PGD (pre-implantation genetic diagnosis) is embryo-screening that looks for DNA abnormalities (such as genes for cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, down syndrome, and even gender) if a couple uses in-vitro fertilization to conceive a child (“What Is PGD?”). It causes a lot of debate today because embryos that have certain diseases can be discarded, which some may consider abortion. It also calls other ethical ideas into question: if parents can discard embryos for being a certain gender, what would stop them from discarding dumber, weaker kids in favor of more intelligent and athletically gifted kids?

A study from the Oxford Journals comparing PGD births to babies conceived through intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), both artificial reproduction methods, sought to see if babies born from PGD suffered any health risks compared to babies born through sperm injections. This study monitored all babies born at the Vrije Universiteit Brussels (VUB) between 1992 and 2005. The doctors watched 581 babies and sent questionnaires to their parents when the babies turned 2-months old. However, the control was a group of babies conceived through ICSI “to determine whether potential differences in outcome were exclusively related to the embryo biopsy in PGD and not to assisted reproduction technology (ART) in general” (Oxford Journals). However, in this study the control was not babies conceived naturally, which I feel could have given a fuller picture on the effects of PGD as well as artificial reproduction as a whole. Measuring “gestational ages at delivery, birth weights and major malformations,” they found few differences between the two groups of babies except for the PGD babies were more likely to be born prematurely and weigh less at birth (Oxford Journals). They are continuing to monitor the babies now (this was done in 2009) and have concluded that generally PGD does not affect the health of babies conceived through this method.

However, the unpredictable consequence of the upcoming prominence of PGD is how it could affect the dynamic of the family, something science cannot concretely cover especially this early in the process. Leon Kass, a chair on the President’s Bioethics Council in the United States, claims that parents will start to see their child as property since the selection of features through PGD can “turn the child into ‘manufacture’ and thus impairs human flourishing” (Oxford Journals). This has already been documented in this New York Times article “Wanting Babies Like Them” where it was reported that deaf and blind couples only selected embryos through PGD that carried genes for the same disorder they had. Of the 190 PGD clinics surveyed, 5-6 of them reported cases where babies were chosen based on disabilities found in their DNA. Through a series of anecdotes (this article is not entirely based on the study but instead looks into surrounding view points on the scientific material), the reporter best portrays the conflict when one parent asks her, “What is life going to be like for her, when her parents are different than she is?” (New York Times)

Obviously, PGD is still fresh on the scene. It is unclear how it affects the births of children as well as family dynamics since those born of PGD are not old enough to have encountered many obstacles. Only time will tell how this affects us as a society. As Sanghavi ends the New York Times article, “Of course, part of me wonders whether speaking the same language or being the same height guarantees closer families. But it’s not for me to say. In the end, our energy is better spent advocating for a society where those factors won’t matter.”

Have you ever been to a restaurant and ordered red meat? Have your friends or family members ever said to avoid red meat as much as possible because it isn’t good for you? Personally, I have been to restaurants before and my sister has always ordered chicken over any form of red meat because she believes it is not healthy for your body. So…is the theory that red meat is bad for you true or purely a myth?

The primary question that has been circulating around the world is does red meat increase the likelihood of obtaining heart disease or cancer? When it comes to heart disease, red meat does seem to increase the risk of heart disease. Since red meats are higher in saturated fat as opposed to other meats such as chicken and fish, it raises blood cholesterol levels. These increased cholesterol levels increase the overall risk of heart disease. However, the answer is less obvious when it comes to the link between red meat and cancer. A study conducted by the National Institutes of Health-AARP took  over half a million Americans and had them consume red meat. The study determined that people who ate red meat over a 10 year period were more likely to have a premature death than those individuals who ate smaller portions of red meat. Those who consumed four ounces of red met per day were more likely to die of a heart disease or cancer, contrasting those who consumed only about 1/2 of an ounce of red meat per day. However, I think the study would have been more effective if the researchers had multiple groups who consumed different kinds of red meat or at least the same type of red meat and the same amount every day. For example, they could have a sample of 1,000 people and have five groups of 200 people. Each group could consume ground beef meat for lunch and flank steak meat for dinner every day. The researchers could give each person the same amount of meat for each meal per day. That way, the results would show a stronger link between red meat and the impact on the health (either positive, no affect, or negative).

Janet Riley, vice president of the American Meat Institute, states, “The meat industry contends there is no link between red meat, processed meats, and cancer, and says that lean read meat fits into a heart-healthy diet.” She also exclaims that the studies that have been conducted only rely on individuals who mention what foods they have eaten, meaning there is no proven cause and effect relationship. Furthering this notion, she states: “Many of these suggestions could be nothing more than statistical noise.”

Another study observed over 72,000 women for an eighteen year period. They found that individuals who consumed ‘Western-style’ diet high in red meats, cultivated grains, and desserts had a higher likelihood of acquiring heart disease, cancer, and a premature death. Marji McCullogh (a nutritional epidemiologist at the American Cancer Society) states, “The association between consumption of red and processed meats and cancer, particularly colorectal cancer, is very consistent.”

In addition, Rashmi Sinha (of the National Cancer Institute) declares that a large portion of these studies link digesting red meat with long-term diseases. However, these studies that have been done (as mentioned above), show a strong correlation between the consumption of red meat and life-threatning diseases, but do not show a direct casual relationship. There could be several third or confounding variables that factor into the individuals who had died prematurely in these studies or have obtained a chronic illness. Factors such as genetics, previous family history (such as family members having heart diseases or various types of cancer), your personal health and medical conditions (high cholesterol levels, high blood pressure, high sugar levels, obesity), and your behaviors (smoking) all greatly contribute to obtaining cancer and other chronic illnesses.

Overall, the studies show strong correlations between consuming red meat and diseases due to large sample sizes and the experiment’s results. I do not think this theory is a myth; but I believe there needs to be more research conducted with more trails to really see if there is a direct link between the consumption of red met and life-threatning diseases.

Sources:

http://www.eatingwell.com/nutrition_health/nutrition_news_information/is_eating_red_meat_good_or_bad_for_your_health

http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/the-truth-about-red-meat

Many people, especially athletes, drink the popular sports drink Gatorade. I myself, even feel refreshed and revitalized after I drink Gatorade. Being that Gatorade is used by many athletes and sponsors many professional and collegiate sports teams it can be viewed as healthy and beneficial to these athletes. I decided to look into Gatorade’s reputation of being good for someone and I found many surprising answers. Most people are aware that Gatorade helps to replenish electrolytes lost during a workout but there is so much more behind this product. With a variety of different flavors, Gatorade has the potential to be liked by many people. However, despite the popularity I discovered many health risks that come from this beverage. In one standard bottle of Gatorade there is approximately 200 calories and 56 grams of sugar; which is an extremely large amount. Health risks that come from drinking Gatorade include weight gain, hyponatremia, high blood pressure and high blood sugar. A lot of these risks are caused because most people do not burn off the amount of calories they drink in Gatorade. If anything one could be drinking more Gatorade than the calories they are burning which directly counteracts it. Hyponatremia or also known as the over-hydration of cells which can cause very low sodium levels. With Gatorade, there is also a wide variety of different products or referred to as “series” which claim to specialize at a pre or post workout function. An example of this is the G2 series that has a significant lower amount of calories and sugar than the original series. In conclusion, the verdict on whether or not Gatorade is good for you is all up to you. Drinking the product in moderation and in a way that shadows the intensity of your workout can definitely be a big factor as an effort to avoid the health risks addressed previously.

Sources:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/68710-effects-much-gatorade/

http://wywnutrition.com/negative-effects-gatorade-2/

Picture:

http://www.exacttarget.com/blog/winfromwithin-with-gatorade/

Have you ever forgot to brush your teeth one night or were just too lazy to do so? Have you ever slept over a friend’s house and lost track of time and decided not to brush your teeth? This has happened to me before. I have slept over my friend’s house before and we were up late talking and watching movies. I was too tired to go to the bathroom and brush my teeth, so I just went right to sleep after watching multiple movies. I have always wondered, as I’m sure like many of you, if not brushing your teeth is bad for your health. So what happens if you don’t brush your teeth? Let’s take a look.

According to Lauren Friedman, approximately one out of every five person don’t brush their teeth twice a day. So, if you relate to this statistic, you are not alone. The American Dental Association exclaims, “Taking care of your teeth and gums isn’t just about preventing cavities or bad breath. The mouth is a gateway into your body’s overall health.” Unfortunately, there is not really a method in which researchers can prove a causation relationship exists between avoiding brushing your teeth. This is because researchers would have to produce a control group that did not brush their teeth or a long period of time, or at least a decent amount of time. Many people would not be open to stop brushing their teeth for days on end, even for a science experiment.

One affect of neglecting to brush your teeth is gum disease. If your gums or teeth bleed while brushing your teeth, this could be a strong indicator that you have gum disease. Gingivitis is the inflammation of the gums, which can occur when plaque builds up between your gums and teeth. Over 50 percent of Americans have this gingivitis, which is most likely due to poor care of the gums and teeth. Even more surprisingly, neglecting to brush your teeth can cause tooth loss. Reported by Friedman, adults between the ages 20 to 64 have lost about seven adult teeth and 10% of Americans between the ages 50 to 64 have no teeth left. The most obvious downside to not brushing your teeth is bad breath, but did you know that another cause of neglecting to brush your teeth is dementia? Dementia is the loss of brain function and affects memory, thinking, language and behavior.

A study was conducted at a retirement community in Laguna Hills. The study suggested that there is a correlation between dementia and poor gum/teeth health. In the study, researchers observed 5,468 individuals for a total of eighteen years. They discovered that amongst those who still had their teeth, “those who reported not brushing their teeth daily had a 22% to 65% greater risk of dementia than those who brushed three times daily.” Another smaller study took a group of people who had Alzheimer’s disease. They noticed that their brains had a lot more bacteria related to gum disease than those who had “healthier brains”.

This is a chart comparing Dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. It includes the symptoms so if you know of anyone experiencing any of these symptoms, tell them to research these diseases.

Another disease that can occur due to the lack of brushing your teeth is pneumonia. Pneumonia is lung inflammation caused by a bacterial or viral infection. One major study showed a strong correlation between poor dental hygiene and and pneumonia. 315 individuals were chosen in a Brazilian hospital with periodontitis. Periodontitis is the inflammation of the ligaments that bear the teeth. These 315 people were three times more likely to acquire pneumonia. By brushing your teeth on a daily basis, the study showed that pneumonia can be reduced by 40 percent.

There is also a suggestion that there could be a link between gum disease and heart disease. Friedman exclaimed, “Adding oral health self-care…is prudent to improve patients’ oral health and possibly reduces coronary heart disease. Periodontal disease caused by pathogen bacteria…could represent one of several possible causal factors of heart disease.” A 2008 study conducted for the US Preventative Services Task Force suggested periodontal disease can be a trigger for heart disease, but they couldn’t find actual evidence that displayed this casual relationship.

Due to the studies I mentioned above, there is no direct link (casual relationship) between poor dental hygiene and heart disease. However, the study conducted for dementia and in Laguna Hills involving 5,000 plus people and Alzheimer’s, showed a strong correlation between poor oral hygiene and these two diseases. I am not quite sure if there is a causal relationship because even though the sample size was pretty large, the evidence wasn’t all that convincing. If there were more trials conducted for the same experiment, I think there would be more reason to say there is a direct link between neglecting to brush your teeth and gum diseases.

Sources:

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-happens-if-you-dont-brush-and-floss-your-teeth-2014-2

http://brennerdentalarts.com/blog/2014/03/30/too-lazy-to-brush-your-teeth-heres-what-happens-when-you-dont-brush/

On the news you might have heard about the new technologies that allow parents to choose all the features of their unborn baby. Parents can choose eye color, hair texture, skin color, and other genetic features. People can essentially customize their babies. The public has gone wild, rejected this new technology and declared it as unethical. Society is worried about eugenics and a further separation between the rich and poor. Also perhaps creating “super people” people who are genetically geniuses or perfect athletes. Although the social and ethical issues are non-science related, I don’t think this topic should even be in discussion as a possibility considering there has no been enough testing on the subject. How can people say this is safe when they have not tested what happens to the genetically engineered babies when they grow up and have babies of their own? The article says the babies were born healthy. Ok, that does not mean they won’t grow up to have health problems. Does their engineered DNA preform the same way that natural DNA preforms? Will these babies be able to reproduce and have their own healthy babies, what about their grand children? How can scientist say that this procedure is safe when they simply do not know. The science of genetically engineering DNA is brand new, there simply has not been enough time to research for scientist to know for sure that this procedure is safe. Scientist should not tell people its safe and mislead soon-to-be parents and potentially compromise babies futures. The article says that this has been successfully tested and perfected on monkeys, and the genetically modified monkeys are two generations old. But just because this test works on monkeys does NOT mean the procedure will be successful on humans. Also these babies are being created in labs and are essentially being born for science. These babies will be poked and pricked and will be guinea pigs for science for the rest of their lives. They will constantly be at doctors and labs with people checking every aspect of their health. They are being birthed into this world for the wrong reasons and won’t be able to live normal lives. This science is ethically wrong to test, can socially cause many problems and is not ready for humans and should be stopped immediately.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/opinion/genetically-modified-babies.html?_r=0

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-43767/Worlds-GM-babies-born.html

Of all the colors in the rainbow, do you know which ones are making you fat? Do you know which ones are making you lose weight? Which color is the healthiest? According to Cornell University’s Food and Brand Lab, the color of the plate you’re eating food off of affects your appetite. Some colors are more prone to make you overeat, others to make you lose your appetite completely.

For example, some of the colors that are more prone to make you overeat include turquoise, yellow, orange, and red. In general, colors that stimulate someone’s appetite are colors that make one feel happy and calm. Tropical waters and ocean waves tend to calm down most people and the color associated with these tropical waters is turquoise. It causes people to feel happy, relaxed, and blithe. The color of the sun, yellow, also tends to make people happy and cheerful. Yellow is even the color widely associated with the images of smiley faces; therefore, being the overall symbol of happiness. Both turquoise and yellow cheer people up and happy people are proven more likely to eat than depressed people. In contrast, orange and red don’t stimulate one’s appetite through happiness. The color orange increases the sensation of hunger by stimulating mental activity. The color red is proven to increase blood pressure, elevate heart rate, and in turn, cause hunger. These four colors, if they are the color of the plate you’re eating off of, are most likely to cause you to overeat and binge eat.

On the other hand, the colors that aid as an appetite suppressant include gray, black, brown, purple, and blue. Colors that suppress appetite are usually colors that are related to unappetizing or unnatural things. For example, the colors gray, black, and brown are familiarized ashes and burnt food; therefore, making the food next to it seem unappetizing. Purple and blue are rare colors when it comes to natural foods. Purple, specifically, is only associated with foods such as eggplants or red onions and these foods aren’t enjoyed by everyone. In comparison, blue isn’t associated with any specific food and although it tends to promote calmness, when it comes to eating, blue suppresses one’s appetite. Calmness usually makes people eat, but if someone is overly calm, they are more prone to sleeping than eating. In summary, these colors are used as appetite suppressants because they turn people away from food using either disgust or laziness. Although you may consider using these plate colors to be bad, they are helpful if you are trying to lose weight and moderate meal proportions since you will tend to eat less.

Now that you’ve learned which colors stimulate and suppress your appetite, you’re probably wondering which color plate is the best one to purchase. The best color to surround yourself with when eating is green. The color green is the healthiest color. Although it stimulates your appetite, it makes you more prone to eat abundant and healthy foods. It attracts people to the idea of eating salads and nutritious greens. Overall, green increases the amount of food you consume, but only in relation to healthy foods.

In conclusion, there are pros and cons to all color plates. To some, using certain plate colors to suppress appetite is useful if they are trying to obtain a healthy weight; to others, using colors to stimulate appetite is useful if they plan on adding on a few pounds. And for those looking to have an overall healthier diet, using green plates is the best option when it comes to appetite enhancers and suppressants.

http://weightloss.allwomenstalk.com/colors-that-decrease-and-increase-your-appetite/10/

http://foodpsychology.cornell.edu/outreach/color_plate.html

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/95/e2/0b/95e20b46fa342399c426f1bf36a9d8ec.jpg

Last summer, I had the opportunity to take part in an internship at Eastern University. The internship was about studying watersheds and the organisms living in them. I was never really interested in nature or the environment, but I always knew how important it was to some extent, so I found the class to be important. Though I was quite squeamish, and we were studying in the middle of the woods, so many of our experiments and studies I was reluctant to take a huge part in. Still, I learned so much about how our environment works and to this day there is still one particular thing we learned about that continues to bother me.

I can’t recall his name, but on one occasion we had a keynote speaker who spoke to our class about the dangers of a process called “Fracking.”

In certain areas around America, the attempts at providing this more environmentally friendly substitute to oil is unfortunately turning out to be more harmful as process than what the gas is worth. With the damage it does to the environment and to the quality of water. Hydraulic fracturing, or better known as “fracking”, is a process in which a well would be drilled into the ground and inject fluids at high pressure in order to fracture shale rocks to release natural gas that exists beneath earth’s surface. First a well is dug over a mile into the ground, going horizontal to breach and drill into the shale. A mixture of water, sand, and various chemicals are then pumped into the well at high pressures to create crevices in the shale and allow the natural gas to be extracted. The gas is then drawn back up the well and processed. The procedure may produce a valuable natural gas, but that fact can only be over looked when considering the harm fracking does to the environment around it.

In states like Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Michigan there are already very much established fracking industries, but also statistics that show increases in death rates, dying animals, and even water contamination in these areas. The methods used in this process are dangerous to the environment, putting various parts of the nature, especially the water, at risk.

However, as dangerous a procedure as it is, fracking operations are able to proceed without restraint. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) requires a permit for the injection of chemicals into the earth, but fracking is able to go unhindered as it is considered to be the extraction of natural gas instead of the introduction of hazardous fluids. Despite fracking involving the injection of hazardous chemicals into the earth in order to complete the process of extraction. This truth is often ignored when proponents of hydraulic fracking only insist upon the economic benefits from large amounts of previously unreachable natural gas. Yet, considering the blatant dangers fracking imposes on the environment, there is reason to be worried.

After that class, and after doing my own research to really know what Fracking was, I honestly don’t think it’s a procedure we should engage in until it’s proven to be completely safe or another method, a better one, is implemented.

Sources-

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/fracking/
http://www.dangersoffracking.com/
http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2012/03/reproductive-problems-death-animals-exposed-fracking

We all know that feeling of hearing our alarm go off telling us it’s time to wake up (mine usually causes me to jump a foot because when the Circle of Life starts blaring at 7am it is enough for a heart attack). We feel exhausted, eyes are droopy, and sometimes feel like you spent the entire night before drinking (even when you didn’t!). Well, according to a study from Michigan State University, using your phone before bed can cause you to have a “cellphone hangover.”

The study was published in the Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes journal. It contained two parts. The first part of the study had 82 upper-level managers answer survey questions every day for two weeks asking about their smartphone usage. The surveys were administered at 6am and 4pm. The researchers found, to no surprise, that smartphone use after 9pm was associated with decreased sleep at night. Because of the lack of sleep, the participants felt more exhausted during the day that then caused a lack of engagement at work during the day.

Researchers made sure when conducting the research that reverse causation was not a reason by using a mathematical model. However, the researchers did find that daily work engagement did not predict smartphone use a night.

The second part of the survey broadened the range of people surveyed and included 161 employees who worked in all different fields. The participants took the surveys the same way as in the first part of the study, however they were also asked to use other electronics like TVs and computers to see how they affected sleep, work engagement, and morning depletion. The researchers at MSU found very similar results to the first part of the study. They also found that smartphones had a bigger impact than using a computer or watching TV.

The study concluded that smartphones are “almost perfectly designed to disrupt sleep.” However, there are some problems with this study’s design. The first part of the study did not include other forms of devices, but the second part did with a wider range of participants. This causes me to question if there are confounding variables to the study. Could the stress level of certain jobs cause a lack of sleep? And if certain jobs create a lack of sleep, could the use of smartphones have little to no impact but appear that way? I think the Michigan State University researchers were on the right track, but the design of the study leaves room for other variables to affect sleep.

Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/smartphone-night-worklace_n_4653223.html

http://time.com/2118/were-all-doomed-using-your-smartphone-before-bed-can-cause-cellphone-hangover/

As we all know by now, college is the ultimate haven for getting sick. There is no getting around it and there is certainly no easy, quick remedy for getting better. Although, we’ve all heard it before “chicken soup is good for the soul” (and the common cold). With many other ways to prevent getting sick such as washing your hands, good hygiene and trying to avoid germs; chicken soup is proven to be just as good of a remedy as these.

Often times, symptoms from colds are related to your body’s inflammatory immune response to working to fight against the developing virus. Researchers from the University of Nebraska conducted recent studies to determine chicken soup’s effect on the immune cells. Dr. Stephen Rennard of the Medical Center in Omaha took volunteers and fed them his wife’s homemade chicken noodle soup recipe. Then, he took blood samples from the volunteers, which showed the movement of “neutrophil chemotaxis”, a white blood cell commonly known for fighting off infections. The specific ingredient responsible for these neutrophils is unknown, but it is said that the combination of vegetables and chicken work well together.

In another study, Mount Sinai researchers claimed that there is more to chicken soup that just a placebo effect. Researchers looked into how chicken soup effects airways and mucus in the nose. A group of 15 selected volunteers drank hot water, cold water or chicken soup broth and then were examined on how the liquids affected their airflow and mucus flow. It was found that the warm liquids increased flow, but chicken soup showed an improvement over the hot water.

Although results show that chicken soup can be beneficial, no results are final. There is almost always a possibility that the results could be due to chance. Also, we must take into account that humans could be prone to thinking that chicken soup is better because that is simply what they’ve been told all their life. Our parents tell us, who heard it from their parents, and so on. It is a psychological factor that could alter people’s opinion on its true effects. Being that it is a comfort food to some, this could make them biased or unbiased to the fact that it works.

Whether or not chicken soup is the newest medical remedy for treating an illness, there is no doubt that it is nutritious and delicious on any occasion!

Sources:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117888

There is a new drug on the horizon that can potentially change the way the world assists drug addicts in getting clean. Doctor Stanley Glick has spent the last twenty years of his life developing a drug known as 18-Methaoxycoronaridine, which has the potential to allow substance abusers to quit cold turkey. The problem is, the drug is in the very early stages of development and has a long way to go. Between approval from the government, as well as translating these results from animal to human, Dr. Glick realizes it is not an immediate breakthrough. Yet, this seems to be the closest any doctor has come to curing drug addiction before.

The experiment has showed great success in rats who are addicted to cocaine, alcohol, nicotine, morphine, meth and sugar. In order to make the rats form an addiction, Dr. Glick cave them cues in order to know it was time to get their fix. After time, they became reliant on these cues, and every time they were heard, it caused a trigger. Situations are similar for humans who are addicted, as a small trigger or cue can tear down months of being substance free. Yet, this drug has shown on these rats that after a few doses, these cues no longer form a need to go and seek out the substance they are addicted to.

While 18-MC opens a door for many substance abusers, there are many skeptics. Dr. John Rotroson believes that “A compound effective for models of opioid addiction, stimulant addiction, alcohol addiction, nicotine addiction and obesity….seems too good to be true,” (buzzfeed.com) and many agree with this notion. Additionally, other substances that have been related to this have shown severe vomiting, intense hallucinations and other serious side effects, although this drug has shown nothing of the sort thus far. While this may be a step in the right direction, the drug is going to take years to be properly tested, in addition to then being approved by the government.

Although this drug seems revolutionary, such an easy solution to addiction will cause many more problems in society today, including the possibility of increased drug use among people. A main factor that stop people from using such drugs are the fact that they are highly addictive, and therefore not worth getting hooked on. While addiction is a serious problem many people face, a breakthrough this big may allow people to forget about the repercussions an addictive drug may have since the user knows there is an easy way out. There is a long way to go before 18-MC is in circulation around the world, but scientific breakthroughs life this allow people to elude to the larger problems society may face in the future in consequence to such medical advancements.

This past weekend I went home to visit friends and family. I stopped by my great-grandma’s house to see how she was feeling and spend some time with my favorite woman. While talking about her last doctor appointment, she told me she was put on a low-sodium diet. But my curiosity began to lead me to question: does a low-sodium diet actually benefit you? 

I decided to Google the matter. There were many articles by magazines and health websites saying “salt is bad.” However, what I found extremely interesting was the fact that there were articles from The Wall Street Journal, NBC, and Reuters all claiming that a new study found salt was not that bad for you.

The New England Journal of Medicine published an international study of 100,000 people showed that if you are not over 60, eating way too much salt, or do not currently have high blood pressure, salt will not have a significant impact on your blood pressure. It is currently recommended by federal guidelines that people consume between 1,500-2,300 milligrams per day. The American Heart Association recommends 1,500 milligrams. However, most people consume between 3,000-6,000 milligrams and only four percent of respondents followed the recommended levels. The study found that people who consume the average amount of 3,000-6,000 milligrams a day had a lower risk of death and cardiovascular events than people who had more than 6,000 milligrams or less than 3,000 milligrams. People that consumed over or under the average U.S. daily consumption level had a 27% higher risk of death or a serious event.

While these surprising findings would encourage some people to pile on the salt, you should still be careful. The studies conducted were all observational and followed participants for almost four years. There was also a lack of cause and effect and the studies did not rule out confounding variables so there is still some question on whether or not salt caused an increase or decrease. Another problem is that the studies were too short to make long-term conclusions. According to the president of the American Heart Association, “cardiovascular disease can take decades to develop.” The last issue with the studies is how the sodium levels were measure. The samples were all taken through urine, which could be altered by diet and eating habits of participants.

So while it seems like adding the salt onto our food may benefit us according to the study, there does not seem to be enough information to conclude whether or not this is true. And in the case of my great-grandma, it seems best that she continues her low-sodium diet even though she misses using salt greatly.

Sources:

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/heart-health/pour-salt-new-research-suggests-more-ok-n179941

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/13/us-cardiovascular-disease-sodium-idUSKBN0GD22520140813

http://online.wsj.com/articles/recommended-salt-levels-could-do-more-harm-than-good-study-suggests-1407964274

I have heard people mention that women live longer than men, but I didn’t know why. So, I decided to dive deeper into the topic and see as to why women live longer. After reading articles, I discovered that its not just humans that have the women living longer.

“It turns out that the females of most species live longer than the males. This phenomenon suggests that the explanation for the difference within humans might lie deep in our biology.” said Thomas Kirkwood, an experimental gerontologist. His thought his that women live longer than men because women are less disposable. This is because of the importance of the female reproductive system. The women’s body must be strong and able to make healthy babies. The women must be strong enough to support another life during pregnancy and this contributes to why a women’s body is so strong and able to live longer.

Other studies suggest that women live longer then men because men tend to die from heart disease at an earlier age than women. “They’re protected from it until menopause, since their bodies churn out estrogen, which helps keep arteries strong and flexible”, says Dr. Legato. Men can develop heart disease as early as their 30s where it happens much later for women.

My favorite suggestion though as to why women live longer than men is because men are more likely to take an unsafe risk. According to the CDC unintentional injuries are the third leading cause of death in men, and According to Dr. Legato, the part of the brain that develops responsibility and risk calculation develops much slower in men than in women.

It seems as though there is no way to experimentally prove that women live longer than men, its just based on observational study. But if this picture is any indication, then I think the observations so far are correct!

Resources:

http://news.health.com/2014/10/13/why-do-women-live-longer-than-men/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-women-live-longer/?page=2

Everyone has seen the family that is deemed as “perfect”. All of the kids in the family play every sport in town and are somehow amazing at each sport. In school, all of the kids look up to this family because they dream of being as athletic as this family is. Whether they are being the starting quarterback, point guard, striker, or pitcher, they manage to excel at everything they do. Every night of the week is spent at a practice for a different sport and the weekends are consumed by tournaments and games. Many wonder how or why every kid in one family is such a good athlete, and recently scientists have figured out why. Genes are determined by DNA, which contains information about height, weight, and other physical features. Without DNA, all of us wouldn’t be who we are. DNA determines each and every little thing about us, whether we want to believe it or not. In the research scientists have done about athleticism and genes, it has been discovered that genes determine about 20-80% of an athletes performance. Therefore, without DNA, this “perfect” family wouldn’t be “perfect” at all.

A group of scientists from Australia conducted a study in 2003 on the correlation between genes and athleticism. They found that the ATCN-3 gene is very closely related to one’s athleticism. This gene assists in the strengthening of muscles and ones high speed movement. In this specific gene, there are two different alleles, the R allele and the X allele. The R allele contributes to an athletes power and the X allele contributes to an athletes endurance. For example, weight lifters and wrestlers usually have the R allele and runner tend to have the X allele. The ATCN-3 gene is not the only gene these scientists found to be related to athleticism. The ACE gene regulates our blood vessels and the rate of our circulatory flow in our blood system. Therefore, this gene plays a huge part in our cardiovascular system and the way in which our heart works.

Although these two genes play a huge role in one’s athleticism, hard work and dedication play a huge role as well. One cannot just be naturally amazing at sports; it takes time to perfect that sport. With this being said, athletics do run in the family and can be passed down through genes.

http://sportsnscience.utah.edu/genes-athletic-potential-basic/

The discussion about sugary drinks in class sparked my attention, since I have been known to kill a bottle or two in a few days time. I consider myself a caffeine addict, and when I don’t have my fill by a certain time of day, I start to suffer from withdraw headaches. I could quit at any time, I just don’t want to. Anyways, I thought for a minute about switching to diet pop, but then I remembered hearing stories on the news and health channels about how diet pop can lead to cancer, and if you ask me, I’d rather be fat than have cancer. I decided to take a more in depth look at the situation to see if there was any truth to this or not.

If you drink 2 or more diet pops a day, you chances of being obese go up 57% (Chavarria, 2013). So if you are an avid pop drinker, like myself, what’s the point of switching over when you still have over a 50% chance gaining weight anyway. The only time diet pop actually helps you loose weight is if you drink a glass or less a day. That’s not really worth it for the people that are considering switching over because they most likely are already over weight and there chances of becoming even more overweight are still significant even when drinking diet pop.

The ingredient being called into question on whether or not diet pop can cause cancer is aspartame. Aspartame is an artificial sweetener. It is made when amino acids, aspartic acids, and phenylalaine are joined together. It is 200 times sweeter than sugar, and lowers the calories of the drink (cancer.org, 2014). To determine if a substance causes cancer, two types of studies are done. One is an experimental lab study, where animals are given large amounts of the substance to see if it causes health concerns. The an observational study when you look at two groups of people, one would be the group who drink diet pop and the other would be people who don’t and you see the cancer rates of the two groups. In the lab studies done, researchers could not find any health concerns to the animals when they were given aspartame in amounts greater than 4,000mg/kg per day. But the site does say that two italian researchers published studies showing that high amounts of aspartame increased rats rate of getting blood cancers. The FDA and EFSA called the studies into question based on the lack of important data (cancer.org, 2014). The observational studies in people mostly concluded that aspartame does not link to cancer. The only significant one was how the high amounts of the chemical in men linked to the cancer, lymphoma, but they ruled that by chance.

So overall the risk of diet pop is pretty much the same as regular, unless you decide to drink less than one cup a day. If you only consume one glass of pop a day, I would suggest you go diet, but if your like me and that one glass a day doesn’t cut it, I would continue with regular pop since you still have a chance of gaining weight from diet pop as well. The Italian study that was mentioned earlier does spark some interest because it doesn’t say what data was not included in the study, and such. As we all know a lot of times when something bad happens, people like to cover it up, and who knows this could be the Beverage Association protecting themselves and their profits. If you are still scared of the risks of diet pop I would stick to regular but then this chemical has been around since the 1980’s and no one has died from it yet.

Work Cited:

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/diet-soda/faq-20057855

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/artificial-sweetener

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/aspartame

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/20939173/diet-soda-dangers-new-study-may-link-aspartame-to-cancer

After seeing this title, aren’t you feel little confused “why this article can be here? Is sex a kind of science?” don’t take it wrong however, the sex I talked here is not the truly one but the sex in media around us. Seeing a recent content analysis, over 300 scenes in popular pornographic videos, there’s nearly 50% contained name-calling, which counted as verbal aggression, and about 88% of it contained physical aggression. Being involved in this media environment, we can see them everyday; we can be concluded or be attracted by medias with sex components without even noticing it. And sometimes, the influence the sex component brought to us is upon our imagination.
Viewing this topic, there are always two different main thoughts about the influence of the sex media exist. One of them called “the trigger hypothesis” and the other one is named “safety valve theory” according to the second one, some scientists considered sexually explicit materials as a tool of blowing off. Researchers holding this thought believe that watching pornography (refer to almost any explicit depiction) will satisfy whatever urges might cause a person to commit a sex crime. And if this is a correct or false positive (we say A exist, but A is actually not) answer, then we might be able to see a decrease in sex crimes in society that have already availability to those materials. Standing in the opposite side, “the trigger hypothesis” claims that some individuals would response to sexually explicit materials in such a way that it may lead to a sex crime like a rape or incident exposure.
Responding to those two main theories, one researcher named Berl Kutchinsky reveals that the decrease in sex crimes may attribute to one fact that the public attitudes become more and more lenient these days, and one truth about the going on situation across countries, is that the incidence of rape does not decrease when pornography is allowed to flow freely. So in here, although the safety value theory makes some sense, it’s still an existence of mundane realism (things that don’t match situations encountered outside the laboratory). Compared to that, the trigger hypothesis is more useful in real world. Here’s a experimental research named “ the electric shock paradigm”, which support the trigger theory properly. If any one is interest in more information, Google will tell you this story better than I did!

Citation:
Introduction to Media effects Glenn G. Sparks (January 1,2012) Cengage Learning; 4 edition.

After a night of perhaps too much drinking, humans will often experience a nauseous state the following day, more commonly called the “hangover.”  While most know the feeling and what causes it, many are not aware of specifically why this occurs.

Simply put, a hangover occurs when the body consumes too much alcohol.  In more detail, the  body digests more ethanol than your body can process.  Ethanol is the active ingredient found in alcoholic beverages.  So, the more you drink, the more ethanol your body has to attempt to process.  According to the New York Post, drinking on an empty stomach is very dangerous and it is always advised to eat something before consuming alcohol.  This is because food in your stomach can slow down the absorption of ethanol and reduce the hangover the following morning.

The hangover often causes people to feel exhausted, dizzy, sleepy, uncomfortable, and thirsty.  While those symptoms are the obvious ones, there are also some symptoms that are not so medically apparent.  According to Medical News Today,  “A hungover person may also experience elevated levels of anxiety, regret, shame, embarrassment, as well as depression.”  Often times these symptoms are caused by an unbalance in the body system.  For example, when drinking, one may urinate more which causes the body to be dehydrated.  Often times an individual may also vomit, causing the body to lose nutrients and leave them with an empty stomach.

So, what should one do when experiencing a nasty hangover?  One recommendation is to drink alka seltzer.  The drink contains sodium bicarbonate which can help ease and settle acid in the stomach.  Some also say to drink lots of water or sports drinks.  Keeping the body hydrated is key and water especially will keep the body this way.  Of course, no matter the remedy, a hangover is not fun.  To prevent one more right off the bat, the only true trick is to drink less over a longer period of time.  It is important to space out drinks throughout the night and again, never drink on an empty stomach.  Hopefully with these easy tips and insight, hangovers will be more manageable and not as severe.

Work Cited:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/5089.php

http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20452426_7,00.html

http://nypost.com/2014/08/28/the-science-behind-your-hangover/

For most people’s youth, going to get your annual physical is petrifying because it most likely will result in a shot or even worse, getting your blood drawn. There can be several justifiable reasons for that fear but most typically derive from needle phobia (trypanophobia) , vasovagal reflex, or a “negative experience in a doctor or dentist’s office usually before the age of 10.” This condition is believed to affect “approximately 50 million Americans” and in many cases affect their short and long term health. Needles are so fundamental in health that although people may fear it, they know they are inevitable. But when a patient “experience[s] symptoms including hypertension, rapid heart rate or heart palpitations and even fainting or loss of consciousness” it is something that shouldn’t be ignored.

In fact, in a 2012 survey conducted by Target and Harris Interactive, out of the 60 percent of American adults who choose not to receive a flu vaccination, 23 percent stated the reason is a fear of needles. Although the survey design and results were not published along with the article, I live at home with a sister who suffers from this fear. She can’t visit a friend or family in the hospital without having to be admitted, she doesn’t want to have kids since it requires getting blood drawn, and to receive her annual flu shot she has to be held down; my sister is 20 years old. Even if the statistic was not on point, the fear exists and dominates several lives. Why should such basic elements of life create so much anxiety.

While most doctors assume people can get over it, 19-year-old college dropout, Elizabeth Holmes, decided to be the start to the solution. After being one of the kids growing up who feared needles, Holmes took the money her parents set aside for college and used it to start her own biotech company, Theranos. Her first Wellness center was “opened last month in a Palo Alto, California, Walgreens”. The blood process is simple and easy. The technician gives you a finger prick and for only $2.70 you get a test for fasting glucose and for $5.35 a complete blood count. Without needles, without insurance, and without a doctors warrant, the blood testing process is cut down exponentially. Theranos not only positively affects people’s lives in the small pictures but also intends to save Medicare $98 billion and Medicaid $104 billion over the next decade.

The benefits seem to be invaluable but the scientific outrage leads me to question what will happen to the major companies such as LabQuest that will no longer have a purpose in the medical fields. Will her discoveries inspire several other people to change conditions in the medical fields?

As a runner, I am always looking for new forms of energy to boost my race performance and everyday energy. I drink at least 8 bottles of water daily, to sustain my hydration. I have never really been a fan of the super sweetened sports drinks that taste like pure sugar. A large amount of my friends are sports drink addicts. I wanted to look into the effects, both negative and positive to see how worth it can drinking these be.

I never drink soda, or really even juice for that matter. I’ve never found the taste of the sugary drinks to be appealing. Sports drinks have that same sugary taste to me but are claimed to replenish electrolytes and other nutrients we need when we exercise. I strongly believe that there isn’t a better way to get these things through the food we eat, naturally. We need water to keep our bodies hydrated. Something that I didn’t think much about before looking into this, was the calories that are in these drinks. We are basically giving ourselves more calories than we are probably burning by drinking sports drinks. “A study in the Journal of Applied Physiology found that the taste of the drinks along with salt and other ingredients found in them actually cause people to drink more. So while you may be keeping yourself hydrated, you’re also consuming more calories than likely intended”(9 Negative Effects of Sports Drinks).

People will drink these just because they like the taste. People will drink them during or after a short workout, and others during or after a long workout. According to the MayoClinic, people should only drink sports drinks if they are working out for an hour and anything more than that. Otherwise, they only need water(Fitness). We know that sports drinks contain a lot of sugar that will give us short term energy, but there is a possibility of energy crashing. That’s why people should only drink it during a longer workout and after a long workout to replenish and keep them going.

While I believe that water is the best way to stay hydrated, it is good to know that sports drinks can have benefits for people who are already dehydrated. This article from Men’s Health Magazine, has great tips and information about drinking water vs. sports drinks.

Works Cited

1.”9 Negative Effects of Sports Drinks.” Leons Restaurant RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Oct. 2014.

2. “Fitness.” Sports Drinks: Better than Water? Mayo Clinic, n.d. Web. 13 Oct. 2014.

It is impossible to live a life without single laughter. Laughter makes people feel happy, and life enjoyable. For these reasons, we often hear people say “laughter is the best medicine”, but is it really a best medicine? If the answer is yes, then how does it cure and heals our body?

To begin with, many professionals in health department, such as psychologist, gelotologist and other health related researchers have continuously mentioned and emphasized that laughter is the best medicine. Laughter does not require any effort, time, or money, but it is free, easy and most people use it in their daily lives.

There has been a study found 2004 at Free University of Berlin, Germany by Julia and Deitmar Todt about average amount of laugh during conversations. According to Julia and dietmar, “there is an average of 5.8 bouts of laughter occurring in each 10-minute period of conversation, with a range of 0 to 15 bouts per 10-minute period (which translates to an average of about 35 bouts of laughter per hour). A bout of laughter was defined as the laughter occurring during a single exhalation. Thus, each time a person inhales and laughs again, this is counted as another bout.”

There are numerous benefits to our body when we laugh. First, it strengthens the immune system, because it lowers the stress hormones and increase immune cells in our body. Second, it not only lowers blood pressure, but also protects our organs. We take oxygen when we laugh, and the oxygen that we took accelerates the blood flow in our body and allows the blood circulations to work better. Third, it vanishes the stress hormones and physical pain away. The laughter naturally creates painkiller in our body that help us to forget the pain and stress we experience. And lastly, the long term result of laughter can make oneself to become a better well being. According to life.gaiam.com, doctors have found out that positive thoughts can fight the disease better.

The power of laughter is greater than I thought, because I believe that laughter is the most infectious and contagious of all. If I hear someone laughing, I’d laugh too without questioning him or her. Laughter does not cost you anything, it has no limits, and it gives you numerous health benefits. We need to laugh more and need to enjoy our lives!!!!