(photo credit)

If you’re familiar with the CBS television show Survivor, then you know that their most recent season divided the contestants into three teams: beauty, brains, and brawn. I think that this way of categorizing the people on the show (for this season) is interesting because it gives the impression that society believes a person can only be one thing (brains, beauty, or brawn). Anyone that can fit into all three of those categories is looked at as an exception. If someone were to tell you to envision a scientist, images of a person in a white lab coat and various other scientific materials would pop into your head. I can guarantee you that you would not picture a scientist as someone who lifts weights in his/her spare time. This is because mental strength is linked to physical weakness and vice versa. Because of these stereotypes, athletes get the reputation of being less intelligent, hence: the dumb jock persona.

(photo credit)

I researched to see if there is any truth to this stereotype and came across a study conducted in 2002 and 2003 that took place at Washington State University. The scientists studied roughly 6,000 undergraduate students who enrolled between 2002 and 2003, (about one third of the 6,000 failed out and did not graduate). This is an observational study because the scientists did not change any variable that would have an affect on the students’ academic performance. The scientists tracked the performance of the students during their first semester of their freshman year, and then again once they graduated. After gathering the GPAs, the scientists looked at confounding variables that may have enabled the students to receive their diplomas. Confounding variables were: major, socio-economic status, gender, race, ethnicity, involvement on campus, and prior (high school) academic performance.

What the scientists found was interesting. The results showed that students that were in a science or engineering program were at least three times more likely to graduate in five or six years than students in other programs. They concluded that student athletes were more likely to graduate between five or six years in comparison to the non-athlete students. I think it’s also worth noting that the study also concluded that students that were members of a fraternity or sorority were, on average, three times more likely to graduate in five or six years compared to those not involved in Greek life. The scientists conducting the study also pointed out that race and ethnicity were not directly related to the achieving of a diploma. However, they said that socio-economic status as well as financial status contributed to the success or failure of a student and that ethnicity and race do have a relationship in this. One of the scientists made a statement saying that athletes were more likely to graduate on time because they needed to show academic success in order to keep their position on a team.

(photo credit)

Certain programs (like science and engineering as well as Greek organizations) requires their students and members to uphold a certain GPA, otherwise they will fail out of the program or lose membership status. Similarly, athletes are aware that if they fall below a certain GPA, they could get replaced. If they cannot afford to attend a university without the money from a sports scholarship, then they lose their opportunity at education. I think this study demonstrates how membership, a degree, or a spot on a sports team boosts incentive to have a successful academic performance. Reverse causation can be ruled out because having good grades does not make you an athlete. These results, although don’t prove that every athlete has academic success, suggests that a majority, does. There isn’t a direct correlation between being an athlete and getting good grades, but there seems to be a strong relationship between the two with confounding variables further strengthening the correlation.

(photo credit)

It seems that for all of the positive experiences we have throughout our lives, we tend to harp on and recall more easily the few negative (failure, sickness, death) memories we’ve had. The old adage of “Don’t dwell on the negative” is almost impossible considering our human nature to do just that. I think that as students we can relate to this concept in an academic way. For instance, if your professor returns your exam and you didn’t do as well as you had hoped, you tend to let that thought linger longer despite getting a near perfect score on the past exams or assignments in the same course. Are people innately negative? What is the mechanism behind why the majority of us obsess over the few negative events?

Ohio State University (OSU) conducted an experiment in 1998 that sought to find a conclusion about negativity bias and how (if at all) it affects our ability to make evaluations. They used 25 OSU male undergraduates for this study. I would classify this as an experime

(photo credit)

ntal study because the 25 students were connected to EEGs (machines that measure brain activity) and presented various pictures, of which the subjects gave reactions. The procedure consisted of the students being shown 36 pictures classified as “neutral” (these served as the control photos), two pictures classified as “positive” and two pictures classified as “negative.” It is also worth noting that the positive and negative pictures were extreme in their affects. Meaning that the positive pictures were of children riding a rollercoaster, a bowl of ice-cream, and pizza, whereas the negative photos were of a dead cat and a body of a decaying cow. The combination of pictures (random) was done in groups of five at a time. The electrical impulses of each student were recorded for each picture that was shown on the computer screen. The results of the experiments concluded that although the positive and negative pictures yielded high levels of arousal in comparison to the neutral photos, the negative stimuli produced more arousal in the brains of the subjects. From this study, it can be concluded that negative stimuli have a greater impact on our minds than positive stimuli. It’s important to know that the negative and positive stimuli show up in the same areas of the brain so there is no error coming from the calculating of comparisons between one part of the brain that registers pleasure from another that registers pain/discomfort, etcetera. This study has an equal number of positive and negative photos and so it’s possible that the results could vary if there is an unequal ratio of positive to negative photos. There could be a difference if the subjects were group of co-eds and not just men. And although this study contributes to the argument that negative stimuli is more potent to our brains, it doesn’t explain why.

(photo credit)

I found a scientific review which asserts that bad memories and experiences overpower good or pleasant memories and experiences. They give a hypothesis as to why they believe unpleasant memories create more of a lasting impact on the human mind. The scientists stated that human beings dwelling on negative events could be an adaptive behavior. Their reasoning behind this thought is that our ancestors who were more conscious of the dangers in their environment were better equipped to avoid them and thus carry on their genes. They further went on to justify their hypothesis by stating that if a person were to disregard a threatening situation (even just once) it can yield severe harm or possibly death. But, if a person were to ignore signs of positive opportunities will miss out on added reward or satisfaction and be unharmed. I think that this theory could help to explain why our brains (and those in the aforementioned study) have more activity when we so much as see something that is negative (dangerous, repulsive, scary). Being mindful and remembering the “bad” could be an instinctive reaction, a survival tactic, so that we can ensure our vitality.

(photo credit)

Not getting enough of sleep is one of the most difficult life changes we face when coming to college. Pulling all-nighters (sometimes with the help of energy drinks and coffee) has become a staple of college culture. It seems like there aren’t enough hours in the day to get everything completed, and staying up late becomes the only option to combat the large workload being placed upon us. Obviously not getting enough of sleep has physical consequences, such as waking up tired the next morning, but what about psychological consequences? Does sleep deprivation affect our mental health?

There was a study conducted in 2010 that tried to come

(photo credit)

to a conclusion of whether or not lack of sleep had a relationship with depression or depressive-like symptoms. Questionnaires were sent to 1,100 (18-22-year-old) student mailboxes at a women’s college with questions that asked about their sleeping habits. This is an observational study because the scientists are not changing the lifestyles of the students, they are merely asking questions about their sleep schedules. Examples of some of the questions found on this two-page questionnaire were the students’  bedtimes, consumption of caffeine, time they wake up, and if they experience sleepiness during the daytime. Levels of depression were based on the CES-D and HAM-D scales.

They found that the women who went to bed at 2:00 a.m. or later showed depression tendency scores higher than those of the women who reported bedtimes before 2:00 a.m. The scientists also discovered that those students who consumed an average of two cups of coffee or more a day, tended to fall asleep at 2:00 a.m. or later. The mechanism behind this is that coffee contains caffeine and that can make you less tired, causing your bedtimes to be prolonged. Alcohol and tobacco products (confounding variables) were also reported to affect sleeping patterns through disrupting sleep and/or oversleeping. Lack of sleep, the scientists found, shows a positive correlation with melancholic depressive symptoms. Chronic sleep disruptions are a sign of melancholic depression, and so it is not surprising that students who went to bed at 2:00 a.m. or later showed higher levels of this disease.

(Photo credit)

Reverse causation is possible here because those that suffer from depression can have a lack of sleep due of feelings of anxiety or distress. Confounding variables such as type of major, workload, and social pressures could also create sleeping patterns that result in higher levels of depression. It would be valuable to know what the cut-off for the amount of sleep a person should get each night so that they lower the risk of having this disease. Also, this study only analyzes the habits of women and it would be interesting to compare results from a co-ed or male focused study to see if there is any variance. Although correlation does not equal causation, this study (despite its smaller size), does show that there seems to be a strong correlation between lack of sleep and signs of depression. After reviewing this study, I will be more mindful about my sleeping patterns and avoid habitually going to bed at 2:00 a.m. or later.

(photo credit)

          I’ve heard many conflicting opinions about which part of the day (morning, afternoon, or night) I should workout to help achieve my fitness goals. I’ve been told that exercising in the morning is the best time because you kick-start your metabolism and burn calories throughout the rest of the day. Conversely, I’ve been told that working out at night helps you fall and stay asleep, because your body is fatigued and more restful after a workout. This clashing of opinions reminds me of a similar debate of whether you should put ice or heat on a sore muscle. Both are beneficial, but is one more beneficial than the other? Is a specific time of day more influential in the process of weight loss?

(photo credit)

An experimental study was conducted on 29 overweight and inactive post-menopausal women that studied if morning or night walks led to the most weight loss. This study was not a blind procedure, as the women are clearly able to tell whether it is daytime or nighttime. The results show that the group of 15 that went for nightly walks lost more weight than the group that exercised in the morning. The scientists found a link between nighttime walks and dietary changes. It seemed that the women exercising at night would consume more at breakfast time than those 14 women that exercised in the morning. This link could help to explain the weight loss seen in the nighttime group. Eating a heavier breakfast could have possibly suppressed their hunger, causing them to not overeat throughout the day. There could also be other confounding variables at play here such as intensity of the walks, metabolic rate of the participant, what specifically the women were eating, etc. Although the study’s results did prove that evening exercises yield the most weight loss, the demographic being studied is not broad enough to apply to most college students, in fact, it eliminates all males because it follows post-menstrual women. It seems that the study was done well but it was a very small sample size (29 women). Because of these factors, I wouldn’t necessarily change my workout time from morning to night.

Another experimental study conducted in 2010 followed men ages 18-25 (all considered to be “healthy”, the qualifications were not specified). The aim of the study was to figure out if eating breakfast or fasting leads to more weight loss. This study occurred over a span of six weeks. The control group did not exercise while the experimental group was taking was in high-endurance workouts. Within the experimental group, several participants ate carbohydrates before working out, while the others did not eat anything (fasted) before their training session. The results found concluded (for the first time) that not eating breakfast and working out led to more weight loss in their test subjects. Although this study does not test for nighttime workout benefits, it does show that there is a strong relationship between morning workouts and weight loss. But the study does say that it is the first time these results have been proven, and the number of subjects is unspecified. So before anyone makes changes to your diet or exercise routines, you should wait to see if there are any other follow up studies that agree or refute the results of this particular experiment.

All in all, it seems that the verdict of this question is inconclusive. The results from these two studies contradict one another, however there seems to be an overlap of some sort. Each study placed their participants on regimented workout routines. Everyone in the experimental groups in the two studies did lose weight. It just so happens that the women working out at night, and the men who fasted before working out, lost more weight than the others in the study. It’s possible that the time of day isn’t as crucial to  losing weight, as is the consistency of diet and regularity of getting to the gym.

(Dori photo credit)

(photo credit)

You’ve heard this mantra over and over again, “Eat your breakfast, it’s the most important meal of the day!” Is there any truth to it, or are we blindly complying with an inaccurate proverb? According to an NPR  article, eating habits have changed, most significantly with the millennial generation. In previous years, breakfast, lunch, and dinner times were highly regimented and the idea of a “family meal” was imbedded in societal norms. Now, however, it seems that millenials are more irregular in their meal times and actually skip eating breakfast more often than older generations. This is an interesting finding. I think that eating behaviors can give insight as to what the values are for a particular time period. Family values were much more stressed back then. They aren’t completely gone now, but there is definitely a noticeable change in how the family unit is appreciated. Although an average job requires the employee to work five days a week starting at 9 a.m. and leaving at 5 p.m., there is an increasing demand to work beyond that five day, eight hour period. Because of this growing mentality that one must work beyond the set hours or days, meals are often skipped and they do not have the same importance or emphasis as they once had. This change is quite alarming to nutritionists and scientists alike. The motto of eating breakfast does not seem to apply to the younger generation, which goes against not only scientific research but also what they’ve grown up being told. And, naturally, anything that goes against a societal norm is “wrong.” Or is it?

(photo credit)

Numerous studies have tried to show a correlation between not eating breakfast and being obese. The Huffington Post cited a 2013 study that analyzed the scientific backing behind such claims, and found that skipping breakfast did not cause obesity. David Ludwig, obesity researcher at Harvard School of Public Health, had said that the emphasis shouldn’t be on what time you eat, but rather, what you eat. For instance, if you are a habitual breakfast eater, but your breakfast consists of sugary foods such as donuts or cereals, you aren’t benefitting your body in the slightest. Simple sugars found in foods like these don’t satisfy your hunger for a long period of time. Instead, those foods actually induce fat storage in your body and can make you hungrier, faster. Drew Ramsey, a Columbia University psychiatrist, weighs in on what makes a “good” breakfast. Anything high in protein (such as eggs) wards off hunger pangs by making you feel more full because it slows down your digestive system. So, circling back to the original question of is breakfast the most important meal of the day, I would have to side with no. I think the importance of eating breakfast comes from the nutritional value of the food you’re consuming, and not the timeframe in which you are consuming it. Also, it depends on how hungry you are when you wake up. If you find yourself not being hungry, then don’t consume the extra calories. However, do not deprive yourself of a meal if you are hungry, because that could lead to over-eating later in the day.

(photo credit: Pinterest)

          Coffee. That wonderfully caffeinated drink that instantly wakes you up the second its full-bodied aroma diffuses into the air and calls your senses to attention. Dramatic description? Maybe for some. However, I cannot start my morning without drinking at least three cups of coffee. As you walk through the HUB, you’re more than likely to see me standing in the never-ending line that leads to the promise land: the Starbucks counter. I drink it firstly for its taste, but a little caffeine boost can’t hurt (or can it?). There have been numerous experiments conducted studying the effects that drinking coffee can have on our bodies.

        According to an AARP article, caffeine has been said to raise blood pressure, increase anxiety, disrupt sleep patterns, and irritate your stomach (due to its high acidity). It’s also been speculated that coffee is technically a drug because drinkers become dependent/addicted to the caffeine in the drink. Studies conducted at Harvard University dispelled the belief that coffee increases blood pressure. Actually, the experiment proved that caffeine (slightly) improves higher blood pressure. Other studies at Harvard concluded that consuming coffee lowers the risk of prostrate cancer and diabetes. Can the beverage completely prevent cancers or other diseases? No. But it’s comforting to debunk the theories that claim the caffeine in coffee is harmful to the consumer. But even Harvard’s findings can’t be considered the final word on the coffee debate. Assertions of coffee being linked to this disease or that disease have been ongoing for quite some time. Each new finding seems to contradict a previously executed study and experiment. What is behind this clashing of coffee “truths”?

         A recent New York Times article proposed that our genes could be responsible for our reaction to drinking coffee. Dr. El-Sohemy (professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Toronto) conducted a study analyzing how genes and coffee consumption can affect the heart. The study used a group of 4,000 adults (2,000 of which had experienced a heart attack). After testing, the scientists found that drinking 4 or more cups of coffee a day yielded a 36% increased risk of having a heart attack. Analyzing that percentage more closely, Dr. El-Sohemy found that “slow” metabolizers made up the entire 36%, and “fast” metabolizers showed no increased risk of having a heart attack. What does a slow or fast metabolizer mean? Well, each of us possesses a gene called CYP1A2 that controls an enzyme of the same name (CYP1A2). This gene enables our bodies to break down caffeine that we ingest. We inherit this from each of our parents, and there are two variations; dictated as slow and fast. The slow variant takes a longer period of time to break down the caffeine. The fast variant quickly breaks down and absorbs the caffeine. The slow metabolizers have an increased risk in experiencing a heart attack, Dr. El-Sohemy believes, because the caffeine lingers for a considerable amount of time, which can act as an instigator of an attack. The relationship here is that of a confounding correlation. Coffee does not directly cause heart attacks. The amount of coffee consumed is the third variable that plays into this correlation. Conversely, fast metabolizers actually had a reduced risk of experiencing a heart attack if they drank at least 3 cups of joe a day. However, it is interesting to note that both fast and slow metabolizers both had an increased performance in physical tasks with the consumption of coffee. Fast metabolizers excelled in the task more so than slow metabolizers. The reason behind this result was that fast metabolizers can actually absorb the antioxidants and other beneficial compounds found in coffee because they metabolize the caffeine in a timely period. The takeaway is that everyone can reap the benefits of ingesting caffeine, but some people are just predisposed to benefit more than others.

(photo credit: Cosmopolitan magazine)

“What’s your sign?” Based on where your birthday falls in the calendar year, you are considered one of the following twelve signs: Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces, Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, or Leo. Within each sign, there are certain characteristics that each one apparently possesses. It seems that the following of horoscopes is becoming more and more popular. Books have and are still being written about this subject, breaking down each sign’s history, love matches, faults, future occupations…the list goes on. Popular newspapers, such as The New York Times, dedicate a small section to monthly horoscopes. Entertainment magazines and clothing stores take social trends and turn them into something (material or otherwise) that they can profit from. That being said, magazines like Cosmopolitan and clothing stores like Urban Outfitters have profited by their zodiac columns and apparel. If there wasn’t a phenomenon surrounding the (maybe) science of astrology, then why are these companies spending money on producing such content/products? What makes this notion so attractive (and believable) to a society? The foundation of the zodiac is based on astrology: the belief that celestial positioning affects human tendencies and natural occurrences. This abstract concept does include scientific elements, such as studying the orbits of planets, stars, the sun, and the moon. But is there any credible backing that solidifies astrology a spot amongst other “actual” sciences like chemistry, biology, and physics?

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary the definition of science is basically acquiring knowledge of the various aspects of the world through conducting experiments. Taking this definition and applying it to astrology diminishes its credibility. Yes, astrology aims to explain affairs that occur in the world, but the explanations are usually broad and so could mean that the results of the experiments can be manipulated to prove that is fit the hypothesis or expectation, (Understanding Science). Providing inclusive generalizations as to why people behave in such-and-such a way is hardly reliable. In fact, it comes off more like guess work. From Tuesday’s (August 30^th’s) lecture, Andrew talked about what science is. He said that science, broadly, is: a systematic collection of data through observation and experiments, the development of theories to organize and explain all of this, and the use of professional institutions and norms such as peer review to subject claims to scrutiny and thus develop reliable knowledge. Although some astrologists use star charts to validate their advice or readings, there can be no conclusive relationship as to why a positioning of a star or a planet being in retrograde means that a particular zodiac sign will be temperamental, or passive, or intellectual. As far as I’ve researched, there is no university that offers a course studying astrology. It may be incorporated within a myth and mythologies course, but that doesn’t validate astrology as a science. It actually weakens the argument because we know that folktales are not real. There is no hard evidence that myths or astrology is reliable in the information it presents. But living in a world that has long since evolved from believing in myths like those in Homer’s Odyssey, it’s incredible that yet there is still a following for this theoretical concept.

It is universally known that nature (one’s surroundings) and nurture (how one was raised) are the underlying influences of the “why’s” and the “what’s” of one’s life. For example, my sign is a Scorpio, which means, amongst other things, that I’m “obsessive.” Admittedly, I can be obsessive, especially when it comes to my work for my classes. But my two best friends are a Capricorn and Leo and I’ve seen them obsess over their work as well. Anyone can be obsessive over something that they’re passionate about, so to use such words to classify someone seems impractical and not scientific, especially because emotions and moods are relative and based on context. I think what it comes down to is that astrology, for the masses, is a form of entertainment. It’s alluring, not for its scientific backing, but because it’s another way to unofficially classify people; to feel like one is part of a greater group. The columns are entertaining to read, because if by chance the advice or summary is relatable to your life, it’s creepily exciting.

This is a link to a USCI Berkeley page that explains how they came to the conclusion as to why astrology, is in fact, not an actual science. Also, for your enjoyment, here are a few links to some Buzzed quizzes that tell you what movie you should watch or what character you are based on your sign…

For The Game of Thrones fans

For the Halloween enthusiasts 

An excuse to look at attractive pictures of Chris Evans

Hi my name is Valerie Murphy and I’m a sophomore at Penn State. Initially, I was just looking for a science class to fill a gen. ed. requirement for my majors (criminology and English). This class seemed to be the most interesting out of the other courses listed as it promises to take current scientific topics and apply them to everyday life, so there’s a relatable factor involved. I like subjects that I can make connections to because then I’ll have an easier time remembering the information. I feel like this class is going to make me think and actually force me to be involved with the material. Some courses I’ve taken have been such a bore because there was no other interaction with the lesson besides lecture and note taking from the text book. I’m looking forward to gaining a better appreciation for the realm of science.

I have a higher appreciation for literature rather than equations and formulas. I’ve always gravitated toward the classes that entailed writing, reading, and public speaking. Subjects like chemistry, physics, and biology were always frustrating to me because it seemed like an entirely different language and most of all, dull. I understand that science is more than important, it is essential to life as we know it. However, I’d rather be the one benefiting from the break throughs being made, not actually performing the steps to get there.

photo credit

Here is a link to an article on the New York Times that discusses the recent increase in price for EpiPens. I think this article demonstrates how science is not a one-dimensional field. It can cross over to the political and economic realm; directly affecting your everyday life and decisions.