Daily Archives: October 17, 2016

Fear of Flying

9/11.  Malaysian Airlines flight 370, US Airways Flight 1549.  Millions of people suffer from a fear of traveling by airplane.  Is this fear rational?  Should we all be a bit more hesitant before setting foot on those giant metal flying machines?  Also, where did this fear come from? Why are some people afraid and others are not?

Image result for plane that landed in the hudson

First things first, let’s take a look at where this fear may have started.  People attribute the most danger to airplanes when other forms of travel are just as dangerous, if not more so (more on this later).  One thing that may have led to this a combination of confirmation bias, and the media.  Whenever a plane goes down and people are killed, the media sensationalizes the event.  You hear about it all the time non-stop.  Due to this you think it happens all the time.  Every time a plane crashes and you hear about it on the news, it sticks out in your mind.  You never consider all the planes that don’t erupt in a fiery pile of death and destruction.  Since you only hear when planes crash, you already have a bias that that’s what planes do.  And every subsequent crash you hear of only reinforces that bias.

So do planes actually crash all that often?  Earlier, I said that other forms of travel are just as dangerous as flying.  Let’s look at probably your most preferred mode of transportation, driving.  You feel relatively safe while driving, right?  Well according to USA Today, statistically speaking, driving is FAR more dangerous than flying.  In 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conducted some research as to the safety of driving.  They found that over millions of accidents, there had been 1.27 deaths per 100 million miles traveled.  That doesn’t sound too bad.  How does flying stack up?  The National Transportation Safety Board compiled a similar data search.  In the same year, planes had 20 accidents, no deaths, five people injured.  This equates to about 0 accidents per million flying miles.

Image result for fear of flying

So, statistically speaking, you should not be any more scared to fly on an airplane than you should be to ride in a car.  I know that simple statement won’t get anyone who is already afraid of flying to change their mind in a heartbeat.  So what can you do to ease your fears?  Well the US National Library of Medicine looked into that for you.  According to pubmed.gov, a study used virtual reality simulations to see if that would help people approach their fears.  This study included 30 participants which were split into 3 groups.  One group received virtual reality graded exposure therapy (VRGET) with physiological feedback. Another group had the same VRGET but without the physiological feedback.  And the third group just had imaginal exposure therapy (IET) which means they just imagine themselves being on a plane, rather than seeing it in virtual reality.  The study consisted of an initial benchmark flight on a plane, 8 sessions of either VRGET or IET depending on their group, and a followup plane ride three months later.   The study found that 10% of the participants who received IET could do the followup plane ride without the assistance of medication.  The same was said for 80% of people who received VRGET with no physiological feedback, and 100% of those with VRGET and physiological feedback.  Although it was a small sample size, it does show compelling evidence for a conclusion.

While VRGET might not be feasible for everyone with a fear of flying, what VRGET did was get the participants used to the experiecne of flying.  So if you want to get over your fear of flying, just keep the statistcs in mind and try to get a few flights under your belt. You should eventually get over your fear as you get used to flying on an airplane.

 

 

ADHD

A while back in class, we talked about the effects of worms had on the learning student, and the effects medication had on “wormy kids”, and studies showed that kids without worms tended to do better in school than kids without worms.  This reminded me of a disorder with similar effects in learning.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is a disorder that affects memory, attentiveness, and behavior. Many believe that it is just a disorder for children, and some believe it is a fake disorder altogether. Unlike the worms, this disorder has no easily physical symptom hat makes it easier to understand. The worms were easy to understand as the worms were physically there, effecting the children. But a mental disorder which no one can see without a brain scan is much more difficult to understand, and this goes with many mental disorders. When someone has a cold, people can see they are unwell. When someone has depression, people just see the lethargic person struggling to get out of bed for no visible reason.

1d0c2460

(image)

Here is the visual representation of ADHD, showing the brain activity of someone with ADHD and without. Of course, people cannot see this difference just by looking at someone with ADHD. Some who have worked with mentally ill people before can recognize behavioral differences, but no one can certainly tell if someone has ADHD without being tested and diagnosed, and this goes for any mental disorder as well.

Now while there is physical proof of people having the disorder, some claim ADHD does not need medication. As someone with ADHD, and spent over a year struggling with the disorder without medication, I could say that from experience that medication has helped, but again some require visual proof.

fad4c9490efbeb6dbe6d6bab83f144d1

(image)

Here we can see that medication, specifically Adderall, does increase the lacking brain activity caused by ADHD, which is the medication I used to be on for quite a long time until switching to something better suited for me.

Without medication, I can say for certain that I would not have been able to be in this college. I probably wouldn’t have even thought to apply, knowing I wouldn’t be accepted with my academic performance. My fourth grade teacher told my mother some children were not made to be successful, and she did not believe I had a disorder. She thought I was just a failure, and I thought so too until I was diagnosed and received medication. My grades went from C’s to all A’s, the time it took me to complete homework went from 3 AM to 8 PM every night, and I no longer had to make other students wait for me to finish taking notes because it took me so long to write. Before taking my medication, my failures made me suicidal. I wished to die at eight-years-old because my brain functioned differently and i believed it was my fault, but now I realize that my brain had a chemical imbalance; my brain simply did not produce as many neurotransmitters as others, and this medication make my brain make more.

This disorder does not only affect children, but rather the symptoms begin to show at a young age, and typically children do not know how to control hyper activity as easily and school work tends to demonstrate inattentiveness than a job. For instance, it is much easier for a child to begin to zone out in class than a teen who is working at fast food. Many jobs have varying tasks that must be completed, and these tasks help stimulate the mind way better than sitting in class for hours would.

Also, classes today require more at a younger age. Books that were required to read in later in high school are now required books for older middle school children. When I had to buy my required summer reading books in junior year, my mother’s boyfriend said that he didn’t have to read that until college.

timeline-500px

(image)

The advancement in medicine has also caused the frequency of diagnosis in this disorder, as well as others, to spike. With better information on how to recognize a disorder, the diagnosis will go up. ADHD has always been this common, it has only just now become more easy to diagnose and treat. As we begin to recognize these symptoms, we are also able to diagnose this disorder earlier in a person’s life so they do not have to suffer through life with an undiagnosed disorder, and children can hopefully live a relatively normal life virtually without worry.

With large amounts of un-engaging school work and the advancement in the ability to recognize this disorder, ADHD has become more commonly diagnosed. With these situations, it would appear that the disorder is only found in children, and is being at least exaggerated as this disorder was not diagnosed as often in the past, but that simply isn’t the case.

ADHD does exist, the medication does help, and people are being more frequently diagnosed today is because doctors are able to diagnose people better and with more accuracy as science evolves.

Are Cancer Trials Ethical?

This is a very personal topic to me because I myself watched my dad suffer from the awful disease that is cancer. No matter who are I’m sure that in some way shape or form you too were effected by this disease too. Its been around for hundreds of years now yet there is still no cure. Chemotherapy is used many times to attack the source but is not always successful. When the chemo doesn’t work there are few other options. Sometimes at this point patients are put in a clinical trial with the hopes that there will be a successful outcome. Although there seems to be a ongoing debate about whether or not these trials are ethical. After doing a lot of research I have concluded that these clinical trials are necessary, although some may disagree.

cancer-sucks-300x168 photo source

Side 1: The problems arises with the control group, aka the patients that are receiving the placebo. This means that the experimental group is receiving the drug that could potentially cure their cancer while the control group is not. Many people will say that this is simply unethical. How can you give one group of people a drug that could cure them and just simply let the others ones suffer? This is a hard question to address. The researchers are not doing any of this with bad intentions. Their goal simply is to cure all these people that are suffering but it cant all be done at once and this is often times hard for people to hear.

Side 2: On the other hand, many people see these trials as necessary step in the process of finding a cure. A study was done in 2000 to determine the attitude of people towards these types of trials. The study was set up with a questionnaire before, during, and after they participated in a clinical trial. The results found that the majority of these people said that the testing of clinical methods is very much necessary. Without these kinds of studies that give us hard data to look at how are we ever supposed to cure cancer?

In my opinion, I agree with side 2. Although it may be hard to think about putting a loved one in these trials in the end I believe they are doing it for the greater good. All intentions are good ones and the trials are done to help us get closer to the day that we can say we have cured cancer. I believe these trials are a necessary step in that process and if you happen to agree with side 1 then you do not have to participate. It is a difficult topic to discuss and everyone has their own side but overall I believe everything being done in these trials are getting us a step closer to ultimately finding the cure.

source 1

Should Athletes be Allowed to Use Performance Enhancing Drugs?

We all know that athletes get shamed on for using performance enchaining drug such as steroids or other hormones and we have all seen this happen to many of our favorite athletes. Should we really be worried about drugs though? Now a days technology is improving an athletes performance just as drugs would, so should this equipment be banned?  It turns out there are two sides to this debate. If all this technology can be used to enhance a player why can’t drugs be used? Lets take a look at both sides…

imgres photo source

Against Drugs Use:

Most people are opposed to the use of drugs in sports because they say that it creates an “unfair” advantage. All the other athletes worked hard to get to where they are today and they think that the people who use drugs cheated their way there. Besides for that, there are also many negative health risks that come along with these drugs. The athletes are only seeing the short term advantages it has for them but long term effects include irritability, depression, and suicidal thoughts and with a lot of abuse comes liver, kidney, and heart failure. Overall the use of drugs in sports only leads to a downward spiral.

For Drug Use:

For the people who are for drug use in sports they say that competition is unfair to begin with and its not the drugs that are creating the advantages. If drugs are unfair then coaching and training should be unfair too. All the new technology and equipment being using today is having a bigger impact on the athletes performance than anything else. They both produce the same effect so why are these techniques not banned? As far as health goes they say that people take risks everyday and taking these drugs is a risk the athletes choose to take. For example we don’t forbid people from smoking but we know it has negative effects. The same situation applies here and these people say that the choice should be up to the athlete.

Both sides to this debate put up a good argument but in the end I think it all comes down to health. Currently in the olympics today all performance enhancing drugs are banned with the attempt to create an even playing field. Although with all the new technology and training equipment available today an even playing field is way out of the question. At this point whoever has the best technology available for them has a clear advantage. So how is this advantage different from the advantage that an athlete would get from drugs.

When it comes down to it I believe that non-harmful performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in the Olympic games. They produce the same effect as the high end training equipment used today and if they are not banned then neither should drugs. Although I don’t believe harmful drugs should be used in the games because an athletes health is very important and they should not jeopardize that for a few good races. Overall I personally think non harmful drug should be legal in the games but in the end I think the choice is up to the athletes themselves.

 

source 1

source 2

source 3

 

 

Should I go Vegan?

I have asked this question to myself so many times when thinking about making healthier choices. I sit there eating a burger and I start to regret the fact that I bought the burger. That’s why going vegan seemed to be the ideal choice. My assumption is that they eat vegetables all the time and salads and are overall healthy. That is only just an assumption at the end of the day. This is what fueled my interest in researching the topic further.

Now, my reasons for considering being vegan are more from a health standpoint. Other vegans have chosen that lifestyle for ethical reasons such as not wanting to harm animals or just overall preservation of the world. These are all justified reasons for choosing this specific lifestyle but, is this way of life healthy? When I say healthy, I mean is being vegan even good for you?

fruits-and-veggies

According to The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vegan diets are usually higher in dietary fiber, magnesium, folic acid, vitamins C and E, and iron. These are all vital to the human bodies health and benefit you in the long run. Not only does a vegan diet provide you with better health, but it also reduces your risk of getting certain diseases such as heart disease and cancer. Heart disease is caused, from what I am aware of, high cholesterol and generally having an unhealthy diet. Vegans, being thinner and not consuming as much food with cholesterol, reduces their risk of getting heart disease. Also, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition states that vegans generally consume more fruits and vegetables. These fruits and vegetables have more folic acid, fiber, and antioxidants that also help reduce the risk of heart disease. Knowing this information, you would think that there are no downfalls to being vegan, right? Wrong.

I’ve had friends attempt to be vegans. They had no clue where to start. They did no research on what a healthy vegan diet consists of. I saw them start to become weaker and look not healthy. This seems to be a common problem. Being vegan can be beneficial, but you have to know what you are getting yourself into. First off, this article states that a certain fatty acid called n-3 polyunsaturated fat is necessary for normal body function. This fat is usually food in fish and eggs. Vegans would need access to supplements of this fat to be able to get the correct amount that they need. What I have noticed is that vegans lack certain vitamins and nutrients that meat eaters usually get from their daily food. Since vegans can’t eat meat or any animal products, they have to result to supplements and vitamins that may not be as beneficial as the real thing. There was a study done called the EPIC Oxford Study. In this they saw that vegans and vegetarians had a very low vitamin D deficiency. This was from not consuming certain food products that provide them with vitamin D. Also, it was seen that people with less exposure to sun that were vegan faced even more of a deficiency in vitamin D. Vitamin D is beneficial because of it’s role it plays in maintaining calcium in the body. One more issue I have personally seen is the lack of iron vegans and vegetarians have. Due to this lack of iron, they can become anemic. Knowing all this about vegans, would you still say that it is a healthy lifestyle?

I would say being vegan is a healthy lifestyle if you do it correctly! My null hypothesis going into my research was that being vegan was healthy for you and there was nothing wrong with the lifestyle. My alternative hypothesis was that being vegans is still good for you but there can be some health drawbacks that can cause you to be unhealthy. I accepted my alternative hypothesis because as I did my research, I found that there were definite drawbacks to being a vegan. Although, these drawbacks are easily avoidable. If you have access to the correct supplements and materials you need to maintain your body, then you should be fine going vegan.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1627S.full

  https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessional/

 

Bad news with Nail Polish?

Most people are familiar with the brands OPI, Essie, CND, and Sally Hansen. They have ads in almost every magazine and are even featured on some commercials. Each brand debuts a new long lasting polish about twice a year that gets girls in a frenzy. But do girls really know what affects nail polish has on their bodies other than it looking nice? Recently, society has been asking, are people doing more than just applying a pretty color to their nails when applying nail polish? Recent studies will have women thinking as to if they should keep up with their weekly manicures after reading new studies.

The Studies:

The nail salon industry is raising with each day. The demand for salons has created cities like New York to have one salon every 3 blocks. This has done great things for the economy but has it worsened things like health? After reading many headlines reading, “The truth about nail polish” I decided to see if nail polish has as bad as a rep that lately people have been giving it.

Nail polish contains the “toxic tri173993-425x283-getting-a-manio” (as researchers have named them), toluene, formaldehyde and dibutyl phthalate. Toluene is what creates the shinny finish that typical people love (some people have been switching to matte finish but it’s just a phase). This chemical is also used in gasoline so questions of how it affects the nervous and reproductive system have surfaced. Formaldehyde disinfects the manicure tools. and dibutyl phthalate is a major component in nail polish.

There is no question that when walking into a nail salon, the fumes you ingest are questionable. It is common for people to get headaches or pass out when being inside for too long. This is why doors and windows are usually open. With only about 10% of the chemical used in a manicure have been developed, how can it be safe to say that the workers are healthy? Nail polish workers get a starting salary of minimum wage, which is a high cost to pay for not knowing what these chemicals are doing to their health. Studies conducted by Cancer Prevention Institution of California have concluded small effects of the workers. Some have breathing problems, skin irritations and headaches. Minor effects but still prominent. Other chemicals such as TPHP affect the body once applied to the nails.

Most nail polish contains TPHP, triphenyl phosphate. This chemical is commonly used in the eco-friendly nail polishes that are supposed to be free of cancer causing chemicals. It also makes the polish more durable so it last longer, which is an appeal to most women so it is more likely for women to buy the product. It wasn’t until recently that this chemical essie-wiosna-2012-butelki-1developed theories of disordering the healthy development of cells and mimicking healthy hormones. Duke University-EWG teamed up determine if there was truth behind this theory. Their experiment required 26 women to apply nail polish that is sold at department or pharmacy stores. They also tested 10 different polishes for TPHP and 8 were positive for this chemical. It was found in Sally Hansen, OPI, and Essie. Although the study was only conducted on a small sample size, it is said to likely be widespread. They concluded that it is unaware as to if this chemical is correlated to harmful affects on the body but they do recommend reducing the amount of paint used.

Nail polish may not cause any harm to the body but does the remover? Fortunately, remover doesn’t contain any bad chemicals, just solvent. Solvent dissolves the polish, hence nail polish remover. Though solvent is extremely flammable so people should store them in room temperature. Acetone is mostly used in nail polish remover and when people hear the word, they think it is a toxin. Acetone is not a toxin it will have the same effect as over solvents on the nail.

Nail polish hasn’t had a break through of the intensive harmful affects yet or else every nail salon would have been shut down already. So ladies, keep getting your weekly manicures, just be aware of the potential effects it has on the body.

Citations:

Megan Boyle. “Bad News About Nail Polish.” EWG, 19 Oct. 2015. Web.
Stanford University. “The Hidden Risks in Nail Polish.” Live Science, 21 May 2015. Web.

Effects of Music and Studying

Are you a student that likes to listen to music while studying? If you take a stroll through the library, you will see many students with their headphones in. Although some may think it is beneficial, others may find it distracting to listen to music while studying and or doing work. So the question is, does listening to music while studying provide any benefit?

To figure this out I began my search for experiments that involved activities comparing sound and no sound. I then came across a study done at the University of Whales on how background music affects students ability to remember items in a specific order. The study involved 25 students between the ages of 18 and 30. They controlled for several confounding variables such as hearing, vision and language through a screening process. They also did not include those who listed their favorite type of music as ‘thrash metal’.

The study tested the student’s abilities to remember a series of consonants presented through a power point slide while being exposed to different types of sound variations. The different types of sound variations included a quiet environment, a ‘steady state’ speech where the number three was repeated, a ‘changing state’ speech where random numbers between one and nine were repeated, liked music and lastly disliked music. In my opinion having all five of these different states is very useful data. Cause not only will it provide data on whether or not music makes a difference, it will show whether having background noise could be potentially beneficial or not.

The results you may find surprising if you personally prefer studying acp1731-fig-0001with music. The study found that the ‘steady state’ speech and the quiet environment produced statistically higher results when compared to the other three groups. Meaning that under those two environments they were able to recall more during the testing.

Does this mean that you should stop listening to music while studying? Not exactly. Until more research is done and meta-analyses are done of all experiments it is quite unsure what the answer is. Another important fact to consider in this research is the effect of music with lyrics and types of music such as classical which is all instrumental based.

In a study conducted at the University of Maryland they used a sample of 32 students between the age of 20 to 41. Of the twenty-five were females and seven were males which to me does not seem like a good representation in my opinion. They used a song that called “Not Ready to Die,” a heavy rock song, and a classical piano song called “Morning Light.”

The experiment called for the students to perform cognitive tests under five conditions. The control being no music and the other being the heavy rock song and classical song played at both low and high intensity. In conclusion the study found that performance was much better in silence than any of the four music conditions (p<.05). Surprisingly to me however, there was no significant difference between the two songs in the loud music condition (p=.582). This is most likely because loud music should not be used when studying or performing tests.

Overall I still findcover this toping very intriguing. Although I will most likely continue to study in complete silence. I am interested to see if in further testing will find that certain types of music can help benefit my learning. I believe that a lot of testing is required to determine a true result on this topic due to the many potential confounding variables at play such as IQ. Only experimentation will tell us what the true answer is.

 

Links to photos:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.1731/full

https://gradeslam.org/blog/does-listening-to-music-help-with-studying

Other Links Used:

http://www.mindthesciencegap.org/2012/10/08/does-music-help-you-study/

 

 

 

Music and Friends

Whenever I’m feeling stressed or down, I put on my favorite music, making everything a little bit better, but nothing beats jamming out to your favorite playlist with your best friends or teammates.  Music can have many effects on people, but as I ran into my friends dorm room this weekend and we all began jamming out to our favorite song, I began to realize that listening to music with friends has a much stronger impact on me than just putting in my headphones.  Then I thought back to high school volleyball, and how important our pre-game warm up playlist always was to our team, because it helped us all destress and get ourselves ready for the game.  None of us ever listened to music on our own because we believed it helped us more to all jam together.  After making these connections, I wondered if the effects of music on our moods depends on the social environment that we are in.  My hypothesis is that being in a social context with friends or teammates that you enjoy spending time with will increase the effects of music on increasing your mood and decreasing stress.



In this study done in Germany at the Phillips University of Marburg published earlier this year, scientists are testing how a social environment can improve the already beneficial effects of music.  Here, the null hypothesis would be that listening to music in the context of other people does not increase the decrease in stress provided by music, and the alternative hypothesis would be that listening to music in the context of other people does increase the decrease in stress provided by music.  Although the scientists told the participants what to do, there was not a control group and participants were simply recording how they felt, making this an observational study.  Participants listened to music in thirty minute intervals five times a day and answered multiple questions following it.  They continue this process for a week and then the researchers looked at the results.

From this study, the scientists were able to draw the conclusion that listening to music with other people and listening to music for the sole reason of relaxation both had the same effects on decreasing stress levels, which goes against my initial hypothesis.  However, if the participant was just listening to music to listen to music and not for the reason of reducing stress, then listening to the music with a group of people actually decreases stress levels more than listening to music alone.  Although this study conditionally goes against my hypothesis, this study was only done with 53 people, which is not a very large sample size, and it does not specify if these people were randomly chosen or if they were all from the same group of people, meaning it could not be generalized to other age groups and cultures.

In order to draw conclusions about this study across the board for everyone, researchers would need to conduct many more studies, using more people from a more randomized sample in order to create a meta-analysis incorporating all of their findings and coming to a conclusion that can be agreed upon.


Until more research is completed, I will still continue to listen to music and jam out with my friends because it always puts me in an awesome mood even on my worst days.  For all of you who enjoy listening to music to reduce stress, I suggest you try it too because I have always had great results from it! Even though there is not enough research to support this hypothesis now, the more healthy social environments you put yourself into, the better chance that you will be smiling and laughing with friends, so go ahead and jam out with them too instead of plugging in your headphones!

 

Image Links:

http://northfieldartsguild.org/_file/Music.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/a4/ae/bc/a4aebc59240ef7c75f90e83495148d13.jpg

Cloning: Science Fiction or Future Fact?

A lot of you have probably thought about the concept of cloning a human at some points.  How cool would it be to have another version of yourself, one that might be able to exist long after you’re dead.  The idea has been toyed with in science fiction numerous times, and I think this article from the Sci-Fi encyclopedia provides a great place to refer to in how often this is portrayed in writing.  One example that a lot of people might be familiar with is from the movie series “Austin Powers”, where Dr. Evil has himself cloned and made into a little person called “Mini Me”.  But is this whole concept of making a carbon copy of you, from physical features down to personality traits and behavior actually feasible?

mini-me

Picture

To understand if humans would ever be able to clone themselves, we have to first understand the basics of what cloning is.  Genome.gov defines cloning as one of a few ways of producing identical copies of genetic offspring.  In order for it to be a true clone, it’s genetic sequences have to be the exact same.  This does occur in nature with plants and single cell organisms.  This is a possibility because these life forms are relatively simple compared to everything else.  These organisms reproduce asexually, a process where the single parent splits their cells, leading to an exact copy of themselves.

Cloning multi cell organisms doesn’t, however, happen naturally in nature.  We are able to physically clone animals in a lab setting, however. This was made possible by replacing the unfertilized nucleus of an egg (haploid) with a fertilized nucleus (diploid).  As a result, the offspring will be genetically identical to the offspring. (source) The first time this was actually used on a mammal was with a sheep named Dolly in 1996.  Dolly was an exact copy of the donor sheep’s DNA, but only lived to be 7 years old.  However, many people think that this was due to the fact that the donor sheep was already  fairly old, so that shortened Dolly’s lifespan.

dolly

Picture

So then the large question that remains unanswered is whether or not we could clone a human.  All signs point to the fact that we could physically clone a human, but would the person have the same mental state?  We don’t know, and it’s very hard to find out because cloning a human would lead to some serious debates about ethical issues.  As it stands, cloning has a success rate of around 1 in 100 (source).  So we would be putting a lot of potential people at risk for the sake of science.  According to this source, human cloning is technically legal in 42 states, but carrying out an experiment on it would be grossly unethical.  The UN, however, has explicitly stated that allowing a cloned embryo to come to full term is a breach of the international laws.

So don’t expect to have a second version of you any time in the future.  However, there is exciting potential for therapeutic cloning, which is where they make an exact embryo of you but don’t transplant it into a surrogate.  The hope is in the future that we can make a copy of you to use in the treatment of diseases.  So while part of cloning might be science fiction, there are definitely some real uses that we will hopefully see in our lifetimes.

Iced vs Hot Coffee: Whats The Difference?

My daily routine is the same as a majority of students. Everyday i wake up, get a shower, get dressed and most importantly, drink a cup of coffee. Without a strong cup of joe I can barely think. I’m less alert and my whole body feels groggy. Up until college I preferred iced coffee. I had a tendencunknowny to burn my tongue when it was hot and I simply didn’t enjoy the taste. However, over the past couple of months I have made the switch to drinking fresh brewed, piping hot coffee. It is simply less expensive and it is easier to make. Personally I feel as if iced coffee makes me feel better and more energized than hot coffee. Although this is simply an anecdotal opinion, I became curious to see wether or not there is actually a difference between iced and hot coffee.

To understand which type of coffee is superior, I first had to understand exactly how coffee works. According to Medical News coffee contains around 100 mg of caffeine per cup. The caffeine is absorbed throughout the body in about 45 minutes and it reaches its peak around 15 minutes after consumption. Caffeine binds to the bodies adenosine receptors and speeds up cell activity. As a result the body feels more awake and alert. Caffeine also increases heart rate, opens up breathing tubes and releases sugar into the blood stream. All of these effects lead to increased energy and promote a positive mood.

Now that we have established exactly how coffee effects the body, I decided to look into the specific differences in cold and hot brewed cups. According to Elite Daily there is no major difference in the caffeine content of either type of coffee. Both iced coffee and hot coffee have similar doses of caffeine and therefore effect the mind the same way. However, 635709361459128637-1195656316_4sthe website found that iced coffee is actually healthier for you than hot coffee. This is due to the fact that the acidity of cold brewed coffee is almost three times less than hot coffee. The less acidic a drink is, the better it is for a persons digestive system. This explains why iced coffee tends to cause less tension in a persons stomach than a hot cup. Another benefit found in cold brewed coffee is the taste. Although taste is a usually a matter of opinion, a study done by the UCLA Division of Life Sciences  found that the higher acidity in hot coffee leads to a more bitter taste. In contrast, the typically alkaline environment of an iced coffee has less acid and more flavor. The team sites evidence that the “oils in coffee (beans) can oxidize more quickly at elevated temperatures, causing coffee to taste sour” (Phung).

This study makes it clear that iced coffee is chemically superior to hot coffee. It makes perfect sense that the less acidic drinks causes less digestive problems and lead to a better taste. As an avid consumer of both hot and cold coffee, I think that the evidence presented in this article is accurate. It also supports my anecdotal claim that iced coffee is superior. Now I know that I have science to support my preference when it comes to choosing iced coffee over a hot cup.

Image 1 2

Is Fast Food Affecting More Than Your Weight?

Since coming to Penn State many things have changed regarding my everyday life. One aspect that has done a complete turn around is my frequency of consuming fast food. In roughly five weeks of college I have consumed more fast food meals than I had in the previous year. I associate this increase to the fact that I am staying up later and working with a smaller budget. Putting these excuses aside, I became curious about what exactly fast food does to a person. I don’t only mean physically, but also mentally and emotionally. I wanted to dive deep into the science of fast food and I came out with some pretty interesting results.

5851279-fastfoodIt is no secret that eating fast food is bad for your physical health. According to Health Line the high calorie, low protein meals contain massive amounts of sugar, carbohydrates and sodium. This can lead to heart disease, obesity, diabetes, kidney disease and countless other physical problems. These diseases have all been directly linked to an unhealthy diet. In summary if you’re looking to lose weight, fast food restaurants are the last place you should go.

Fast food makes you fat, everyone knows that. Since I’m not too worried about my current weight, I wondered what other effects it has on people who are in shape. Live Healthy claims that an excess of fast food intake can lead to serious mental health issues. Fast food contains an excess of Omega-6 and trans fat that ultimately disrupt the chemical balance of the brain. This alteration can lead to depression, anxiety and other mental issues. stock-photo-illustration-of-a-fat-boy-eating-on-a-white-background-132814127

Harvard Health Publications has provided the public with some convincing research to support this claim. The team cites a study that found that individuals who eat a Western diet (full of greasy food) are 25-35% more likely to suffer from depression. The study simply separated two groups of people based on their eating habits. Then, the individuals were all given medical evaluations to determine their mental and physical health. The study concluded that individuals who indulged in unhealthy diets were simply less mentally healthy. The article explains that serotonin levels are altered by fast food intake. The western diet has an abundance of fatty acids that can alter the stommental-health-jerry-nelsonachs production of serotonin. Serotonin is produced in your gastrula intestine and can be responsible for a persons mood and behavior, which can have devastating effects on a persons mental and emotional health.

This study correlates with the claim that fast food leads to negative mental health.  However it is entirely possible that reverse causation plays a factor, meaning that people who are less mentally healthy tend to eat unhealthier diets.  It is possible that research on this topic suffer from the file drawer problem.  With fast food companies making so much profit, financial influencing of studies is likely.

Despite these doubts, It is still extremely likely that the findings of these studies are legitimate.  So next time you read the menu at a fast food restaurant don’t be only worried about which items all add inches to your waistline. Instead Keep in mind that eating this fatty food can have devastating effects on your mental health as well.

Image 1 2 3

Should You Double Dip?

The dreaded communal salsa bowl.  At a large gathering or party, who knows how many people have double dipped or even triple dipped?! It is a well-known idea that double-dipping is nasty and should only occur when there is only one person eating from the dish.  I wanted to know more of the science behind double dipping and if it is worth it. Personally, I think it is very likely that double-dipping adds bacteria to the food, since a person makes contact with the bacteria in their mouth and proceeds to put it back in the food.  

 Researchers at Clemson University set out to determine if double dipping adds germs and bacteria to food.  The study was composed of three separate experiments to determine this answer.  One of the experiments they performed had eight people submerse crackers into water, with some taking a bite prior to dipping, in order to see if double dipping alters bacteria levels.   After this experiment was performed, the concluding data shows significantly higher levels of bacteria when the cracker was bitten before dipped as opposed to the others who did not bite it prior to dipping it into the water.  A “P” value is provided in the abstract of this experiment and is less than 5%.  This means that given the values of the data, it is very unlikely that these results are a fluke, although they could still be due to chance.  Initially it stands out to me that this particular experiment only had eight people in total, which reduces the reliability of the experiment.

The second experiment performed on this subject was similar, but tested the pH of common dips that are victims of double dipping- including salsa, chocolate sauce, and cheese sauce.  The results remain consistent with the first experiment: there were higher levels of bacteria in the double dipped solutions than the untouched solutions.  Although, the salsa had more bacteria than the chocolate sauce and cheese sauce solutions.  This could either be a fluke or an experimental error, but there is no mechanism provided for why the salsa has higher bacteria.  

These experiments were two of three performed in this study in order to find out whether double dipping makes a difference in bacteria in food or if it’s not a big deal.  The third experiment was very similar to the second experiment, with consistent results as the preceding two. This is the only study I could find that had a reliable design.  Although, the study could have been larger, the results remain consistent with my hypothesis that double dipping adds bacteria to a food dish.

Although the study concludes with elevated bacteria levels in double-dipped dishes, these are soft endpoints because it would only increase the level of bacteria in the food, which people believe could make them sick.  Bacteria is everywhere, so there is no way to avoid consuming bacteria even if you do not double dip because there are many other ways these bacteria can be spread (e.g. coughing).  With this study, the null hypothesis, that double dipping does not increase bacteria levels in food, is rejected due to the increase in levels of bacteria.

To summarize, double dipping does add more bacteria to food than is already there.  In the end, it is not worth it to double dip because although you may not be affected, those who come after you will be affected also.  Not to mention someone could have double dipped before you got there!

Image Citation: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/da/1b/c0/da1bc0bc16f102abac5c5ee356f1511c.jpg

Science- Stay Out of My Prayers

Let me start off by saying that I have grew up in a very Catholic family. My childhood weekends were spent in CCD classes (for those of you who don’t know that that is, it is basically religious education) and going to church. I also attended Catholic high school for all four years of my high school education. As you can imagine, my catholic faith is a large part of who I am.

Our discussions about the healing power of prayer very much peaked my interest last week. I am a big believer in a higher power as it is what I have been taught about for all of my life. I was very interested to hear about it from a scientific perspective. I decided to do some further investigation into studies done about prayer and healing. Now, I went into this with the mentality that the existence of a high power cannot be proved or disproved through science, and what I found coincided with that. I found some very contradicting studies dealing with the effects of prayer.

In an article written by the New York Times, it showcased a study with patients at different hospitals around the country who were all receiving the same type of surgery. The researchers divided the patients into three different groups- however, they decided that only two of those groups would be prayed for. To eliminate a psychosomatic response, the researches only told some of the members of the groups that where being prayed for that they would be receiving prayers. The researchers then went to different churches and asked them to intercede for the two groups. They gave the congregations specific things to ask for in their prayers and then monitored the patient’s recoveries. It was found that the 2/3rds of people who were prayed for had no different recovery than the 1/3rd who were not prayed for.

Photo

Much different results are portrayed in an article written on the National Library of Medicine’s website. One peculiar thing I saw noted on the website was the nation that prayer may be used as a healing tool via meditation. To be more precise, instead of studying the effects of people praying for patients, the study had patients pray for themselves. When this happened, improvements such as a reduction in heart rate and a better immune system where seen. I found this interesting because it can be deduced that the act of praying was calming for the patients and helped to put them at ease. The article goes on to describe other studies in which the over-all consensus was that patients who were prayed for showed tremendously bigger success rates as opposed to those who weren’t prayed for.

Now, just to reiterate what I mentioned at the start of this post, I have a strong catholic faith. Therefore, in my personal opinion, I do not believe the actions of God or the existence of God can be determined through scientific experiments. In both studies done, there are many possible confounding variables. For one, Catholics are always taught about how important it is to keep up a relationship with God. If someone prays every day, then under this line of thinking, they would be more apt to have their prayers answered in their time of need than someone is estranged from God and having others pray for them. Also, because of my faith I believe God has a plan for everyone. In this first study I wrote about, suppose God had a plan for each of the patients studied and it was time for some of them to leave this Earth. Furthermore, suppose those who perished where in immense pain and God saw it fit that they enter Heaven and be freed of their pain? It isn’t so much that praying didn’t work for those people- maybe the prayers were just answered in a way that we don’t understand.

Over-all, I don’t think that science can prove or disprove the power of prayer. My personal view is that I have a great respect for science and think it is essential to well-being of humanity. Science proves answers to things on the surface, such as what causes cancer or what makes tress grow. However, each and every faith goes beyond the surface. It goes deeper than that and reaches levels that I don’t personally believe science can reach.

Why You Might Be Experiencing a Weight Loss Plateau

At one point in time, almost everyone can attest to going on a diet. When I think of the word diet, the first word that comes to mind is hunger. This is because when I am on a diet, I always feel hungry. The only thing I am thinking is either “when is my next meal?” or “what am I going to consume at that next meal?”. It is safe to say that when it comes to diets, I am the worst at following them and generally steer clear of them because when I am on a diet, I feel as if my appetite actually increases.  

A general reason why people find difficulty following diets is because at a certain point, they reach a plateau in which they no longer losing weight, which can be discouraging. One type of person who is likely to fit under this category of people who must follow diets are people who develop Type 2 Diabetes. With this being said, it is not only overweight people who are likely to develop Type 2 Diabetes as it is a genetic disease too, but it is a fact that a large portion of people with this type of diabetes are generally overweight.

For those unfamiliar with Type 2 Diabetes, here is a visual that can offer further assistance in understanding it:

type-2-diabetes

Image

As I talked about in the beginning, I know that when I go on a diet, I find myself craving more food than usual. Therefore, it is not surprising that the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) actually performed an experimental study to determine whether there was a positive correlation between weight loss and an increase in appetite. To figure out whether or not this is a causal relationship the NIDDK performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial strictly with individuals who have Type 2 Diabetes. The decision to only have participants with Type 2 Diabetes assists in the results of this experimental study as it is a uniform type of person being studied and people with Type 2 Diabetes are generally overweight. In this year long trial, there were 242 participants, of which 153 received canagliflozin, a medication that is used to lower blood sugar levels for people diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes. The null hypothesis for this study is that there would be no difference in the weight between the individuals who received canagliflozin with those who did not. On the contrary, the alternative hypothesis was that the people who received canagliflozin would increase caloric intake, ultimately increasing the chance of experiencing a discouraging weight loss plateau.

This study proved the alternative hypothesis to be correct in that as people lost weight, their appetite continued to increase leading to a weight loss plateau. This plateau logically encourages people to discontinue diets and go back to unhealthy lifestyles. For those who need to stick by a diet and get over this weight loss plateau, it is wise to possibly join a weight loss program, such as Weight Watchers, to receive assistance from other people who are dealing with the same struggle. In addition, it is best keep a balanced diet filled with variety. All in all, this conclusion explains that it is not that I feel like my appetite is increasing when I go on a diet, as my appetite actually is increasing.

Are laptops in class detrimental to learning ?

If you walk into a lecture on the majority of college campuses, you will see a large number of students gradually moving from the standard note taking to typing on a laptop. Andrew does not let us use computers in class, so I wanted to research if in fact laptops were actually detrimental to our learning. feb5dd03509cf12b5ebecc21be6522a8

A study done by the Center for Research for Learning and Teaching ( CRLT) at the University of Michigan reported both positive and negative effects of the use of laptops. This study included 18 courses ranging from both grad and undergrad students. Half of the courses were set to use a program known as Lecture Tools, which was designed specifically for in class laptop use. The program allows the ability to take notes right on powerpoint, use clickers to interact and ask questions, record lectures and even rate their understandings at the end of the lectures. The other eight courses were rv-al538_etique_p_20130907000311also given the opportunity to use a laptop in class, but rather than using Lecture Tools, were given free range do whatever they chose online. Out of a total of 595 students participating in the survey, 259 students responded with results from the Lecture Tool classes and 336 responses came from the control group. The participants were given three statements that they had to rank their agreeability on. The three statements included ” “My attentiveness has increased due to laptop use,” “My laptop helped me to be engaged during lecture,” and “I learned more due to the use of a laptop than I would have without it.” (Erring Zhu, Matthew Kaplan, R. Charles Dershimer, Inger Bergom). The conclusion of most of the responses reported that the students using LectureTools had paid more attention and were more engaged in learning than students with free range of their computers. The most significant difference was in the engagement response, with 60 percent of LectureTool students reporting engagement vs only 39 percent of the control group. Though the students using LectureTool reported concentrating better, both groups reported they spent at least 10 minutes of class time on some sort of social media.

screen-shot-2016-10-17-at-4-14-41-pm

(I know this picture is really blurry but if you click on the link to the study the graphs and results are all there)

Another study by  Carrie Fried at Winona State University, focused on how the use of computers effects grades. 137 students from two different sections of the same Psychology Class participated in this survey, with no rules or structure to their in class laptop use. Around 48.7 percent of the students reported using laptops and the average laptop use was 17 minutes out of the 75 minute lecture.despiste-clase However, much of that 17 minutes was used on other internet sources rather that concentrated class material or not taking. Use of laptops causes test scores to decrease, however there was no direct relationships. There were other alternate variables such as class attendance and class preparation. Also self responses are not the best measure for actuate
results.

So if all these studies report so negatively on the effects of laptop use in class, then why do some teachers still allow it? While googling this, my research took me again back to LectureTools. According to a study done on 200 University of Michigan students, the right programs on laptops can help enhance the learning experience. Students reported that while sometimes straying from class topics, the use of the LectureTool helped the students connect more with their teacher throughout the lesson.

So as much as I enjoy having my laptop in class, I will be the first to admit that I most definitely spent class time on unrelated sites, so it makes perfect sense why Andrew does not allow them in class. However, maybe Penn State will soon incorporate and computer learning program like LectureTool to increase the engagement of students.

 

 

 

There’s a reason why your parents always wanted you to play an instrument

Living in Atherton Hall comes with many perks. It’s close to downtown, we have private bathrooms, and we have several rooms dedicated to aid our musical ambitions.

We have two soundproof music rooms, where students can practice their instruments, and, of course, our iconic Grandfather Clock Lounge, where our baby grand piano resides (and a piano, I might add, you can hear all hours of the night).

grandpiano

Obviously, administrators feel like music is important in developing scholars, or else they wouldn’t waste the space, money, or energy creating soundproof rooms or providing us with instruments to play.

My parents also held this belief, insisting that I play the piano when I started second grade, and allowing me to choose to play the clarinet in 4th grade. I heard throughout my life that music would make me a better student, expand my creativity, and even help with my memory. But, I never thought to look into those theories to see if they were true.

However, I think the point of this class is to learn how to use evidence to draw conclusions ourselves; so, I figured, why not research a theory I’ve been wondering about my whole life?

The first study I found referencing the positive effects music-playing can have on people included an experiment containing 30 adults and 27 children, all with differing levels of musical experience. These individuals were observed in order to find a correlation between executive function and the amount of musical training a particular subject had. As discussed in my psychology class, executive function helps control our attention, memory, decision-making, and problem solving. So, in theory, if this study showed (using fMRI) that executive function increased in adults and children that were exposed to music in great quantities, the subjects of the experiment would theoretically be better at school, paying attention, and generally better at decision making.

kidsinstra

In this particular study, the musically-inclined adults and children demonstrated that they did, in fact, increase in their performance in measures of language fluency, processing rate, and memory. Since the group of adults and children who frequently were involved in music scored higher on the executive function tests, it can be concluded that the original hypothesis (stating musical training can make individuals perform better in academic settings and heighten their intellectual skills) can be confirmed.

chineseinstra

Another source states that musicians hold a greater ability to utilize sensory information from senses such as touch, hearing, and sight (which makes sense, if you think about how musicians read music, play their instrument, and hear the music they make). The source also found that the positive effects of music are most effective if children begin playing an instrument before they reach seven years old.

Yunxin Wang, a Professor at Beijing Normal University, conducted a specific study where 48 Chinese adults (who had a music background) between the ages of 19 and 21 were tested to see what kind of impacts music had on them. These individuals started their training from the ages of 3 – 15, and the study suggested that the individuals who started training earlier had strengthened brain areas tied to verbal and executive functioning. So, for example, the individuals who started playing an instrument before the age of seven usually had a larger cortex in regards to sound processing and positive self-consciousness.

childgutIn conclusion, there are actually quite a few studies that prove playing an instrument improves neural stimulation and aids children in their academic abilities. However, TIME magazine notes that children have to do more than just sit through music lessons and listen to music, TIME states in order for students to gain the positive benefits of playing an instrument, students must engage in class and continuously practice their craft.

Now that I know playing an instrument can aid my intellectual abilities and improve my executive functioning skills, I regret quitting the piano and clarinet. But who knows, maybe the baby grand located in Atherton hall will persuade me to take up the art once again.

Image 1, 2, 3,

To Be or Not to Be…Gluten Free

About three years ago began the takeover of the gluten-free diet. It seemed that everyone, including myself, assumed they were allergic to the protein found in wheat, barley, and rye and grocery stores began to stock up on low in gluten and high in price foods. Anecdotes from celebrities took over the media, claiming they felt so good and lost so much weight by cutting gluten from their diets. As we learned in class, anecdotes can lead to research of a topic, but do not serve as proof. It seemed this was the way to go to be healthy until doctors said it was not. Very quickly, if you said you were gluten free but did not have the disease that made you gluten intolerant, people were quick to tell images-1you that was no longer the healthy way to live.

So why do people go gluten free diet?

A gluten-free diet is used to treat a genetic disease called Celiac. Celiac is an abnormal immune response to gluten where the body’s small intestine is damaged by the protein and can result in many nutritional deficiencies. Some of the symptoms reported by the Celiac Disease Foundation include diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, fatigue, and irritable moods. Harvard Health Publications claimed that 50 milligrams of the protein, about the size of a crouton, is enough to make someone with celiac very sick. Personally, I became aware of this disease when my best friend has diagnosed with it three years ago. She began to experience incredibly painful stomachaches every time she ate to the point where she would refuse to eat anything. The doctors took a long time to diagnose her as the test for celiac use to be a process of elimination of other diseases. Today, however, they can do a blood test and a biopsy of the intestine.

My friend was found to be extremely allergic to gluten. Now when she goes to a restaurant, she has to ask that any of her food not only be without gluten but also cooked on a pan covered in tinfoil so as to not ingest any gluten from other meals cooked on the same pan. This anecdote suggests how a gluten-free diet is necessary and good for someone with Celiac. WebMD reports that there are several clinical trials testing drugs to treat the disease and research is being done to for a potential vaccine. For now, however, those with celiac must simply cut out the wheat, barley, and rye.

But what about people who are notimgres-1 gluten intolerant?

Because of its exclusion of carbohydrates, the gluten-free diet began to be adopted for weight-loss purposes and those who had no gluten intolerance were all of a sudden cutting it out of their diet. That meant no more beer, donuts, bagels, or soy sauce (yes soy sauce has wheat in it). No longer eating these unhealthy carbs could in fact boost you energy levels and make you lose weight. After hearing about how good my friend felt, I too decided to go gluten free and was so for about six months. The results? Nothing. I replaced Oreos with gluten free Oreos and cut out healthy carbs and grains. This is exactly what doctors are now warning against. By cutting gluten from your diet, you can experience nutritional deficiencies such as a lack of vitamin B found in bread and cereals. Excluding whole wheat means cutting out an already low fiber intake as Americans typically already consume less fiber than recommended.

Take Home Message:

If you do not have Celiac but want to go gluten-free, I believe it can be an effective diet if done properly. I replaced cookies with gluten-free cookies and considered myself healthy when in reality, I was just keeping healthy nutrients from myself. If you go on this diet and it forces you to cut the bad carbs and replace good carbs with healthy substitutes such as rice and quinoa, then I could see it having a beneficial effect for weight loss. The gluten-free diet’s bad rap for those not affected by Celiac comes when people are uninformed about the correct approach for the diet.imgres

Does Chocolate actually cause acne?

Now here I begin, I am in LOVE with chocolate. Chocolate bars, chocolate pudding, chocolate milk and chocolate ice cream. Throughout the years, my family teased me  stating that if I continued to consume that amount of chocolate, I will get pimples and break out. Unfortunately, that was not the first time I heard that statement. Therefore, I wondered if they were just trying to trick me and save their money or if they were actually right. I do not have major acne, however sometimes I do have miniature break outs and I wonder what factors cause that. Is it the chocolate causing this? 

Image from: FutureDerm

Image from:
FutureDerm

We begin with the hypothesis, either the consumption of chocolate will or will not cause acne. I will use the hypothesis, The consumption of chocolate will NOT just cause acne because if you really think about it, numerous third variables are involved like genetics, sleep patterns, other foods, sweat, medications and stress.

I read a journal article  online from the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology and a single blind experiment was conducted including 54 college students. Within the two groups, one group consumed a 1.55 oz milk chocolate bar each and the other consumed 15 jelly beans each. The experiment displayed that within 48 hours, the more chocolate consumed the more acne occurrences there were. They claimed that, “the chocolate consumption caused more inflammation.” This one study however does not prove that chocolate causes acne since an experiment with a larger group would be more reliable. 

Another journal article online from The National Center for Biotechnology Information stated how they experimented on 14 men between the ages of 18 and 35 who do get acne and instead of eating a chocolate bar or candy, the men had to take capsules that contained “unsweetened 100-percent cocoa, hydrolyzed gelatin powder, or both.” At the end of the experiment, with the men who had a history of acne, it increased due to consumption of chocolate. However, at the end of the article it stated how there was no actual evidence that this proves chocolate affects the skin or not. 

People claimed that forms of chocolate caused acne since the 1930’s. However, CVS pharmacy online stated that people who are more prone to acne would “probably” get breakouts from certain diets than others. Yes, a certain diet can affect ones skin however there are ways to balance chocolate into a diet without getting acne (most dairy products are known for causing acne rather than chocolate). 

Throughout reading numerous articles one can understand that chocolate is not the biggest concern and the real concern is a poor diet or one’s hormone levels. This article online stated the real reason to why people get acne on their skin, “What causes acne is oily sebum which comes from one’s sebaceous glands, which is mainly used to lubricate the skin. If the sebum becomes attached to hair follicles especially during hormonal changes, it can cause pimples.” 

It really depends on the third variables involved that I stated in the beginning! The correlation relating to acne and pimples is that one will most likely receive acne from chocolate consumption if he or she is prone to getting acne rather than a person who has more clear skin! After reading the articles, it can be a positive or negative correlation it just depends on the person consuming the chocolate! Therefore, my beginning hypothesis, “The consumption of chocolate will NOT just cause acne,” was proven to be true.

Sources Below:

Delost, Gregory R., Maria E. Delost, and Jennifer Lloyd. “The Impact of Chocolate Consumption on Acne Vulgaris in College Students: A Randomized Crossover Study.” 75.1 (2016): 220-22. Http://www.jaad.org. JAAD. Web. 11 Oct. 2016. <http://www.jaad.org/article/S0190-9622(16)01395-5/pdf>.

Caperton, Caroline, Samantha Block, Martha Viera, Jonette Keri, and Brian Berman. “Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study Assessing the Effect of Chocolate Consumption in Subjects with a History of Acne Vulgaris.” The Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology. Matrix Medical Communications, May 2014. Web. 12 Oct. 2016. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4025515/>.

Type, By Course or. “FAQ Categories.” I Suffer from Acne, Is There Anything I Can Eat to Help Reduce It? N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2016. <http://www.nestle-family.com/nutrition-health/faq/english/i-suffer-from-acne-is-there-anything-i-can-eat-to-help-reduce-it_197617.aspx>.

“True or False: Eating Chocolate (or Other Fatty Foods) Causes Acne.” Symptoms Wellness 156967. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2016. <http://health.cvs.com/GetContent.aspx?token=f75979d3-9c7c-4b16-af56-3e122a3f19e3Z&chunkiid=156967>.

REKHA, By. “Printer Friendly Version.” Printer Friendly Version. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2016. <http://www.koko.gov.my/lkm/ploader.cfm?page=industry%2FArticleOC.cfm>.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is that you, Mom?

Babies are stupid. And America has seen an unfortunate increase in the number of ugly babies (I couldn’t find a scientific study to back it up, but we are just one randomized unblinded study paired with anecdotal evidence away from revealing that truth). While we await data on ugly babies, it is important to find out just how intelligent babies actually are (primarily so we can say “at least they are smart”).

Image result for duckling following shapeFirst, let us observe the duckling to provide background for human infant intelligence. As demonstrated in this video by ScienceMag, ducklings will follow whatever is moving after it is born and identify it as their mother. This is an instinct that has been developed over time and is a means of survival for the ducklings. The video demonstrates the newborns following various shapes with various colors. The first object that the duckling saw, it would follow. When these shapes were taken out, randomized, and returned to the rink, the duckling found the same shape/color combination and followed it. Although this data is anecdotal and has not amassed into a broad set of data, its consistency proves that the ducklings’ instincts were engrained into them.

Human babies, although not as blindly obedient as the duckling, have a similar impulse. In an article by Dr.Gwen Dewar, it is revealed that babies use identification methods similar to ducklings. They can analyze a face and identify it with “mother” just as the duckling does with a certain shape/color.

Dr. Bushneil performed an experiment in the late 1980’s to prove this theory.

The Study:

40 random babies were chosen for the study (20 Male, 20 female). The babies were between 12-36 hours old. In order to attain the best possible results, the babies were out of the mother’s care after the standard 24-hour care period when the baby was born. This is so parental recognition would not be due to standard facial recognition. In a very controlled setting (no gender bias, brightness differentiation, smell), the babies were placed in front of a screen where the mother sat alongside a stranger. The observer then recorded which person the babies were “fixated” on. When the babies attention was on a certain subject for a total of 20 seconds, then it was determined that the baby had recognized the face.

The Result:Image result for baby against window

Bushneil’s belief that newborns could recognize faces was confirmed by the study. The babies consistently focused their attention on their mother, proving that they have the capability to develop facial recognition in only a few hours.

This experiment was well performed because it has controlled many factors and made an effort to limit the amount of exposure that the baby has to the mother prior to the study. However, it would be interesting to see if the babies would be able to identify their mothers if they hadn’t spent more than a few moments with them. Obviously, this presents ethical issues, but it would present a stronger representation to ducklings. If the baby was given to another lady after birth, would the baby instinctually fixate on her? or even a him? That would provide evidence of a stronger link between mother and newborn than Bushneil’s study reveals.

Sources:

https://www.sciencemag.org/video/ducklings-capable-abstract-thought

http://www.parentingscience.com/newborns-and-the-social-world.html

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1989.tb00784.x/epdf

Can obesity be treated like an illness?

The population of obesity has become overwhelming, and is continuing to grow in size. Once a obesityperson is technically classified as obese, it’s likely that they’d rather stay in their current state of being overweight rather than exercising and/or dieting to lose the weight. What can obese individuals who want to lose weight but are too obese to find motivation do at this point? Scientists have only made a few drugs available to obese patients seeking and/or in need of help. Interested if obesity can actually be treated with medicine as if it were an illness, I searched studies related to this topic. Here is what I found:

In this 2009 study, scientists conducted a 20-week double-blind placebo trial of 564 obese participants (ages 18-65) to examine the effectiveness of the drug liraglutide (an anti-diabetic medication that can not only be used for diabetes, but for the promotion of weight loss as well) on the weight and tolerance of obese people (without type 2 diabetes). Subjects were either given doses (either 1.2 mg, 1.8 mg, 2.4 mg, or 3.0 mg) of liraglutide or the placebo pill for 20 weeks. The pill was either applied once a day under the skin or taken orally three times a day. Participants were also subject to increase their amount of physical activity and were restricted to a 500 kcal diet per day. These variables were randomized across all groups by averaging/equaling out the aspects of the subjects in order to eliminate bias.

Here is what the double blind placebo experiment and its control arms looked like:

1-s2-0-s0140673609613751-gr1

1-s2-0-s0140673609613751-gr2The data at the end of the study found that obese individuals who were given the liraglutide for the 20-week period, lost more weight than those who were given the placebo, concluding that liraglutide is effective for weight loss for obese people. This is supported by p values of p=0.003 (1.2 and 2.4 mg liraglutide) and p<0.0001 (1.8 and 3.0 mg liraglutide). These values suggest that the results are real rather than a product of chance.

Overall, the drug, accompanied by lower food intake and increase of physical activity, resulted in more efficient weight loss than the placebo pill accompanied by lower food intake and increase of exercise, like it was predicted to. This suggests that liraglutide is sufficient for aid in weight loss of obese people

There was also, according to the study, a correlation found between liraglutide and a decrease in blood pressure as well as pre-diabetes. On the downside however, participants given the drug experienced more vomiting and nausea than those who were given the placebo. According to the study, the mechanism explaining weight loss using liraglutide has to do with effects on the gastrointestinal tract and the brain which cause weight loss and reduction in food intake.

Both the results and mechanism of this study can be compared to the results of similar liraglutide studies done on obese mini pigs , obese candy-fed rats, and both obese and normal rats. The results also suggested the same mechanism as the human study did. If the mini pigs and rat studies are generalized, then it would make sense to administer the use of this drug because weight loss to reduce obesity is a good thing (obesity is bad). However, one must consider: How bad is obesity really? Is there is more gain than loss? Do the results of these four studies matter enough to mean this drug should be administered to all obese people? Would this be considered a remedy to reduce or even prevent obesity? I would say, given the results of all the studies, it doesn’t seem like it would hurt to give it a try. However, the only restrictions I would hold against it would be that there hasn’t been enough or large enough of these studies to come to a confident conclusion of those questions. Also, some ideas for future studies include: A study that works toward further eliminating bias within the study, a study that tests the drug on people who are predisposed to obesity to see if the drug is efficient enough to possibly work as an obesity prevention medication, A longitudinal study to test the long term effects (longer than 20 weeks) of the drug on obese people and its efficiency, etc. The experimental design was relatively strong but there is definitely room for improvement.

Photo Sources:

http://drlinda-md.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/obesity.jpg

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MiamiCaptionURL&_method=retrieve&_eid=1-s2.0-S0140673609613751&_image=1-s2.0-S0140673609613751-gr1.gif&_cid=271074&_explode=defaultEXP_LIST&_idxType=defaultREF_WORK_INDEX_TYPE&_alpha=defaultALPHA&_ba=&_rdoc=1&_fmt=FULL&_issn=01406736&_pii=S0140673609613751&md5=351088d6451e5573c2520c344079b1fc

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MiamiCaptionURL&_method=retrieve&_eid=1-s2.0-S0140673609613751&_image=1-s2.0-S0140673609613751-gr2.jpg&_cid=271074&_explode=defaultEXP_LIST&_idxType=defaultREF_WORK_INDEX_TYPE&_alpha=defaultALPHA&_ba=&_rdoc=1&_fmt=FULL&_issn=01406736&_pii=S0140673609613751&md5=a88d4a3650e4615fefd66422f56dfa5f

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does Eating At Night Cause Weight Gain?

I have not always been a big snacker and would usually just eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner and nothing in between. However, when I came to college it became a different story. I felt myself constantly being hungry and needing a snack to fuel my energy when doing homework. Being that I would be doing much of my studying in the evening, I ate more snacks then. I wanted to know, does eating at night make you gain weight? Maybe this could account for the “freshman 15.” The null hypothesis is that eating at night DOES NOT make you gain weight; the alternative hypothesis is that eating at night DOES make you gain weight. I found several experiments that showed differing results.

late-night-eating

A six-month study done by Israel researches searched to find if weight gain was influenced by eating more at night. In order to do this, two groups of people were compared: one group who ate the biggest meal at breakfast and one group who ate the biggest meal at an 8 p.m. or later dinner. Oddly, the study found that the people who ate later at night lost more fat and were more full for the six months of the trial. There were also more changes noticed in their fat loss hormones and they lost 11 % more weight than the group who consumed more calories at breakfast. This was a controlled experiment because the researchers chose which group would eat most at either breakfast or dinner. Another study done in 2012 with 78 obese police officers during a six-month trial period found similar results as the previous study. It found that the officers who ate more carbs at dinner lost more weight than the ones who ate more carbs before dinner. The researchers in both studies would have likely accepted the null hypothesis and either have been correct or had a false negative. Both showed that eating at night does not make you gain weight, but it actually makes you lose weight.

Other studies were done that showed an opposite conclusion and that eating late at night did cause weight gain. In 2013, a study was conducted for 12 weeks with 74 obese and overweight women, all who had a metabolic condition. There were two randomized groups of women: a dinner and a breakfast group. Both groups ate the same amount of calories, just at different times of the day either at dinner or breakfast. At the end of the 12 weeks, the women who lost more weight were the ones who consumed all of the calories at breakfast. When looking at this study, I noticed how there could be some factors that led to this conclusion. If people eat most of their calories at breakfast, they are more likely to burn off calories throughout their day, whereas the dinner eaters would not. Also even though the calorie count for each group was the same, the kind of foods each person was eating could have differed greatly. Therefore, I do not believe that this trial shows that one should or should not eat at night when it comes to weight loss or gain. Another trial done by Northwestern University used mice and found that when the creatures ate at night, they gained more weight. Since this trial was done on animals and not humans, the evidence is not trustworthy enough and is only anecdotal.

Even though all of these studies were conducted successfully with randomized control groups, there is still not enough evidence that one should change their eating patterns. Alan Aragon, a nutritionist says that a person’s body does not hold fat more easily at night than at any other time of the day. Time does not have a clear impact on weight gain. There are many confounding variables when trying to figure out if eating at night causes weight gain such as how much food is being consumed, what is being eaten (quality), if one is exercising daily, and if eating at night is keeping someone awake at night. Eating at night is not necessarily bad to do when the food has nutrition, is consumed in small portions, and the food is low in energy. It can be a problem if someone is eating large portions of food at night on a daily basis and is staying awake at night because of his or her eating habits.

In conclusion, I found that late-night eating does not significantly impact your weight, good or bad. However, each person has different cravings on the type of food they might eat at night which could cause different weight gains. This will continue to be a difficult question to answer, but as long as you’re eating healthy and doing daily exercise, you will not necessarily gain weight if you eat at night. Each person has to look out for what might cause him or her to gain weight. Just be careful how much you’re eating and what you’re eating at night when studying for those mid-terms!

eating-at-night-8-ways-lose-weight-while-you-sleep

http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/diet-truth-myth-eating-night-causes-weight-gain#1

https://examine.com/nutrition/does-eating-at-night-make-it-more-likely-to-gain-weight/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4425165/

 

Rap About It

When I visited my brother in college I could not help but laugh at the fact that his friends would do things and then assure themselves it was “okay” because they heard a rapper sing it in a song. I kept wondering if I should be concerned that this is how people in this generation are assuring themselves of their behaviors. Just because Wiz Khalifa says its ok to smoke weed and get drunk does not mean we actually should partake in those activities. Also, many rap songs promote unethical ways to treat women and consistently call women “bitches” or “hoes.”

So, my question is, Do rap songs and rappers themselves influence our generation?

I would go about this by setting up a survey asking an age group from age 16-20 or somewhere in that range and see if they participated in any illegal substance use or degraded women in any way because a song made it seem “okay” to do so. This age group would be my choice because between these ages I think a lot of self discovery is done. I think these results could then be compared to see if these students were partaking in these activities because they had a source of assurance or if it was simply something like they did not care what people thought of them and wanted to rebel. Of course, you would have to keep in mind certain lurking variables like family life, background, age, and gender in this study because those can all play a large part in this analysis.

This rap music is not solely affecting males however, I found a study that was done on African American girls to see if their exposure to gangsta rap promoted bad behaviors. The results were shocking because a portion of these girls became more likely to engage in negative behaviors during school and outside of school as well. It is noted though that the doctors of this study were unaware if the girls were modeling women in the videos or rebelling just because that was what was being shown. Because of the environment of study, the lurking variables  I had mentioned earlier definitely play a part here, but it is still interesting to see these results on this particular group of African American females. I think it would be beneficial to go to a complete opposite group of women and see what their reaction to the same videos would be in order to eliminate some variables.

Other possibilities I found about how hip-hop and rap affects our younger generations is not so much the industry itself, but rather the problems in our society that are already existing are just being addressed. For example, a Stanford University article stated that the industry is more so an outcry rather than a direct affective method pressed upon the youth. However, if the youth responds in a way that brings recognition to the outcry then the artists will have been successful in the message they were trying to get across to the rest of the world. Perhaps this is where reverse causation could come in where rappers could say that the events happening in generations today are causing them to write songs in order to bring awareness to the world.

There may be problems with the youth already and they are just crying out for help, we really do not know for sure, but I think a lot of rap needs to be monitored by parents before allowing children or teens to listen to it because some teens are influenced by these lyrics. Artists are often idolized by younger generations so these generations will try to model them exactly in order to grow up like them. The hip-hop industry is also only growing, so we need to find a way to promote safe behavior and healthy choices to young generations and not allow them to be so influenced by lyrics in a song that merely are just words that rhyme.

I am not trying to get rid of the hip-hop industry in any way in this blog. I, myself, am a lover of rap and hip-hop but to the extent that I simply listen to it for the sound not necessarily the negative lyrics it possesses.

I hope this blog does bring awareness to the fact that some people take these lyrics to heart more so than others do. With young generations we really do need to start monitoring the media so that they do not grow up engaging in dangerous behaviors.

 

photo credit:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/91/3d/31/913d319dfc767f2d8ffff1aed08a9466.jpg

http://images.clipartpanda.com/hip-clipart-KijgK74XT.png

 

Dr. Watson

Our class has talked extensively about the ethical means of cancer trials and what the future of cancer treatment looks like. We have also discussed the possibility of Artificial Intelligence changing our human world. In an excellent piece by 60 Minutes, those two topics converged.

IBM has poured 15 billion into creating “Watson”, an artificially intelligent computer that processes information at rapid speed and has been developed into one of the world’s most sophisticated technology. As shown in the 60 Minutes segment, 5 years ago Watson was put to the test on the game show Jeopardy. The machine used data put into to it from Wikipedia, newspapers, and other sources to verbally communicate the correct answers and beat out the human contestants. Watson has only gotten smarter since then, gaining the capability to process over 1 million books per minute. According to the 60 Minutes report by Chris Rose, Artificial Intelligence has advanced more in the past 5 years than in the previous 50 years combined. Image result for ibm watson

The medical applications for Watson have become the program’s most beneficial features. The UNC medical center has become reliant on Watson to help doctors make decisions for their patients Dr. Ned Sharpless told 60 Minutes. The board of researchers for the UNC MC have to read a ton of medical journals to stay up to date on the latest medical options for their patients. Sharpless estimates that nearly 8000 medical journals are produced every day, providing far more data than the group could possibly digest. Processing those journals is light work for Watson. IBM told 60 Minutes that it only took Watson a week to learn how to process, digest, and make recommendations based on medical literature.

In order to tell if Watson could truly help the doctors, Sharpless performed a study, as any true scientist does.

The Study:

The Center did an analysis of 1000 cancer patients. They had the medical center’s doctors diagnose the patients and come up with the best possible recommendations for their patients. With those same patients, Watson was ordered to come up with the best recommendations for the patients based on its knowledge. The patients were randomized and had varying severity and types of cancer.Image result for ibm watson

The Result:

The study found that Watson came to the same conclusion as 99% of the doctors. According to Sharpless, he found this to be a reason to keep faith in the capability of actual humans. However, for 30% of the patients (over 300), Watson recommended additional options that the doctors were not aware of. The information came from recent medical journals that Watson had processed, but the doctors did not get to in time.  This finding prompted the center to make Watson a key component of its research and care option process.

Anecdotal information:

In the 60 Minutes segment, a patient named Pam was asked about her experience with Watson. Pam was 66 years old and had tried many things to get rid of her cancer. Watson made a new recommendation for her based on a genetic mutation it had spotted. Pam believed that the computer had added some time to her life that she otherwise would not have had.

The 60 Minutes went on to discuss other AI applications in our world.

It is a scary thought knowing that a computer can be that smart and outperform humans that have dedicated their lives to cancer research. The study proves that while human intuition is good, it has flaws that are affecting our medical world. AI is expected to grow and have a serious impact on our lives. AI developers are already pushing the government to develop laws to control artificial intelligence before it becomes too advanced.

Sources:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-artificial-intelligence-charlie-rose-robot-sophia/ – This was the sole source used in this blog post. All of the information from the study was demonstrated in the 60 Minutes segment on Artificial Intelligence.

 

 

Where You Study Affects How You Study

Have you ever noticed that you study better in certain places than others? Maybe you work well in the library and can not stand to be in your dorm room. Or maybe the HUB is way too distracting for you and your room helps you work much better. Studies have shown that the environment you work in has a big impact on how productive you are.

Student Studying Sleeping on Books, Tired Girl Read Book, Library

A study was done in Egypt to find out how much workspace affects your productivity and motivation and the results are solid, but maybe not quite want we wanted to know. Rasha Mahmoud Ali El-Zeiny, a professor at Minia University in Egypt, conducted this research in about six different offices. These offices were in several different areas so that his data would be spread out. He surveyed 129 employees about their work habits, their thoughts on the space they work in now and what changes they thought would help improve their motivation. He looked at 9 different areas within the workspace: furniture, noise, temperature, privacy, spatial arrangement, lighting, outside view, presence of plants and color. He had his sample group rate them on a scale of 1-5, 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree. 96% of the employees surveyed said that they believe that the office environment plays a role in how they work. Furniture scored the highest with an average of 4.43, meaning that furniture is the most likely to cause good or bad work. This makes sense because if you are sitting in an uncomfortable chair, you might not be able to focus on the work in front of you. Rasha also points out that bad furniture could cause health problems which would not lead to good work. The second highest scoring factor was temperature with a mean score of 4.24. Again, if it is too hot or too cold, employees will be more likely to be focusing on that than their work. If the space is too warm it also may cause employees to be grumpy. Overall Rasha made a point that employees believe that their workspace affects their productivity and shows what factors are most important to set a good environment.

I do not disagree with this study, however, I’m not convinced that he studied the right thing. All he found was what 129 people think about their workspace and own work habits. He didn’t really prove anything but maybe started a good discussion to be built off of. This experiment could have improved if he had used a randomized control trial. He could have taken his sample size and set up a couple different spaces: one with dim lighting, one with bright lighting, one with a comfortable chair, one with an uncomfortable chair, etc. He then could have randomly put different people in each space and given them the same task to do and watched how their performances differed.

That’s when I found this study done at a graduate school of engineering in Japan. They took a group of 222 college students and tested their proof reading skills in either a red, white or green room and then also surveyed them to find out their mood. Surprisingly enough, the people who worked in the red room made the least mistakes and the people in the white room made the greatest. It was hypothesized to be the other way around. However, when they were surveyed the people in the white room felt less distracted than the people in the red room. This shows that people’s intuitions are not always right and that is why that first study can not be fully trusted.

To end, it definitely is true that where we study will effect how we study because to be honest we all have our favorite spots! The mechanism isn’t quite clear yet though, nor is the “best work environment ever”. We might make less mistakes in a red room but if we aren’t in a good mood then it might not be worth it. Maybe we all just need green rooms to study in! Stay tuned, I’m certain someone will discover the “ultimate work environment” soon enough.

Sources:

Study #1: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042812004570 

Study #2: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042812008373 

Picture: istockphoto.com

 

Can Bacon Cause Cancer?

Bacon is one food most meat enthusiasts love to eat. Whether it be on a burger, with a plate of eggs, or just strips by itself, bacon has proven itself as a very versatile and delicious, food. Last year, as a Freshman, I worked at Irvings Bagels downtown. You may have heard of it, they have very good food there. With some of our sandwiches, we add a few strips of bacon. One time while I was working, I added on a strip of bacon to a sandwich, and my coworker told me “Did you know bacon is now classified as a carcinogen?” And to that, I replied, “There’s no way that is true.” Now being in this course, I am revisiting the hypothesis of whether or not bacon does cause cancer.

bacon

An article published by PCRM (Physicians Community for Responsible Medicine) said that according to the American Institute for Cancer Research, eating 1.7 ounces of processed meat (or greater than that value) can increase the chances of getting cancer by about 21%. In addition to cancer, processed meats can come with a lot of other health risks. The article mentions a study that was conducted that came to the conclusion that processed red meat was correlated to a 10% increase in prostate cancer.

the-dangers-of-eating-meat

Is all of this due to chance? In any given experiment, the results could always be due to chance. Confounding variables can also point to an answer as well. For example, the increase in cancer could be due to genetics, or exposure to other carcinogens— like smoking. Business Insider actually does mention a few confounding variables in their article about the subject, but just for a brief moment. Business Insider does bring up an excellent point though. The article says that about 1 million deaths are the result of smoking tobacco, while only 34,000 deaths are the result of eating red meat. While both numbers are high, it’s obvious smoking is worse for you.

According to an article written by NPR, a study published by Archives of Internal Medicine claims that eating red meat (like bacon) can increase risk of cancer. The study came to this conclusion by noting that people who ate one serving of red meat had a mortality increase of 13%, whereas people who did not consume red meat had no mortality increase. The article points out another possible confounding variable— iron. It may seem like a weird third variable that can attribute to cancer, but it makes sense. When certain red meats with iron gets digested, it can turn nitrates in the body into carcinogens.

According to Wired.com, smoking is worse than eating red meat, and by a whole lot too. While bacon causes a person’s risk of acquiring cancer to increase by 18%, smoking causes a person’s risk of getting cancer to a whopping 2,500%! In other words, eating a little bit of bacon here and there will not kill you.

Should you stop eating red meat? According to Yahoo! Health, dietitian Jessica Cording says that eating red meat once in a while will not kill you, and that you should not panic about eating one slice of bacon here and there. She does advise not to make eating red meat a part of your weekly routine because, just like smoking, the health risks will snowball and keep piling up until it does get dangerous.

So, with any food, watch what you eat and don’t make anything into a habit— forming habits with anything can be dangerous! Be cautious, but not too concerned. One slice of bacon, or a sausage once in a while will not kill you. Go and enjoy the food that you love, but always have the reminder to be aware of what you are putting into your body.