Guilty pleasure without the guilt?

Everyone loves a delicious candy bar, but no one loves the repercussions: weight gain, tooth decay, over-intake of sugar. Why is it so difficult to engage in a guilty pleasure without the guilt? Despite popular belief, it’s not all that difficult if you stick to the right candy: dark chocolate!

th

Dark Chocolate

Chocolate is derived from the seeds found in cocoa trees. In turn, dark chocolate is derived from the same beans, though containing significantly larger percentages of cocoa, without the additional sugar and milk that are found in milk chocolate. It’s known as the “healthy chocolate” for a reason. Dark chocolate that contains over 60% of cocoa reaps the greatest benefits.  Now you’re probably wondering what these benefits are.

According to a study conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture, dark chocolate can help lower blood pressure in those with abnormally high blood pressure. Dark chocolate also contains flavonoids, the compound that positively impacts cell-signaling pathways. Through these polyphenols (a group of antioxidants), the risk for chronic disease decreases. Additionally, dark chocolate may help lower blood pressure and provide the body with necessary minerals including Potassium. Low-density lipoproteins, otherwise known as LDLs can pose major health risks. Luckily, dark chocolate reduces these LDL’s while tightening the HPL’s (which the body proves useful).

A Study was published in the BMJ journal Heart, where the researchers looked at long-term health data on nearly 21,000 adults in England. The study showed that participants who consumed the greatest amount of chocolate (up to 100 grams a day, which is proportionate to about two and a half whole hershey bars) were “11 percent less likely than those who ate no chocolate to have a heart attack or stroke, and 25 percent less likely to die from cardiovascular disease. Results stayed consistent after researchers adjusted for a number of dietary variables including smoking, age, alcohol consumption and physical activity level.”

Screen Shot 2015-12-02 at 10.58.46 PM

Although these statistics may make you want to take a stab at that piece of chocolate cake in the fridge, or buy the pudding you have been craving in the grocery store, it is important to know that flavanol is the most beneficial ingredient in chocolate and some of the unhealthy forms of chocolate may not contain these high levels of this ingredient. “Cocoa naturally has a very strong, pungent taste, which comes from the flavanols. When cocoa is processed into your favorite chocolate products, it goes through several steps to reduce this taste. The more chocolate is processed (through things like fermentation, alkalizing, roasting, etc.), the more flavanols are lost.” Most commercial chocolates are highly processed. In the past, most people thought that dark chocolate always contained the highest levels flavanols, but studies more recently show that, depending on how the dark chocolate was processed, in some instances this may not be the case. Most major chocolate manufacturers want to keep this rich flavor with the high levels of flavanol, and are continuing to look for better ways to reduce the outtake of flavanol while their products are being processed. In the present, your best choices are most often dark chocolate instead of milk chocolate (especially brands of milk chocolate that are highly processed) and unprocessed cocoa powder.

Screen Shot 2015-12-02 at 10.55.34 PM

Next time your sweet tooth is aching for a fix, pick up that dark chocolate bar (with high levels of cocoa, of course) and engage in the guilty pleasure. Although some types of dark chocolate may be better than others, It is still a delicious and healthy snack. It shouldn’t make you so guilty after all!

Do we need to wash our hair everyday?

Back in elementary school, my mom would repetitively tell me to take a shower and wash my hair well every night. As I got older I began to question if this habit my mom created in my brain were actually good for my hair. My hairdresser began to tell me my hair was unhealthy and I needed to stop washing it so much. So which is correct, should we or shouldn’t we wash our hair regularly?

th-4

washing your hair

The consumer goods company found that Americans shampooed their hair on average 4.9 times a week which is twice as often as the people of Spain and Italy. Even more interestingly, 40 percent of American women report shampooing their hair daily. Angela Lamb, MD, an assistant professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City states, “Shampoo traps oils, so if you do it too frequently, you may dry your hair out, leaving it prone to breakage. Hair produces natural oil called sebum, and shampoo is an emulsifier that captures and traps excess oil, dirt, and product residue, which you then rinse out to clean the hair.” These oils that the shampoo removes are essential for healthy hair.

Two studies were conducted by Dr. Raymond F. LeRoy, MSc published in The Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine testing the negative side effects of washing hair. In the first study, ten randomly‑selected samples which were analyzed prior to washing were chosen.  Each sample of hair was split into two equal portions and cut into lengths of 1 mm or less before the experiment had begun. The samples were then washed for 10 minutes in deionized running water, drained and then dried for three hours at 110 degrees Celsius.  The samples were then taken out of the heat and were covered overnight. In the second study ten randomly‑selected samples which were uncut, were analyzed prior to washing  were chosen. The samples followed the same procedure as in the first study, but there was no cutting involved.  Directly after  the washing and drying had occurred, the samples were cut into 1.0 mm lengths, or less, and then put through evaluation. These studies showed excessive loss of calcium, sodium, and potassium in the hair, and the results were even greater for females. In Study 1, females on average lost 21.6 percent of the calcium in their hair, 35.3 percent of the sodium in their hair and 25 percent of the potassium in their hair. Males lost significantly lower calcium, only loosing 10.5 percent, but they were similar in the results with sodium and potassium, loosing on average 31.75 percent sodium and 20.75 percent potassium.

One of the things I did not expect was that there is a drastic difference on the loss of minerals in your hair depending on when you cut it. In study 2, cutting the hair following washing it, women on average lost 49.5 percent calcium content in their hair and 36.5 potassium in their hair, although they lost less sodium on average, with a 22.5 percent loss. Males mineral loss were again much lower, with 15.83 percent loss of calcium, 18.83 percent loss of sodium, and 19.83 percent loss of potassium in their hair. This makes me question why hair salons wash your hair before they cut it.

th-6

Getting Your Hair Cut While it is Dry

Overall, It is important to decrease the amount of times you wash your hair, if you want to reduce breakage and have lively, healthy hair. Also, next time you go to get a hair cut, try asking your hair dresser to cut it before they wash it. This will conserve minerals in your hair and you will ultimately have a better outcome. Hair is essential to defining ones self, it is important to keep it healthy and lively!

 

 

Are You Flushing Your Multivitamin Down the Toilet?

People often question if taking multivitamins have a positive impact on their health or if they are just flushing their money down the toilet.  It’s a controversial topic since most medical trained professionals have little training in the field of nutrition. In the article titled, “ADA responds to med school nutrition failings“, the American Dietetic Association shows that medical schools often fail to give adequate nutritional education to doctors.  So who do we ask for advice if we can’t rely on our trusted family medical professionals?  I’d like to believe that the average consumer these days are smarter than they were 20 years ago. We have access to knowledge at our fingertips and with knowledge we make intelligent decisions.  When you dive down deep into multivitamins, you find that there are conflicting studies; so how do you sort through them?

th-1

Sorting through Different Vitamins

I’m hoping to make it easy for you.  In an article written in the journal “Appetite”, they discussed the effects of multivitamins on mood and general well being measured in adults.  They found a possible benefit of decreasing stress, anxiety and physical fatigue in a home setting when supplements were consumed as normal.  In another study published in the journal “Ophthalmology” , they studied the effects of multivitamins on cataract and age-related macular degeneration in male physicians, I particularly like this study since it was conducted with doctors, helping lend better credibility to the results.  In this study they showed that the incidents of cataracts were reduced while taking a multivitamin regularly; however, age related macular degeneration was not affected.  I think the biggest problem with the negative reporting on multivitamins are that they select particular studies that may disprove certain claims that people make about multivitamins and make wide negative assumptive remarks that cover proven positive benefits.

One of the best articles written to support the benefits of supplements is found in “NutraIngredients-usa.com” showing exactly why most studies and articles written disproving the effects of supplementation are faulty by design.  Multivitamin supplements are not meant to cure disease; they’re meant to help support your body’s ability to fight off disease.

th-2

Nutrition in a Capsule

We know that people don’t have perfect diets, we know that most people don’t eat enough fruits and vegetables to keep their immune system in order, that’s what multivitamins are intended to do, fill the gap of missing nutrition.  So go to the health food store, buy that multivitamin, and feel confident that you are taking a proactive step towards improving your health.

Why do Anxiety Medications Calm You Down?

I’m sure we’ve all experienced those gut wrenching moments of anxious anticipation before delivering a speech or performing on stage. When butterflies overtake your stomach, and it’s suddenly difficult to breath. You’re sweating uncontrollably and are fearful of what is to come. You can consider these tedious and unwanted emotions symptoms of a panic attack.  Throughout my childhood, I unfortunately battled with acute anxiety. Taking drugs such as Xanax on the rare occasion of a panic attack would completely calm me down as soon as it kicked in. I unconsciously took the medication my doctor provided for me, however, I never really understood the true scientific components of the drug that helped relieve my symptoms. How could swallowing a small pill relieve all of my stress?

th-17

One Little Stress-Relieving Pill

Surprisingly, nearly one in five Americans suffer from some type of anxiety disorder. A commonly prescribed drug, Alprazolam (also known as Xanax) is used to relieve symptoms of short-term extreme anxiety. “Xanax produces its calming effects by suppressing the inhibitory receptors in the brain and central nervous system to decrease the abnormal excitement in the brain that leads to anxiety symptoms.” (This medication blocks the benzodiazepine site on the brain, and by doing this it is able to hyperpolarize neurons.) When in the middle of a panic attack, your brain fires neurons that is the cause of the symptoms that you experience. The hyperpolarization of these neurons stops it from firing as often.

In a controlled study testing the effectiveness of Alprazolam, a randomized 72 subjects all dealing with excessive anxiety were either given a placebo or the medication. The  test results showed that the people taking the medication had significant decreases in anxiety levels while the people taking the placebo did not change at all. This hints towards the fact that anxiety related medication does indeed help to alleviate one’s symptoms.

 

In a similar study, Two research groups working independently in Ohio and Colorado sought out  test the CRH levels in rats, ultimately arriving at similar results. In the experiment, research leaders Gray and Lim manipulated the endocannabinoid levels in rats. At Kent State University, neuroscientist Lim Gilman blocked the CRH receptors in mice, ultimately shutting out the stress-inducing component, which enabled them to more easily approach unfamiliar mice.

Similarly, University of Colorado-Boulder professor Gray wondered how the brain responds to constant social defeat. For instance, what happens when a kid gets tormented by his peers over and over again? He mimicked this by placing a rate into the home of another rat, immediately, the newcomer was forced to surrender to the dominant force. In the study, rats who faced repetitive social defeat produced more CRH progressively, which resulted in increased emotions of fear in later encounters. In conclusion, both Lim and Gray understand that some animals deal with anxiety better than others, however, it’s unknown how these differences manifest in the brain.

Notably, research analyst Pam Maras sees evidence that differences in one’s resistance to anxiety occur early in life. In the study conducted above, the more nervous rats began developing excessive anxiety at 11 days old, which would transfer to a 5 week old infant. At this point in life, animals that had not yet experienced anxiety were more resilient to stress as they grew older. Researchers are unsure as to why some species are more susceptible to anxiety than others. In conclusion, scientists have a lot to learn and test before such a drug will be ready for clinical use.

th-18

Test Rat

So overall, if you personally struggle with thoughts of anxiety, the current medications available on the market have been proven to aid one’s symptoms effectively. Luckily, more research is being conducted as we speak to find even better forms of medication that will be available in the future!

Can A Psychopath Have Empathy?

We all know the movie versions of psychopaths where they are either crazy or out trying to kill you, maybe even a serial killer. While they may appear like that in the movies, real life psychopaths for the most part are much different. They know how to blend in and go unnoticed, until it’s time to strike if they have a set goal in mind. One of the defining qualities of being a psychopath is their lack of empathy for other living beings. Because of this they are ruthlessly ambitious and are remorseless when stepping over other individuals to get ahead as their inability to feel for other people allows them to do so without guilt. For many, it would seem to be unimaginable that a person could truly have no conscience at all. So are there any instances, where true empathy is displayed rather than a facade to get something that they want?

The first study I looked at was performed by members of a Dutch Clinic who took 21 convicted psychopathic offenders and put them under a scanner to measure brain activity. The team wanted to measure emotional responses using an fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging). The test was to see how the emotional regions of their brains would react to movies displaying people hurting one another. Doctoral student, Harma Meffert, conducted the study went into the scanner room after they’ve been engaged in the movie and proceeded to slap the patients hands to localize the regions of the brain that regulate touch and pain. After doing this the images of the brain scanning could be more closely looked at to see if the patients felt any pain of their own when watching the footage. The results were concluded from 26 men of similar age and IQ. The patients who lacked the stimulation of motor, somatosensory and emotional brain regions were lower than the normal individuals. A second trial was then performed, but this time the instructions of the prisoners were to now try and empathize with those being harmed in the film. All the sudden, the regions of the brain that respond to empathy lit up and were activated as if it was a regular person expressing genuine empathy for the victims suffering. This seems to contradict the theory that they have no empathy, rather they are more able to control when to express it. In other words, the average person can feel the agony of a traumatic shooting or car accident, but the psychopath is more able to decide if they care to be empathetic or not.

To better understand this lack of empathy in this group of people, neuroscientists studied the brains of 121 inmates at a medium-security prison and used the same technique of scanning their brains with fMRIs’. The inmates were asked to look at visual images showing physical pain, for example, a finger slammed by a door or a stuck toe. Once shown these visuals, the inmates then had to visualize themselves in the same situations. They also had to imagine another person in the same predicaments. Next peaceful scenarios were shown to them where no pain was involved like a hand on a doorknob. Using the standard PCL-R, a diagnostic tool to identify their degree of psychopathic tendencies, the inmates were divided into three roughly equal sized groups. The groups were highly, moderately, and weakly psychopathic. For the highly psychopathic group, when asked to visualize pain to themselves, they had an expected neural response  to what anyone would feel when dealt physical pain. The brain regions that control empathy for pain, such as anterior insula, the anterior midcingulate cortex, somatosensory cortex, and the right amygdala all lit up showing a sensitivity to pain. The opposite can be said when pain happened to others. The regions that lit up at the thought of self pain did not do so at the thought of pain that happens to anyone that is not them. Furthermore, there was the unsettling fact that these individuals ventral striatum, a pleasure region, was quite stimulated when thinking about others’ in pain. It was as if they got real enjoyment out of it.

The conclusion to be drawn is that psychopaths don’t have an automatic response for empathy. They can use it when it’s necessary and don’t feel compelled to display it unless it serves some kind of benefit to them. Psychopaths only care about themselves if harm is inflicted towards them so they are empathetic to themselves, but when it comes to others all bets are off.

psychopath-empathy2

Sources: 

http://www.livescience.com/38421-psychopaths-feel-empathy-when-they-try.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-empathic-brain/201307/inside-the-mind-psychopath-empathic-not-always

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130924174331.htm

I am the “Late friend”

I will be the first to admit that I am the friend that is always last to the dinner reservation, the student that barges into class minutes after it started, the one that is late no matter how important the event is. I constantly get yelled at by authority figures for being late and sometimes even by my own friends. In result of my issue of always being late I decided to look further into the reasons why i’m always late because no matter how hard I try, I still find myself being late.

The correct term for someone who is always late is a chronically late person. The word chronic makes lateness sound like a disease or something and that’s because health issues can be the result of certain individual’s lateness. Diana DeLonzer, the author of Never Be Late, conducted a study at San Francisco State University involving chronic lateness and found that of the two-hundred and twenty-five people in the study, seventeen percent of them were chronically late. The seventeen percent who were found to be chronically late, “Demonstrated trouble with self-control (were more prone to habits such as overeating, drinking too much, gambling and impulse shopping), showed an affinity for thrill-seeking and displayed ADD-like symptoms like restlessness, trouble focusing and attention issues” (Schupak, Amanda). DeLonzer’s study results give a clear insight into the many factors that attribute into a person being chronically late. In addition to DeLonzer’s findings, Pauline Wallin a psychologist in Camp Hill, PA, has found that a major cause of lateness is anxiety. Similarly to Wallin’s conclusion, Psychologist Linda Sapadin, PhD, also agrees that anxiety can cause lateness, “There’s a fear factor in which people are anxious about going at all or about getting there too early and having nothing to do” (Sapadin, Linda). I can definitely see how anxiety could trigger lateness especially when considering if someone has low confidence they could be anxious to be seen by other people or just to be in public outside of the comfort of their own home.

After learning about the multitude of issues a person can have to cause their lateness I wanted to know how one would go about solving their issue of constantly being late. DeLonzer recommends looking deeper into the reasons one is late. In the image below DeLonzer lists and describes seven of the most common types of late people.

Screen Shot 2015-12-03 at 6.22.04 PM

Identifying the causes of why one is late is the first step and it’s big one because it leads to discovering the underlying causes of one’s lateness. The causes can also help one uncover what type of late person they are from the list above. Once one is able to recognize themselves as a late person they can come to realize how much one underestimates how long a task will take to do. This is formally known as a Planning fallacy which is when one underestimates how long a task will take. Experts say that is said to be one of the most difficult behavioral patterns to change. A way to change this is by “Relearning to tell time”, a strategy developed by DeLonzer to improve one’s perception of time. Relearning to tell time is the first step in DeLonzer’s three step plan to overcome lateness. These three steps are listed and described in the image below.

Screen Shot 2015-12-03 at 6.07.21 PM

If you are a person who is constantly late and wants to change your ways, don’t fret, there is clearly tons of ways to crush this bad habit. To all the other late people who see no hope for changing their ways this article about how late people are more optimistic may make you feel better about yourself. Lastly, Famous English Humorist Edward Verral Lucas did once say, “People who show up late for things are always so much more cheerful than the people who have to wait for them” (Lucas, Edward).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/28/always-late-be-on-time_n_2534109.html

http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/help-chronically-late

http://www.wsj.com/articles/we-know-why-youre-always-late-1422900180

Feeding Variation in Vampire Bat Species

Bats are a diverse and complicated character within human culture – folk tales speak of bats curdling breast milk, countless films and books have depicted bats as the disguise for hunting vampires, Shakespeare described bats being used for witches’ spells, Chinese legends uphold the bat as a symbol for happiness and good fortune, and the Babylonians believed bats were the physical manifestation of dead souls. However, aside from their cultural presence, bats are a fascinating and sophisticated species.

Vampire bats in particular have developed many unique and extremely specialized behaviors which have allowed them to be a competitive species within the animal kingdom. As pointed out by Dr. Bill Schutt, much of the research conducted on vampire bat behavior has focused on the common vampire bat (Desmodus rotundus) – one of the three species of vampire bats – under the assumption that their behavior could also be attributed to the other two species of vampires: the white winged vampire bat (Diaemus youngi) and the hairy-legged vampire bat (Diphylla ecaudata). Upon further investigation and observation however, Schutt was able to determine that the behaviors in vampire bats were varied and that their feeding behaviors proved to be the most diverse.

In the case of the common vampire, ground hunting is the preferred method for obtaining blood, “One of the reasons for the common vampire’s success is its ability to feed from the ground—and thanks to humans – they have developed a partiality to cows’ blood. This they often obtain while on the ground, from the region behind the cows’ hooves, an area with relatively thin skin and an ample blood supply flowing close to the surface” (Schutt). This behavior has led to distinct physical traits within Desmodus such as strengthened pectorals and elongated thumbs which allow them to jump away from potential kicks by their bovine prey and take flight off the ground.

The white winged vampire is a much daintier species. In contrast to its common vampire cousin, Diaemus prefers to hunt in the trees. By hanging on the branch below a roosting bird the white winged vampire licks the foot or toes of its prey (all vampire bats do this as their saliva acts as an anticoagulant). Once the site prepared, Diaemus bites down and then laps the blood until it is ready to take to the air from the branch (Schutt). This method of hunting has contributed to Diaemus developing smaller thumbs than the afore mentioned Desmodus. A behavior observed from white winged vampires in captivity reveals a layer of cunning to their otherwise polite style of hunting. Schutt explains,

The other bat, however, crept even closer, and then, amazingly, it nuzzled against the hen’s feathery breast. Instead of becoming alarmed or aggressive, the bird seemed to relax. The vampire responded by pushing itself even deeper into what I would later learn was a sensitive section of skin called the brood patch: a feather-free region, densely packed with surface blood vessels, where body heat is efficiently transferred to the hen’s eggs or to her chicks. As I watched, the hen reacted to the bat by fluffing her feathers, hunkering down—and closing her eyes. (Schutt)

The bats had learned to act the part of a chick, in order to calm the hen and gain access to the blood-rich underside of her breast.

The final species of vampire bat, the hairy-legged vampire, is not afraid to get up close to its prey. As Schull witnessed, this vampire hangs from the underside of the chicken and feeds from around the cloaca (contrast to the white wing which hangs from a branch and feeds mainly from the feet).

In each case, it can be seen that the behavior of an animal influences the ways in which they physically develop and alter. Most of the time when I think of evolution changing the physical characteristics of an organism it is in response to external forces like climate, habitat, and predation but in these instances it seems that it was the chosen behavior of the bats that altered their physical adaptations.

 

 

Sources:

Schutt, Bill. “The Curious, Bloody Lives of Vampire Bats.” Natural History. Natural History Museum and Magazine, n.d. Web. 3 Dec. 2015.

Genetically Modified Salmon

salmon

Just this week the Food and Drug Administration approved genetically modified salmon for human consumption. The purpose of genetically modifying these fish are to have them grow at a faster rate and grow to a larger size. This leads to more food for people to eat, but when it comes to food, people want to be sure that it is safe.

The genetically altered salmon is called AquAdvantage salmon and it is an “Atlantic salmon that contains artificially inserted grown hormone genes from Chinook salmon and a genetic promoter from ocean pout (an eel-like fish) that makes these salmon grow at twice the rate as regular ones” (Figura)

The FDA should be trusted and they definitely spent the necessary time researching the potential issues that could arise, but for people that do not want to eat any genetically modified food this could be an issue. The salmon does not even need to be labeled anything different than regular salmon. Shoppers at the grocery store will not even know that the salmon is genetically altered.

Unfortunately it is hard to be certain about the safety of genetically altered fish without doing studies and observing the effects of them.

Even if a study was done, over a short period doing a random control trial comparing people that ate genetically modified salmon to people that ate natural salmon, there might not be any noticeable difference in this short amount of time but that does not mean that it wouldn’t present issues later on.

Nevertheless, doing a study that was a month or even a week could be valuable to see if there are any differences between the two groups. There probably is not one specific aspect that the study would know to look for so this study could suffer from the Texas Sharpshooter problem by measuring a lot of different things and finding one or a few that give back good enough results.

Although this is the first animal to be genetically modified for consumption, what some people do not realize is that genetically modified food already exists in many of the foods that we eat. Corn and soy are modified on a wide basis already and are products in many processed foods.  “Currently, up to 92% of U.S. corn is genetically engineered, as are 94% of soybeans.  It has been estimated that upwards of 75% of processed foods on supermarket shelves contain genetically engineered ingredients” (Center for Food Safety).

Now that salmon have been approved by the FDA for consumption, the logical question is what comes next? If everything goes well with salmon, it is very likely that more animals will become genetically modified to improve them and increase the food supply.

One suggestion already for the next animal to be genetically modified are pigs. Some pigs have already been genetically modified to be much more resistant to the swine fever, which is something that has no cure for pigs.  This has a great benefit for farmers and the market for all meats that come from pigs in general.  If this is already possible it does not seem at all out of the realm of possibility for pigs to start being genetically altered for human consumption.

So it has been demonstrated that pigs can already be genetically altered but these pigs are not ready for consumption yet. What challenges would pigs create compared to salmon to get them FDA approved? Are mammals more complex to work with than fish? Are people willing to eat genetically altered animals?  These are all important questions to know before proceeding but it seems like genetically altered animals will become a lot more prevalent through the years.  If the FDA says it’s safe, then I think we should be confident in at as consumers but seeing test studies that could reveal potential problems would be very helpful.

Why is it said that women are more mature

women-mentally-mature-faster-men_428eb61df52b8caaEvery noticed how women tend to mature faster than men. Often times girls will hit puberty before boys. We all know this to be true, but the real question is why girls mature faster.

Science Mic says that A 2013 study published in Cerebral Cortex offers a scientific explanation behind the common notion that men take longer to “act their age” than women do. According to the study, it’s rooted in the fact that the female brain establishes connections and “prunes” itself faster than the male brain.

Researchers found about 120 people between the ages of 4 and 40 to help their experiment. They used these people to how different regions of the brain communicates, they were trying to find fiber cells that connect brain cells to one another. When a baby is born, girl and boy have just amount the same amount of fiber. The fiber creates a chain that helps us learn and develop. As we get older, the brain finds a faster way to communicate messages from one region to another.

The experiment was very incomplete and didn’t come forth we a specific answer. The 120 people that were picked for the experiment could not be random because in certain cases some boys do mature faster. So in order for the experiment to work, the older people had to be hand selected. Choosing some that matured rather quickly and some that took longer to mature.

There is no hard core evidence that women mature faster then men aside from the fact the women’s brains get pruned faster. But truthfully there really is no science in this. Men have the ability to be mature they just choose not to, it’s really as simple as that.NDU0NWE4OTQxOSMvOUxhRmdicy0wa0c2LW9PY1lsRi1mRl9zcm9BPS8zeDE6MTI4OHg2MjMvMTI4MHg2MjAvZmlsdGVyczpxdWFsaXR5KDc1KS9odHRwczovL3MzLmFtYXpvbmF3cy5jb20vcG9saWN5bWljLWltYWdlcy9laWxxbXNld3FkZGo0bnl0M2dveWlybThmZnF1a3J2c2F1a2M4ZDloeGJrcTV4OWpnZXEyeXBnc2Rzc2Rjdn

Introduce them Young – Goodbye Peanut Allergies

My brother is deathly allergic to hazelnuts. I remember the day we found out. I was at a friend’s house and my mom called saying they were rushing to the hospital because my brother couldn’t breathe but “don’t worry.” How I wasn’t supposed to worry, I don’t know, but when I met them at the hospital he was ok. His back however, was not. Spread across his back were red dots, some minuscule and some very visible. He was getting an allergy test and the biggest dot: hazelnut. The doctor’s connected the dots and figured that the Nutella (chocolate and hazelnut crème) crepe he ate hours before was the culprit. Thankfully he got to the hospital time, because as we found out, allergies are nothing to joke about.

Unfortunately, the American Academy of Pediatrics apparently made a big mistake when advising parents in 2000 to keep peanuts far away from infants and toddlers. Researchers released findings at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology’s annual meeting in February that children who were exposed to peanuts at least three times a week were seven times less likely to develop a peanut allergy than children who were not exposed to them in their first five years of life. This trial gives more backing to the idea of hygiene hypothesis. It claims that in today’s world, children are exposed to far less germs and bacteria necessary to build a strong immune system because of the super-clean world we live in. Antibacterial soap, hand sanitizer, and disinfectants are making children’s immune systems susceptible to less and less foreign invaders.

This idea is further highlighted in a study from Sweden published in February. The study claims that parents who wash dishes by hand are less likely to have kids with allergies. Dr. Bill Hesselmar at the University of Gothenburg and his team studied data from the 2007 Sweden survey and found that overall, washing dishes by hand was tied to a 43% reduced risk of allergies. The study found that additionally, 2% of kids in homes that hand washed had asthma compared to 7% in households that use washer machines. The same goes for children with eczema, with about 23% of children having it from hand-washing households compared to 38% in dishwasher machine households.

In 2015 the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America conducted a peanut allergy study, Learning Early about Peanut Allergy (LEAP). Dr. Tammy Jacobs, certified position and head of the study, was curious about an interesting fact regarding Jewish children: in the UK, they were ten times as likely to develop a peanut allergy as Israeli children of similar ancestry. Since this strayed from the hypothesis that genetics was the sole factor in allergies, researchers found this curious. Their findings discovered that Israeli children consumed a steady diet of peanut protein at only seven months and that UK children were exposed much later.

The idea that genetics are the sole factor in allergies was debunked even further in a 2015 study also release at the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology annual meeting. Here, Dr. Matthew Greenhawk, introduced his findings that he and his team at University of Michigan found. The team worked with 1,120 children who have siblings with documented food allergies. While 53% had food sensitivity, only 13% had an actual food allergy.

As the years go by and many of us begin to have to children, after reading these studies I’d advise using the incremental introduction method with your children when it comes to foods. Many scientists believe that by doing so you will ease your children into having little to no food allergies. However, if they have an immediate poor reaction, take them to a doctor. While these methods may work for some, other children may be genetically incapable of handling some foods. Nowadays, many elementary schools have become peanut free due to the allergies of some students. Do not let this discourage your future children, as introducing them young may eliminate the unfortunate need to keep away from these tasty nuts.

Sources:

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-peanut-allergy-leap-study-20150223-story.html#page=1

http://www.heraldextra.com/momclick/health-and-fitness/health-and-wellness-column/leaps-and-bounds-a-new-study-could-change-the-peanut/article_738275e7-31a3-53bd-b7ba-d33787fa99cb.html

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2015/11/05/Study-Siblings-unlikely-to-share-the-same-food-allergies/4631446735057/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/washing-dishes-by-hand-linked-to-fewer-allergies-in-kids-1.2968512

What do Algae and Salamanders have in common?

When I was growing up, I always wanted to be a mermaid. I grew up living on a beach, and spent most of my time in the water—specifically under water, always testing how long I could hold my breath. I thought one day I would just be swept away to live with the mermaids like Aquamarine. As I grew older, I realized my dream would never quite become a reality… but maybe it will?

Recent research has possibly discovered a way for humans to potentially breathe underwater, according to this article.

The researchers at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada have found that since mankind came to be, human DNA has absorbed hundreds of viruses. The study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United states of America.  They compared this to salamanders, as algae often becomes stuck in embryos, growing with them and not leaving their DNA, literally making them part algae. The researchers suggest that this process could be applied to humans, merging our DNA with that of algae so we too could breathe underwater and salamanders do. This idea isn’t too far fetched, since we are both vertebrate.

Researcher Dr. Ryan Kerney said “Algae inside the egg capsules provide oxygen to the embryo and the algae gets waste from the embryo which is rich in the nitrogen the plant needs,” according to the article. Kerney also said the researchers found algae DNA in the reproductive organs of adult salamanders, so it is possible that this gene is inherited.images

Of course, this new discovery could have a major impact on our future. According to scientists, it could potentially mean that bioengineers could use algae as a source of oxygen for organisms, including humans. This study is the first that suggests the partnership of a plant and vertebrate, but the biological impacts and effects are still unknown.

I feel this study is very interesting, but posses many unanswered questions. It is highly unlikely this could suffer from the Texas sharpshooter problem, or the file drawer since this is brand new research that is only testing one idea, however it is very uncertain as to what the long-term effects may be. The scientists have no actually done any mutations yet, as far as the public is aware. This could lead to a whole new branch of science, manipulating DNA to allow for inhumane effects, such as breathing underwater. It would be important to take into consideration the future of this, also if this is ethical or not. What benefits come from adding the DNA of algae to our human DNA? If this is ethical, is it ethical to swap the DNA of fish and give ourselves gills? All these questions have yet to be answered, however I feel this is a whole new world of science that will open doors to future advancements in our society. For now, my biggest question is… will we be able to swim underwater like in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire?imgres-2

Cancer and Medical versus Mental Healing

Unfortunately, as we see so often in the world, cancer affects far too many people and families in it’s various forms and stages and types.

Whether it is chemotherapy, radiation treatments or clinical trials, I have seen first hand how mentally and physically draining the treatments for cancer can be not only for the patient but also for the families and friends coping as well.

Cancer-chemotherapy-001

As a result of these horrible side effects of treatments, some people opt out of treatment so that they may live the remainder of their lives with a clear and somewhat health body without having to pump all of the toxins into their systems. Many of these people that opt out of treatments instead decide to choose a mental healing or natural healing procedure.

There are even times when people choose to incorporate both the medical treatments as well as the mental and natural healing to reap the benefits of both.

Although Western medicine is generally very good at treating illness and figuring these illnesses out, Eastern medicine has not become obsolete and is still researched today, as stated above, in order to reap the all benefits of treatment.

Some of these therapies include—diets, meditation and switching to all organic products.

brain-healing

Various organizations who do not push mental healing as a true treatment and cure for cancer have said that the disease is so draining so it is impossible to always remain positive and hopeful.

While I believe the above statement to be accurate, I also think that there is something to be said about people who can maintain a positive attitude throughout their treatments because I am a firm believer that a positive attitude will get one far in life.

There have been countless studies reported by the American Cancer Society that have stated that there have not been significant enough improvements for people with cancer solely based on the mental healing process. In spite of this, people remain hopeful.

Works Cited:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804629/

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/emotionalsideeffects/attitudes-and-cancer

http://www.asbestos.com/blog/2015/05/12/reiki-for-cancer-treatment/

http://www.cancercenterforhealing.com/cancer-treatments/emotional-counseling/

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/03/03/ep.seidler.cancer.mind.body/

Study and Test Taking Habits

study

College students are always looking for an upper hand when it comes to studying, anything that will supposedly help someone study, most people would be willing to try. One of the more highly debated studying techniques is the effectiveness of listening to music while studying.

There are many different studies that have tried to determine whether listening to music while studying is an effective strategy, and these studies can be split on their results because they are not identical studies that are testing the same thing.

For example, it can make a difference depending on what it is that you are studying or working on.

“Music with lyrics is very likely to have a problematic effect when you’re writing or reading” (Goodwin), said Clifford Nass, professor at Stanford University. “Probably less of an effect on math, if you’re not using the language parts of your brain” (Goodwin).

The lyrics of your music will interfere with the language that you are trying to read or write which will make listening to music counterproductive.

Melanie Fineman a junior at Brown University said about listening to music while studying, “Especially when music doesn’t have words, it can help me get into the reading and stop me getting distracted by other things. It makes studying more enjoyable” (USA Today)

The key there is music with no lyrics while reading, it seems so obvious that the lyrics would conflict with the text you are trying to read or the paper you are trying to write.

Enough studies have been covered on listening to music with a lot of different results so instead of continuing with this I’m going to propose a study for a different but related area.

Studying takes up most of the space in this area but another interesting part is test taking and whether something like chewing gum during a test can improve performance. While taking the PSSA (Pennsylvania System of School Assessment) the school and teachers would provide snacks and drinks for everyone and also encourage students to chew gum while taking the test. The school and the teachers obviously had a big stake in their students’ performance on these tests because it reflects how well the school and its teachers do with educating their students.

Food intake is not really worth testing, but chewing gum is interesting because there is no clear benefit from doing it. In a study done at St. Lawrence University, a study concluded that chewing gum in the five minutes prior to taking a test led to better performances on the test than students that did not chew gum. The reasoning behind the better performance was “Mastication-induced arousal, which lasted for about the first twenty minutes or so of testing” (Onyper).

Chewing gum is a form of physical activity, and there are lots of studies that conclude that physical activity can improve your results. Chewing gum was only of assistance before the test, during the test it actually became a hindrance. The reason for this was competition between “cognitive and masticatory processes” (Onyper).  Subjects in the study were unable to think to the best of their ability while chewing gum during the test.

According to this study this means that teachers at my school should have given us gum before the test and had all of us dispose of it before starting the test, rather than giving us gum to chew on during the test.

Fear of the F Word… FAT

Keep trying to shed the pounds by eliminating all fatty foods yet STILL no success? As today’s generation is highly centered on weight loss, we are constantly running into many dietary problems across the globe. Whether it be different kinds of diets such as Atkins, Paleo, Vegan, or Weight Watchers, we are eliminating major food groups in which our bodies’ need to survive. Highly concentrated fatty foods have become extremely controversial, even if they are the so-called “good fats”. So, do our bodies actually need fats (good or bad) to lose weight?

            According to Livestrong, the US Department of Agriculture tells that 25-30 percent of calorie intake should be coming from fats in order to lose weight (Bruso). Well, I think there is much more that goes into this and what kinds of fats we are specifically talking about… According to Fitness Magazine, Barbara Roberts (MD director of Women’s Cardiac Center) tells that fats are a must when it comes to losing weight. Roberts discusses the different kinds of fats like mentioned earlier discussing the good fats vs the bad fats. In more scientific terms, saturated vs unsaturated… The best kind of fats to consume are polyunsaturated and monounsaturated; those of which you can seek out from avocados, corn, sesame seeds, peanut butter, almonds, olive oil…etc. To learn more about the health benefits granted through consuming these types of fats, check this out. According to Roberts, only two to three tablespoons of olive oil is recommended per day.

After researching the different types of fats and what is most highly recommended when trying to lose weight, I found an interesting experiment in which two twin brothers set out to test the affect cutting out fat and sugar had on the body. One twin completely cut out all sugar while heavily relying on sources of fat for proper fufillment, while the other cut out all sources of fat (except 2 percent in his daily consumption, still limiting his consumption by a great amount though) while relying on sugar. In order to eliminate possible confounding variables, the two of them did the same amount and type of exercise, and ate the same times and amounts when it came time to eat. After the course of 8 weeks, the brother who had cut out sugar lost a significantly greater amount of weight when compared to the one who only cut out fat.Screen Shot 2015-12-04 at 1.20.40 AM

In my opinion, this experiment was not as controlled as it was made out to be. The possible confounding variables are endless—such as the calorie content of the foods they were consuming otherwise, and the types of foods they were consuming (whether they were loaded with fibers or carbs… etc). If they wanted to get the most accurate results, they should have counted calories as calories are the biggest determinant of weight gain/loss, while at the same time cutting out sugar in one group and fat in the other, and then another group in which neither are consumed, but replaced calorie wise (hence: control group). Another thing that I should point out is that their findings were strictly relative; they never gave answers as to how MUCH weight was lost or how what kinds of foods they were relying on. That being said, correlation cannot prove causation, BUT, there is definitely something to be said about the fact that the brother who ate fats lost a significant amount of weight. Obviously, the sample size was small and it’s difficult to make judgements when that is the case, but it is definitely clear that while consuming fat you are more than capable of losing weight. Another possible confounding variable however is that the type (good or bad; unsaturated or saturated) was unmentioned…

If I were to conduct my own experiment to see the effects consumption of foods high in fat had on the body’s overall weight loss, I would have changed a few things, including my sample size and not just stick to two brothers… An ideal experiment in hopes of finding my answer would look like this: 4 groups, both of which eat the same diet outside of fats (carbs, proteins, vegetables, fruits) so that caloric intake is stable amongst all. They are all scheduled to eat the same time, being five small meals a day. Group 1 consumes the good fats. Group 2, does not consume any fats, but to make up for the calories has an extra source of protein that contains the same calorie content as the fat given to group 1. Group 3 consumes the bad fats (saturated). Group 4 does not consume any fats nor do they replace the calories with something else (control). Over the course of 8 weeks, measure the difference in weight between the two groups and see if the group fed good lost more weight (or any) compared to the others.

After having done my research, I think it is clear that fat is a must when trying to lose weight, that is ofcourse when coming from the good fats in recommended amounts. That isn’t to say that correlation equals causation because there are endless confounding variables that affect weight such as exercise, sleep, genes…etc and that you should go crazy on fat consumption, but atleast you are more aware of the good vs bad kinds to choose from. Next time you find yourself in panick and wanting to limit your fat consumption because you “MUST look good for Puerto Vallarta Spring Break 2016”, maybe you will take a step back, take a deep breath, and reach for the healthy, weight-shedding kind 🙂

 

 

 

 

 

Bottled Water vs. Tap Water

Every day at lunch I buy a bottled water. I can easily get tap water for free from the soda machine, but for some reason I am attracted to bottled water. Maybe it’s because it looks cleaner and healthier, which got me thinking….is bottled water better than tap or is it all the same?  bottled-water-vs-tap-water

Before looking into the health differences between tap water and bottled water, I wanted to look into whether they differ in taste to begin with. Good Morning America decided to conduct their own taste test to find out if the audience believed bottled water actually tastes better. The audience was given different samples of New York City tap water, O2 (oxygenated water), Poland Spring, and Evian. Surprisingly, the study showed that 45% preferred New York City Tap Water, 24% Poland Spring, 19% O2, and 12% Evian. The majority believed tap water tasted better . This experiment is confusing because the article isn’t clear whether this was a blind test. If the audience knew which type of water they were sampling, it could totally interfere with the results and conclusions of the experiment. With that being said, I would not consider Good Morning American to be a credible source given the flaws that are in this experiment.

However, there are people that can distinguish the taste between bottled and tap. The French National Centre for Scientific Research conducted a study using “six different bottled mineral waters and six municipal tap waters.” 36% of 389 people from different parts of France could tell the difference. Because the majority cannot distinguish bottled from tap water, the study concludes “the currently high consumer demand for this beverage must be based on factors other than taste or olfactory perception.”

Which leads me to my next question, if there seems to be no comparable difference in taste FDAbetween tap and bottled water (in this case tap water is preferred), then is it actually worth buying bottled water? Is it actually healthier? According to the Mayo Clinic, tap water and bottled water are “comparable in terms of safety.” Bottled water is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), while the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates tap water. Even though they are regulated by two different administrations, they use similar practices and procedures to ensure safety.

EPAKatherine Patton, a registered dietician and certified sports dietician, states, “While (filters) can reduce exposure to (harmful) elements, it doesn’t necessarily mean bottled water will be better for your overall health.” The CNN article emphasizes the different procedures and laws put in place to make drinking water safe such as The Safe Drinking Water act of 1974. Just because bottled water appears fancy and expensive, doesn’t make tap water cheap and dirty. In fact, “In the U.S., tap water is already treated to remove particles, chemicals and bacteria. During the process of treating public water, chlorine is added as a disinfectant, and fluoride is added for its dental health benefits.”

I think it’s safe to say that tap water is just as good as bottled water. It is usually free, and it seems to taste just as good, if not better, as bottled water. While there are still some developing countries that lack clean and healthy tap water, but the United States makes sure that the water we are consuming is regulated. So overall, I give tap water a thumbs up. You could be saving yourself a dollar or two every time you buy bottled water for lunch!

First language’s influence

As we all know, when we are born we accept out first language immediately and learn how to speak and use that first language. However, in some situation, we may change our first language into other languages and even forget the original one due to some reasons. If we do not speak or use the first language often, we may eventually forget it. Recently, scientists find out that even if we forget out first language, it influences the language we use now in some aspects.

In this article from science daily, scientist make a hypothesis that first language affects the following languages even if we forget it. In order to prove whether this statement is correct or false, they design an experiment that compare the behaviors of three groups of children under different conditions. The three groups of children are tested to speak French while one of them are raised in French only environment, one in France but from China and one from families that speak both French and Chinese. After analyzing the data they gathered from the scan images of there area of brain that controls language skills, they find out that the first language has large and long term influence on a child’s future linguistic skill which proves that the hypothesis is correct.

Although this experiment seems comprehensive and well conducted, it is still a single-blind experiment that has comparisons among different test groups. Moreover, this test can be easily affected by the third variables like cultures of the children’s testing environments, the intelligences of children, chance and so on. All these factors can change the conclusion completely. In other words, if this research is done in a reverse way, there is less than 5% possibility that they scientists can get the same conclusion. Since correlation does not equal to causation, more researches should be made for more convincing evidences to prove this hypothesis. What’s more, according to the last sentence of this article, the whole experiment can be affected by the file drawer problem which the founders of this research may force the scientists to make certain conclusion in order to achieve their own wish and fit the public taste, so the accuracy of this correlation is still vague.

In conclusion, if this relation between first language and the brain’s influence on other languages does exists, it reminds people of how to learn other languages in the future. For example, they can take advantages of their first language even if they forget it to learn a similar language or with relations.

“They Say That Time’s Supposed to Heal Ya, But I Ain’t Done Much Healing”: The Science Behind Break-Ups

Break-ups: We’ve all been through them. Even Adele has. I once broke up with a guy because kissing him was like kissing a bucket of water. Two years later, I got dumped two weeks before my junior prom (and even worse — he took another date with him). It took me weeks to get over that guy, and I’m sure my freshman year boyfriend took a little time to move on, too. But is there a science behind getting over an ex? Is there a method to the madness that is the break-up? Some romantics may say “no way, it’s all just sweatpants and Ben & Jerry’s,” but I disagree.

Before we look at the science of the healing process, we need to look at the break-up itself. It turns out that when you’re suffering from heart-ache, you may actually be experiencing pain. A 2011 study by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences looked at the relationship between “social rejection” and physical pain. Researchers tried to prove a link between the two “by having people who recently experienced an unwanted break-up view a photograph of their ex-partner as they think about being rejected.” Through a series of MRI’s, they found that the secondary somatosensory cortex and dorsal posterior insula, the parts of the brain that are normally associated with physical pain, lit up. Maybe this is why break-ups are so hard to get over: it’s a physical healing as well as an emotional one.

For all of you heartbroken people out there, you’re going to want to pay attention to this next part: studies show that you shouldn’t spend too much time wallowing. A little dwelling on the past is okay,  but it’s often better to calmly reflect — one study conducted at Northwestern University showed that reflection can help people “sort through their emotions and build a stronger sense of who they were as single people.” They arrived at this conclusion by gathering up people who had gone through a break-up in the last six months and splitting them into two groups. The first group completed an initial questionnaire at the beginning of a nine week period, and then completed a final questionnaire with no reporting in between. The second group, however, continuously reported their emotion status and coping mechanisms for the course of nine weeks, which included interviews and monitoring their heart rates. After nine weeks, the researchers concluded that the second group, who were consistently forced to face their emotions, “had a better overall recovery from their break-ups.” While dwelling on the break-up helps one recreate their self-concept, too much of it can inhibit our ability to move on.

It can be hard not to dwell on the past, especially when you’re coming out of a long, emotional relationship. Despite all this, there is still hope: another study from Northwestern shows that people often overestimate how long it will take to get over your ex. Researchers from the university ask the question, “how accurately can people predict the magnitude of this post-breakup distress?” 69 Northwestern freshman were chosen to be part of the study, and were asked to fill out an initial questionnaire where they stated the length of their current relationship. Every two weeks after that, each participant had to report if they were still involved in their previously mentioned relationship. If they reported that they weren’t, they then had to rate if they agreed or disagreed with certain statements such as “In general, I am pretty happy these days,” or ‘‘I am extremely upset that my relationship with [name] ended.” These questionnaires were meant to predict “actual distress.” To find “predicted distress” among the participants, they were asked questions like “If your relationship were to end in sometime within the next two weeks, to what degree will you agree with this statement in two [four, eight, twelve] weeks?” After a series of calculations and further questioning, it was found that on average, the participants’ predicted distress was significantly longer than their actual distress.

Despite what studies may show, there are plenty of anecdotal cases out there. Dwelling in the past with buckets of ice cream and sweatpants that are so big they fall off may work for some people, and there are plenty of people who end a relationship and hop right into another, no questions asked. It depends on what works best for you, and just like a lot of the cases we learned about in class, there could be third variables at play when it comes to predicting how long you’ll be heart-broken for or feeling physical pain from a break-up. A break-up could be the result of a lot of outside stress from a job, family problems, or personal issues, which could all also cause physical pain. Not only that, but other issues could make getting over your ex a lot harder. There can always be other variables at play, as well as chance — but if you’re looking to get over a break-up, you can always turn to science for the answer.

Are Low-Carb Diets worse than High-Carb Diets

For about the past few years I have been exercising and developing knowledge about different diets people use in order to gain/lose weight, gain more muscle, and get rid of fat. A popular thing among weightlifters is to bulk up and then cut weight (click here for information on bulking). I personally have strayed away from this diet since the cutting phase requires a person to maintain a low-carb diet or to cut out complex carbohydrates completely. When first reading this, I thought to myself that there’s no way that can be healthy since carbohydrates are human’s main source of energy. So, are low-carb diets bad for you?

Null Hypothesis: Low-Carb diets are not bad for you

Alternative: Low-carb diets are bad for you

After some research I found a study that compared low-carbohydrate, high protein, high fat diet to a low-calorie, high-carbohydrate, low fat diet. Researchers conducted this study by randomly assigning 63 obese men and women to either diet for to track which group lost more weigh over the span of one year. After six months the low-carb diet had lost a higher percentage of body weight than the other group, but the differences after one year were not statistically significant. Both diets had a significant decrease in diastolic blood pressure. People with high diastolic blood pressure are more likely to have problems with their memory and thinking skills than those with normal levels which is less than 120/80 mm Hg (less than 120 systolic AND less than 80 diastolic) for an adult age 20 or over. Also, the insulin response to an oral glucose load decreased in both.

Bottom Line: The low-carbohydrate diet produced a greater weight loss, which was approximately 4%. Also, the low-carb diet was associated with an improvement in risk factors, such as coronary heart disease. Adherence to the prescribed diets were low which may have been set back to the effectiveness of the study. Therefor larger studies should be conducted in order to get a better understanding of the long-term safety of each diet.

In another study done by the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center, they performed a test similar to the one above. Some differences were that the two diet groups attended separate two-hour teaching sessions every week for a month straight. Which was then followed up by monthly one-hour sessions for five additional months which was led by experts in nutritional counseling. Subjects were also given handouts, instructional nutrition labels, and other useful information to help guide the. Also, the subjects on the low-card diet restricted their carbohydrate intake to 30 g per day or less. While the low-fat dieters were not provided instructions on restricting total fat intake, but they did receive instruction that went along with obesity-management headlines of National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Some other key notes:

  • Subjects were at least 18 years old and had and had a bmi of at least 35
  • There were 132 participants involved in the study
  • Stratified randomization used to ensure that each group contained equal numbers of women, subjects with diabetes, and severely obese subjects (bmi greater than or equal to 40)
  • Study was not blinded
  • Many participants dropped out before the end of the study

After the study was completed, researchers found that triglyceride levels decreased in the low-carbohydrate group. Many studies suggest that lowering triglyceride levels has an overall cardiovascular benefit. Also, insulin sensitivity improved after following this diet.

The Bottom Line: The study revealed that low-carb diets can improve triglyceride levels and insulin sensitivity. Also, that confounding variables such as the high dropout rate could have greatly affected the results in this studies findings.

On the other hand. I found a few articles that claim low-carb diets can elicit the below side effects:

  • Induction Flu
  • Leg cramps
  • Constipation
  • Bad Breath
  • Heart Palpitations
  • Reduced Physical Performance

Sometimes people temporarily put themselves at risk when they abruptly/drastically cut cubs out their diet. A few short-term effects are headaches, bad breath, weakness, fatigue, constipation, and diarrhea. Consuming less than 20 grams of carbs per day can result in ketosis. The mayo clinic states that: Ketosis occurs when you don’t have enough sugar (glucose) for energy, so your body breaks down stored fat, causing ketones to build up in your body. This causes the above stated side effects such as nausea, headache, mental/physical fatigue and bad breath. Then in heavily restricted carbohydrate diets other effects come into play. For example: vitamin/mineral deficiencies, bone loss, and gastrointestinal disturbances (symptoms of stomach pain, heartburn, diarrhea, constipation, nausea and vomiting).

What’s the cause for these side effects?

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022207

http://scoobysworkshop.com/bulking-and-cutting/

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637#t=article

http://authoritynutrition.com/10-things-dietitians-say-about-low-carb-diets/

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20090824/People-with-high-diastolic-blood-pressure-more-likely-to-have-cognitive-impairment.aspx

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Click to access content_69_849.pdf

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-depth/low-carb-diet/art-20045831?pg=2

Does Exercise Affect the Brain?

Everyone has heard before that getting a good night sleep, eating a good breakfast, and studying can help improve your grade on an exam. Recently, I heard an interesting theory saying that a small amount of exercise before an exam can drastically improve your scores. I had never heard this before, and wanted to know more about it.

Before researching whether or not exercise before an exam helps improve scores, I first wanted to know the general effect of exercise on the brain. One study supporting this idea showed that after performing M.R.I’s on a group of children, the fit children had much larger basal ganglia. This is the part of the brain that helps maintain attention and improves the ability to coordinate thoughts and actions. In this study, since the groups of children all had similar BMI’s, socioeconomic backgrounds, and other variables, the researchers concluded that being fit made the portions of their brain larger.

Although the study showed how exercise can make the brain larger, I was not convinced exercise before an exam could help because students tend to use memorization for exams. There also could have been third variables or chance that made the results come out the way that they did. Researchers at the University of Illinois conducted a similar survey that categorized children by their fitness levels. However, these researchers completed different tests focusing on complex memory. Complex memory goes along with activity in the hippocampus, a structure in the medial temporal lobes of the brain. The M.R.I’s revealed that fit children had thicker hippocampi, which is thought to have helped their memory. Again, this could have been due to third variables. The researchers also found that physical activity improves the microstructures of white matter in the brain. This white matter leads to faster conduction between brain regions and cognitive performance.

Another study in the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research found that “a single 30-minute session of moderate-intensity exercise could improve memory, planning, and reasoning, and shorten the amount of time needed to complete cognitive tests.” So, before your next big test, you might want to consider a quick workout to improve your scores.

exercise-happiness-1

How Venom Affects Humans

Everyone knows that venom can kill you, but how does it actually affect the human body?

snake

It turns out that there are actually three different kinds of snake venom and they each have a different affect..

Hemotoxic venom is designed to assault the cardiovascular system. Cytotoxic venom targets specific sites or muscle groups, while neurotoxic venom goes after the brain and nervous system. Some snakes combine venom types for a more effective bite, while others only carry one specific form of venom. All venoms contain a complex cocktail of proteins and enzymes” (Wisegeek).

Hemotoxic venom will cause the bite victim to experience decreased blood pressure and blood clotting. If the venom reaches the heart before receiving treatment, this is a big problem and usually results in death.

Cytotoxic venom kills human tissue and if any tissue dies then it will have to be amputated.

The goal of neurotoxic venom is to “disrupt the function of the brain and nervous system” (wisegeek). This kind of venom can lead to paralysis and an inability to control one’s muscles. This type of venom “can also attack the body’s supply of ATP, a nucleotide which is critical in energy transfer between cells” (wisegeek).

The danger from venom does not just depend on the type of venom that the victim is inflicted with, it also depends on what kind of snake or animal it is, how much venom was put in the person’s system, and where the bite was.

Obviously a study of how different venom affects people would be highly unethical, so the only way to learn about how venom interacts with the human body is to compare observational data of people that were bitten and would happened to them.

The degree of severity will also depend on the person, just as with medication doses, a child will not need as much to get the same response as an adult.

When comparing venomous snakes and which ones are the most deadly, numbers will be thrown out there like only a fraction of a milligram is enough to kill however many amount of humans.

But how accurate are these figures? Is this an inexact science?

As I mentioned before, it would be highly unethical to test venom responses on humans, so this is not how it is determined. I attempted to find an explanation for this determination and amazingly did not find any, only pieces of data about how toxic particular snake venom would be to humans but no explanation for the methodology behind it.

This leaves me to only speculate, it could be that scientists determine how much venom is needed to kill animals like mice, this amount is converted to humans based on weight, and this information is used in conjunction with information observed from bite victims about the amount of venom in their system.

This seems like the most plausible way of doing it, if it can easily be determined how much venom was in a person’s system after a bite whether they survive or not, this would be valuable information to compare. A compounding issue is how difficult it is to identify snakes for most people, unless there is something distinct about it like a rattlesnake, a bite victim could have little idea about what snake bit them.

It is my thought that the amount of venom needed to kill a human is a very inexact science and it would definitely depend on the size and condition of the person too.

Luckily for us in the United States, the rattlesnake was the only snake from the Americas to make this list of the world’s top ten most deadly snakes.

Now You Know What BPA Is!

What is BPA?

Bisphenol A, referred to as BPA, is a chemical that is commonly founds in plastic objects since the 1960s. It is also found in metal food products such as food cans, and is thought to bleed into the food or liquid the container is holding. BPA is thought to damage the brain and harm to pregnant women’s fetuses, as well as infants and children.

Who Made the Discovery?

David Feldman, a medical professor at Stanford University discovered that BPA might be a cause of medical problems. While Feldman and his team were growing yeast in a plastic petri dish, they discovered estrogen molecules growing as well

After looking into it further, they discovered it wasn’t the yeast creating these molecules, but rather it was oozing out from the plastic. Through this discovery they realized that BPA could potentially be harming people eating out of plastics or metals containing BPA.

After contacting one of the companies who produces BPA containing plastics, it turned out that the company had already looked into it, and deemed the product safe after using their own methods of testing the plastics.

Banned?

The part of the population that was potentially being hurt the most by this estrogen producing plastic, is considered to be the most dependent – infants. “A 2008 report by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “some concern for effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A,” with that exposure coming from PC baby bottles and infant cups,” explains one article.

When baby bottles were found to excrete BPA into infant’s milk after being microwaved, Europe and Turkey banned BPA in their plastic and metal food containers, as well as Canada and Denmark.

While the US still allows for BPA to be put in all types of plastics and metals, 11 US states have banned it from being in any type of children’s objects.

The FDA

The FDA has claimed that BPA is relatively safe, if in moderately low levels. Due to contestant pushing, the FDA is currently still testing the effects BPA has on health.

It does however, claim that it “supports the industry’s actions to stop producing BPA-containing baby bottles and infant feeding cups for the U.S. market, along with facilitating the development of alternatives to BPA for the linings of infant formula cans.”

How to Avoid BPA

-Some steps you can take to avoid BPA:

-Use more fresh food to avoid using canned foods

– Find products that do not contain BPA

– Do NOT heat plastic that may contain BPA

BPA_free_Logo

This symbol means that there is no BPA in whatever container you are buying.

Hair Dye > Cancer? No way.

Each time I have come home which has only been twice throughout the whole semester, my mother has changed because she died her hair. I have heard that hair dye causes cancer but was never completely sure.

Hair dyes differentiate greatly in their chemical make-up. The three main types of hair dies all have different effects. According to The American Cancer Society there are three main types of hair dyes:Screen Shot 2015-12-04 at 12.55.36 AM

The concern about cancer risk is limited to two different dyes being semi-permanent and permanent dyes, darker dyes being the greatest concern. According to the American Cancer Society, Researchers have been studying the possible link between hair dye use and cancer for many years.

According to the American Cancer Society, researchers used two main types of studies to try and figure out if the substance causes cancer. In studies that have been done in a lab, animals are exposed to the substance to see if it causes tumors or other health problems. In these lab studies, researchers can control many of the other factors that might affect the results. However, even though studies such as this are done it is not clear because the results in the animals might not be the same in humans.

Screen Shot 2015-12-04 at 1.14.36 AM

According to the National Cancer Institute, one case-control study examined hair dye used among 769 patients with adult acute leukemia and 623 people without leukemia in the United States and Canada. IT found that the risks of acute leukemia were higher among users of earlier formulations of both permanent and nonpermanent dyes than those who had not used dyes. However, the increases were not statistically significant. No risk increases were seen among users of more recent dye formulations. The greatest risk was among those who have used permanent dyes for longer durations, meaning at least 15 if not more years.

Between the two observations, it is evident that cancer can arise from the dying of hair. However, there could be third variables involved in the experiment cause it to be this way and especially because as the study concluded the results in the animals might and probably wouldn’t be the same in humans.

However, it would be interesting to do a study on different kinds of animals and how they react, and then the same with humans; different people with different characteristics would produce different results. A randomized control-trial would work perfect if each individual participant were chosen at random. This study shows the effect hair dye can have on cancer but doesn’t necessarily provide evidence that there is a correlation between dying hair and skin cancer.

Are you Worried you’re Ugly?

The winter months are upon us, for some this could mean you are constantly chilly, for others maybe a state of depression, but, for everyone in State College this means they are once again their palest self. This, along with any other reason to evoke self lothe on your appearance, leads many to believe they are unattractive to the opposing sex. Can that really be true, that just because you believe you are viewed as ugly people are not attracted to you? Or does a person’s personality mean more than their nose and waist size?

There is no denying the automatic sense of attraction a person feels when a very ‘hot’ person of the opposite sex walks by them. Although, research has found that this automatic attraction can be easily swayed by the person’s personality. Professor Viren Swami, who is now a professor of social Psychology at the Anglia Ruskin University worked with his team at the University of Westminster as well as scientist at the British Psychological Society on his study More than just skin deep? Personality information influences men’s ratings of the attractiveness of women’s body sizes. Swami took 2,157 college aged males and gave them a series of women to rate based on their picture, age, body mass index and personality traits. As well as a control group that was only given a picture with an age and body mass index of females. The body mass index of the females varied from extremely skinny to extremely overweight. The personality traits of women varied between being positive and negative for the women.

Swami found that males in the control group that lacked personality traits all had an excessively similar body image that they found most attractive and rated the highest. Although, males that were also provided with women’s personality traits had remarkably varying body sizes and appearance. Even the women with the body image that the males found most attractive received poor ratings if they had a negative personality. Swami’s results show that personality is valued greater than image and attractiveness.

As I looked though Swami’s research I grew more frustrated that his paper lacked definite definitions of positive and negative personalities. Yes, most people in this world see kindness, light-heartedness and agreeableness as positive qualities to possess. Although, when you go deeper and question how people feel about how cheerful or passionate a person is there are varying opinions that different males would have, and then go on to rate different females this way.  I feel that if the study only provided very general personality traits to define the women then the research that Swami found is less valuable. I say this because it is obvious the mostly everyone will favor the personality traits that public opinion admires and stay away from the obvious negative traits. If this generalization is true for the study Swami’s results become more obvious and less credible.

Swami’s study constantly made me think back to the class we explored if males were toxic.  I know that we discussed that there was a sexual arms race between male Bean weevils  to poison each others sperm in a female, but there is still a connection to sexual arms races in humans. This “sexual arms race” of humans is leading both males and females to believe it is necessary to find a ‘hot’ person of the opposite sex and claim them, whether that be for the night, year, or lifetime. Like we said in class this can be very bad for species and is a powerful force that is leading people to question how attractive they are to others.

There was research done prior to Swami’s study that helps to support his results. The Department of Psychology from the State University of New York, Stony Brook and Monmouth University join together for the study Personality goes a long way: The malleability of opposite-sex physical attractiveness. Professor Gary W. Lewandowski and Arthur Aron had 56 females and 22 males rate photos of the opposite sex, distract their mind from the task and then go back and rate the photos again, although this time with that person’s defining characteristic under the photo. When the photos included personality traits the ratings of the opposite sex once again changed significantly.  In this study the researchers compared their results to a “model in which desirability of the target’s personality leads to greater desirability as a friend, leading to greater desirability as a dating partner.” This shows that a person can so quickly be transformed in one’s mind as being attractive with a nice body and face to becoming distasteful with negative personality traits.  

I feel that with two studies that support each other’s findings, additional studies available to me as well as the overplayed 21st century ideal that it is on the inside that really counts the idea of being ugly should be fading away. Although it isn’t, that is why I believe that this study is too broad to cover all male and female beliefs of attraction. It is similar to the idea of marrying for money. Usually a person that has a greater desire for money does not consider personality because they are only concerned about the money. The same could be said for a person that is only in search for a spouse that is “hot”, they disregard a person’s personality traits. For a future study I think that researchers should take into account participants family background, geographic location and socio-economic status.  This way a study will be able to search for correlations in certain locations, with a specific upbringing that affects what a person looks for in a friend and dating partner.

If after reading my blog you still have concerns about your appearance and how it is going to affect you in the fraternity house this weekend I suggest listening to Christina Aguilar when she says “you are beautiful no matter what they say.” My research has found that there is a greater benefit in developing your personality and letting it guide you to being the person you want to be, rather than spending money, time and energy on an appearance that many will glance over.

Limits on Editing the Human Genome

Recently in class we learned about reconstructed the Spanish Flu, and how many scientists were conflicted over it.  Some felt that that my reconstructing the Spanish Flu could potentially put people in danger.  Recently a group of scientists decided to place a moratorium on making changes to the human genome that could potentially be inherited.  While the two issues are not directly related, they do have several similarities, as both involve concerns about not being able solve any problems that could potentially arise as a result of bioenginering.

The scientists had convened at a meeting called by the United States National Academy of States, the Institute of Medicine, the Royal Society of London, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.  While the groups involved cannot punish scientists who do not comply with the decision.  However, these institutions are well respected enough that it seems as though the scientific community will follow the decision anyway.  Restraints placed on an earlier form genetic manipulation by a similar meeting in 1975 were followed.  The authority of the meeting is further bolstered by the agreement of the Chinese scientists who seemed reluctant to halt progress on altering the human genome.

The reason for the new rule comes from a new technology known as Crispr-Cas9.  Crispr-Cas9 is revolutionary due to its ability to snip out a piece of DNA and neatly stitch the ends back together.  It can even cut out a single base pair form a piece of DNA.  One scientist stated that before Crispr he had inject around a millions cells to get a perfect mutation but now he only has to inject about ten.  Another advantage of Crispr is its potential for curing diseases.   However, there is some debate about whether or not Crispr is a neccesity.  While it would be needed to prevent some diseases such as Huntington’s, scientists are doubtful of its usefulness because most inheritable diseases are caused by more than one misplaced gene.  Even in cases where there is a single misplaced gene, the problem can typically be solved through in vitro fertilization.  Scientists feel that the potential advantages of Crispr do not outweigh the risks that could be brought about by altering the human genome in such a profound way.  Despite their concerns, the conference did leave the possibility of modifying human genes in the future and stated that the topic should be revisited at regular intervals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/science/crispr-cas9-human-genome-editing-moratorium.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/magazine/the-crispr-quandary.html?action=click&contentCollection=Science&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

What Causes Addiction?

“I love you.” These three words may be the solution to a problem that has existed for well over 100 years. Many believe drug addiction occurs because of chemicals in the drugs that have addictive properties. However, new evidence suggests that addiction is caused by our environment, not chemicals.

First, addiction has a few definitions. It is the inability to abstain from something, or the craving and desire for something. Addiction is also associated with a diminished recognition of serious problems, and changes to one’s normal behavior and emotions.

In many classic addiction studies, rats were put in a cage with 2 water bottles, one laced with heroine and one with just water, and they almost always chose the bottle laced with the drug. Though this seems logical, Bruce Alexander, a professor of psychology in Vancouver, found an error in this experimental design. The rats were placed in the cages alone. Alexander thought that maybe this addiction came from animal’s innate need to bond to something, and not having anything else to bond to. To see if his thoughts were valid, he designed a group of experiments known as the Rat Park Experiments. These experiments concluded that rats that were in a loving environment (Rat Park) did not become addicted to heroine (a drug believed to have chemical properties of addiction), when given the choice between heroine-laced water, and plain water. Rat Park was Alexander’s loving environment he created for the rats. It had lots of cheese, tons of space, and most importantly, lots of other rats to have friendships and sexual relations with.

In one specific study done by Alexander, he supports this hypothesis that addiction stems from one’s environment, not the chemicals. The rats were separated into four groups: a group that lived in a lab cage, a group that lived in Rat Park, a group born and raised in the lab cages and then switched to Rat Park at the beginning of the experiment, and a group that was born and raised in Rat Park an then switched to the lab cages at the beginning of the experiment. The rats’ addiction was measured by the weights of the two water bottles (drug bottle and plain water bottle) at the ned of each day.

What Alexander found was that the rats that were caged drank 19 times more heroine-laced water than the group of rats in Rat Park! It also seemed that where the rat was born did not have much influence on whether or not they became addicted to the heroine. The only time there was an exception to these findings was when the experimenter diluted the heroine-laced water. When the heroine-laced water was diluted, rats that lived in Rat Park but were born in the lab cages drank just as much of the drug water as the rats that spent their entire lives in the lab cages. I cannot think of any logical reasoning as to why that is. Maybe someone can share their thoughts in the comments.

A view of Rat Park

Honestly, there was not much to critique about Alexander’s experimental design. I could not find sample sizes of this specific experiment, but I know he repeated all of his studies with Rat Park multiple times. This has been Alexander’s main research since 1970! But, as an informed consumer of science, since I do not know the exact sample sizes, or how many times Alexander repeated his studies, I will take his discoveries with a grain of salt. Also, his study was done on rats and not humans. Anytime a study is tries to conclude things about the human population but doesn’t test on humans, there is a bit more uncertainty involved. I would propose running a similar experiment on humans, but I do not believe it is ethical to drug humans!

My only complaint with this series of experiments is the fact that the findings are limited to saying it was a “loving environment” that caused the reduced drug addiction. Since Rat Park had many components in it, it is impossible to see if any one of these variables had a direct causal relationship with decreased drug water use. Like I mentioned before, Rat Park had lots of cheese, tons of space, and most importantly, lots of other rats to have friendships and sexual relations with. It is not clear to me if one, all, or a combination of these factors were the reason for the reduced use of the heroine-laced water. For example, I would be wary to conclude that it was the extra space that caused decreased addiction to the drug because the tons of extra food, ability to have friends, and ability to have sex could all be confounding variables.

To try to pinpoint what was the exact cause to decreased drug addiction, I propose a group of experiments that tests each one of these components of Rat Park separately. This would mean having one experiment that gives one group of rats more space than the control group, another experiment that gives one group of rats more cheese than the control group, another experiment that gives one group of rats friends while mice in the control group are isolated, and a final experiment that gives one group of rats an even split of males and females to have sex, and the control group of rats with either all males or all females. This will help find which part of Rat Park, if any individual part at all,  is causing the reduced drug addiction.

However, it may just be the combination of these factors that is causing the reduced drug addiction. This would mean it was the “loving environment” causing the reduced drug addiction, just as Alexander hypothesized. As the research stands right now, Alexander’s hypothesis of a “loving environment” causing decreased addiction to supposed “addictive drugs” seems pretty convincing to me.

So what does this all mean? It means that we need to stop punishing people for their addictions, and instead recognize why their addictions exist. If this study is correct, we need to realize people have these addictions because they are missing key bonds (especially social) normally present in a loving environment. These addicts are bonding to the drugs instead. So, next time you see an addict you care about, say, “I love you.” It may just make all the difference.

 

Watch this TED Talk given by Johann Hari. It goes into more depth on the consequences to the way we as a society currently treat addiction.

 

Also, if the specific study of Rat Park wasn’t convincing enough, I found this video that shows how Alexander drugged the rats for 57 days before the experiment, and the rats in Rat Park still did not go for heroine-laced water!

Photo URLs

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3