Creeper credit

According to a study from Huffington post 90% of people like to creep, especially on their ex! The articles main focus was on a study that had been conducted by a grad student from Western Ontario thesis. The 50 question survey was distributed to 107 people ages 18-35, notably 74% of the participants were college students. The study only required have a breakup within the past 12 months. The Study pointed out several statistic making claims, like posting pictures specially to make their ex jealous, and even attempts to look up ex’s new or current partner. Although this study most likely has a lot of factual claims to it, without conclusive evidence, its hard to say if these stats are accurate.

Assuming the study was well conducted, it would be presumed that participants had been controlled, 3rd confounding variable were accounted for and there was no chance in revers causation. Sadly, the survey questions were not disclosed publically. However in researching other creeping study’s, the results weren’t to far off from the small study from the post. This study found that there were physical reactions associated with particular social media outlets, on specific images and on those sights had a psychological affect on the brain. The findings from the study supported the hypothesis, in other words, creeping lead to a positive state of mind experience.

Sad Bear Credit

Another study suggests that the main reason people creep is very clear, it is for relationship status and uncertainty. Not to mention that the action itself is highly addictive.

Needless to say, though these studies show that body chemistry is the key component, there are many variables that are hard to account for as to why people love to creep. The studys suggest controlled samples and appear to be well conducted, but probability and chance are things that are harder to account for. For college students, it wouldn’t be a surprise as to why they have the highest rates of creeping. A simple fact for that would be social media having a great impact on your social well being, most students are accustom to working the internet in their favor versus someone in there 60’s. So although students are the number one creepers, the variables seem that they would sku the date if samples are collected for and controlled. So creep on creepers.

#1 Creeper Credit

I was talking with a couple of my friends and the topic of perfumes came up and we were all talking about our favorite ones etc. but one of my friends said “did you guys know that a perfume can smell different on all of us?” I was a bit confused and didn’t really know if I believed what she was saying. The thought of one perfume smelling different on different people seemed a bit odd. I decided to do some research.

Everyone obviously has a unique body chemistry and is made up of different genes, skin types etc. But the key part to this idea of perfumes smelling different on different people is the fact that the perfume molecules react differently on the skin depending on dryness, oiliness, or sensitivity. When considering the differences of skin, you also have to look at the differences inside the skin. The fat, acids, salts, sugars, proteins, fibers, hairs, etc. all contribute to the different complex mixtures of chemicals built in every person’s skin. Each of these components contribute to the way the perfume chemicals will react changing the smell of the perfume. Another factor that leads to this is how the perfume molecules react throughout heartbeat. It sounds weird, but it is true. It has been found that the molecules react with the warm pulse points, causing a reaction with our skin and our hormones. This reaction then determines what type of smell the perfume is going to give off.

Another idea that comes into play in determining why a perfume will smell different on different people is the fact that we all may smell differently. Scientists have discovered that people smell different scents since we all experience outdoor odors differently. According to the Nature Neuroscience Journal, 30 percent of the 400 smell receptors humans have differ between any two people. This being said, two people may smell a perfume on someone and both smell it differently. One may find it pleasant and the other may not.

A study was conducted to identify the amount of differences in receptors there are between people. The researchers decided to duplicate 511 receptors in a laboratory and implanted them in host cells. The researchers then measured how each receptor reacted to a panel of 73 different odors. The study found that 140 of their 400 receptors were different by using mathematical models. The research teams goal is to figure out how to manipulate the receptors directly so that there would be no differences in smells between people.

An additional factor that can influence the difference between smells of the same perfume is the exposure to light and heat. For example, if a perfume bottle was sitting in a car trunk for a long time, baking in heat, the fragrance can become unstable and therefore smell different than a bottle that was sitting in doors in a cool room. Also if you apply the perfume to warmer parts of your body, like the pulse points I discussed before, the perfume molecules will volatize faster leading to a stronger smell. If you apply the perfume to cooler parts of your body like your hair or even your clothing, the smell won’t be able to volatize leading to a weaker smell.

All of these contributions to the idea that a perfume can smell different on my friend than it does on me do make sense. I guess I should have believed her when she told me!

Works Cited:

http://www.thelondonperfumecompany.com/blog/why-perfume-smells-different-on-other-people.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2520430/Why-smell-perfume-different-Receptors-nose-vary-30-different-people.html

Picture: https://worldwideperfumesllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/perfumes.jpg

Once dubbed “the Devil’s lettuce”, doctors and politicians alike are beginning to see marijuana as less detrimental to a person’s health. In fact, a few states have already passed laws making the drug essentially legal. While there is much controversy over pot, one of the most frequently asked questions is “Does smoking marijuana make you dumber?” While it sounds simple, this question is extremely complex and I believe it could have a number of answers.

Null Hypothesis: Marijuana use is not at all related to a person’s IQ

Alternative Hypothesis: There are confounding factors between marijuana use and a person’s IQ

I began research on this topic and found a surplus of articles. After sifting through and getting the main ideas, I locked in on an experiment conducted at the University of London by Claire Mokrysz. In her experiment she studied data from 2,235 teens from southwest England, who made up what she called the “Children of the 90’s”. She sought out to test the relationship between how many times someone used marijuana by age fifteen, and how high they scored on an IQ test at that same age. Importantly, Mokrysz also tested these kids at age eight, before any of them had any idea what marijuana was. At first glance, the results seemed to link pot use to lower scores immediately. However, as Mokrysz explained, the kids who smoked pot at that age were also far more likely to use cigarettes, alcohol, and other drugs. For example, of the fifteen year olds categorized in the “heavy smoker” group, (those who had used 50 or more times) 84% had admitted to using cigarettes in excess of 20 times. The rate of smoking 20+ cigarettes for children who had never used pot was a mere 5%. Taking into consideration all the other factors that came with children who used marijuana before the age of fifteen, Mokrysz concluded that smoking marijuana does not lower a person’s IQ.
I found this experiment to be interesting, but questioned the limitations of Mokrysz’ work. These limitations, to me, included the young ages of participants and the relatively moderate level of pot use.

Another article I read regarding marijuana use and a person’s IQ was published earlier this year by Emily Underwood. In this article Underwood refers to an experiment in which scientists compared IQ changes among twins who either used or abstained from weed for a ten year period. They monitored 789 pairs of twins from Los Angeles and Minnesota. Each pair was enrolled sometime from the ages of nine to eleven, and were given five tests each over the ten year period. In addition, the scientists monitored alcohol and other drug use. From test four to five, the scientists noted that marijuana users went down an average of four IQ points. This would be very conclusive evidence if not for the second part- their pot-free twins regressed about the same amount during that time period! This suggests that other factors also play a role in brain development. The head of this experiment, professor Nicholas Jackson, concluded “Our findings lead us to believe that ‘something else’ it related to something about the shared environment of twins, which would include home, school, and peers.”

While these are solid, more recent studies, I still believe it is appropriate to reject the null hypothesis. Despite claims that the effects are indirect, marijuana clearly acts as a gateway drug for many teens and these results cannot be completely denied. Based on my research, I think it is safe to accept the alternative hypothesis in this instance. Marijuana use and a person’s IQ are seemingly impossible to measure accurately because there are so many other factors that go into a person’s life in the time necessary to conduct a convincing experiment. I don’t think it is safe to say marijuana has no effect on a person’s brain; but I also don’t agree with the saying “Marijuana use makes you dumber”. However, I do believe that marijuana use, particularly at a young age, often leads kids to make poor decisions that can hurt them in the long run.

Works Cited:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2016/jan/14/does-cannabis-really-lower-your-iq
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/twins-study-finds-no-evidence-marijuana-lowers-iq-teens

Pictures:
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=61245
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/content/images/articles/246/246392/fingers-holding-a-marijuana-leaf.jpg

Have you ever wondered why an older woman in your family such as your grandma, an older aunt or even your mom has different colored veins? They probably have varicose veins. Varicose veins are swollen veins that are usually the colors red or blue. Varicose veins are the result of when a vein is effected by a disease and the valve cuffs do not work anymore according to (1). Varicose veins cause pressure in the veins and the walls of the veins are weakened by long periods of standing. I have had many relatives with Varicose veins and I never knew it was an actual thing. I presumed it was natural. I wonder if there is medical treatment for it. I have found that treatment is case by case but with the common being Sclerotherapy which is a solution that is injected into the veins to make sure the veins do not carry any more blood.  Other forms of effective treatment are ablation, compression stockings, elevating the feet, and laser treatment. Varicose veins can get risky for the body and surgery is suggested at that point.  What makes it very alarming is that “Three fourths of the population of the United States age 65 or older have varicose veins.” (2) There are preventive steps according to a source to developing varicose veins which includes not wearing tight clothing, being a healthy weight, and elevating your feet. It also says that crossing your legs while sitting should not be done to prevent varicose veins. While these are helpful steps someone may still end up getting varicose veins.  Another source states that “Varicose veins are widely seen as medically unimportant and deserving low priority for treatment” (3) I believe they are important as even though according to most sources such as the ones I have mention state that the varicose veins becoming dangerous are not very common. I believe that it is important because it could in the future evolve and become more dangerous more often. There are not many studies that have been done on varicose veins of my findings. One source goes in detail as to what more can happen when having varicose veins. Varicose veins can cause blood clots, skin changes, and ulcers. It is also very frightening that at some points varicose veins can be confused with other medical things that are also harmful. It is a relief to know that varicose veins normally do not run the risk of having vein thrombosis.

Sources:

• “Varicose Veins.” Varicose Veins | Johns Hopkins Medicine Health Library. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2016.
• Soderman Thomas, William A. “Varicose Veins.” Varicose Veins – Science Direct Topics. N.p., 2005. Web. 26 Nov. 2016.
• “Varicose Veins and Their Management.” N.p., 05 Aug. 2006. Web. 26 Nov. 2016.

Photo found here!

I love honey! I love honey for so many different reasons! Fun fact, honey can lighten the color of your hair. It has small traces of hydrogen peroxide that gradually lightens the color of your hair. Honey mixed with yogurt on your face is a great mask. It has a great calming effect. Stated from Real Food for Life, on the benefits of honey, by Diana Herrington, the article talks about how honey does amazing things for the body. It contains many antioxidants and helps prevent cancer. It can regulate the blood sugar, and overall just strengthen the body’s immune system.Honey is also an amazing anti-bacterial and helps with sore throats. It has really helped me during Thanksgiving break when I had a bacterial throat infection. I literally finished 2 bottles of honey in 1 week.

There was a very interesting article from Penn State College of Medicine on how honey could be better than normal childhood cough medicines. Apparently in recent studies, cough medicines were asked about how safe they were. So people began to look for other ways to lessen their child’s cough. The study proposed that buckwheat honey could provide relief to coughs better than a child having nothing or even anti-cough medicines. The honey was shown to reduce the infection, and helped with the cough. A big factor to honey is that it is safe for children over 12 months. The thing that I was shocked by is that, diphenhydramine, (component in cough medicines) performed no better than the placebo! Why do we take these cold medicines in the first place?

So to explain this study it was on a total of 105 children ranging from the ages of 2-18. The first night, the children didn’t have any treatment done. There were 5 questions asked about the sleep and cough of the children. The parents answered these questions. The second night, kids ether got honey, honey flavored DM (diphenhydramine), or no treatment at all.

Null Hypothesis– Honey will have no effect on the children’s cough

Alternative Hypothesis– Honey will have an effect on the children’s cough

x-variables-  kids having honey, cough medicine, or nothing

y-variables- effect on children’s cough

confounding variables- kids didn’t get too much sleep

chance-could be a possibility

The study was a blind placebo. The medical staff didn’t know who was getting what. The family who got the honey or DM were blinded. Parents who got nothing knew they got nothing because in their envelope was an empty syringe. So overall the families said that the honey was better than the DM or nothing at all.

If I were to replicate this study, which I would want to do, I would have just honey versus the cough medicine. I would also get more of an input on how the kids felt because they are the ones we are observing. Not the parents view on it. This then would lead me to my next point, I think I would do this one age group. This article was overall very interesting. Now I know to consume honey a lot more. I have been doing it anyway, but now I know it is actually beneficial for coughs too!

Herrington, D. (2012) 10 Health Benefits of Honey. Real Food for Life

(2007) Honey Proves a better option for childhood cough than OTC’s. Penn State News.

A placebo is a fake drug that has no active ingredient.  The placebo effect is when someone who thinks they are receiving treatment gets better even though what they are getting has no medical benefit.  A placebo is often used when testing to see if a drug has a real medical benefit.  How it works is there are usually two groups one that gets the real drug and one that gets the placebo.  Often times neither the doctors nor the patients know which they are receiving.  The theory is that people can get better just by thinking that they are receiving treatment.  If the testing group gets substantially better than it can be concluded that the drug works.  What I wanted to research is if the human mind is powerful enough that someone can get better just by thinking they are receiving treatment.  The hypothesis I plan to test is that placebos can make someone better.

Ted Kaptchuk a professor at Harvard medical school conducted an experiment to test the placebo effect.  His test included 270 people split into two group one group would receive a pill for arm pain and the other group would receive acupuncture.  Out of the 270 people almost 90 people complain to be experiencing side effects.  The people were reporting the exact side effects that they were warned about.  This was astonishing because the people had not actually received any treatment the pills were starch pills and the acupuncture never pieced their skin.  People’s minds were tricking them to experience symptoms that they were told they could experience.  This is amazing to me the fact that these people were devolving rashes and arms begun swelling from just the thought that it could happen (Harvard Magazine).

Ted Kaptchuk conducted another experiment where he split up people into three different groups: One received no care, (according to the study they were told they were on the waiting list), one received fake acupuncture, and finally a group that received fake acupuncture but with a lot of care from the doctors.  The third group spent the most time with the doctors per visit and the doctors made an effort to make them feel like they were receiving the best treatment possible.  The group that showed the best results was the third group.  Ted Kaptchuk was trying to show through these experiments the power of the placebo effect and if doctors today didn’t rush through visits we could be getting better results (Harvard Magazine) 

There was another study done by Dr. Jon-Kar Zubieta that compared two placebo.  This experiment treated people with depression that had received no prior medication. What was different about this study is that the groups were told if they were getting the active medicine (which was a placebo) or the inactive medicine (this was also a placebo).  In this experiment both groups received the same placebo but where told if they were in the “medicine” group or the placebo group.  After a week, the groups switched medication.  The group that was taking the inactive medicine said they felt less depressed after taking the “active medicine”.  The pills were the same thing neither of the pills did anything but they still said they saw results after switching (Placebo effect)

It has always been known that placebos do have some effect on people that is why to prove medicine works it must have sustainable different results.  Through these experiments, it shows that people can not only get better by the amount of interest shown in the doctor but they can also experience side effects just because they were stated.  The human brain is more powerful than we think.

You may have heard one time or another that “drinking red wine is good for your heart.” If this is the case, a healthy heart would mean a longer life right? Many biblical stories, movies, and tv shows support the notion that drinking red wine is harmless and possibly advantageous. To imagine (even as college students) that we can get a buzz and live longer because of it is a discovery that will have people running for the liquor stores with no remorse, and its one we’ve probably kept in mind sip by sip.

https://leambrosie.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/shutterstock_131303366.jpg

A study conducted in Denmark observed over 13,000 participants between the ages of 30 and 70 over a 12-year period. The results of this study showed a 49% decrease in risk of death over that 12 year span of participants who drank 3-5 glasses of wine per day. Beer and other spirits were examined as well showing an increase in risk of death over that span. I question the validity of this study because of the large pool and age of participants. If a 30 year old in the study died I wouldn’t suspect drinking more red wine would have prevented that. Similarly, some of the older participants could have passed simply of old age or other confounding variables. Regardless, if the study was done correctly it may be able to draw one if its major conclusions, which is that red wine decreases your risk of heart disease.

The American Heart Association on the other hand is not as confident in these findings. Upon the look of their webpage on Alcohol and Heart Health the American Heart Association contends that the correlations found in studies conducted on wine and heart health could be due to confounding variables. Variables such as regular exercise and a healthier diet could be the cause of the decrease in heart disease. Furthermore the AMA does get an expert opinion from Prakash Deedwania, the chief of the cardiology division and professor of medicine at the University of California who believes that drinking wine lowers your cholesterol which in effect helps your heart.

It seems that the age old saying does stand, drinking wine may more likely than not be good for your heart. I don’t think any of us would object to a couple glasses of wine in exchange for additional years of life. Without studies that debate this topic to prove differently it seems we can keep on sipping.

Isn’t it weird how society sometimes sympathizes for a criminal when they’re better looking than others? Why are we more inclined to trust someone if we find them attractive? I like to think I don’t judge people by looks but sometimes I find myself thinking differently even if I don’t actually believe it.

picture citation

In this article it talks about how attractive people in the public are trusted much more highly than others. They’re held at a higher standard than regular citizens and with that comes responsibility as well. If they disappoint and turn out to be not as trusting as everyone assumed then they let everyone down that much more. Finding people who are attractive more trustworthy is apparently an inherent trait that people have and it might be due to the fact that we think if you’re attractive you are better off socially and financially so it makes that person more appealing towards us.

Conversely, in a separate article it argues that now it is more “average” looking people who are trusted higher than above average attractive people. The article explains how the more familiar a face looks to you the more likely you are to trust it. This mainly applies to culture references, because if you are surrounded by your own culture and people who have similar resemblances you are likely to trust them more. In return, when people find someone very attractive they don’t take into account their trustworthiness because they don’t view them to be on the same “level” as them.

Whether you choose to believe either articles research, there’s no denying people do trust more attractive people, take Ted Bundy for example. He was a violent serial killer of women in the 1980’s. His main way at attracting his victims was to just go up and talk to lone women on the street asking for their help, and because he was so attractive and nice, the women would trust him and comply. Bundy was aware of his affect on women with his good looks and used it to his advantage. This is why everyone has to be aware of “stranger danger” no matter how attractive and trustworthy you might find someone.

picture citation

In recent years, constantly being connected to others through smart phones has become a given. All demographics, but especially high school and college aged young adults, have become reliant on their phones to get them through the day. Walk into any class on any given day at Penn State, and you’ll likely see dozens of phones on peoples’ desks. But what impact are these pocket sized computers having on the academic performance of those who use them? One might assume having all the information in the world at your fingertips would make for a smarter, better performing generation. However, the science appears to suggest otherwise.

According to a study from Longwood University, students who used their phones in class performed significantly poorer on exams. Dr. Chris Bjornsen led the study, asking students in all of his classes to fill out short surveys about how often and for what they had used their phones during lectures. The results he found were very strong in pointing to cell phone usage as detrimental to academic performance. He states that the students most affected used their phones for social reasons, such as texting and tweeting, or for gaming. According to Dr. Bjornsen, the average drop in score on an exam for each use of a phone was .6 points for social media and 3.1 for games. However, he did not find any strong evidence that phone usage for taking notes or managing a calendar was lowering test scores. While this evidence is certainly jarring, it must be taken with a grain of salt, as surveys are not always reliable. Students may be dishonest on self-evaluation style surveys, the results may be skewed due to lack of participation, and it is impossible to rule out the possibility of chance as the reason for the findings.

Dr. Chris Bjornsen

In closing, while it cannot be stated for certain, the results appear to be fairly clear that cell phone usage has severely negative effects on the academic performance of students. Perhaps in the future, we should keep the phones in our backpacks and avoid the temptation and the risk.

Picture 1
Picture 2

It’s about that time of year when people close their website tabs on cooking recipes for Thanksgiving meals, and open tabs on diets to help lose weight from the extravagant meals they consumed over break. Not only have I done this regularly after every Thanksgiving break,  but i have looked at diets many times over the course of my life. I have to admit that i was a little pudgy boy when I was younger, which prompted me to enrich my mind with the numerous diet plans out there. The research for an appropriate diet led me to discover multitudinous diets out there; I did not know which to pick! Each diet seemed like the perfect fit, but there was no way I could try them all out!

Each diet plan stated numerous benefits for its diet, but as I kept researching, there were always some sort of negative side effect or problem with the diet. The low carb diet encourages excess intakes of fat and protein which can lead to high cholesterol. According to Dr. Freedhoff, the 2000 calorie diet might not provide enough macro- nutrients to sustain a healthy body. Ph.D  John Berardi states that the paleo diet does not take into account the evolution of our digestive tract to accurately depict the benefits of the diet. The list goes on and on for disadvantages of never-ending list of diets out there.

Once when I was in Colorado, I visited a new Mediterranean restaurant, Garbanzo. When I sat down to eat my food, I saw a message on the cup that had numerous facts and information about the incredible health effects of the Mediterranean diet. The Mediterranean diet emphasizes plant based food, whole grains, legumes, and nuts! Skeptical enough, I thought it was a diet just like the others, but as i kept researching, I found that the diet worked on numerous individuals and had a profound effect on long lasting health. 

Through extensive research, I found that the Mediterranean diet improves health in many aspects of the body such as losing weight, improving cardiovascular function, as well as fighting diseases such as diabetes. Recently,a study found that the Mediterranean diet also helped combat breast cancer, so let’s take a look at the study possibly show all of these correlations! 

It is important to recognize that correlation does not equal causation. In each case, there can be confounding variables or even reverse causation in the data if the study is not observational. The studies here, however, are experimental so there is no chance of z variables or for reverse causation.

The first study analyzes whether the Mediterranean diet helps reduce the risks of contracting breast cancer. The JAMA internal medicine attempts to tackle this question. The null hypothesis of the experiment is that the Mediterranean diet does not reduce the risk of breast cancer in women. in correspondence with that, the alternative hypothesis is that the Mediterranean diet helps fight against breast cancer is women. The study tests 4,282 women in Spain. The subjects were randomly assigned to either a control group or the experimental group. In 2003, when the study began, the women in the control group were given advice to reduce their fat, while the experimental group was provided with a Mediterranean diet with nuts. In 2009, it was shown that 68% relatively lower risk of receiving malignant breast cancer.

The study seemed to be a longitudinal experiment that had numerous participants and a lengthy time to truly calculate and understand the results. The experiment here did not seem to suffer from the Texas Sharp Shooter problem because they used the Mediterranean diet as a identified variable to reduce the risk of the Y variable which is the chance of contracting breast cancer. The study also does not suffer from the File Drawer Problem because the study was published, and it also mentions the limits of the experiment: it was not completely random; the women were all white and had high risk of cardiovascular disease.

From this experiment, we can conclude that there is a good chance that the Mediterranean diet can help with  reducing the risk of breast cancer. The diet has already been associated with greatly helping reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, according to The New England Journal of Medicine.

One thing to mention about this study is that the nature of an experiment like this brings up the controversy of ethics. In class, we talked about new cancer trials that separates the patients in half. Half receive the possible better treatment than the other half. The study on reducing breast cancer from the Mediterranean diet seems to be  very similar to that. In my opinion, it is necessary for a trial this important to be conducted because there is no way of knowing the results of the benefits of the diet if there is no well put experiment to support the hypothesis. What do you guys think?

The big take home message from this blog post is that it is important to deeply understand a diet before you engage in it. There are so many diets out there that help different people with different health and physical goals in mind. If you wish to lose fifteen pounds very quickly for a movie role, than go ahead and do the low-carb diet. If you wish to greatly eliminate the chances of receiving dangerous illnesses such as cancer and heart problems, than you might want to take a look at the Mediterranean diet!

Sources:

http://www.webmd.com/diet/guide/high-protein-low-carbohydrate-diets

http://www.weightymatters.ca/2012/07/issues-with-based-on-2000-calorie-diet.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-berardi-phd/paleo-diet_b_5774200.html

http://media.jamanetwork.com/news-item/mediterranean-diet-plus-olive-oil-associated-with-reduced-breast-cancer-risk/

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1200303#t=articleBackground

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/mediterranean-diet/art-20047801

If a person who lived in a location like Hawaii moved to Denver, Colorado what would be the positive and negative implications to his health and well-being. Why does a location’s altitude affect an individuals living capacity. Today’s question stems from the environmental properties of air and how it may affect an individual facing an environment at high altitudes.

Mount Everest from outer space

First it is important to note why there is less oxygen at higher altitudes. According to health awareness webstie Altitude.org, we must think of the atmosphere “as a huge ocean of air” that is constantly applying pressure on our bodies equivalent to about 10 meters of sea level. At sea level, oxygen levels in the air are the highest and individuals are unaffected by the direct levels of oxygen existing around them. Because air is compressible, the air at the surface level is denser and compresses around us at the surface. However as you rise higher into the sky the air becomes less compressed and is therefore thinner in the upper portions of the atmosphere. This leads to not only oxygen but the entire composition of air like nitrogen and carbon dioxide to thin out in the higher levels of the atmosphere.

Now that we’ve analyzed why less oxygen exists in the upper levels of the atmosphere, what are the some of the dangers that exist due to overexposure in these conditions?

At higher altitudes, the atmosphere is significantly different than that at sea-level and there are certain dangers that exist. The atmosphere for one is thinner and usually much colder at higher altitudes and if someone is exposed too long under these conditions he or she may be susceptible to a condition known as altitude sickness.

Oxygen levels at varying altitudes

Altitude sickness has three different forms.

1. Acute Mountain Sickness (AMS) – Occurs at altitudes up to 2,500 meters. Feels quite similar to a hangover as symptoms include headache, nausea, and fatigue. Very common as some are affected more than others but should be used as a warning sign.
2.  High Altitude Pulmonary Oedema (HAPE) – Usually occurs after 2-3 days above 2,500 meters above sea-level. HAPE is the “excess fluid on the lungs” and can cause breathlessness when resting. Can also cause high fever and coughing.
3. High Altitude Cerebral Oedema (HACE) – A severe form of mountain sickness occurring in about 1% of people who ascend 3000 meters above sea-level. HACE is a build-up of fluid in the brain and requires urgent medical action as it is life threatening.

I hope you are more aware of why the atmospheres differ between altitudes and certain conditions that may occur due to thin atmospheric over-exposure.

Thanks for the read!

-Sammy Lee

If someone told you that daylight savings could cause heart attacks, would you believe it? Would you fear that you make never wake up just because we set our clocks an hour forward? Would you move to Asia, South America, or any place where daylight savings isn’t observed in order to avoid it? Studies show that the rate of heart attacks increase by 25% the following Monday when daylight savings occurred compared to every other Monday of the year. But how does something that we do twice a year, that we have all accepted as “law of nature”, could potentially be life threatening?

There are two times when daylight savings occur: the spring daylight savings where you turn your clocks an hour forward and the fall daylight savings where you turn your clocks an hour backwards. Studies show that the daylight savings that turn your clocks an hour forward increased risk of a heart attack by 25%. The daylight savings which we turn our clocks an hour backwards does not increase risk of a heart attack. On the contrary, researchers found that turning our clocks an hour back lowered the number of heart attacks by a whole 21%.

Daylight savings don’t directly cause heart attacks. The reason why there is an increased rate of heart attacks the Monday after daylight savings is because it disrupted your sleep schedule. Daylight savings cause disruptions in your biological processes. Our bodies have a “biological clock.” If you sleep at the same time every night and wake up to your 8:00 AM alarm every morning, your body gets accustomed to that time frame. When daylight savings occur, that 8:00 AM alarm becomes 7:00 AM, disrupting your biological clock.

Sleep deprivation is linked to an increased risk of heart attack. People who get less than 6 hours of sleep a night has a higher risk of heart disease, diabetes, and stroke. People have more heart attacks because they get one less hour of sleep. When sleeping, your body conducts a lot of biological processes such as glucose metabolism, blood pressure regulation, etc. Because you woke up an hour before your usual time, your body’s processes got disrupted, hence you become more prone to a heart attack. This is especially worse if you have a heart disease or don’t sleep a healthy amount only lose one more hour due to daylight savings.

http://img.medicalxpress.com/newman/csz/news/800/2016/springdaylig.jpg

Cardiology fellow, Dr. Amneet Sandhu, M.D., conducted a study examining 42,000 hospital admissions in Michigan. He found out the average number of heart attack patients on Mondays is 32. On the Monday following daylight savings however, there was an average of 8 additional heart attacks. The study is large enough to say that this is no coincidence or that it is very difficult to say that this is pure chance.

It is clear that people prone to heart attacks should take extra caution around the time of the spring daylight savings. If daylight savings causes an increased risk of heart attack, should we not have daylight savings at all? I’d rather have the sky become dark by 4pm in the winter than have a heart attack, no? Another way to prevent having a heart attack on daylight savings Monday would be to prepare for it in advance. A week or two before daylight savings occur, sleep a few minutes earlier and wake up a few minutes earlier than usual. For example, if you sleep at 10:00 PM and wake up at 7:00AM, try sleeping at 9:50PM and waking up at 6:50AM. The goal is to shift your sleep schedule an hour back slowly. By the time the day of daylight savings comes, your sleep schedule will be 9:00PM to 6:00AM. That way, when the time changes, it will become 10:00PM to 7:00AM again. Small increments of change is less impactful than suddenly missing a whole hour. So the next time someone tries to wake you up earlier than usual, you can tell them, “Don’t wake me up early or else I might have a heart attack.”

I’ve been a certified scuba diver since the age of 12, and since then I’ve gone on over a hundred dives. Despite the incredible amount of experience I’ve logged since first getting my feet wet in 2008, I’ve never taken other scuba certification courses past my original open water training. One certification that has always interested me is the Nitrox certification. With a regular certification, a diver may only use regular compressed air tanks (meaning it’s the same air we breath on land, just compressed to 3000 psi in a scuba tank). Nitrox is a different mixture of gasses than just regular air, and from what I have been told it helps with different aspects of diving, such as being able to stay down longer, and have shorter decompression times. Considering that it requires a whole other course to gain certification to use it, I was curious whether Nitrox is better than air when it comes to diving, and whether or not it’s worth it to get certified to use it.

According to an article on space.com, the composition of air that we breath is 21% oxygen and 78% nitrogen. That means that when regular air is compressed into a scuba tank the gas composition in the tank is 21% oxygen and 78% nitrogen.

Nitrox scuba tank gas composition has a higher percentage of oxygen (and therefore lower content of nitrogen) than regular air tanks. Common Nitrox gas mixtures have 32% or 34% oxygen (as opposed to the 21% found in regular air tanks.

Why does this matter? Well due to the increased atmospheric pressure levels divers encounter while underwater, divers need to be conscious of the nitrogen levels within their blood. When we inhale we breathe in a gas mixture that predominantly contains nitrogen and oxygen. The oxygen we breathe is absorbed into the bloodstream and used to fuel cell processes. The nitrogen isn’t really used by the body, and most of it is exhaled; however some of it is absorbed into the bloodstream as well in the form of nitrogen bubbles. 

If managed properly, the nitrogen levels in the blood are not dangerous, but factors such as longer dive duration, deeper dive depths increase the nitrogen levels in the blood. If a diver ascends from depth too quickly with a high nitrogen level in their blood, it could prove dangerous. The nitrogen gas bubbles can expand in the blood stream leading to a serious condition known as decompression sickness (the bends). Although it is treatable, it can be potentially fatal. T

There a few ways that decompression sickness can be prevented. The first is using dive tables or dive computers to manage time spent at depth (essentially to monitor the amount of nitrogen in the bloodstream). Shorter dives lessen the chance of increased risk. Shallower dives also allow less nitrogen to enter the bloodstream as opposed to deeper dives. If a diver plans to do multiple dives in a day, or over the course of a few days he/she must carefully manage the amount of time spent underwater, and due to increased residual nitrogen in the bloodstream, successive dives require shorter dive times.

Naui Dive Table

The concept behind Nitrox is that because it has lower levels of nitrogen, less is absorbed into the bloodstream at depth. This allows for longer dives, shorter surface time between dives, and longer successive dives. All of these things are huge benefits to a recreational scuba diver like myself, who would like to stay down as long as I can when I dive.

Although experts agree that nitrox gas mixtures shouldn’t be used at depths of over 114 ft, in my opinion the course is worth the $200 price tag given the benefits that are associated with it. For a recreational scuba diver like myself, dive trips are costly endeavors, and I’d like to be able to maximize my time spent underwater during the course of the trip, and nitrox air mixtures would help me achieve that goal.

Sources:

http://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html

http://scuba.about.com/od/Enriched-Air-Nitrox/f/What-Is-Nitrox.htm

http://www.gk12.research.pdx.edu/question/when-you-breathe-air-and-breathe-it-out-how-does-it-turn-carbon-dioxide

http://scuba.about.com/od/typesofdiving/f/Benefits-of-scuba-diving-with-nitrox.htm

http://www.scubadiving.com/training/basic-skills/nitrox-myth

Marijuana or “weed” has become the drug of choice for many people. Smoking weed might be the one illegal drug that is in fact boasted about by celebrities, musicians, writers, and more. The reaction to someone smoking, talking about, or offering you weed, I can assure you is much different than if they were doing the same with different mind altering drugs. In fact, the Substance abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reported in 2014 that Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States. The logic I hear often from weed smokers is that marijuana is a harmless drug, and that “no one has ever died from smoking too much.” This could explain why it is so popular. However, Is it really true that a drug that affects the brain in the way that weed does has no adverse effects?

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/481217533765095426/93nr-8br.jpeg

The National Institute on drug abuse, or NIH examined many angles of this issue, but to no clear conclusion. This source desribes a study that was conducted to see the affect of marijuana use on rats. It was found that THC exposure in rats causes cognitive issues in the future of the rats life. If this study is any sign, it would mean that smoking weed has long term effects on your life. However, this study is not a sign at all.

What follows this animal testing is a series of conflicting studies which leave this question in the air. A study was conducted referred to as the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study examined the risk of marijuana use in adolescence that followed 3385 participants between the ages of 18 and 30 for 25 years. The study saw that current users of marijuana was associated with lower verbal memory, and processing speed. Furthermore, after removing the current users from the pool, only a lower verbal memory was reported, and no other affect was seen in participants. The significance of the lower verbal memory was only reported for every 5 years of use before stopping which even further decreases the validity of the results.

Other studies, as reported by the NIH in another anaysis found that there was no link between marijuana use and IQ but that once again, verbal memory was affected. It seems that the effects are existent, but not substantial, nonetheless smoking weed can affect your future. I would say that with the many conflicting viewpoints, its up to the user to determine if they’re willing to sacrifice a decrease in verbal memory in exchange for a good time.

The simple answer seems to typically be yes. Many people that obtain skin cancer are guilty of frequently going tanning. I also do know several people that tan weekly but have not gotten skin cancer. So is there a true correlation? Tanning artificially indoors is a current trend that is influenced by social media and television. People tend to feel more attractive when their skin is sun kissed. Makeup and skin products are sold for the sole purpose of darkening skin too. Is becoming tan in order to boost confidence truly worth it though? Most scientists would most likely say no.

According to the American Osteopathic Association, there will be about 9800 deaths from skin cancer within the year. I am also aware that it is the most common cancers in the United States. People are dying every day, so can this cancer be prevented or avoided?

The Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology documented statistics from New Mexico comparing risk of skin cancer in relation to ethnicity. Non-Hispanic whites were 5-10 times higher to get skin cancer than Hispanic-whites with darker skin. However, the light skin doesn’t appear to be the determining factor because in China and Singapore, incidence of skin cancer is lower than that in the US. (Armstrong) In China and Singapore though, tanning and darker skin is not as appealing as it is in the US. Indoor tanning tends to be more popular in Northern countries, in areas with less sun. It is in these countries that skin cancer is more prominent. A study done in Sweden showed that more than 50% of its female participants under 24 years old have already artificially tanned.
The relationship between tanning and skin cancer cannot be a coincidence or due to chance, because meta-analyses have been conducted in order to further validate various experimental trials that showed the link between the two variables. Epidemiological testing also supports the fact that one’s risk for getting cancer (melanoma and other skin cancers) is increased from using tanning beds. It also appears to be most risky to use tanning beds at an age younger than 40. (Dore)

There have also been other negative consequences faced by people using tanning beds such as skin fragility, blistering, and eye problems. (Swerdlow) There is no official risk percentage that you sign up for when you go tanning, however you are definitely taking one when you choose to do so. Science can prove that UV rays can cause skin cancers, but there is no simple answer as to whether you will get cancer or not.

Although it is not proven or guaranteed that if you go tanning you will get cancer, it would be a smart idea to stay away. Artificial tanning in adolescents should be avoided at all costs to reduce risk. There are many other alternatives to using tanning beds also, such as spray tanning, bronzers, and lotions. Until it is truly determined how dangerous tanning is, I would not suggest it!

Sources:

Best Tanning Beds for Sale  

http://jaoa.org/Article.aspx?articleid=2092912

http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2012/pp/c1pp05186e/unauth#!divAbstract

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190962298705444

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1011134401001981

  Let’s say that you’re at a social gathering and they have a delicious plate of snacks with a variety of dipping sauces. I have the pressure to scoop the perfect amount of dipping sauce in order to savor the condiments flavor for my next several bites. I was taught that it’s common courtesy to not double dip in a public setting. Usually when I’m with my friends though that rule flies out the window. Do we actually contaminate the sauce if we double dip and how severe is it?

According to this research done by the Dept. of Food Science & Human Nutrition at Clemson University, to test the theory of contamination of the dipping sauce and whether or not we transfer germs the researchers re-enacted the act of double dipping, using a Wheat Thin cracker and sterile water. Their experimental study included bitten(independent variable) and not bitten(controlled) pieces of Wheat Thins and immediately after dipped their chip into the sterile water. Their dependent variable is the germ results on the petri dish. Their results weren’t surprising and we have to reject the null hypothesis that double dipping does nothing to the defilement of the dipping sauce. As we bite into a food item there are bits of germ particles remaining where the bite is.
According to this article by Michelle Jarvie that bases off of the research study above, the results of that study discovered a count of over 10,000 bacteria to be transferred to the dip between three to six times of double dipping.

The famous show Mythbusters did a experimental study you on this topic as well and found different results. According to the experimenters Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman the results weren’t as drastic as the results in the previous study discussed above. By using a similar method with a sterilized chip and sauce that resembles salsa their results showed that double-dipping only increases the bacteria count slightly in the dipping sauce. Apparently the sauce already comprises of bacteria adding a few more wouldn’t be detrimental to your health.

It’s interesting that two different studies showed different results. There could have been human error, chance, or a different variable that may have affected the results of the studies.
The simple task you can do if you want to avoid any kind of germs revolving around double dipping, simply have your own sauce or just don’t eat it at all.

Here’s(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYxccSTDH4k) a video of the myth busters doing the double dipping experiment:

I’ve always heard a lot about how your diet can increase the amount of or the severity of your acne or breakouts. Since it’s an idea that seems to have been around for a long time, I just assumed that it was true and that my dairy intake could be causing some of my pimples I got in high school. As someone who does breakout sometimes, I’ve recently started paying more attention to how I eat in relation to any time I get a pimple. I know it’s a pretty relevant topic in a lot of college student’s lives, so I decided to do a little bit of research into if our diet could be causing us pimples.

There’s some research (such as in this study) with results that suggest that high glycemic food products, which are food with lots of carbohydrates which increase your blood sugar levels, can increase your acne. The previously mentioned and linked study found that their study subject who ate more high glycemic foods were more often experiencing bad acne. The other big concern in this regard are dairy products. This study yielded results which pointed towards low-fat dairy products causing problems for people in the form of pimples. Dr. Daniel Aires from the University of Kansas Hospital said that this could be because of the growth hormones in milk, which could be becoming more concentrated as more fat is removed from it. This study says that your eating habits won’t cause your acne, but could make it more or less severe. However, many of the studies on this topic weren’t too great. Andrew emphasizes that we need to look at the quality of the studies that are out there. Many studies about the correlation between diet and acne have small sample sizes, control groups that aren’t very great, biases, and even results that are poorly reported.

Chart showing the levels of glycemic foods

In conclusion, it seems like it’s definitely a possibility that what you choose to eat could effect how bad your acne is. A normal person’s reaction to this depends on their level of concern in relation to their acne, but it’s not a bad idea to limit your intake of high glycemic foods and dairy, but don’t alter your whole life or freak out if you want to have an ice cream cone.

Photo sources:

Apple or doughnut

Glycemic food chart

College is a time when many students begin experimenting with many things, including alcohol and illegal drugs. One of the most popular and enduring of these is marijuana. Despite some of the world’s most prominent and successful figures, such as Morgan Freeman, Bill Gates, and Barack Obama admitting to using marijuana in the past or present, there is still a stigma associated with it that it makes people lazy or stupid. While the success of those previously mentioned seems to do away with that notion anecdotally, the scientific results have been mixed.

One study performed at Washington University reviewed MRI scans of the brains of 241 sets of twins, where some sets had both smoked marijuana, some had just one user, and some has neither as users. The results suggested that the portion of the brain that deals with emotions and rewards was shrinking in the subjects who were marijuana users. Another study performed by Dr. Tomas Paus looked at the MRI scans of around 1500 adolescent boys two times, at age 15 and at age 19. The results appeared to show a thinning of the outer layer of the brain in those who were marijuana users. Finally, a study performed in New Zealand that followed subjects from their birth until they were nearing 40 showed lower IQ scores in people who had smoked marijuana, and especially in those who were frequent users. The researchers also surveyed people with close relationships to the subjects and found that those who smoked marijuana were struggling more in everyday life. The most surprising result of this final study is that subjects who began using marijuana during adulthood appeared to be less effected than those who began during their teenage years. However, despite these studies pointing towards marijuana having negative effects of cognition and success, there is certainly the possibility of confounding variables or chance being the reason for these results.

Overall, while there is no definite link between marijuana and decreased cognitive function, these studies do all make the case that pot can hold people back from their full potential and interfere with the brain. The research on this subject will certainly continue, especially with more and more states legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana in some form.

Picture 1
Picture 2

A scene from VH1’s Flavor of Love

I have a guilty pleasure for reality television—the home of the Kardashians, ‘real’ housewives, celebrities, and catfights. When I was eight years old, the first reality television series I’ve ever watched was VH1’s Flavor of Love (2006), a similar, but satirical take on ABC’s The Bachelor. One of the infamous moments on Flavor of Love involved a woman spitting on another woman after being eliminated from the show. Not only that, but the show was a great way of showcasing sex, physical violence and profanity. My parents never warned me about watching reality
television shows, but eventually, I grew up realizing that reality TV shows has a major involvement in the behaviors of our society. It’s evident that the reality television universe is emerging and not in the best way. So, here’s my question: Is reality TV show detrimental to society? The behaviors we see on television, like verbal and physical altercations, and shameless partying, is what occurs in society as well. When it comes to reality television, people may think that it’s entertaining, but others take it seriously, and here’s why.

Reality television, according to Brad Gorham of Syracuse University, has an effect on the behaviors of people in society. He claims that people are easily influenced by reality television because they eventually copy the behaviors portrayed on television and use them in real life. 

According to Philip Ross of International Science Times, reality television has a detrimental impact on our perceptions of the world based on an observational study from University of Winsconsin. In this study, 145 students from the university were surveyed based on reality television consumption. This study concluded that reality television viewers believe that the argumentative and conniving behaviors portrayed on television shows is considered normal in today’s society. 

Based on another study from Lisa K. Lundy in 2008, researchers gathered 34 participants, conducted four groups to discuss the social effects of reality television. As a result, there were mixed comments on the term ‘reality TV’. In fact, most participants considered reality television as an escape from reality, an irresistible phenomenon, or immoral. Similar to Lundy, Jaime Riccio, a student at Syracuse University developed focus groups. In this study, Riccio concluded that reality TV causes problematic behaviors in people, especially towards the younger generation. By juxtaposing three of these studies from Ross, Lundy, and Ciccio, it would further demonstrate that reality TV viewers have varied opinions on what is moral or not for society when it comes to reality television.

Keeping Up With the Kardashians, a popular reality TV series on E!

Reality television is an addicting phenomenon, and researchers have claimed that society is so addicted to shows, such as Keeping Up With the Kardashians, The Real World, even American Idol, because it’s entertaining, relatable, and interactive with its audiences. What makes reality TV so addictive is what occurs on the show. Producers intentionally edit the shows for the viewers’ pleasure. According to Michelle Crouch of Reader’s Digest, producers alter scenes for their show to showcase conflicts between different cast members. In addition, cast members’ behaviors are portrayed differently, allowing the audience to choose who’s likable and who’s not.

Null hypothesis: Reality TV shows has no effect on the behaviors of people in society.

Alternative hypothesis: Reality TV shows influence bad behaviors in people.

x-variable: Reality TV consumption; y-variable: People’s behavior

Based on the variety of studies, observations, and views from researchers, the correlation between reality television and societal behaviors is vague. It’s difficult to determine whether reality television has a good or bad influence on people in society because not all reality television series are bad. What I learned from these observational studies is that people have different perceptions of what is real and what is not in reality television, compared to real life. After all, we can’t change viewers’ opinions. What can be changed, though? With this phenomenon, it seems like the emergence of reality television shows is unstoppable. Why? Because reality TV is popular, and also very profitable, and that factor has to be considered.

In addition, reverse causation can be ruled out, but third confounding variables can’t be based on the hypothesis. For instance, there are many other causes or influences of societal behavior. For instance, the community or environment that people are surrounded by is a great cause of how people act or behave in real life. This could also be due to chance.

Overall, there is no clarity of whether reality television is a negative influence on society,

Oxygen’s reality television series, Bad Girls Club. Photo courtesy of Oxygen.

but it doesn’t mean it does not have an influence at all. Reality TV is just a continuously progressing phenomenon in society, and people have mixed opinions on these shows. But, one thing I know, it is definitely entertaining. That’s why I tune in to Bad Girls Club every Tuesday!

Which reality TV show is your guilty pleasure? Comment below!

SOURCES:

<http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6069/20130916/reality-tv-s-impact-viewers-shows-real.htm>

<http://college.usatoday.com/2012/04/18/the-real-effects-of-reality-tv/>

<http://www.rd.com/culture/13-secrets-reality-tv-show-producers-wont-tell-you/>

<http://news.psu.edu/story/141303/2009/08/24/research/probing-question-why-do-we-love-reality-television>

A couple of summers ago, I was doing yard work and got poison Oak really bad.  It got so bad that I ended up having to go to the doctor and was put on medication for about 2 weeks.  I still have faint scars from where the poison oak was. During this time my younger brother had been bragging to me about how he was somehow immune to poison ivy.  I have heard a couple of people say how they have never gotten poison ivy so I decided to research if they were just lucky to have never become in contact with it or if it was possible to be immune.

To understand if it’s possible to be immune to poison ivy one most understand what causes the reaction.  When people have a reaction to poison ivy they are having an allergic reaction to the oil Urushiol.  Most people are allergic to Urushiol; it’s like any other allergy when you encounter it you have a reaction in this case most likely a rash.  According to Dr. David Adams a dermatologist at Penn State Hershey about a quarter of the population is immune to poison ivy.  Being allergic to Urushiol can be compared to someone who has a peanut allergy; when they come in contact with peanuts they have a reaction like hives.  The difference in Urushiol and peanuts is that a lot more people are allergic to Urushiol

It is possible for someone to not experience a reaction when they encounter Urushiol, however; this natural resistance can fade away with time (Cite).  Contrary to that it is believed that someone who has experience poison ivy can build up a resistance later in life (Cite).  This is the same way someone with a peanut allergy can become not allergic as they get older.  While researching, this I could not find an experiment on how someone is immune.

This can be compared to peanut butter allergies in the way that there is no cure for that either.  If you could find a way to completely cure allergic reactions this would have huge implication with all allergies like peanuts, shell fish, egg, and milk just to name a few.  There is new research that says early exposure to peanuts can lead to decrease chances of developing allergies later.  This could be a way to decrease the amount of people that are allergic, it would be
hard to test this hypothesis though.  To test this, you would have to expose infants to Urushiol at a young age possible through shots.  Poison Ivy is not life threatening even in extreme cases there are ways of controlling it after you have been infected.  This is probably a main reason why there is not research in how to prevent poison ivy all together.  The best way to prevent poison ivy is to wear long clothes and if you do come in contact with it to rinse the area with soap in water as soon as possible.

(Picture)

Girl

The best thing to ask someone who has a headache is, How much water have you had today? It seems almost pointless to ask but studies have shown that many common cures to minor body issues are water related.

A recent longitudinal study ranging from 2009 through 2012, featuring participants from the age of 18 to 64 were followed over the 4 year period, the particpants were then weighed and had the BMI measured. The study used urine analysis as well to determine other water ingestion. The results suggested that participants that had drank more water had lower BMI’s. Notably this study is has many correlations to other studies that find similar results. Variables however might not have been measured as well with these studies but the longitudinal study proved to have a national representative sample. Along with adequate samples, the study was conducted well by using controlled groups and 3rd party variables had been accounted for. There is a possibility that the results had been due to chance, that being only because no other study had been conducted in such detail.

Another informative study that references the journal biological chemistry, claims that the human body is 60%, and in order to control and account for proper functioning, the adult body must consume roughly 2.2-3 liters of water daily. It is mentioned that water consumption is not only consumed by liquid but it is done in food as well. Without adequate water consumption the body can’t regulate body temperature, flush body waste, or even aid in proper digestion, which could lead to major health hazards.

Picture source

Finally, all three the studies reported that water consumption is vital to your health and is responsible for maintaining a properly function body. In all studies, participants were properly measured and controlled, and though there is always chance in any aspect of science, the correlation between a healthy body and an unhealthy body could be as easy as filling up your cup. Water obviously can’t account for all health issues of people but for proper function, water alone plays a key role in staying alive.

water credit