We all know the fundamental elements to keeping ourselves healthy – eat vegetables, walk instead of taking the bus, get a good night’s sleep, and avoid the creamery at all costs. But now researchers are concluding that prayer has an unbelievably powerful effect on overall health, and the evidence to support it is quite spectacular. But is it really true that a prayer a day will keep the doctor away?

In the past couple of classes, Andrew discussed the healing power of prayer. As a class, we ultimately determined that there is insufficient evidence to prove that prayer heals; Leibovici’s conclusion was drawn from chance. But contrary to the consensus view, prayer did shorten hospital stays and the duration of fever, therefore prayer did do something. This may seem insignificant, but it lead me to wonder: maybe prayer cannot prevent mortality or heal chronically sick individuals, but can it increase overall health? Are people who pray generally in better health than those who do not? And I think Leibovici would be happy with the results I’ve found.

Before we can take a look at the effect prayer has on the mind, body, and physical health, we must define the limits (or lack thereof) of prayer. We must assume that prayer is universal in its effects, and therefore regardless of a person’s religion, religious views, or religious affiliations, the effects of prayer remain the same. So maybe a person is praying to a God, or maybe they are praying to the Nittany Lion Shrine; the effects of their worship will be the same. We can assume this because of the impact prayer has on the brain, independent of the type of prayer. According to an article by Richard Schiffman, “Dr. Andrew Newberg conducted a study of Tibetan Buddhists in meditation and Franciscan nuns in prayer which showed comparable decreased activity in the parts of the brain that are associated with sense of self and spatial orientation in both groups”. Newberg also discovered that prayer and meditation increased levels of dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with happiness and pleasure. Although the two groups differ in their practices, their psychological responses were equivalent.

Since the psychological responses to prayer are similar for all worshipers, let’s take a deeper look at how the brain is directly affected. Dr. Herbert Benson uses the term “the relaxation response,” (occurring during times of prayer and meditation) to describe the brains reaction to this mental state. Benson explains that at such times, “the body’s metabolism decreases, the heart rate slows, blood pressure goes down, and our breath becomes calmer and more regular”. This physiological state of worship is “correlated with slower brain waves, and feelings of control, tranquil alertness, and peace of mind”.

But are the effects of prayer temporary, or can we make more out of this “in-the-moment” experience? Research says that we can. An exceedingly large number (Benson argues over 50%) of doctor’s visits in the U.S. today are prompted by stress and anxiety related illnesses such as: depression, high blood pressure, ulcers, and migraine headaches. Therefore, these illnesses cannot only be prevented by prayer and cured by prayer, but prayer can also decrease your risk of developing them again. Various other studies also conclude the positive impact prayer can have on your health, and these impacts are lasting. Here are a couple of powerful experiments Schiffman discusses to prove that prayer truly improves health now, and for the future.

• “National Institutes of Health found individuals who prayed daily were shown to be 40 percent less likely to have high blood pressure than those without a regular prayer practice”
• “Research at Dartmouth Medical School found that patients with strong religious beliefs who underwent elective heart surgery were three times more likely to recover than those who were less religious”
• “A 2011 study of inner city youth with asthma by researchers at the University of Cincinnati indicates that those who practiced prayer and meditation experienced fewer and less severe symptoms than those who had not”
• “A recent survey reported in the Journal of Gerontology of 4,000 senior citizens in Durham, NC, found that people who prayed or meditated coped better with illness and lived longer than those who did not”

So are people who pray healthier than those who do not? Well, that really depends on the health of those who do not pray, and that alone is contributed to several other factors (smoking and drinking habits, diet, amount of sleep, hereditary issues ,etc.). But in class, Andrew stated that if prayer really does have a healing effect, other studies will find it. Have these studies I mentioned found it, or are we drawn to the conclusion of “Leibovici’s chance”? Well they have found that prayer does something, so I’ll let you decide.

In October of 2011, the first proven case of black market organ trafficking in the United States was exposed to the public. New Yorker Levy Izhak Rosenbaum plead guilty to the crime of facilitating illegal kidney transplants, but argued that his lawbreaking was humane and solely out of benevolence. Rosenbaum’s lawyer reiterated his intentions by stating, “The transplants were successful and the donors and recipients are now leading full and healthy lives.” But with 122,581 American men, woman, and children in need of a kidney transplant, and only an average of 16,500 kidney operations performed, you can’t really blame Rosenbaum for trying to help. In fact, 22 people die each day waiting for transplants that will never take place due to the growing shortage of donated organs. With such morbid and hopeless statistics, even the most utterly conventional of people are asking, “What’s wrong with selling organs?”.

This week in my economy class, we discussed the legalization of organ sales. I was taken back at first; I couldn’t imagine someone receiving a monetary value for their body parts. But after further research and contemplation, I couldn’t believe that the sale of organs is illegal, and that thousands of people are dying because of it. I couldn’t help but think that more people feel similarly to how I feel, and that perhaps more widespread exposure is necessary to spark change. In Anthony Gregory’s article, Why Legalizing Organ Sales Would Help to Save Lives, End Violence, he describes a study that was conducted to test if increased knowledge would change people’s opinions on the idea of legalization as an appropriate solution. Gregory states, “In 2008, six experts took on this issue in an Oxford-style debate hosted by National Public Radio. By the end, those in the audience who favored allowing the market climbed from 44 to 60 percent.” So with deaths due to a lack of available organs steadily climbing, and more and more people jumping on board with legalizing the market, why is the sale of organs STILL illegal?

Gregory puts it quite simply: “Many protest that an organ market will lead to unfair advantages for the rich, but this is a characteristic of the current trade.” If organs are allowed to be sold and purchased at any price, lives will only be saved for the people who can afford the $15,000-$25,000 price of a functional organ. But is this method of trade any different than, say, going to the grocery store? Or purchasing football tickets? No; whoever wants to pay the price for apples will get apples, just as those willing to spend more money on tickets will get better seats at the game. If you want to think about it on a more positive note, regardless of who is purchasing the organ, lives are still ultimately being saved, and isn’t that the overall goal? If we can save even just one life, isn’t it worth it? In addition, Nobel Prize Winning economists argue that paying donors for their organs would finally eliminate the supply-demand gap, ultimately eradicating the organ shortage.

Concurrent to saving lives, legalizing the sale of organs will knock out a large portion of the black market and bring a safer, more effective market into the open. Gregory explains how in Japan, you can buy livers and kidneys “harvested from executed Chinese prisoners”, if you are willing to pay the right price. The black market is just as bad in India, where police invaded an organ ring that had taken up to 500 kidneys from poor laborers. Gregory includes in his article that “Everywhere from Latin America to the former Soviet Republics, from the Philippines to South Africa, a huge network has emerged typified by threats, coercion, intimidation, extortion, and shoddy surgeries.” And that would explain why The World Health Organization estimates 20% of kidney transplants around the world to be accounted for by the black market alone. And the victims of these organ related crimes are not the only people who are in danger as a result of the black market. Even though black market doctors and surgeons may have the best of intentions, they may not be adequately trained and could end up doing more harm than good to their patients. Just as Andrew states in class, medicine can be bad, depending on who it is in the hands of. Eliminating the black market would help to reduce the need for unsafe procedures performed by underqualified surgeons. Additionally, the dangers and violence associated with the black market would decrease significantly. Just as transplant surgeon Nadley Hakim at St. Mary’s Hospital in London pointed out, “this trade is going on anyway, why not have a controlled trade where if someone wants to donate a kidney for a particular price, that would be acceptable? If it is done safely, the donor will not suffer.”

As you were reading this blog post, someone may have been added to the waiting list for an organ transplant. It happens every 10 minutes, and it will continue to happen until a difference is made. If you were not a supporter of legalizing organ sales before, I hope I have convinced you differently now. But if not, I hope that you were made more aware of this growing issue and how sensible changes can and must be made.

If you would like to learn more about organ donation and/or donating an organ, please visit this website.

By your freshman year of college, I’m sure most of you have visited the overpriced, mysteriously odoriferous, asthmatic person’s nightmare – the hookah bar. And if you haven’t been fortunate enough to experience such a “memorable” event, consider yourself lucky, because herpes just isn’t for everyone. After discussing how horrible cigarettes are for you in class, I became interested in researching hookah to find out if it has similar effects. Many college students misconceive hookah for a healthy alternative to smoking cigarettes, even though it is equally as dangerous for your body, if not worse. But is a fun, relaxed, 18 and older atmosphere worth the risk, or should college students puff, puff,  pass on a night out at the hookah bar?

According to an article by Jacque Wilson, one in three college students has smoked hookah, and more than 50% of those students were not cigarette smokers. This number may not initially seem very large, but with 21 million students enrolled in colleges all around the U.S., roughly 7 million have tried smoking hookah at least once. So why are so many students getting hooked on the hookah? Seeing as I have visited multiple hookah bars in the past, I asked myself this question to get the most relatable answer. Hookah bars were appealing to me because they were a relatively safe (or at least I thought so), fun, and secluded area for those 18 years and older to just, well, hang out. Not to mention that I found the various fruit flavored hookah options and surprisingly smooth taste of the smoke to be overly deceiving. And that’s exactly the impression hookah bars want you to have of their business and hookah itself. The Egyptian Café and Hookah Bar in Indianapolis, Indiana states, “We normally cater to 18 to 20-year -olds”, adding that they are “a place to come to for people who can’t go to bars.” Hookah bars use their more mature and older-person oriented environment to entice teens and college students, but they also give young adults the misconception that hookah is substantially healthier for you than smoking cigarettes. Dr. Primrack, interviewed in Jacque Wilson’s article, states that “Better education is needed to show the similarities between hookah smoking and cigarette smoking.” Wilson reiterates by adding, “In a previous study, researchers found 92% of videos on YouTube showed hookah in positive light, compared to just 24% of cigarette videos. And only 26% of hookah bars use the word “tobacco” at all on the first page of their websites.”

So can we really blame students and teenagers for believing hookah is a healthy alternative to other forms of smoking? Not at all. But we must better inform them of the harms of smoking hookah to encourage them to make more educated decisions in the future. But what are the actual harms of smoking hookah? Well, we can break the danger of hookah into two separate categories.

First, the act of sharing a hookah mouth pipe, independent of smoking the hookah or not, is extremely dangerous. With various mouths touching the mouthpiece and sharing the smoke that is released, it is exceptionally easy to contract herpes or other orally transmitted diseases. Although the majority of hookah bars will claim to sanitize their mouthpieces, the frequency cannot be guaranteed, and often times the apparatuses are not cleaned properly or to the extent that they should be. Just a tip of advice, but I’d think twice before putting your lips on the same pipe as the random guy you met at a party last weekend, unless he’s worth getting herpes for.

Secondly, shisha tobacco contains cigarette tobacco. So while the majority of people pit hookah against cigarettes, they’re actually on the same team. All of those nasty chemicals in cigarettes, such as nicotine, tar, carbon monoxide, and heavy metals  (that very same tar we talked about in class that was rubbed on the back of mice and caused them to get CANCER, remember?) are just as prevalent in hookah, and you’re actually absorbing more of these toxic substances than cigarette smokers are. Not to mention that an hour-long hookah session involves 200 puffs, as opposed to a single cigarette that is finished after around 20 puffs. In a normal session time, one can inhale as much smoke as 100 cigarettes. And yes, that is just in one sitting.

Well, is going to the hookah bar really just innocent fun? Based on the studies, there is nothing innocent about smoking hookah or the hookah bar industry itself, other than it’s mislead customers. Unless you enjoy socially smoking 100 cigarettes in one night for fun, then I suggest you don’t go to the hookah bar. Maybe ice cream at the Creamery is a better option for you. Or lunch with Grandma.

As a blog composed of all college students, I’m sure we all packed similar things to bring to college. Bedding, way too many clothes, and all the Ramen you can imagine. But some of us packed a bit more fragile of an item, a partner. Everyone knows what happens when you bring a boyfriend or a girlfriend to college, especially to Penn State. Bringing a significant other to Penn State is like walking into a lions’ den, literally. But is break up ALWAYS inevitable, or can distance really “make the heart grow fonder”?

I know what you are all thinking, so let’s start off with why long distance relationships fail. Whether you have been in one yourself, or heard from others who have experienced this unfortunate situation, most people are familiar with the outcome of these dreaded relationships. So not to crush any dreams here, but 40% of all long distance relationships end in breakup. And if that isn’t frightening enough, the average long distance relationship only lasts 4.5 months. So technically, for those long-distancers out there, the odds are still in your favor. But I wouldn’t rely on that 10% difference to cement your future marriage. So do these relationships work? For over 5 million people, they do. But for the remaining 8 million 4 hundred thousand, they do not.

So why are the statistics predominantly against long distance relationships? Well we have to look at how the brain responds to this type of situation to better determine why miles can be detrimental. There are three challenges one must overcome to have a successful long distance relationship.

1. Physical distance. This one is pretty obvious, but being away from someone you love, especially for an extended period of time, is never easy. That person is not there to hug you when you are upset, or high-five you when you nail that test you’ve been studying for all night. They aren’t there to experience what you are experiencing, and vice versa. Phone calls make communication more accessible, but the feeling of being near someone, even if you are both in silence, cannot be recreated through a cell phone.
2. Loneliness. Often times, couples in long distance relationships feel completely alone, even if they are surrounded by friends and family. Despite the activities and busyness of everyday life, the brain automatically becomes fixated on the one person who is not there, especially if this person is significant to you. Loneliness can lead a person to develop new relationships to replace the one they don’t tangibly have, ultimately resulting in infidelity.
3. Jealousy. Probably the most detrimental factor of a long distance relationship is insecurity. You see your significant other with someone else, and you automatically envy the fact that the other person is there and you are not. Your brain starts to play tricks on you; you assume the worst, and accuse your partner of things that may not even be true. Accusations are fatal to a relationship, and jealousy prevents trust, one of the most important components of a successful relationship.

Just like Andrew discussed in class, these three factors share a direct correlation. i.e. Physical distance is a cause of both loneliness and jealousy, and loneliness and jealousy share both direct casualty and reverse casualty.

Overcoming the challenges of mileage can be extremely difficult. But despite what Mom, your best friend, or that random guy/girl you met at a party says, long distance relationships can work. All of the above issues are certainly fixable, and there are numerous ways to keep your brain from concluding that your relationship is doomed from the start. Sustaining a healthy relationship, regardless of the distance, is achievable even for the most pessimistic of people. Communication is key. Talk to your partner. Let them know you are thinking of them. Discuss the major issues, problems, or complications. Discuss the minor ones. You don’t have to Skype for three hours straight, but daily interaction of some sort is vital to maintaining a strong and trustful relationship. There are too many technological advancements out today to not maintain routine contact. Use the space and independence of a long distance relationship to your advantage. Let yourself and your partner grow, and your relationship will blossom. But more importantly, have a plan for the future. Pick a date to see each other; it will not only give you something to look forward to, but it will obligate you to stay faithful in the meantime. Whether its moving in, or a weekend visit, knowing you and your significant other will see each other soon is always reassuring.

In conclusion, everyone is different. Science and statistics alone can not guarantee a successful relationship, but it also can’t prevent one. By determining the brain’s interpretation of long distance and its initial fears and thought processes, we can work towards counteracting these responses and encouraging a more healthy and sustainable relationship. So do long distance relationships really work? The answer isn’t black and white. But they certainly can, and if you and your partner work hard enough, then they certainly will.

Oh Chipotle. We are all familiar with the popular assembly-line chain restaurant claiming to serve “Food with Integrity.” Although Chipotle is very similar to other casual fast food Mexican restaurants, Steve Ells, the founder of Chipotle, goes to great lengths to “highlight the restaurant’s efforts in using organic ingredients and serving more naturally raised meat than any other restaurant chain.” But is Chipotle really as healthy as it appears, or is the whole idea of Chipotle a big Chipotlie?

According to Chipotle’s website, all 1,700 locations are “all about simple, fresh food without artificial flavors or fillers. Just genuine raw ingredients and their individual, delectable flavors.” In addition, the website claims that their food is sourced from farms rather than factories, and that they “wouldn’t have it any other way.” And thank God they wouldn’t have it any other way, because their happy chickens and crisp lettuce are about the only things keeping Chipotle relatively credible. Now I’m certainly not trying to bash on Chipotle – I love the place. Their name is in my twitter bio, and a picture of one of their massively delicious burritos is my background. So as an avid customer, hearing the truth behind Chipotle’s products definitely makes me shed a tear. But to do a side-by-side comparison of Taco Bell’s burritos and Chipotle’s, we must compromise the quality of the ingredients, and look at the burritos as a whole, rather than breaking down each ingredient.

So let’s make the comparison. Taco Bell’s Supreme beef burrito, which comes with seasoned beef, beans, red sauce, lettuce, cheese, onions, tomatoes, and sour cream inside a flour tortilla, is (surprisingly) only 420 calories. A similarly crafted burrito from Chipotle, containing steak, black beans, tomatillo-red chili salsa, lettuce, cheese and sour cream inside a flour tortilla, earned a whopping 865 calories and weighs 13 ounces, as compared to the 8.5 ounce Taco Bell burrito. And if that isn’t frightening enough, the Chipotle burrito has nearly five times as much cholesterol, 20 more grams of fat, and is twice the size of the Taco Bell burrito. Independent of the comparison, an average Chipotle burrito scales at a hefty 1,180 calories, and costs you about 2,000 milligrams of sodium. Not to mention that the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends a daily intake of less than 2,300 milligrams of sodium per day. The only upside of a meal from Chipotle? The 40 to 50 grams of protein packed in each combination of some sort of protein, rice, and beans. Maybe we can’t necessarily label Chipotle as “healthy”, but we can at least say it is a good source of protein.

So is Taco Bell healthier than Chipotle? If we’re looking at the quality of the ingredients, no. But calorie wise, if both meals are eaten in one sitting, then yes, the late night drunk food rumored to be made out of dog food is technically the better option. But I guess that’s why Taco Bell eaters “Live Más.”

A lot of you might be surprised by this study; I know I certainly was. But remember what Andrew said in class, “Your intuition is LOUSY!” We need science… and we need it to tell us that Chipotle is definitely not as healthy as it seems.

 With one in six children being bullied regularly, and suicide being the number third leading cause of death among young people, it is time to recognize the severity of bullying and take immediate action. As contemplated suicide rates reach an alarming 14 percent in high school students, and attempted suicide rates reach 7 percent, it is clear to see why 4,400 people die each year as a result of suicidal actions. Based off of the correlations Andrew discussed in class, bullying abuse and suicide rates share a direct correlation, therefore we can conclude that bullying is a direct cause of suicide. But can bullying be treated effectively by the schools alone, or should we consider more legal intervention?

To boil down this issue, one must first define the term “bullying”. According to StopBullying.gov, bullying is defined as, “unwanted, aggressive behavior among school aged children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance. The behavior is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over time. Both kids who are bullied and who bully others may have serious, lasting problems.” From this definition, we can break down a bully’s actions into three separate categories to better determine why more disciplinary action must be taken.

First, a bully’s behavior is “unwanted and aggressive”, and ultimately results in a lack of power or weakened state of mind for the victim. Any behavior that is able to escalate to aggression or become threatening is clearly not being addressed appropriately, and preventative actions must take effect. Secondly, there is no excuse for such behavior to become routine or repetitive. After this behavior is recognized, assuming it is recognized after the first offense, the bully should immediately receive appropriate punishment to deter him from acting similarly in the future. And third, bullies leave permanent impacts on their victims. Any person who inflicts a lasting and negative impact on another person as a result of bullying, regardless of whether the impact is physical or psychological, should receive more repercussions than a trip to the principal’s office or a couple days of detention.

But now that we have seen the statistics, established the problem, and even recognized a bully’s tendencies and how these tendencies can be corrected, do you really think schools alone are doing enough to address the problem and actually produce change? Well, we can go back to our statistics to answer that question, and the answer is no. Bullying is at an all time high right now, and the ramifications of bullying are still relatively ignored by school officials. Although more than 40 states have enacted various laws that make bullying illegal, the statistics conclude that bullying is still occurring at dangerous rates. So how do we solve this ever-growing issue? I believe people should be legally responsible for bullying if it results in the victim’s death. Although in some states bullying is a criminal offense and bullies can be held civilly liable, these charges are not enough to offset the loss of a life. If a student is brave enough to cause disruptions or inflict harm on others, then he should be brave enough to accept the consequences. And at the end of the day, a teacher’s job is to teach, not to enforce the law. So let’s let the math teacher teach math, and avoid bullying by taking punishments to a higher level.

Hi everyone! My name is Emily Whiteman and I am from Oklahoma. I have not decided on a major yet, but if I had to guess, I would say I’m going to end up somewhere in business.

Similarly to the majority of other students that have posted, I chose this course to fulfill my general requirements. I wish I had a more unique answer, but that is honestly the only reason I even knew this class existed. After looking through the list of other miserable science classes that made me want to gouge my eyes out, I read the reassuring “This class is not intended for scientists” and said, “Hey, I guess it can’t be that bad.”

There’s probably a better answer to why I am not a science major, but to put it simply, I absolutely hate science. Science courses never interested me in high school, and the labs were even worse. To say the subject itself is tolerable would even be a bit of a stretch for me. Don’t get me wrong, science can be extremely interesting and captivating depending on what you’re studying, but I could never pursue it as a career, and I always choose to avoid it if possible. I blame my hatred for science on AP Bio and Chemistry in high school, so I’m hoping that taking this course might open my eyes, even if it’s just a squint.

Here is a picture of a dog shaped like bread. And here is a compilation of news bloopers because who doesn’t love news bloopers.

Best News Bloopers Compilation