Author Archives: Nicolas Lau

Does Indoor Tanning Cause Melanoma (Skin Cancer)

In my high school, most of the girls I knew pursued tan and “sun kissed” skin. It always dumfounded me how girls were able to maintain that radiant tan during the winter. I always wondered, “Look at me, I am so pale! What are these girls doing that I do not know” Eventually through inside sources and top secret investigation, I learned that the girls I envied were actually using tanning beds. Tanning beds have always been something I avoided ever since I heard how dangerous they were from my parents. I decide to do further research. Are these tanning beds causing skin cancer?

The con – The first and only study I found was a randomized observational study, which proves it was not definitive proof, but it is good to keep note. In this study, subjects were randomly chosen from the Minnesota cancer database between the years 2004 to 2007. Then, they were given “self questionnaires and telephone interviews including information on use of indoor tanning, types of device used, initiation age, period of use, dose, duration, and indoor tanning-related burns.” (Lazovich DeAnn) In the sample size that consisted of 1167 individuals and 1101 controls, 63 percent had practiced indoor tanning while 51 percent of the control also tanned. This experiment is noteworthy, but it does not take into account other variables in which melanoma might develop. Perhaps those who were diagnosed with melanoma (skin cancer) had a heredity trait in which they immediately get cancer through the light of tanning beds. Also, we should consider the idea of reverse causality. What if the beginning stages of skin cancer forces individuals to tan more? There may be some correlation within the data from the study, but there is not enough to make the false positive conclusion that “frequent indoor tanning increased melanoma risk by 75 percent.” (Lazovich DeAnn)

What I would do: There will be no doubt that a blind randomized control trial would be best for this topic. My subjects will consist of many humans subjects, and each day, they will be exposed to a certain amount of UV light while their diet and rest is regulated. The dependent variable would be the development of melanoma while the independent will be the UV light. Though this experiment may be effective, it is not ethical by any means. I am pretty much forcing individuals to contract skin cancer, which is wrong without doubt. However, there seems to be no loophole to this. It is human skin that develops the cancer. Animal testing may not have the same effect as humans, thus, human subjects are required to have definitive results.

The start of the pros: This article made me consider the actual benefits of tanning beds, which I thought I was going insane. I had always had the notion that tanning beds were bad with vastly effects. The author pretty much talks about how tanning beds might not be associated the skin cancer at all. He lists that people tend to forget the other variables for melanoma risk, such as skin type, UV exposure, and the type of UV lamp. Another benefit in which he supports tanning beds is the fact that a moderation of Vitamin D3 (found in sunlight/tanning beds) can cause a decline of cancer risk in 16 different types of cancer. Also, more benefits of tanning beds are listed here:

  • Resistance to UV rays – by moderate tanning, you can help your skin build resistance to UV rays.
  • Vitamin D –  Vitamin you get from tanning beds
  • General mood – Tanning beds are pretty much all year accessible. Tanning is also linked to give people better moods
  •  Skin conditions – “It is common for dermatologists to prescribe visits to the tanning bed to those that have chronic skin conditions. A condition that is commonly treated with tanning beds is Psoriasis.” (Bitshare)

Take home message: Although there are many studies that say tanning beds are bad, there are no definitive proof that these beds cause melanoma, which is the most serious type of skin cancer. There are many confounding variables to consider, such as genetics, type of lamp, and skin type. All in all, if you do use a tanning bed, use with moderation. However, this is just based off my research and studies I found. There may be many conflicting viewpoints, so please share if you think I am right or wrong.

A tanning bed

A tanning bed

Works Cited

Do Gains Stunt Growth?

An accurate representation of the people I see at the IM Building

An accurate representation of some of the people I see at the IM Building

One of the terms I discovered many Penn State students, especially freshmen males, use is “gains.” For those unfamiliar with the term “gains,” it pretty much means for an individual to put on muscle and to adopt a physical lifestyle. (There are other variations of the definition, but they are along those lines) Though I always wished to be physically stronger, I fear of developing a stocky build. In addition, the main reason why I had refrain from lifting weights is due to the many people in the past who have told me that weights stunt growth. I decided to investigate. Does the lifting of weights or heavy objects in general stunt my potential to grow? 

As I pondered looking for scientific studies, I came across this article that made made me ponder reasons why I even thought about this topic. The site explains the reasonable idea that “applying high force to the skeleton will cause the growth plates in the long bones to harden faster and thus not grow as much, lowering the final height that a person reaches.” (Jump Science) It sounds so common sense. However, athletic movements such as running and jumping all had greater force output than that of weightlifting. (Jump Science) If we consider running and jumping NOT to be activities that hinder our growth, why should weightlifting? That is almost like saying walking is bad for you but running is good. It doesn’t make sense.

In a meta analysis I found in this article, researchers in Germany studied subjects from the ages 6 to 18 for almost 60 years. In the 60 years, they gathered studies of children and weight training. Furthermore, the meta analysis’ objective was to “assess the effects of resistance training in different age groups and maturity levels.” (Michael Behringer) Virtually, it was what I was looking for! The meta analysis researchers made their conclusions based off controlled trials done before on children through “electronic bibliographic databases, key journals, and reference lists of reviews, book chapters, and articles.” (Michael Behringer) From the databases, they were able to find two studies that tested the resistance training, also known as weightlifting, and its effects on subjects younger than 18 years old. Another thing to note, they excluded cardio and quick twitch muscle testing, which is great, for we are looking to find resistance training. After rooting down 46 studies that was relevant to the topic, the researchers found a 1728 sample size to which they were labelled by their stages in puberty, gender, and activity. Obviously, observational studies were NOT chosen for the sole fact that they do not manipulate variables. Also, it is better to have control trials for this. One of the main “filters” I believe that made this meta-analysis much more credible was the fact that they eliminated a confounding variable: activity. As mentioned earlier, the researchers did not include endurance tests. Though I do not want to be too quick to judge, since they did not include any tests to which supports to null hypothesis, this is not an example of the Texas Sharpshooter problem! Lets carry on with the meta analysis. As stated in my previous paragraph, each study consisted of children and weight training. Though the researchers from the meta analysis did not quite change the putative causal variable, the studies were required to have changes in the amount of weight training. The training programs itself consisted of a typical workout. “Duration, frequency, intensity, volume (sets × repetitions), and type of exercise.” (Michael Behringer)

So what does it mean? Despite the concern that resistance training is bad, the conclusion from the meta analysis was that “a greater number of training sessions per week is associated with higher strength gains after resistance training and that long-term interventions are more beneficial than short ones.” (Michael Behringer) All in all, they are saying that lifting weights is beneficial. Personally, I believe that the scientists made a false positive as to assuming resistance training was helped the growth of the subjects. However, I believe there was no report of texas sharpshooter problem. Not only were these 43 separate cases of individual studies, these were randomized control trials! The randomization limits confounding variables such as genetics and child’s prior knowledge in lifting weights. Because of that, I am quite convinced. You will not stunt your growth. However, the children were supervised. If the children were not supervised, can bad form actually stunt growth? If I had to conduct a study, I would make height the only dependent variable. Considering the studies were not geared towards just height, I would have to conduct a separate experiment.

This article I found made me think why we thought that weightlifting stunt growth in the first place. The author emphasizes that the risk of injury is correlated if the person is using proper form. If the technique is right, less of a chance you will get injured! Injury can definitely cause a stunt in growth. Whether it is online or in the gym, trainers always stress the importance of proper form, but why? Maybe it’s because injury can lead to permanent changes to our body. (in which stunt growth can be labelled as) Also, another thing to consider is a fracture to the growth plate. Though personal anecdotes are not credible, I found many stories online where people shared how they could have been 6 feet, but blamed the bad form.

Growth Plate Fracture / From: http://orthoinfo.aaos.org/topic.cfm?topic=A00040

Growth Plate Fracture // From: http://orthoinfo.aaos.org/topic.cfm?topic=A00040

Take home message: Weightlifting does not stunt your growth. However, there is a possibility that injury from weightlifting is the main culprit. If you are worried about the weights stunting your growth, do not fret. Just be sure to have supervision and proper technique! To everyone at Penn State: lets start making some “gains”.

Works Cited

Does Coffee Stunt Growth?

stunt growth 1I cannot recall when, but ever since I was young, I was discouraged to consume coffee. Everyone told me, “Coffee will stunt your growth!” Fast forward to college, I have met people who cannot go a day without their Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts. My question is: Does coffee stunt growth? What are the pros and cons of the popular beverage? Should I cancel my Starbucks card? I decided to investigate this topic, for coffee seems to be a new addiction everyone has in the US.

I decided to google search “Does coffee stunt growth?” To my delight, the first article search I found was a study. In this study, 81 female subjects from the ages 10-19 were tracked for six years. Within those six years, researchers found no difference “bone gain or density than those with the lowest.” (Mary L. Gavin) The groups were given 25mg of caffeine per day to double, (50mg) of caffeine per day. (Mary L. Gavin) I searched for the people who conducted the research, hoping to validate these results. However, all the articles did not have a legitimate source as to where they got this study. All of them cited each other in that there was a study that tested 81 adolescent teens. This experiment could be prone to the Texas Sharpshooter or file drawer problem! Who knows, maybe a coffee company put those results and ignored those that went against its null hypothesis. Yes, the article may claim there is no correlation, but even if the information in the study was valid, there is no evidence that definitively prove coffee does not stunt growth.

What I would do: In order to find out if coffee truly stunts growth, there will need to be a double blind randomized control trial. I would have half my adolescent subjects take a varied amount of caffeine, while the other half take a placebo. After a certain amount and time, I would measure them. I am not saying my experiment is flawless, for it is not. My experiment does not eliminate the factors of confounding variables. What if a kid’s genes is free from the side effects of caffeine? What if there was a certain activity that made them stunt their growth instead? Though sample size is important to eliminate chance and some variables, it cannot cancel all variables. Also, another issue with my intended trial would be ethics. What if in fact caffeine does stunt growth? The subjects in which effected will be permanently impaired of what their height could be. Is my planned trial ethical? Not really…

From: ASAPScience

From: ASAPScience

From: ASAPScience

From: ASAPScience

How I think coffee can stunt your growth: In my first paragraph, I explained how there is no real evidence that supports whether coffee can stunt your growth. In an article I found, it states that “coffee does contain caffeine, which stimulates the central nervous system.” (Owen Bond) It can be mutually agreed upon that caffeine wakes us up. That’s the reason why we drink coffee right? Well, our sleepiness actually is the product of a molecule called adenosine, “which is produced by your body while it chugs along through the day.” (Lauren F Friedman) During rest, there is a decline in concentration of the molecule and during alertness/when we wake up, there is a smaller concentration. Caffeine is extremely similar to the shape of adenosine, so it has the capability of binding to the receptors in your brain. (Lauren F Friedman) With caffeine, a person does not feel the effects of dreariness. What I think is: What if the supposed stunt in growth from coffee was simply due to our lack of sleep? Little to no sleep may mean that our growth hormone is suppressed! I may be completely wrong. What do you guys think?

Should I keep drinking coffee? Aside from the fact that coffee gives an individual alertness to go about their day, there are many benefits that coffee provides. From a domino effect, wakefulness you get from coffee improves brain function. Also, coffee is known to increase metabolic rate and help us run fat. Below are some more benefits I found on the beverage

  • Increase in Physical ability/performance
  • Vitamins (B2, B5, B3, Maganese, Potassium)
  • Decrease in getting diabetes – “In a 2005 review of nine studies, researchers found that for those that drank four to six cups of coffee per day, versus only two or fewer, their risk for Type 2 diabetes decreased by almost 30 percent.” (Samantha) Yes, this is an assumption, but it is note worthy.

In a study published, “Association of Coffee Drinking with Total and Cause-Specific Mortality” the researchers examined about 230000 men and 170000 women from the ages 50-71. Researchers conclude that there is no clear evidence whether coffee causes certain health problems. However, as listed in the study, coffee drinkers were more inclined to smoke. Can it be the smoking, not the caffeine, that is culprit that caused the diseases in which killed the subjects. Certain things that I thought were question worthy were what if old age effected their health problems? In my previous blog, I learned that our immune system takes longer to recover and eventually breaks down over time. Also, for me at least, we put an over excessive amount of sugar in our coffee. Could this have caused heart disease, a disease in which some subjects contracted through the experiment?

Take home message: there is no clear cut evidence that coffee stunts or doesn’t stunt growth. Coffee offers many advantageous effects such as alertness, ability to burn fat, and vitamins, but too much caffeine would cause more adenosine receptors, thus requiring more coffee for us to be alert. Without caffeine, one would feel much more sleepy than they originally were.  Once again, everything in moderation is key. For those that will continue to consume, there will be pros and cons (maybe stunt growth, more adenosine receptors). Drink at your own risk!

Works Cited

Your Chair Killing You?

From: http://www.pivotphysicaltherapy.com/blog/sitting-is-the-new-smoking/

From: http://www.pivotphysicaltherapy.com/blog/sitting-is-the-new-smoking/

Whether we are stuck in class, watching a movie, or driving, we are all glued to the bottom of our seats. I can attest to it. Sitting has been a quintessential and unavoidable part of my day. It is universal that anything in excess is bad for you. In a recent publication by Dr James Levine, who is the director of the Mayo Clinic at Arizona State University, he states that “Sitting is more dangerous than smoking, kills more people than HIV and is more treacherous than parachuting. We are sitting ourselves to death.” (James Levine) I decided to investigate further into the topic. How bad is excessive sitting?

From my the top searches off my research, there is little controversy that sitting has a negative effect on the body. An article I found that was particularly intriguing is listed here. In this article, the author stated that sitting can cause heath problems (heart disease, cancer, death) regardless if the individual was physically active. A study in which she lists that supports her point was conducted by Annals of Internal Medicine. In the study, the researchers used prior research from a database. This already rings a bell that this study could be a file drawer problem! No physical experiment was done! Despite my suspicions, the article goes on and concludes that “the health hazards seem to be greatest for people who sit 8 or 9 hours a day. The impact was even more pronounced in people who did not exercise regularly.” (CBS News) Despite the research’s strong conclusion that sitting correlates with health problems, I find it hard to believe whether the researchers excluded any results that disprove of their claim. Also, there was no numeric results in which can support their claim while eliminating confounding variables, including the amount of sitting and the subject’s health prior to being checked. Thus, I feel this article should be noted, but is flawed without doubt.

Another research I found that I found similar to the previous listed is published by the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The observational study included 43 studies in which they analyzed 68936 cancer cases, comparing the time spent sitting in relation cancer risks. (Daniela Schmid) Though it was not an actual experiment, rather, a observational study through cases, I do believe this study was well conducted. The results show “not all of those investigations found an apparent adverse effect of prolonged sitting time on cancer incidence.” (Daniela Schmid) Despite the fact that some cancers did not have an effect and rejected it’s null hypothesis, the study still published the results. This study definitely made me think about the dangers of sitting. There is definitely a correlation between sitting and health risks, but can reverse causality be considered? Perhaps sick and unhealthy people are sitting more! What if their disease impairs physical motivation through pain? I find credibility in reverse causality through personal observation: Obese people sit more due to the stress that their weight inflicts upon their knees. Certain people that are physically impaired cannot sit due to their condition. Another variable I find when people sit is snacking. Think about the food consumed during a sports event, Super Bowl, or plain studying. There is no loophole: overeating is bad. Can it be that the overeating of junk food is actually causing cancer?

How I would conduct my experiment: I noticed how I disagreed with both studies listed in their use of databases rather than conducting research. As I thought of a solution that is effective, I noticed how important it is to use randomized controlled trials, especially for this topic. However, it struck me as to how difficult and feasible it is. In a perfect world where no harm is inflicted, I would have human subjects while regulating how much sitting they are required to do within each day. I would also look at their diets, overall health, and sleeping time. After a certain time, I will see if there is any health problems that arose to the subjects that sat for the time assigned. However, my trial would will not reflect ethics. I am deliberately forcing my healthy subjects to get health problems, which is morally wrong.

Should I never sit again? Though it seems like every research is pointing towards the idea that sitting causes health problems, all the conclusions are not concrete. The research did not consider reverse causality. However, if the research does hold true, what can we do? A research conducted by scientists from Indiana University concluded that “by taking three slow, five-minute walks, we can actually reverse the damage to our arteries caused by three hours of sitting down.” (Science Alert) In this controlled observational study, they had 6 non-obese men sit normally for 3 hours. The other 6 men were assigned the same task, but had to get up and take slow-five minute walks for three times on a treadmill. Ultrasound was then used to see if there were any dilation in their arteries and changes in blood flow. To much surprise, the men who sat for three hours had a dilation of half compared to the start of the study. Also they experiences a drop in their blood flow. Those who took the walks did not experience any change in their artery dilation nor blood flow in comparison to the beginning of the experiment. Although the sample size hold problems, I think the results are something we should take note of.

Take home message: Every research seems to point that sitting correlates with health problems. Though I did not find a randomized control trial and the risks of reverse causality is present, we should all take notice in the noticeable physical damages prolong sitting causes. (Jeanne Dorin)

sit

All in all, everything should be done in moderation, and sitting is no different. To counter our daily activities that require us to sit (school, eating, movies) we should also find time to exercise and be physically active.

Works Cited

How Bad are Ramen Noodles?

Instant noodles or instant chemicals?

Instant noodles or instant chemicals?

Not only are they tasty and dirt cheap, ramen noodles is the quintessential food of a college student’s diet. Having the lowest meal plan and a bank account with no money, ramen noodles has been my staple of choice since I arrived on campus. Ever since my parents found out about my recent diet, they strictly forbade me from eating the “death noodles.” I questioned, “How bad could ramen noodles be?” After all, ramen is “just” dried noodles, which we rehydrate with water and add some seasoning salt on top. I decided to research these noodles to prove my parents wrong. To my dismay, I quickly learned why they were concerned of my new diet.

This article was the first link that caught my attention. The author proposed that the more ramen noodles consumed, the possibility of stroke, diabetes, and other fatal diseases are increased significantly. A study was done by Hyun Joon Shin and fellow investigators from Baylor Research Institute. In Shin’s study, he used the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. (Why specifically Korea? Simply because they eat a lot of ramen! South Korea consumes a staggering 3.4 billion packages of ramen noodles in 2010 alone, enough to put them at first in the world) In the study, a total of 10,711 adults from the ages 19-64 was analyzed. There was also a questionnaire in which assessed each individual’s diet that included 63 items. (Baylor Scott & White Health) The results was that the people who consumed instant noodles more than two times a week shared common ground of metabolic syndrome. For those that are unfamiliar with metabolic syndrome, it is “the name for a group of risk factors that raises your risk for heart disease and other health problems, such as diabetes and stroke.” (National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute) From the study, the correlation was definitely there: Instant noodles causes metabolic syndrome. However, correlation does not necessarily mean causation. This was an observational study, thus, the conclusions from this study is not as strong as an experimental study in which variables could be altered. Also, what if reverse causality is true? What if metabolic syndrome was causing the South Korean population to consume more instant noodles? The study held based on a questionnaire seems to not keep into account the other variables that can come into play. Anything on South Korean lifestyle? What about the lack of exercise/physical activity? 

What I Would Do – To get stronger correlation, I would have conducted an randomized trial in which my subjects are given ramen noodles while other subjects are given ramen noodles that is not made with typical instant noodle ingredients. Ingredients that consist of fresh wheat, and simple starches without any flavorings. In addition, I will regulate their physical activities and lifestyle. Through an extensive amount of time, I can then measure the condition of each group. However, one major problem that presents itself from my planned experiment would be the probability to allowing a group of subjects to obtain metabolic syndrome. This itself will be extremely immoral and utmost flawed on my part.

Some of the capsule pictures taken in the tract

Some of the capsule pictures taken in the tract

Another study I found that was particularly intriguing was by Stefani Bardin and Dr. Braden Kuo of Harvard University. The two studies consisted of volunteers eating instant noodles and homemade noodles, followed by swallowing a capsule capable of recording the intestinal tract. The results were shocking! The instant noodles were much more formed compared to the homemade noodles, thus, they concluded that the body had complications in digesting the instant noodles. The study was controlled observational, and was well conducted. Questions I had was: Could this be due to chance? Did the volunteer chew both the instant and homemade noodle the same? Could this be an example of the file drawer problem? After all, there was no indication on how many volunteers the study had. Also, there was no recording of results and trials.

So, the real question is: Are these ramen noodles healthy to eat? When it comes to nutritional value, there is without question that these noodles are not nutritious. Even if these noodles do not cause “metabolic syndrome,” they are packed with sodium. From the FDA website, they suggest that the average American should eat at most 2300 mg of salt each day. One package of Chicken flavored Maruchan already consists of 830 mg of salt. In addition, ramen possess large amounts of saturated fat for the simple fact that they are fried noodles. Sadly to say, nothing can defend these noodles nutritionally. They are simply “junk food.”

Another article I found that made me consider eating ramen noodles listed all the “major ingredients commonly found in popular brands of instant ramen.” Here are some listed below:

  • Propylene Glycol – preserves texture of the noodles. Also found in Antifreeze
  • Tertiary Butylhydroquinone (TBHQ) – although deemed safe in small amounts by FDA, TBHQ is found in biodisel
  • Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) – flavor enhancer
  • A LOT of Salt – No question that high levels of salt can lead to health problems (Korin Miller)

My message is this: though there is correlation between ramen noodles and metabolic syndrome (heart disease), it is not proven. The study by the Baylor Research Institute investigators is the only research done, and many are drawing to conclusions that ramen causes heart disease from that individual study, which may or may not be the case. From my research I think I will cut back on the ramen noodles, for the possibility of them giving me health complications down the road. However, it wouldn’t be too bad to indulge in the tasty noodles once in awhile. What do you guys think?

Works Cited

Athletes and Father Time

Source: http://images.musictimes.com/data/images/full/53124/kobe-bryant-24-of-the-los-angeles-lakers-waves-to-the-crowd-after-the-game-against-the-philadelphia-76ers-on-december-1-2015-at-the-wells-fargo-center-in-philadelphia-pennsylvania-note-to-user-user-expressly-acknowledges-and-agrees-that-by-downloading-and.jpg?w=775

Kobe’s Last Visit to Philly

Yesterday, my basketball idol, Kobe Bryant, announced his decision to retire at the conclusion of the 2015-2016 NBA season. As I read his speech, the following words stuck out to me the most: “My mind can handle the grind but my body knows it’s time to say goodbye.” One of the main questions that popped up was why couldn’t athletes play after a certain age, particularly 40. Why 40? As I scan through professional sports, all the athletes I admire all retired at the age of 40, or very close to it: Derek Jeter, Michael Jordan, Steve Nash. For the athletes that continue to play within the old age range, such as Paul Pierce or Payton Manning, their performance has drastically declined within a year. I decided to investigate this topic to find answers. Can athletes avoid old age?

This article caught my attention because the author proposed that the declination of athletic performance is not in part to the aging athlete’s oxygen intake (for endurance), rather, lack of psychological motivation and systematic exercise. A study that was mentioned in the article was conducted by Dr. Greg Heath along with his co-workers in Missouri in which sixteen highly trained masters athletes (Masters athletes are athletes over 50) were compared with sixteen “young” athletes (Men ages 18-27) on their VO2max, which is the maximum volume of oxygen an individual can use. Both types of athletes were matched based upon their training exercise/regime. Also, 18 untrained men were also observed in this study to be the controls. The results showed “older athletes who maintained constant challenging levels of training lost only 5% of their VO2max per decade, about half of the typical decline.” The aging athletes are not necessarily experiencing a significant oxygen decline that is enough for their bodies to be physically inactive to participate in athletic events. (Owen Anderson) In addition, the results of the study supports the idea that masters athletes and young athletes are similar physically. (after checking their muscle-fat ratio, oxygen intake) 27 years after the study, “one of the subjects, a former world record-holder named Fred Wilt, had continued to train and compete over this period, and his VO2max reduction was only 0.41 ml/kg/min per year – less than half the rate of decline experienced by his more slothful peers” who did not continue to engage in physical activity. (Owen Anderson) From the study’s conclusions, the researchers proposed the idea that psychological change leads to drastic decline in athletic performance. After reading the study, it makes sense. It is evident that athletes tend to stop working as hard once they hit a certain age, such as veterans in professional sports.  The correlation is definitely there but we cannot assume that the correlation mentioned means causation. Reverse causality should also be considered. Can it be that drastic decline of performance causes athletes to lose motivation? It is evident that my idol Kobe Bryant has had a string of terrible games prior to his announcement to retire. Maybe he is not physically done, but mentally stressed. Maybe a psychological toll which made him consider retirement. There must be more factors that come into play for the relationship between aging athletes and performance. The study was an observational study and the conclusions based on the results were extremely definitive. However, there are some flaws to this experiment. To make stronger conclusions, I would have manipulated variables such as the athletes and the amount chosen to take this experiment.16 subjects seems meager and does not seem to eliminate the chance that all the subjects are physically equal to 18-27 year old athletes. Most importantly, the subjects tested were also mostly consisting of endurance sports. Though most sports require stamina, there needs to be testing on speed, agility, and reaction time lost through aging. The study also did not mention if it was randomization or double blind trails. More studies should be done to support the results. 

Athletes are humans. It is destined that we will all age eventually. Below are some listed changes bodies will go through as we age:

  • Bones become less dense which leads to higher probability of fractures.
  • Cartilage that protects and cushions the joints are limited due to the extensive amount of use throughout the years.
  • Muscle Strength decreases
  • Eye problems – “Loss of near vision, Need for brighter light, Changes in color perception, The pupil of the eye reacts more slowly” (John E. Morley)
  • Recovery Rate takes much longer, which is essential to performance in athletes going through a long and tedious season
Master Athletes

Master Athletes

In the Dallas Bed Rest and Training Study, five healthy men in their 20s were taken as subjects and were told to spend three weeks of their summer resting in bed. “Testing the men before and after exercise, the researchers found devastating changes that included faster resting heart rates, higher systolic blood pressures, a drop in the heart’s maximum pumping capacity, a rise in body fat, and a fall in muscle strength,” – all changes a body would go through with old age. The scientists then put the subjects on an exercise program in which did more than reverse the “deterioration brought on by bed rest, since some measurements were better than ever after the training.” (Harvard Health Publications) 30 years later, the subjects were tested again. This time, all of them had showed signs of old age- weight gain, decrease in metabolism. Through exercise, the men were able to “reverse 100% of the 30-year age-related decline in aerobic power. Even so, exercise did not take the men back to their peak performance after 8 weeks of intense training at age 20. The clock does tick, after all, but exercise did slow the march of time.” This study was an observational and randomized control trial. Though it does not mention if the men were selected blindly, all 5 men were healthy 20 year olds and the study was well conducted. This study makes me see the credibility of the idea that old age will eventually happen to everyone. Yes, it can be stalled, but we will never be our 20 year old selves.

All in all, athletes can stall Father Time, but the effects of old age will catch up. Every sport demands different characteristics or skill. (Reaction time for volleyball, Strength and agility for football, endurance for biking) As athletes get older, in my case, Kobe Bryant, their bodies are unable to recover and compete at the level demanded of them. Although my first study proves that master athletes are similar physically to the young athletes, it did not test the aerobic ability of each individual, rather, stamina/endurance. Given that the NBA season is a strenuous 82 games and physically demands athletic ability, skill cannot be the sole factor of successful play in basketball. Sure, athletes can stall the aging process with proper fitness and nutrition, but it depends on what their sport is requiring them to do. Sad to say, it is time for Kobe to retire. 

Works Cited

Glasses and Intelligence

Arthur

Arthur

One of my fondest memories as a child was watching a TV show called Arthur. For those unfamiliar of the show, it talks about a fictional cartoon character and his family adventures of being a middle school kid. One of the biggest differences Arthur possess that make him stand out from hims friends is his glasses. Pondering through the show, I came to a conclusion that all smart people owned glasses. Examples could include, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Benjamin Franklin etc. Is there a connection between the intelligent and glasses?

In a research study conducted by The Centre for Eye Research Australia, they found a relationship between prescription glasses wearers and intelligence. In the study, a “group of 633 twins and 278 people from families with myopia (Short-sightedness) to answer a questionnaire on their personality traits. Subjects were evaluated on five key characteristics – extroversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, open-mindedness and neuroticism.” Surprisingly enough, the prescription glasses wearers “could not be linked with introversion, conscientiousness or passiveness.” However, one thing that glasses wearers were linked with was intelligence and openness. The study was single blind placebo, and was purely observational.

Another study I found was German researchers at the University of Medical Center. The studied 4,658 people from the ages 35-74. The results showed that the more nearsighted the person was, the more improved education he had. Other documentations from this study include 24% of the subjects not having a second school education being nearsighted. Also 35% of the secondary school graduates were nearsighted and a whopping 53% were university grads.

download

Personally, I do not agree with the idea that glasses wearers are linked to characteristics of being open minded and intelligent. In modern society, glasses are considered extremely trendy. I cannot seem to understand how physical features we possess give us certain characteristics. The more I think about how the study was done, I feel that it could be due to chance or other variable that caused it. I highly doubt this can be a direct causation. What do you think?

Works Cited

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2676252/Wear-glasses-Then-youre-probably-SMART-Educated-people-likely-suffer-sight-problems-claims-study.html

http://www.divinecaroline.com/fashion/glasses-and-stereotypes-are-four-eyes-smarter

http://www.sightstation.com/publicity/articles/scientists-find-a-link-between-intelligence-and-prescription-glasses/2010/02/

Why do People Procrastinate?

Life Decisions

Life Decisions

Some of my many skills in life consist of sleeping, eating, and putting off tasks until the last minute. If you haven’t noticed, all of my blogs were published on the 17th and 18th of September, hours before the deadline to the first blogging period. Even though I consciously tell myself to start certain tasks, I cannot seem to muster enough motivation to start. I am certainly not the only individual, as I witness hoards of Science 200 kids finish and publish their blogs hours before the due date. Why exactly do we procrastinate?

twins

Daniel Gustavson, a psychologist from the University of Colorado Boulder, conducted a study to learn more about why people procrastinate. In this study, Gustavson 347 twins complete surveys pertaining to their tendencies in procrastinating and impulsivity. Out of the 347 pairs, 181 were identical twins and 166 fraternal. Identical twins and fraternal twins have many differences, but the main difference is the fact that identical twins share the same genetic code.

“They found that procrastination is indeed heritable, just like impulsivity. Not only that, there seems to be a complete genetic overlap between procrastination and impulsivity — that is, there are no genetic influences that are unique to either trait alone.” (Gustavson, Daniel) From the study, it suggests that procrastination indeed heritable and is from impulsivity, the behavior without adequate thought. 

Even though I wish to point my genetics to explain my procrastinating ways, most studies dealing with procrastination are extremely correlative. There may be many more connections, and scientists cannot yet pinpoint the cause. Another scientist that has tried to make advances as to why humans procrastinate is Laura Rabin. In one of her studies, she gathered 212 students and questioned them “for procrastination, then on the nine clinical subscales of executive functioning: impulsivity, self-monitoring, planning and organization, activity shifting, task initiation, task monitoring, emotional control, working memory, and general orderliness. The researchers expected to find a link between procrastination and a few of the subscales (namely, the first four in the list above). As it happened, procrastinators showed significant associations with all nine.” (Jaffe, Eric) Again her findings are extremely correlative, and her study was observational.

pro 2

I feel the reason why I procrastinate is because I minimize the actual importance of certain tasks. As a student and professional procrastinator, I tend to view priorities less when they have a due date not near the vicinity of the current date. The reason why I rather watch YouTube videos or binge on Netflix is because those tasks give me an uncontrollable amounts of joy/dopamine compared to the intimidating tasks at hand. This brings me to the fight or flight response, which is a humanlike psychological reaction. When people are given a task,such as homework, they do not wish to complete, they feel unstable emotionally. Instead, the brain tries to cover the feelings of remorse, and replace them with options of short term rewards. Even though it is not proven and there may be other causes, I feel that genetics are the ones to blame.

Works Cited

  1. http://people.duke.edu/~dandan/Papers/PI/deadlines.pdf

2. http://pss.sagepub.com/content/13/3/219.short

3. http://thenextweb.com/lifehacks/2014/03/27/brain-freeze-science-procrastination-smart-brains/

4. http://www.diffen.com/difference/Fraternal_Twins_vs_Identical_Twins

5. http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/04/0956797614526260.abstract

6. http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/exploring-the-genetics-of-ill-do-it-tomorrow.html

7. http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2013/april-13/why-wait-the-science-behind-procrastination.html 

Can Money Buy Happiness?

Who doesn't love money?

Who doesn’t love money?

One of the first questions my Economics professor proposed to the class was: “Why are you going to college?” For me, the answer was simple. Enrolling in an institution for higher learning meant higher possibilities of landing a high paying job in the future. Friendships, networking, and the “college experience,” were all good incentives to include, but truthfully, money was the breaking point. Money is the root for everything, from the clothes we wear to the food we buy. As I ponder about how money facilitates most of our lives, I wondered if money can truly buy happiness.

Tom Corley

Tom Corley

Thomas C Corley is a Business Insider contributor. One of Thomas’ most famous research studies includes his five year study on the habits of wealthy and poor households. In this study, he interviewed a total of 361 individuals all across the nation, in which included 233 rich individuals and 128 poor individuals. To distinguish whether an individual was “rich,” they would have to earn a yearly gross income of $160,000 along with a $3.2 million in liquid assets. For someone to be qualified as “poor” in the study, they would have to make less than $35,000 and less than a mere $5,000 in net liquid assets. This was a single blind placebo, observational study, for none of the subjects were actually aware that they were being interviewed. Over the course of 16 months, Thomas tracked their responses of each individual, making folders and gathered data on a various amount of topics: employment, home ownership, car ownership, vacations, etc. From the study, he concluded that “82% of the wealthy were happy, while 98% of the poor were unhappy. 87% of the wealthy were happy in their marriage, while 53% of the poor were unhappy. 93% of the wealthy were happy because they liked or loved what they did for a living, while 85% of the poor were unhappy. 0% of the wealthy were unhappy due to finances, while 98% of the poor were unhappy.” (Corley, Tom) Based off the percentages and statistics, money can definitely has an influence of whether our lives are “happy” or “unhappy.”

Another study that contradicts Thomas Corley’s is by Tom W. Smith, who is the director of the National Opinion Research Center located in Chicago. In his survey, he wanted to know the satisfaction of his subjects and their overall level of happiness. From 1988 to 2006, he asked random people about their level of happiness and correlated their happiness with their professions. “Across all occupations, on average, 47 percent of people said they were very satisfied with their jobs and 33 percent said they were very happy. The top three jobs for satisfaction were clergy (87 percent reporting being very satisfied), firefighters (80 percent) and physical therapists (78 percent). Other top jobs, in which more than 60 percent of the respondents said they were very satisfied were education administrators, painters and sculptors, teachers, authors, psychologists, special education teachers, operating engineers, office supervisors and security and financial services salespersons.” (Harms, William) Although chance may have been an effect, degrees known to pay lavishly, such as lawyers and physicians, failed to make the top twelve of the study.

My favorite ride at Six Flags: American Eagle

My favorite ride at Six Flags: American Eagle

Personally, I strongly agree with the idea that money can buy happiness. Money provides financial stability, canceling all the problems poor people might encounter. One of my biggest reasons why wealth is happiness is the ability to fund things we as individuals enjoy. All my fondest memories in childhood consisted of going to six flags, eating ice cream, or watching movies. All those activities require money. I can understand that money cannot buy back life nor relationships, however, it gives people so many opportunities. What do you guys think? Can money buy happiness?

Works Cited

http://www.vocations.com/articles/Money%20Can’t%20Buy%20Happiness.pdf

http://richhabits.net/rich-habits-study-background-on-methodology/

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/01/09/0146167214566189.abstract

http://richhabits.net/about-rich-habits-thomas-corley-bio/

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-shows-money-can-buy-happiness-2015-1

http://www.financial-crisis.eu/why-does-money-rule-the-world/index.html

http://time.com/3545709/money-can-buy-happiness/

Is the 10,000 Hour Rule Valid?

 

Allen Iverson's infamous speech about practice.

Allen Iverson’s infamous speech about practice.

As a kid, I always wanted to be the best at everything. Whether it was athletics, academics, or just Pokemon training, I desired to be number one. It wasn’t until middle school where I was presented with a rule that changed my perspective of success: the 10,000 hour rule. This rule, which was made famous by Malcolm Gladwell in his book, the Outliers, states that to master a skill of choice, it requires at least 10,000 hours of persistent practice. I remember going home and pushing 10000 divided by 24 on my calculator. “It’s only going to take me 417 days of basketball practice for me to become the next Kobe Bryant!” As time went on, my dreams altered and changed. However, the question still lingered: How valid was the 10,000 hour rule? Will spending 10,000 hours on something diligently make me one of the best?

The idea of practice has dominated the discussion on whether success is inherited or self developed. A study on violin students was conducted in the early 1990s by group of German psychologists. All of the students in the study were asked approximately what age did they start playing, to which most to all responded with the answer, five. As time went on, the psychologist observed their practice schedules until they hit the age of twenty. Surprisingly, the violinist who were elite had practice an average of more the 10,000 hours, while the less proficient practiced a mere 4,000 hours. Based off the study, the researches has found a statistical relationship between deliberate hours of practice and ability to succeed. Another study I found completely contradicts the 10,000 hour rule, stating it is invalid. By three professors the study has “found that deliberate practice explained 26% of the variance in performance for games, 21% for music, 18% for sports, 4% for education, and less than 1% for professions.” Practice does not necessarily mean perfect, and the study offers a counter that supports people’s inner ability to perform certain tasks. Aside from the differences, both studies do acknowledge that people tend to get better through practice. “The question is whether that is all there is to it.” (Hambrick, Zachary)

Kim Ung Yong

Kim Ung Yong

A person that immediately popped in my mind as I read both studies was Jahlil Okafor, a NBA rookie currently signed with the Philadelphia 76ers. I had gone to the same high school as Okafor, and everyday, he would tower over the student population. Realistically speaking, I can practice basketball for 10 years straight, and still not be able to compete due to his physical attributes. Thus, I feel that the 10,000 hour rule is invalid. Certain people are born with traits that give them an advantage over competition. Another example that disproves the 10,000 hour rule is Kim Ung-Yong. Kim was a child prodigy and “was able to read Korean, English, Japanese, and German by the time he was three.” Though I am not confident what my body can do, I am sure certain things cannot be obtainable just by pure practice. Either you have it, or you don’t.

Will I be like Kobe in 417 days?

Will I be like Kobe in 417 days?

Concluding, I strongly believe that the 10,000 hour rule is invalid and is disproven from the supernatural cases we see all over the world. Child prodigies and freakish athletes are prime examples. However, I do believe that practice is necessary to hone one’s skills to their fullest potential. As a painful as it is, unless one is genetically blessed, there is no way one can be the best at a certain profession. Maybe that is why we hear, “Be the best person you can be.”

 

  1. http://www.12hourstolive.com/10000-hours-mastery-genius-practice/ 
  2. http://variable-m.com/formula-genius-10000-hour-rule/
  3. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/09/malcolm_gladwell_s_10_000_hour_rule_for_deliberate_practice_is_wrong_genes.html
  4. http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S40/43/14C80/index.xml?section=topstories

Can Girls and Guys be “Just” Friends?

One of the biggest challenges I encounter with girls is distinguishing flirty or friendly. I’m not the last man on earth bamboozled by this simple notion, as there are kids in my high school who believe a simple greeting means the love of their life is interested. “She lent me her pen, she totally wants me to be her boyfriend!” I pondered while thinking about blog topics: Can heterosexual guys and girls truly be “just friends.”

Why?!

Why?!

This answer requires and deserves more than yes, or no. Experiments done by the University of Wisconsin found, the more attraction there was in a cross-sex friendship, the less satisfied the romantic relationship. “Nominated attraction often costs more than it pays. Younger and middle-aged women reported more attraction to a current cross-sex friend and less satisfaction in romance.” In another experiment, they tested 88 pairs of cross-sex friends. The study was extremely private, and the friends were told not to disclose their answers to the study to each other. They then separated them and were asked questions about their physical and romantic attraction for one another on a rating scale from a 1 to 9. (1 being the least attractive to 9 being the most attractive) The results were that men’s average was a 4.94, while women was a 3.97. Thus, men were more likely to be attracted to their female friends based off physical appearance. In addition to the study, it was men were found to find their cross-sex friend more sexually attractive when they were already partnered with another man. For women, the results were vice versa. Women were less attracted to their male friends who were already partnered in a former romantic relationship. Men were just more attracted to their female friends. From the study, we can concur that men, as opposed to women, have a harder time viewing their cross-sex friendships as just “friends”. Now the study was observational, and there can be many factors that caused this.

Forever friendzoned

Forever friendzoned

As an outside observer of this topic, I find the study to hold meaning and a better explanation to my question. However, some questions that were brought up were: Could there be another variable that makes guys more attracted to their female friends? Can the Bateman’s principle be a cause as to why guys feel more sexual attraction? Personally, I believe so. In Bateman’s principle, it talks about the fact that guys have more reproductive success than women. Which makes sense, for women are born with a certain amount of eggs. Thus, girls are typically more selective as to who they wish to perceive sexually attractive. The Bateman’s principle can also explain why girls typically friend zone guys, not vice versa. Guys can still friend zone girls, but there are much less cases. In a way, I feel that the reason why I feel that guys are girls can truly not be “just” friends is due to the guy’s persistent sex drive and the women’s selective genetic makeup (set amount of eggs).

While those more primitive instincts will fade slowly over time, they will always be prevalent. Girls are more selective so their child will be born with optimal genes. Guys are programmed to have as many kids as possible. It works like a kind of checks and balances system, while also attempting to create a reasonably high reproduction rate. What do you guys think? Can there be another explanation?

Works Cited

  1. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-and-women-cant-be-just-friends/
  2. http://bleske-rechek.com/April%20Website%20Files/Bleske-Rechek%20et%20al.%202012%20Benefit%20or%20Burden.pdf
  3.  http://www.healthline.com/health/mens-health/sex-drive#Overview1

Initial Blog Post

Chicago-IL_hero_495x200

Hey everyone! 

My name is Nicolas Lau and I am from Chicago, Illinois. I am currently a freshmen in Smeal College of Business hoping to major in finance or risk management. A lot of my friends question my decision to travel such a distance to Penn State, (for most of them attend UIUC) to which I respond by, “I want to go to a good school with a good football program.” A few of my passions include volleyball, biking, golf, and interacting with new people.

Like most people here, I am taking SC200 to fulfill my science requirement. Ever since taking AP chemistry in high school, I developed a terrible fear for science due to the readings and calculations needed. I have no intentions in majoring in science not because I do not find science interesting, but I dread the math that goes behind it. I am very interested by SC200 because of the interesting topics we are projected to cover.