In class we discussed the harmful effects of sugary drinks on our health, and the results are very clear that soda is no good for our health. The big soft drink companies are trying to get people to shift to drinking these sugar-free options in lieu of adding taxes to regular sodas. However in areas (Mexico for example) where the sugary drink tax has been placed the amount of soda consumed went down. But do we want to substitute our sugary drinks for diet sodas? Do diet sodas hide just as many adverse health effects, if not more than regular sodas?

Diet sodas have been linked to weight GAIN, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, depression, and they alter your taste buds. Funny how diet sodas are marketed to help lose weight as a calorie free, sugar-free beverage, but do the COMPLETE opposite. That is because the artificial sugars in diet sodas act just like regular sugars, they activate your insulin, and the excess is stored as fat. Artificial sugars, however absorb into your bloodstream faster than regular sugars, which not only makes mixed drinks with diet sodas more dangerous, but also makes the “sugars” convert into fat more quickly and at a higher quantity. In a study of 6,814 people, daily consumption of diet soda was found to create a 67% increased risk of type two diabetes. In a study of 66,118 women the risk of daily diet soda consumption over 14 years rose their risk of type two diabetes by 112%. As for obesity in a study of 3,682 people, drinking diet soda was shown to DOUBLE the risk of obesity. Artificial sweeteners have also been show to increase appetite and food intake, which could be psychological, because since you aren’t drinking calories, you think you can eat more.

If the data above showing that diet soda is just as bad as regular soda for your health, with the same health risk outcomes that come from weight gain, then take a look at the main ingredients in diet soda. The artificial sweetener used in all diet sodas, aspartame, has dreadful side effects. Aspartame has been linked to small effects such as allergic reactions, and headaches, to weight gain and cancer. Aspartame is made up of three chemicals, methanol (wood alcohol,) phenylalanine, and aspartic acid; each of which has its own unique bad effects on the human body. Aspartic acid, in excess, acts as a neurotoxin, and kills neurons in the brain by allowing an influx of calcium to those cells. This excess of neurotoxins can cause a variety of health problems like sleeping and vision problems, dementia, Alzheimer’s, and epilepsy. Phenylalanine acts as a toxin in excess as well by decreasing levels of serotonin (a chemical that helps regulate mood) in the brain. This causes mood swings, depression, and anxiety. Methanol is the worst of the three components of aspartame. When methanol is ingested it turns into formaldehyde (that’s right the stuff we use to embalm bodies,) which can be a deadly toxin if too much is ingested. The FDA recommends no more that 7.8mg of methanol a day (as it is found naturally in extremely small amounts in some foods,) in one liter of diet soda there are 56mg of methanol. The consumption of methanol has also been linked to retinal damage, blindness, birth defects, the formation of brain tumors, and cancers such as leukemia, multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, blood, breast, and colon cancers.

After researching this topic I think it is clear to say that no one should ever drink diet soda, and made me grateful my parents never let me drink it so I never gained a taste for soda. Diet sodas are definitely no substitute for regular soda, and seem to be in fact, worse for you. I think for now I will stick to good old water.

Sources:

http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20739512_6,00.html

http://authoritynutrition.com/why-is-diet-soda-bad-for-you/

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/06/aspartame-most-dangerous-substance-added-to-food.aspx

I have occasionally considered being a vegetarian after seeing those depressing videos of animal cruelty that circulate on Facebook, or reading a story of the potential illnesses that come from tainted meats, but would it be worth it? I decided to do some research on whether or not switching to a vegetarian diet would be beneficial enough to make me want to give up those bacon cheeseburgers, admit it a good burger sounds great right now. But after you finish reading this post, you might not feel the same way about indulging in some beefy goodness.

Vegetarians can have some potential health problems, but this usually only occurs when they are removing the meats from their diet and replacing them with junk foods and not eating the correct amount of proteins, irons, and healthy fats. However with a properly balanced vegetarian diet one decreases the risk of many diseases, has a lower cholesterol, and lower BMI. Among the diseases are cardiovascular disease, ischemic heart disease, osteoporosis, diabetes, obesity, some cancers, renal disease, hypertension and dementia. Most of the health advantages can be explained by the lower blood sugar, blood lipid content and cholesterol caused when one switches to a vegetarian diet. Cutting meat out of your diet removes most of the bad fat from your diet, and the more animal fat products you take out (eggs, yogurt, milk,) the more bad fats you take out. For example; people who eat all types of meat have the highest blood lipid content, people who only eat fish slightly lower, vegetarians even lower, and vegans with the lowest content. This low fat content of the blood (which reflects through the whole body: obese people have very high levels, while healthier people have low levels) is what decreases the risk for cardiovascular disease, ischemic heart disease, high cholesterol and blood sugar, diabetes, and obesity.

However the research on cancer and vegetarian diets seems only correlational, as the cancers that were less common in vegetarians (colon, heart, and prostate) are most common in obese, or overweight people. As for dementia there are no real studies done observing the effects of vegetarian diets on the risk of getting dementia, and the vegetarian population that they pull their observations from is very small compared to non-vegetarians. So any observation of vegetarians not getting dementia as often could simply be chance, or a false negative.

In my opinion switching to a vegetarian diet does not seem to yield any huge benefits that could sway me from my love of breakfast meats. All of the research shows that the benefits come from being healthier, which could be achieved by cutting meat out of ones diet, but also by eating balanced meals and exercising. I would be interested to see a real randomized experiment with two groups; one to eat meat and the other to not, to see how their health changes short and long term. But for now it seems there may be more benefits to your wallet and the environment than your actual physical health when switching to a vegetarian diet.

Sources

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002822309007007

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/19562864

Genetically modified organisms are found everywhere in todays foods. The most popular GMOs are corn, soy, and canola, which are present in most processed foods available in supermarkets. Recently many dairy companies banned products from genetically modified cows, because their milk contained a chemical (from the mutated genes) that has been linked to cancer. Since the release of GMOs in 1996, there has been an increase in chronic diseases by 6%, food allergies are becoming more common, autism and reproductive disorders are increasing as well. However there is no compelling evidence that can prove that GMOs cause these problems, and my question is why?

The U.S. is one of the only counties that doesn’t require labeling of GM foods, do you know what you’re eating?

The FDA has required no additional tests of GM food, but the only tests available are poorly executed. Such as Monsanto’s (the man who developed GM corn,) studies on lab rats. The study included 400 rats, 80 of whom were fed GM corn and the remaining 320 had varying diets. However only 40 of the rats fed GMOs were tested for adverse health effects, and although many of the male rats had kidney problems and elevated glucose levels (similar to rats with diabetes) their results were seen as false positives because female rats kidneys were unaffected, and the glucose could be explained by genetic factors. In my opinion it is just as likely that there could be false negatives, especially considering the small test group and the short test period of only three months. I find it ridiculous that there are no long term studies conducted to find the long term effects of GMOs on human health.

The majority of studies completed on the topic of health effects of GMOs are all funded by the same companies who create and sell GM foods. I find the bias of the studies conducted in the companies interest and their results showing GMOs create no side effects undeniably evident. How can you rest the health of ours and future generations in the results of poorly conducted, barely conclusive experiments, like Monsanto’s work?

The high amounts of pesticides and herbicides sprayed on GM crops, as they are modified to live through these chemicals, can not be safe. Many pesticides were used for years before they were discovered to be harmful and banned. So why are we sitting around eating foods made of plants drenched in the deadly chemicals?

There needs to be better more conclusive studies done on the effects, short and long term, of GMOs on human health. As of now I cannot say I am convinced to read every label to make sure I don’t eat any GMOs, but if a reliable study was done that could create belief of causation and not just correlation, I might start watching what I eat more carefully.

Sources:

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2952409/

As our team is coming up on playoffs, our captain talked to us about how what we eat and drink now will effect how we play for the rest of the season, and if we want to win nationals, we should all strongly consider eating correctly and only drinking water. My teams “sober October” made me curious about how alcohol can really effect your performance as an athlete. 90% of all Americans over the age of 21 drink alcoholic beverages, while 88% of athletes ages 18-24 drink alcohol, surprisingly high considering most are underage and all are college athletes. But how does this high consumption rate effect athletes? Alcohol has detrimental effects on athletic performance. Alcohol effect your ability to gain muscle, your metabolism, your cardio endurance, increase your likeliness of injury, and your overall performance for about 48 hours. So when athletes go out that Saturday night after a big win, they will still feel the effects two days later on their Monday lifting and practice.

Your body’s ability to create new muscle after a lift or even just a run depends on a few factors like sleep, protein consumption, hydration, and the lactic acid cycle. when you drink your body doesn’t get rid of lactic acid, and actually creates more. There is no nutritional benefits to alcoholic beverages, usually the choice beverage is beer, and it not only dehydrates you as you drink it, it acts as a diuretic the following hours.

Your metabolism can be effected for many of the same reasons, Your body decreases production of NADH, a muscle repairing compound, which effects the amounts of lactic acid and citric acid in your body, which slows the metabolism. Alcohol also lowers the glycogen levels in your body, which creates a nutrient imbalance, or doesn’t leave you with enough carbohydrates that can be processed into energy, which slows down your metabolism as well. The overall lack of nutrition and hydration causes lower blood sugar and decreased your ability to process foods properly.

Your cardio endurance decreases after alcohol consumption as well. This is evident in the athletes who were asked to either drink or not the night before then the next day were tested by running five miles, the athletes who had drank performed worse than those who had not. Athletes who were asked to the same but cycled to exhaustion the next day found the same results; the athletes who had drank the night before performed much worse than those who did not.

Athletes that drink alcohol have an injury rate of about 54% compared to the non-drinkers who have a 23% injury rate. The extra injuries of athletes who drink can be attributed to their bodies slower metabolisms, and the slowed reaction speed, headache, and general bad mood experienced after drinking. It also takes injured athletes longer to recover if they drink, as alcohol prevents muscle repair and growth and slows healing.

All of these factors together effect your athletic performance overall by 11.4%, meaning you play 11.4% worse if you drank that week, than if you had not. I think 11% is a big enough number to convince me not to drink, as well as any other serious athletes. If you drink you will automatically not be able to outperform your opponent (assuming they do not drink,) because your 100% will only be their 89%.

Sources:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00007256-200029050-00001

As we grow older our brains begin to deteriorate and many lose memories or begin having mental health issues in older age. Alzheimer’s and dementia are both very common, scary effects of this brain degeneration, my grandmother has dementia and it can sometimes be intensely frightening. However research is showing that being bilingual, or speaking more than one language can increase brain ability and prevent degeneration.

In one study of 148 incoming high school students half who spoke only English and half who also spoke Spanish fluently they showed that bilingual students showed much more keen sense of hearing and had better attentiveness. They tested their abilities to hear a certain note  through background noise, then their ability to see and hear numbers with people talking in the background. In both tests the bilingual student outperformed the monolingual students. It made no difference for the bilingual students with or without the background noise, while the monolingual students performed much worse when there was background noise present compared to when there was no background noise. They concluded with this study that students who speak more than one language have better selective attention because their brains have a better auditory response capacity similar to skilled musicians.

In another study of a group of 262 people born all in Britain, who were studied when they were 11 then again in their 70s, some of whom learned a language other than English before they were 18 and some after, but who all could still speak both languages, were tested on their brain health and performance. There was no difference in performance of those who learned earlier or later In life, but they outperformed there non bilingual counterparts on all the brain and memory capacity tests. None of the bilingual people in the study showed any signs of memory or mental health deterioration.

However the studies did not make it clear why speaking more than one language effects brain health or whether being taught from birth or schooled in two different languages is different from learning later in life. It would be best to set up an experiment with a larger group of students and test cognitive abilities of those who learn and do not earn foreign languages then who keeps up with them and how their brain health changes throughout the process.
Sources:

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-27634990

http://nih.gov/researchmatters/may2012/05072012bilingual.htm

http://science.time.com/2013/07/18/how-the-brain-benefits-from-being-bilingual/

“Girls go to college to get more knowledge, boys go to Jupiter to get more stupider.” Research has shown that girls in high school have higher grades in all subject areas compared to their male counterparts and score better on English tests, however males score slightly higher on math exams. So if males have higher math test scores, why do they have lower grades in math class? Why do female high school students have a higher success rate, more people on honor roll, and higher high school  graduation rates than males? Are males less intelligent than females or is something else effecting these results?

One of the factors researched was what students spend time on outside of school and how that could affect their grades. More females read for enjoyment outside of school, or participate in theatre or dance, which creates a higher success rate in English class. As compared to boys who spend more time playing videogames online, playing sports, are more likely to participate in science fairs; this and the more time spent on the computer seems to give boys a mathematical advantage over girls. This data can help explain the test score differences, as it is easy to see how one can score better in an area of interest as opposed to a class they aren’t very fond of, but then why do girls outperform boys in non-test math and science grades?

The lower grades of males could be attributed to behaviorism in classroom settings. Teachers have reported that their female students are much more well behaved, more attentive and more eager to get good grades. Males however are a much larger cause of classroom disruption and seem less willing to participate in a classroom setting. And high school completion rates (in four years) for boys is around 63%, while for females it is 75%. More males drop out to go into the work force, while the main reason for female dropouts is pregnancy.

Therefore girls aren’t necessarily smarter than boys, but maybe just more focused on their achievement in school, or more willing to participate actively in class then their male counterparts. Personally I think that the data more strongly supports a behavioral causation for poorer grades as opposed to gender causation, and that gender coincidentally correlates to differences in behavior and grades as well.

Source:

Downey, D., & Yuan, A. (2013). SEX DIFFERENCES IN SCHOOL PERFORMANCE DURING HIGH SCHOOL: Puzzling Patterns and Possible Explanations. The Sociological Quarterly, 46(2), 299-321. Retrieved September 28, 2014, from JSTOR.

Nail-biting is generally viewed as a nasty habit that we try and get kids to quit before they get older, or try and quit ourselves if our parents efforts were futile. Unfortunately, I am a nail-biter myself, and I have tried to quit a few times but with no luck. But unless you bite them so badly that you hurt yourself, how much damage are you actually doing?

By biting your fingernails you are exposing you body to a lot of germs, that you usually wouldn’t, which is why many people think that nail-biting can lead to getting sick more often. Surprisingly, however, it is the opposite. By biting your nails an d constantly exposing your body and immune system to different types of bacteria keeps your immune system working and might make you less sick than the average person. By exposing your body to more bacteria your more likely to be able to fight off similar strands, therefore strengthening your immune system.

Nail biting is also a stress reliever, so those of us that bite our nails are also less stressed, even if we look kind of gross doing it. Psychiatrist Carol Matthews explained how nail-biting is a better, more healthy way to relieve stress, as it gives a satisfying feeling to the nail biter but has no real bad side-effects as opposed to smoking.

There is however no solid evidence to back up the idea that biting your nails boosts your immune system. We could take a large test group and have half of them bite their nails and the other half avoid putting their hands in their mouths and monitor their general health for a period of time to see if there were any noticeable changes. Personally, I rarely get sick so I would believe I have an abnormally strong immune system from biting my nails for all these years.

Sources:

http://www.gurl.com/2013/04/11/bad-habits-health-benefits-farting-burping/

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/why-biting-your-nails-could-actually-be-good-for-you/story-fneuzlbd-1227055862972

American football players wear helmets to protect their heads, but rugby players who play an equally rough if not rougher sport wear no pads or helmets, yet have lower concussion rates. One of my high school rugby coaches explained the difference in contact in rugby and why it is safer than football by saying to us “Ram your head into my chest,” when we all looked at him like he was crazy he said a rugby player would never in their right mind lead with their head, because they know they need to protect it, but football players when wearing their helmets have that feeling that their helmet would protect their head when they come into contact.

Rugby has lower injury rates than most sports  and its because we play keeping in mind that we all have to insure the safety of ourselves, our teammates, and we have rules that make us consider the safety of those we tackle. “‘I think the biggest thing football can learn from rugby is that, no, you can’t use the head as a weapon, and football has made a lot of progress in that,’ said Dr. Warren King, the Oakland Raiders team doctor who has also worked with the U.S. national rugby team.” While the NFL has made many changes to try and minimize concussion risks, have they done enough? They have changed the designs of their helmets and increased the penalties for head to head contact and unnecessary roughness. The Seahawks coach actually brought in rugby coaches to help teach his team “proper” and safe tackling techniques, keeping your head to the side “cheek to cheek” or the cheek of the tacklers face on the butt cheek of the player being tackled, staying low, contacting with shoulder first followed by wrapping up the legs, and driving your feet through the tackle. Safety of tackles also includes falling correctly as the tacklee, you have to use your neck muscles to keep your head from flopping around and fall knees, hips, shoulders or “on your hard parts.”

Personally as someone who has played rugby for six years now and never had a concussion, I can agree with the statement that the false security of helmets leads to concussions. If more football teams take the rugby initiative to learn better tackling, the safety of their game will go up tenfold. However if they were to get rid of helmets they would have to lose all their other hard pads as well, which I don’t see happening any time soon.

Sources:

http://www.nflevolution.com/healthandsafetyreport/#20

http://www.goffrugbyreport.com/intl-news/rugby-poised-help-football-safety

http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/eye-performance/201310/rugby-football-concussions-tackling-safety-technique

Everyone knows the stereotype of the dumb jock and has seen the plethora of movies showing athletes, especially football players, as being much less intelligent than their non-athletic classmates. But is it the athletics that make student-athletes dumber, or are dumb students more prone to be athletes?

photo from: http://fullscalesports.com/2014/09/08/ncaa-reinstates-penn-state-for-postseason-elgibility/

Studies of all athletes and their grades over the entire academic year and by semester showed their GPAs to be lower on average as compared to their non-athlete counterparts. For the year athletes GPAs were only slightly lower on average about .17 difference for the year, however when they studied individual teams based on their season and their semester grades it showed that athletes during their “in-season” had GPAs on average .51 lower than other students. On average college athletes spend about 20 hours per week practicing, lifting, practicing, or playing in games during their season, on top of the average semester credit load of fifteen classes, the work that comes with their classes, and maybe jobs or other activities. It can be easy to see why athletes who are more busy than average student, and more physically active may find less time to focus on studying to get those high grades. As an athlete myself, I know  that after having lifting in the morning followed by a day of classes, then practice, I only have a few hours worth of studying or homework left in me before I jus want to pass out. But are athletes lower grades only attributable to their busy schedule, or is it something more?

Athletes on average are accepted to schools with about a 200 point difference in sat scores and a lower GPA. So, it could also be argued that athletes are less equipped for a college work load which causes their lower grades.  But are the lower grades in high school also caused by athletics? Or do their grades have nothing to do with the athletics? Most students who have jobs work on average 20 hours per week, but their GPAs fit into the data of the non-athletes grades seamlessly. So what is the difference between athletes and students who work? Are student athletes naturally dumber or do they just sacrifice good grades to be better athletes? Personally, I think that from the data and from personal experience, it is safe to say that athletics cause a decrease in student-athletes’ GPAs. Sometimes sleeping after a hard practice just sounds so much better than studying.

The freshman fifteen is something that most new freshman are worried about. Where can I eat healthy? When will I find the time to work out? The problems of weight gain in freshman can be attributed to many different factors; newfound independence, all you can eat meal plans, stress, home-sickness, drinking, late night snacking, poor exercise and sleeping habits. But are all freshman doomed to put on weight, or is it a myth?

picture from: http://blogs.columbian.com/its-the-fair/2014/08/14/eating-scale/

In  a study of college freshman at Cornell university, 71% of college freshman had gained weight during their first twelve weeks.  “The variable that could explain most of the gain in weight was the consumption of junk foods, explaining 24% of the total variance. The next best predictor was recent dieting, explaining 9% of the remaining variance. The amount of evening snacks consumed explained another 6% of the variance, eating lunch at a restaurant explained another 5% and eating at a ‘pay for cash’ facility accounted for another 4% of the variance, as did the number of hours of sleep.”  This study effectively showed that students whose eating habits changed for the worse after moving to college are the ones who gained weight.

So what happens after your freshman year? Should we all be worried about putting on a sophomore five, junior ten, or senior three? Studies of students from the beginning of their freshman year trough the end of their senior year showed that weight gained in college was typically something that carried through the years. However the average weight gain of students was closer to three pounds than the intimidating “freshman 15.” The weight gain could just be attributed to normal body growth and maturation, rather than straight fat gain because of poor eating habits.  Personally I think that neither study provides enough concrete evidence to say that college freshman experience significant weight gain, ad weight gain is more likely to happen to those who do not care to look after their own health.

bmis of the same students from freshman to senior year, from the source above.

I think we all know it can be can be easy enough to go for seconds, or thirds, and head toward the ice-cream in the dining halls. And who doesn’t love some 2 am canyon pizza? But if you want to avoid the “freshman fifteen” you need to be slightly more careful in your meal choices. It is also important to get enough sleep and try to maintain a healthy exercise schedule. Eating, staying hydrated, and getting enough sleep all keep you happier, healthier and reduce stress.

Should NFL players trade in their helmets for pot? While the research and evidence highly back up the hypothesis that smoking pot after receiving a concussion could aid in recovery and shorten recovery time, it is hard to say whether or not marijuana could ever be a plausible solution. As cannabis is decriminalized in the United States, the amount of research and experiment possibilities increase and more studies emerge showing the positive effects of medical marijuana on brain injuries. Cannabis has been shown to act as a neuroprotector and to prevent brain deterioration after traumatic brain injuries. This research has caused the NFL to look into the possible benefits of medical marijuana for concussed athletes.

After a brain injury the brain releases chemicals, called glutamates that cause cell degeneration and calcium buildup in the brain; this impairs some basic brain function, and healing. These glutamates are why it can take months to get over a concussion and why you lose basic abilities during a concussion. Experiments on rats have proven that THC, the main chemical in marijuana, can act as an antioxidant to prevent the glutamates from causing damage as well as aid in the process of healing and accelerate cell generation in the brain. They have also shown that rats injected with THC before getting brain injuries were less effected than rats who didn’t have THC in their systems.

Effects of medical marijuana on cancer patients has also showed its ability to ease pain and prevent depression. Which can translate into the easing of headaches for concussed athletes and the decrease in depression caused when athletes can no longer participate. As an athlete in a highly physical sport similar to football, rugby, I can understand how this breakthrough on possible concussion treatment would have a revolutionary effect on athletes everywhere. As medical marijuana is legalized in more states more studies related to marijuana use and concussions can be expected to be released, possibly ending with a new legal treatment for head injuries.

Ça c’est ma premiere poste/ Este es mi primero mensaje/ This is my first post. I’m Whitney Richter, from Montgomery county, PA (right outside of Philadelphia). I am planning on majoring in foreign language education. Surprisingly enough, my father is a biochemist and he very much pushed me to pursue a career in the science field. While I do love my dad and enjoy science and the idea of being able to discover and create new things and challenge old ideas, I just have a better skill set with languages. I am taking this science course because it had the most interesting course description and I need to fill my gen-ed requirement, but I thought I would take more away from a class that caught my attention rather than any other old science class.