathy. Does that mean those less empathetic yawn less than those who are more empathetic, how does one even measure empathy?

After doing my research, I was left a little disappointed that I wasn’t able to find a solid answer as to why we yawn and if it’s really contagious. Hopefully one day scientists will be able to figure it out. Feel free to post any links of information you found contradicting the information I found, I’m interested to find out more!

What sounds better then a two week lasting, instantly drying, no-chip manicure? For all of us girls we know, not much! (sorry guys). With just a little extra time and a little extra money, we all know it so worth a gel manicure over a regular one… or is it?

A gel manicure is a manicure that is said to last for two weeks or more without chipping and requires no dry time at all. The process begins with the filing and shaping of your nails, each nail is filed down on the top of it so the polish is able to adhere better. After this, a series of polishing steps occurs and after each step, your hand is placed under a small UV light where the hardening of the nail polish begins and ends. For many, this common new technological advancement in the nail industry is loved for its long lasting ability, but many don’t think about the hazards that actually come along with it.

We all know tanning beds and sun exposure is said to cause melanoma, cancer of the skin, and many do not think of getting “ cancer of the hands” when we go and get our fresh new gel manicure. While many of our hardships are debating what color to pick out of what seems to be an endless selection, others are debating over far more serious things such as their health.

The UV lights used to harden and set the “oh so perfect” gel manicures can actually be harmful to the skin. Just like tanning beds, the ultraviolet rays from the machine can cause skin damage and melanoma in your nails beds. We also know that along with ultraviolet light exposure, comes the wrinkles and who wants those? Nancy Shute calls them “lizard hands.”

Although the risk is said to be small, there have been cases where women have gotten skin cancer in their hands, supposably due to the rays from the lamps. This study is a correlation and there is no proof that the cancer can be linked to the lamps, although there is a great possibility. Both these woman have no traces of cancer in their families but there could be other factors due to them both getting cancer in their hands. There is not enough concrete information to link the UV lamps to the cancer in their hands.

Not only are these UV lamps harmful to your skin, but they can really damage your eyes too. Shute says, “Ultraviolet exposure is a main cause of cataracts, and probably contributes to macular degeneration, which is a leading cause of blindness in older people.” I know it sounds crazy, but people recommend sitting in the salon with sunglasses on to avoid this from happening!

Even though there haven’t been many studies on this and they really haven’t been able to link cancer in the hand directly to UV lights, it definitely is a possibility. Next time you look at your nails and say, “ Wow, it’s time for a manicure,” consider these things. Protect yourself, apply sunscreen to your hands, wear photo protection gloves with the finger tips cut off(which some salons now offer) and maybe even rock your favorite pair of shades! Better safe than sorry!

Hi everyone! I’m Paige Loyer and I’m from Long Island, New York. I’m in DUS right now so I’m not exactly sure what direction I am going in yet, probably some math/business kind of thing. Science doesn’t really interest me at all, so when making my schedule the advisor helping me recommend this class and I obviously took it. Like I said earlier I was never really that interested in science to have it as my major and I’m not exactly the best at it. I would really like to get into Smeal with a business/ math major. Math has always interested me unlike most people, so somewhere along those lines is where I plan on going here at Penn State.