Do Earbuds Damage Your Ears More Than Headphones?

girl-killed-earbuds

Do you ever ignore the ‘Listening to high volume can damage your ears’ warning before you turn up your music? I do, and believe me, it’s the worst thing to do. With maximum volume, I experienced two ear infections in one week, and temporary hearing loss was the cherry on top. However, I’ve often used earbuds to listen to music, and they easily make my ears ache! But listeningwhich is more damaging to your ear? Headphones that cover your ears, or earbuds that go inside of your ear? Also, do they both have negative effects on your ears when used with maximum volume?

The way we use our earbuds and headphones matter, especially since we are in control of how loud or soft our volume should be. Listening to music is great, but the louder your listening device is, the more likely people will face hearing damage, mild or severe. According to Dr. David Schessel, the higher the volume level, measured in decibels (dB), the stronger likelihood for hearing damage. Data from Schessel explained that a typical volume for earbud usage is 85 db. However, listening to music for more than eight hours with a higher volume is dangerous.

Headphones vs. Earbuds

So, which gadget leads to higher exposure of hearing loss? Let’s just say headphones and earbuds both have advantages and disadvantages. Here’s a juxtaposition between the two.

Samsung

Samsung

Headphones are over the ear, like earmuffs. Meanwhile, earbuds go inside the ear. According to doctors, headphones are the better option compared to earbuds. Unlike headphones, earbuds easily travel through the ear canal and has a higher volume compared to regular headphones. According to HowStuffWorks, headphones and earphones have different sound qualities. While headphones have better sound quality, earbuds do not, which urges people to increase the volume of their devices. Therefore, people may be predisposed to hearing loss. Based on these facts, it can be concluded that earbuds are more likely to cause hearing damage than headphones. However, headphones still has the risk.

Null hypothesis: Earbuds & headphones have no impact on the ears when used with maximum volume.

Alternative hypothesis: Earbuds & headphones can damage your ears when used with maximum volume.

x-variable: Maximum volume of headphones/earbuds; y-variable: hearing damage of the ear

Reverse causation: Ruled out

Third confounding variables: Volume levels controlled by listener, type of electronic device

Chance? None

Maximum volume is dangerous to the ear, simple as that. Headphones and earbuds with different sound qualities forces the listener to increase the decibel levels for satisfaction. However, the higher the decibel level, the higher risk and exposure to hearing impairments. Reverse causation can be ruled out, but we can also consider what type of electronic device is used during headphone and earbud usage. Different types of devices have different volume levels. For instance, according to James E. Foy, MP3 players have more than 120 db.

So, what’s the best alternative? Headphones and earbuds are okay, but the best suggestion is to lower your volume down to prevent hearing loss. In other words, take the warning on your phone a little seriously.

SOURCES:

<http://www.medicaldaily.com/earbuds-vs-headphones-which-will-cause-noise-induced-hearing-loss-366088>

<http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/audio-music/earbuds-vs-headphones.htm>

 

Could Santa Actually Exist

Leaving cookies and milk out for Santa is one of my fondest memories from my childhood. And we see in pop culture today that he is still a very iconic figure to many people around the world. But is it possible that someone like Santa could exist, traveling around the globe in one night and leaving in the arctic?

px11057741santa-73_3112227k

We first must look into if it is possible for him to travel around the world in only one night. There has yet to be a species of reindeer that fly, let alone any species in general that could fly that quickly. Taking into consideration that Santa is largely christian based and that there will be some ‘naughty’ children on Christmas, that leaves him with roughly over 90 million houses to hit  in one night. That means that for every second that he can be delivering, he would need to deliver to over 820 houses. Even if he could somehow fashion a machine that could travel that fast, he himself would have to move extremely fast.

arctic1

This is also taking into consideration that he has to have a large industrial-sized building to create all of the presents, that wouldn’t have been able to produce enough presents for what he has to produce because of the relationship of arctic settlers and the natural land.

Sources

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/can-santa-claus-exist-a-scientific-debate-1669957032

http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/survival-arctic

“Conformity Experiment”

Have you ever thought about standing the wrong way in the elevator, or laughing at a funeral; probably not, right? We’ll have you ever thought about why you don’t do those things? In sociology we talk about how we conform based on others around us; this means we are going to stand the way others stand in a particular setting, and have the same emotion as others have in a particular setting. Solomon Asch did many studies on people’s tendency to conform when they are in a large group and he found that even when the individual knows the group is wrong they still conform to the group’s behaviors.

image
Solomon Asch’s study had actors and one participant in the room. There was a line drawn and they were given card with three choices; one of the choices was matching line to the one that was drawn and two of them were clearly not. The actors were instructed to to always give that same answer; however in some trials that answer was to be correct and in some of them incorrect. It was then record if the one participant in the rooms how was not an actor followed the group even when they were wrong or if they said the obvious right answer. The null hypothesis in this study suggested that participants would not conform to the group, but the alternative suggest that they would conform to the group. At thee end of the study it turn out the overwhelming participants would conform to the group even though they were wrong. So Asch had to reject the null hypothesis.
This study seems to be one that was done well and it is likely that Asch’s findings are accurate, but I had to wonder if anything else could have lead to these results. First, I thought what about reverse causation; is it possible that conformity caused the group instead of the group causing conformity. This did not make sense however being as though the groups were all ready set and did not change based on participants responses. The second thing is chance, but there have been a number of studies to follow this one that have the same findings; this means that there are multiple lines of evidence, suggesting that it is not do to chance. Lastly, is a possibly third confounding variable but this is not likely because of thee control put in place. By this I mean the fact that the actors sometimes said the right answer suggest that the change in the answer caused the change in thee behavior. I will say however that this aspect of the study could have been done differently. Perhaps, they all should have written down their answer and turned in their answer and then they should have responded allowed. This way we might be able to see a change in people’s responses. This study is convincing, but there is always room for improvement and skepticism when it come to science.

Photo 1

Kiss > Handshake

Introductions usually start off with a handshake. But little did you know that you would actually be better off kissing them hello!

Scientific studies have found that you are more likely to pass germs through a handshake rather than a kiss. People’s hands touch way more than their lips, so they are exposed to many more germs. Think of yourself going through a normal day. You open your door, you touch bathroom stalls, you touch your keyboard, your phone, your hair, your face, other people, etc. After touching different objects and people, there are millions of germs that build up on your hands, so when you give a handshake that is two hands touching, both with numerous amounts of germs, so when you touch you are then spreading bacteria leading to common colds and illnesses. Most people are not going to kiss each other if one of them is sick, but people continue to shake people’s hands even when they are sick.

_89086121_019324173-1

When two people kiss each other they are sharing millions of bacteria. In fact, even in a quick 10 second kiss, there are 80 million bacteria are transferred between the two mouths, pretty unsanitary right.

The most common greeting is a handshake, but what researchers have found that giving a high five instead of a shake is 20 times less more likely to spread bacteria. Interestingly enough hugging a sick person is even less likely to share germs than giving someone a handshake. Not only does hugging provide less access to germs, it also has immune-protective benefits, including reducing the levels of stress and blood pressure in your body.

 

man_kiss_both_cheeks_date_600x369

Britain’s leading flu expert, Prof John Oxford, and a virologist at Barts hospital and the London School of Medicine has concluded that greeting someone with a kiss would cut down the spread of infections. After experiencing and determining the amount of bacteria being spread between people, they found that the best and safest way to greet someone is by kissing not their mouth but their cheek. They even provided information on whether people would want to kiss the left or the right. Social expert, Liz Brewer, stated that kissing the right cheek symbolizes more of a heart to heart greet, whereas kissing the left cheek is more of a friendly kiss.

After reading all of the research on the germs that spread from handshaking, it really makes me rethink the best way to greet people. Although, kissing people I am meeting for the first time just doesn’t sound like the right kind of greet.

Works Cited:

http://www.handresearch.com/news/handshake-less-healthier-than-kiss.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2844070/Revealed-science-KISSING-s-better-health-shaking-s-hand.html

Picture: http://www.eharmony.co.uk/dating-advice/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/man_kiss_both_cheeks_date_600x369.jpg

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/2F88/production/_89086121_019324173-1.jpg

 

Can certain diets actually prevent acne?

Almost everyone in the world can agree that acne is awful, assuming that everyone else shares the same view as me.  I’ve tried acne creams and washes, but both of these options battle acne once it is already there.  I’d rather stop the acne before it gets on my face, rather than dealing with it once it already there.  This made me wonder, is there a way to regulate acne before it even exists?  I’ve always heard that chocolate and candy create acne, but I’ve never known if either of these actually have any effect on my body’s production of acne.

acne-rosacea

After researching the topic, I found out that the relationship between diet and acne is still somewhat unclear, but the scientists and researchers of today are leaning towards diet and acne being linked.  The “myth” that diet and acne is connected actually has research and studies to back it up.  This did not shock me at all.  In fact, I kind of assumed that this would be the case before I conducted any research at all.

 

Researchers from the University of Miami conducted a “double-blind, placebo-conducted” study regarding the relationship between diet and acne.  The null hypothesis of the study is that diets do not actually have an effect on acne.  Therefore, the alternative hypothesis is that diet does in fact have an effect on the production of acne.  The study was conducted on males, ages 18 to 35, with a history of acne. Women were not included in the experiment, because there is a chance that an increase in acne growth in women could be due to hormones brought about during menstruation.  Women were only excluded from the study so that the results were less likely to be because of a third confounding variable.  This was one of the many attempts to remove possible third variables from the experiment.  The study took place in a single location, on fourteen different individuals.  The men, not knowing what they received, swallowed either cocoa powder in a capsule, gelatin powder in a capsule, or a mixture of the two.  The men who took the capsules filled with cocoa powder had an increase in their production of acne.  Therefore, the study agrees with the alternative hypothesis, that diet does in fact have an effect on acne.  The report on this study was published on the website of the US National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health.

549932f8467e0_-_hbz-the-chocolate-pill-promo-lgn

One article, which helped me come to the conclusion that acne and diet correlate, discusses the history on the views of the relationship between acne and diet.  It starts off with a quote by Hippocrates.  The quote essentially is aimed at all individuals, telling them to “let their food be their medicine.”  This quote is the basis on which a different article stands on. This article only discusses what individuals believe causes their acne, providing no scientific evidence to back up any relationship, but the consensus of the individuals is that there is a link between diet and acne.

This study looks at how a diet containing a “low glycemic load” would improve the condition of acne in patients. Glycemic load is the measurement of the impact certain foods have on the body and its blood glucose level.  This study was a randomized control trial; the objective of the study was to find a decrease in the number and the severity of the acne lesions.  Here, the null hypothesis is that a low glycemic load diet will have no effect on the severity of the patients’ acne.  The alternative hypothesis would be that the low glycemic load diet has a positive effect on the severity of the patients’ acne.  These hypotheses are very similar to the hypotheses promulgated by the researchers at the University of Miami, except this experiment would decrease the severity of acne (instead of increasing with the cocoa pills).   In this study, performed and documented by Roby N. Smith, 43 men, ages 15-25, were split into two groups: the control group and the group following the low glycemic load diet.  The study concluded that the low glycemic load diet improved the condition of the acne, whereas the condition of the acne in the control group remained the same.  Therefore, the alternative hypothesis seems to be correct.

 

After collecting all the information from the studies and articles, I have come to the conclusion that diet does effect acne. Staying away from chocolates, sugars, and fats would decrease the potential severity of acne.  Sticking to a diet that is low in glycemic load would actually help lessen the acne that is currently on the individual.

Can Talking on Your Cell Phone Give You Cancer?

Over the years there have been rumors and speculation that the radiation from cellphones could potentially be causing brain tumors. This rumor is thankfully false. A report from “Presidents Cancer Panel” found no evidence linking cell phone radiation to malignancies. Actually, since 1991 talking on the cellphone has increased by six times. Since that time the number of brain cancer incidences has been cut in half.

Image result for cell phones cause cancer

According to “cancer.org” since cell phones in the 90’s used to have antenna’s they gave off the strongest RF waves. There have been study links to these types of phones not only causing brain cancer, but skin and testicular cancer as well. To test this in the lab it was studied on Animals as well as people. It was found by this article that the waves given off from the phone aren’t quite strong enough to damage DNA. Because of this there is no proof that cell phones cause cancer so it is supported that the RF waves do not cause tissue or DNA damage.

Image result for cell phones cause cancer

Source 1: http://www.alternet.org/culture/14-common-beliefs-turn-out-be-false-and-5-myths-stand-science

Source 2: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/cellular-phones

Can carrots actually help my eyesight?

Everyone in my immediate family has 20/20 vision.  My mom always claims that we all have perfect vision because of her selectiveness of what she would feed us (a hefty amount of carrots). Seriously, carrots are incorporated in basically every meal, in some way or another.  If carrots are not an ingredient in the main course they are most definitely going to be somewhere else in the dinner. At a family dinner in my household, one could expect either peas and carrots as a side dish, carrot cake for desert, or apple and carrot juice (which is surprisingly tasteful).  If carrots truly do help one’s eyesight like the myth claims, I’d have the best eyesight in the world. How true can this correlation between carrots and better eyesight actually be?  Do carrots actually benefit the human eye?

carrot-colour-mix

After analyzing the various studies, articles, and opinions on the matter, I found that there is no definite answer, shockingly.  I did find, more often than not, that scientists believe carrots do benefit eyesight.  Based on the lack of evidence provided by those who disagree that carrots have a benefit on eyesight, I lean towards believing in the so-called “myth.”  The null hypothesis of this study is that carrots have no effect on one’s eyesight.  The alternative hypothesis is that carrots do in fact have a positive effect on one’s eyesight.

 

The Cleveland Clinic study refers to two experiments.  The first experiment, that took place in 2005, had Nepali women, suffering from “night blindness,” divided into six groups and then given certain foods depending on what group they were placed in.  The University of Maryland Medical Center defines night blindness as “poor vision at night or in dim light.”  One of the six groups, that the Nepali women were divided into, ate a large sum of carrots each week, over a six-week period.  The other five groups were given different foods, all rich in Vitamin A, over the six-week period. In this experiment, the null hypothesis is that the carrots will not lessen the night blindness in the Nepali women.  The alternative hypothesis is that the carrots will lessen the night blindness in the Nepali women.  The study’s conclusion is consistent with the alternative hypothesis.  The carrots helped increase the Nepali women’s responsiveness to darkness.

 

The second experiment, found in the Cleveland Clinic study, used around 2,300 participants, all older than 55.  This was an observational experiment that looked at how these participants got their dose of carotenoids.  Oregon State University defines carotenoids as “warm colored pigments that are synthesized in plants.” The observational experiment found that carrots were responsible for most of the beta-carotene (a type of carotenoid) consumption. Beta-carotene has many positive and negative effects, but in regards to eyesight, beta-carotene is used reduce the chance of night blindness during pregnancy.  Essentially the experiments in the Cleveland Clinic Study show that carrots have a positive effect on eyesight, thus consisting with the original alternative hypothesis.

humaneye

This article, released by Harvard Health Publications, says that carrots don’t necessarily have that large of a benefit to individuals who have healthy eyes.  Carrots do in fact have an effect on people who do not have healthy eyes.  Most people, as they get older, start to experience a decline in the well-being of their eye.  Harvard Medical School says that for these individuals eating carrots does make a difference.  The results of the second study, reviewed by the Cleveland Clinic, agree with this.

 

This report, written by the Guelph Food Research Centre, explains that carotenoids (previously mentioned), that are found in carrots, have large effects on the human eye. The report describes how carotenoids make up the main pigments found in the human retina, but this doesn’t show carrots benefitting eyesight.  These same carotenoids do reduce the risk of an individual getting “age-related macular degeneration.”  The National Eye Institute defines age-related macular degeneration as “a disease that blurs the central vision individuals need for straight ahead activities.”  Although the mechanics of how carotenoids reduce the risk of this disease is not clearly explained, it is reasonable to conclude that carrots would have more of a beneficial effect than a negative one.  Also, lutein and zeaxanthin, both types of carotenoids, are found in carrots.  These two carotenoids are known to be beneficial for the human eye (and body) because of the results of many “epidemiological, clinical, and interventional” studies.  The goal of this report, which was made clear by the author, was to show the favorable effects brought about by these two carotenoids that are found in carrots.

luteinzeaxanthin

Even if the conclusions of all of these studies were proven to be incorrect or caused by a third confounding variable, carrots have also not been proven to have any negative effects on the human eye. Therefore, at worst, carrots have a benign effect on the eye.  Personally, because there is no definitive answer, I believe that the alternative hypothesis is correct.  I guess the only reason someone should not eat carrots is if they don’t like the taste.

Is your cellphone bad for you?

My mom always tells me that if I sleep with my phone by my head it’s bad for me. I always tell her she doesn’t know what she’s talking about but maybe she’s right. Is too much cell phone screen time bad for us?

cq5dam-web-280-280

(link to image above)

According to the first source I read while researching this question, cell phones have high levels of radiation. This source also says that cell phone use can lead to cancer because of the high levels of radiation in cell phones. After reading this I was very alarmed because I never thought that cell phone use could lead to cancer. While reading another article I was explained that many scientists do believe that cell phone use could be linked to tumor development. I was wondering what type of proof they have of cancer being linked to cell phone use but while reading farther in the article I learned that because cell phones are a relatively recent addition to our lifestyle we couldn’t not have proof they cause cancer. Cancer takes 10-20 years to develop so scientists will not be able to come to any proof that they cause cancer yet. Scientists have come out and said that the longer people are exposed to the radiation of the cell phones the more at risk they are of possible getting cancer. I wasn’t surprised to learn that children are most at risk for possibly developing cancer than adults are. This is because children have been exposed to cell phones for a longer period of time. I am anxious to find out if they really do lead to cancer in the future. If this is true than that is a really scary issue that is going to affect most of the population, especially our generation. I don’t know if there is much that people can say to get people to stop using cell phones if there is not actual proof that they cause cancer. I’m hoping that this prediction is wrong and that it does not cause cancer but if it does I cannot even image what would happen to our society as a whole.

After reading about all of this I will definitely take the steps to try to keep my cell phone not close to me at all times, but I don’t know how realistic it would be to never use my cell phone. Cell phones have become a staple in most everyones lives and I could not imagine that everyone will stop using them if there is not proof out there that they 100% cause cancer. For now I just hope that this is not true and cell phones will not cause us cancer in the future.

shutterstock_295098542

(link to image above)

Bibliography

FREE SHIPPING ON PHONES & DEVICES WITH ALL NEW ACTIVATIONS! CALL 1-877-413-5903.” Smartphones & Cell Phones | Compare Our Best Cell Phones & Smartphones. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Dec. 2016.

ghchealth. “5 Ways Cell Phones Harm Your Health.” Dr. Group’s Natural Health & Organic Living Blog. N.p., 02 Feb. 2015. Web. 02 Dec. 2016.

NC4HR. “Can Cell Phones Harm Our Health?” National Center For Health Research. N.p., 12 Aug. 2016. Web. 02 Dec. 2016.

5 Dangers of Sleeping Near Your Cell-Phone at Night – FitHog.” FitHog. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Dec. 2016.

Can Music Make Us Smarter?

Whether it is to pump us up at the gym, or help us relax, we all use music for different reasons. But how far does our mind’s connection to music go? Can music make us smarter or even heal faster after surgery?

A common belief is that listening to Mozart will help you focus while studying. According to the Mozart Effect, listening to Requiem or Eine kleine Nachtmusik will improve your memory and increase your IQ. The question is; is this belief backed by research?

In 1993, a study published in Nature by Rauscher, Shaw and Ky stated that those who listened to Mozart showed a larger improvement in their spatial reasoning skills compared to those who listened to relaxation instructions or silence instead. Although the improvement was only observed for fifteen minutes after hearing the music and it was only noted for tests of spatial reasoning, popular culture quickly exaggerated the results. It isn’t extreme enough to link Mozart and an overall increase in IQ.

It has been suggested that playing music makes people smarter by other research, but proving a direct link between the two is not so simple. Socioeconomic status is a predictor of school grades. In addition, it is a predictor of being able to afford clarinet lessons. Or, maybe people who have the patience and aptitude for music are the same people who have the patience and aptitude for getting good grades. However, the correlation isn’t causation.

One study in 2011 tested the intelligence quotient of musician and non-musician children, between the ages 9-12. Also, they tested the children for indicators of executive brain function, which is their proficiency at high-level thinking. Some of these indicators could include their ability to multitask, make good decisions, inhibit bad behavior, and solve problems.

The author, E. Glenn Schellenberg, of the University of Toronto Mississauga, found that music and IQ were correlated, but the relationship between music and executive function was inconclusive. Schellenberg wrote, “These results provide no support for the hypothesis that the association between music training and IQ is mediated by executive function”. However, the neuroscientists behind the current research were not positive about that.

The team from Boston Children’s Hospital wanted to compensate for the shortcomings of other research. They removed two important variables: matching the 57 study participants in their control and test groups for equivalent IQ and socioeconomic background. The socioeconomic background is the education level of their parents and family income). Overall, they had two groups of children and two groups of adults that were similar in many ways; but, one group had significant musical training, and the other had very little.

The doctors administered a series of quizzes, like brain-teasers, while everyone was hooked up to an MRI. They discovered that musicians’ brains were more active than the non-musicians’ brains, and they performed better on cognitive tests.

Dr. Nadine Gaab said, “since executive functioning is a strong predictor of academic achievement, even more than IQ, we think our findings have strong educational implications”. In addition, “while many schools are cutting music programs and spending more and more time on test preparation, our findings suggest that musical training may actually help to set up children for a better academic future.”

In addition, this study furthers the notion that musical training in children with learning disabilities and the elderly could improve their brain function. 16 adults in a senior home took piano lessons for six months in a different study.  At the end, those 16 had better working memory and multitasking skills than 15 seniors who weren’t given piano lessons. Gaab said, “future studies have to determine whether music may be utilized as therapeutic intervention tools for these children and adults.”

However, this study doesn’t actually prove that the musical people weren’t predisposed to their talent. Their exceptionally quick thinking and problem solving might be the reason they’re so good at music. The team says its next study will be more like the senior home study, testing people over time to determine which came first, the music or the brains.

headphones

Source:

http://www.medicaldaily.com/does-music-make-you-smarter-brain-imaging-technology-says-yes-more-ways-one-288814

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-music-make-us-smarter-and-help-us-heal-faster/

Picture from: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/science/can-music-make-us-smarter-and-help-us-heal-faster

Can laughing make me healthier?

I can’t be the only person to have heard somebody say that a good laugh is like cheap medicine, or something along those lines.  Like most people, I love to laugh, but am I actually getting healthier?  I understand that laughing can take someone’s mind off of something stressful, and maybe help them emotionally, but does laughter bring about a physical change in the body, does it heal?

 

All the studies and reports unanimously agree that laughter does in fact heal.  Sincerely, I did not find a single piece of evidence that consists with the null hypothesis, that laughter does not heal.  This result was not shocking, the alternative hypothesis (laughter does heal) was deemed to be correct.  Before I even began research, I assumed that there had to be some truth to such a renowned statement.

kid_laughing

The first study I looked at was performed by a many different research centers (four to be exact).  The study was a randomized control trial.  Its purpose was to see if laughter therapy would help combat the declining health of the elderly.  I use the word “declining” because the study’s background describes how aging debilitates normal bodily functions.  The trial had 72 participants; all participants were over the age of 60 and all were from the same retirement community center.  The senior citizens were split into two groups: the control group and the experimental group.  The control group were instructed to live out their lives as they normally would, whereas the experimental group had to attend laughter therapy sessions over a six-week period.  The trial results, calculated mathematically, furnished a compelling relationship between laughter and “general health, somatic symptoms, insomnia and anxiety.”  The researchers concluded that laughter has the chance to help improve the health of older individuals.

 

The University of Kentucky published a paper on laughter.  The paper begins with some lighthearted, interesting facts about laughter, but quickly delves into all its known health benefits.  The University of Kentucky based all of the health benefits of research on scientific evidence.  Some health benefits are: a safer blood pressure, increase in pain threshold, reduction in the hormones associated with stress, a strengthened immune system, possible protection from a heart attack, increased brain function, regulated respiration, etc.  The College of Agriculture at the University of Kentucky seems to believe that the alternative hypothesis is correct.

 

This is another study whose results agree with the alternative hypothesis.  This study, conducted in 1985 (accepted in 1987), wanted to see if laughter could affect an individual’s pain threshold.  Within the study, two different randomized control trials were conducted.  The first experiment had 40 people split into an experimental group and a control group.  The experimental group listened to a 20-minute-long comedy track; the control group listened to either a non-humorous audio tape or no tape at all.  After this, the test subjects were subjected to pressure induced discomfort.  The experimental group had a higher threshold for pain than the control group.  The second experiment was a non-randomized control trial.  This trial enrolled 40 women with the same “pressure-induced discomfort thresholds.” Like the first experiment, the participants were split into an experimental group and a control group.  The experimental group listened to the comedy tack and the control did a mundane task, listened to a non-humorous audio tape or did nothing at all.  Again, the experimental track had a higher threshold for pressure-induced comfort.  Rosemary Cogan, the scientist leading the experiment, concluded that laughter could potentially be used to reduce “clinical discomfort.”  The University of Kentucky listed “an increase in pain threshold” as a health benefit.  Therefore, the results of this study are also consistent with the alternative hypothesis.

1237249-large_

Although this article is not a dependable source of scientific information, it lists the mental health benefits, physical health benefits, and the heart health benefits of laughter.  I have already mentioned the mental and physical health benefits, that this article lists, earlier on in this blog post.  The difference between this article and the others that I have read is that this article lists a possible mechanism on how laughter helps benefit heart health.  The article says that based on some research (said research is not provided in the article), laughing increases blood flow due to a release of endorphins.  Endorphins are defined on the first page in chapter 29 of the textbook “Progress in Brain Research.” Endorphins are “neuromessengers” that regulate “endocrine, automatic and behavioral functions.”  These endorphins are also known to combat stress and negative feelings.  Referring back to the original article, endorphins are usually increased in activities like working out or listening to music (both of these activities are known stress relievers).  To sum it up, laughter takes stress off the heart, thus benefiting heart health.

image

The Mayo Clinic, which has been a dependable source of information for all my other blogs, also weighs in on how laughter is beneficial for one’s health.  The clinic’s thesis is that laughter brings about different short-term health benefits, such as the stimulation of organs, the soothing of tension, and the alleviation of one’s “stress response.”  The correlation between laughter and the stimulation of one’s organs is based on the intake of oxygen and the growth in the number of present endorphins (basically solidifying the views of the article linked in the previous paragraph).  Once again, another piece of research consists with the alternative hypothesis.

 

I did not expect to find such an unanimously agreed upon consensus when I first began to question the validity of the statement.  Since cannot be absolutely certain about hypothesis, this is as close as one can get to having absolute certainty.  The correlation can be due to chance, but because there are mechanisms present, it seems unlikely.  Why not laugh? More than just a couple scientists say it’s good for you. Unless laughing is prohibited where you are from, there are no consequences for it.  Laugh away, it’s good for you.

How Hot is Too Hot?

Many people avoid spicy foods. Perhaps they can’t bear the taste, or perhaps they can’t bear the consequences spicy foods have on their stomaches. As a person with Indian parents, I have been around spicy food my whole life. Because of this, I have noticed that other people that come from places with a considerably hotter climate eat considerably hotter food. This, apparently, is no coincidence. While many of us hailing from these climates have a high threshold to spice, we would all fall prey to the hottest pepper in the world: the bhut jolokia chili pepper, also known as the ghost pepper. Discovered by Paul Bosland, professor of Horticulture at New Mexico State University, the pepper rates at 855,000 to 1,041,427 Scoville heat units, a measurement of spiciness. That’s 107 to 417 times hotter than a jalapeño and 10 times hotter than a habañero.

scoville

Hypothesis: Spicy foods can have a dramatic effect on the human body, possibly to the extent of killing you.

Studies: Bosland made claims that a 1980 research study calculated that 3 pounds of pepper in powder form could kill a 150 pound person. A man Ruari Barratt was hospitalized after eating a burger laced with in concentrated piri piri sauce from India. In the most significant case, a San Francisco man who entered a contest at a local restaurant ingested a pureed ghost pepper atop a hamburger. He began immediately vomiting after eating the burger and could not stop, landing him in the emergency room. He developed chest and stomach pain, presumably because he could not stop vomiting. A CT scan showed a torn esophagus.

Conclusion: It is not the pepper itself that can cause all this damage, but rather the reaction to the pepper. The hole in the man’s esophagus was not burned simply by coming in contact with the ghost pepper, it was a tear as a result of the frequent retching a vomiting from ingesting the pepper itself. So perhaps for a person who has little to no reaction to spicy food, they would be completely fine after eating one of these red hot peppers. While people feel hot as the take a bite of spicy food, there is actual no change in temperature. This is because false heat sensation is capsaicin’s ability to latch onto pain receptors known as TRPV1, which are normally only activated in the presence of heat. Once the heat-sensitive receptors are triggered into activation, your brain is made to believe you are actually close to a source of heat.

ghostpep

Works Cited

http://www.medicaldaily.com/can-eating-worlds-hottest-pepper-kill-you-how-spicy-foods-affect-body-330042

http://www.livescience.com/56532-ghost-pepper-ruptured-esophagus.html

http://nypost.com/2015/08/04/eating-ghost-peppers-could-kill-you/

http://www.livescience.com/16556-spicy-food-fatal-chili-peppers.html

Foreign Language Learning Disability- A Real Thing.

Introduction

Ever met someone that learns subjects like Spanish and algebra with no complications- while you struggle with learning the difference between the imperfect and preterite? Well, I have. I have been a victim of the inability to learn the language Spanish for 11 years now. Some would say I’m suffering from a “Foreign Language Learning Disability”. The first to use this term was Professorartboard-1 Richard L. Sparks, he spent many years researching the validity of this disability. He even published an article,  Journal of Learning Disability, but in that he stated that the “Foreign Language Learning Disability” was premature because of the lack of evidence to support it. So now I know I’m not the first person to question, why do some people learn new languages easily and some don’t?

Alternative Hypothesis: People who can’t learn a foreign language have a learning disability

Null Hypothesis: People who can’t learn a foreign language don’t have a disability, they just need to put in more effort to learning the material

How we Learn Languages 

Remember talking about classical conditioning in your freshman Psych 100 class? That usually still applies with how most human learn things. Mammals, especially when young, are like sponges. They soak up a ton of knowledge and apply it the same way they learned it. You would think that learning a foreign language would come the same way as any other thing you learn. You learn it, study it, and then know it. That’s not the case for everyone. To some, Spanish comes very easily.

The cerebrum is what controls our thinking, reading, and learning. It’s the outermost and largest part of the brain. The two half, left and right, control the opposite sides of our body, meaning, the left side controls the right and the right side controls the left. This is also where our lobes are located. The frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital lobes have different functions but once all these parts are put together with the spinal cortex, this makes the brain the central nervous system.

Study 

Leonore Ganschow, EdD, is an associate professor for psychology at Miami University. He conducted a study comparing successful and non-successful foreign language studentcollege students. He measured their intelligence, foreign language aptitude, and native and oral written language. No significant differences were seen in the intelligence and reading comprehension but significant differences where found in the Morden Language Aptitude Test. The conclusion of the study was that students with a foreign language disability may have underlying native language problems, especially in the syntax and phonology. They are working towards being able to diagnose someone with Foreign Language Learning Disabilities.

Another study conducted by Dr. Kenneth Dinklage of Harvard University, was conducted by interviewing students to determine their anxiety level with learning a new language. He found that a number of the failing foreign language students had previously be diagnosed with a disability but have overcame it, and now that disability has re-surfaced in the foreign language class. The problem is related to some other learning disability, not lack of motivation.

Conclusion 

Every person struggles in one subject, even if they get an A, it takes them more effort to learn things in certain classes. Learning foreign language happens to be more common subject to struggle in than others. Neither the alternative hypothesis or null hypothesis can be determined completely correct, but eventually after more tests are done on this topic, there will be a definite answer.

 

Tomatoes, harmful, benign or beneficial?

Last year, tomatoes were a huge topic of conversation.  Tom Brady’s private chef released to the press that Tom does not eat tomatoes and neither does his supermodel wife.  This was big news, and spurred a huge tomato controversy.  People began to question whether tomatoes are dangerous or not.  So, are tomatoes dangerous? I like eating tomatoes; they taste great on a sandwich. Because I do enjoy a good tomato, I might lean a little towards the pro-tomato side.

brady-tomato

I was sincerely surprised with the lack of information regarding the negative effects of tomatoes and I am not saying this because I have somewhat of a vested interest. I was extremely surprised to find that rather being harmful, most studies actually show the beneficial side of tomatoes.  In this study, the null hypothesis is that tomatoes are not dangerous; The alternative hypothesis is that tomatoes are harmful.

 

The only evidence I found that shows the negative effect of a tomato is that tomatoes are considered a nightshade vegetable.  Tom Brady’s chef said that nightshade vegetables cause inflammation and aggravate arthritis. To find out how valid this statement is I ventured to the Arthritis Foundation’s website.  Here, in an article about food myths, it is said that tomatoes contain “solanine,” a chemical that people claim makes arthritis worse.  Instead of describing the harmful effects of tomatoes (like I thought the article would), the article says that the statement “tomatoes aggravate arthritis” is not true.  The article not only says that there is no scientific evidence to back up the myth, but that nightshades vegetables can actually be beneficial for arthritis.  It mentions how a study published by the Journal of Nutrition in 2011, nightshade vegetables actually “lowered blood markers for inflammation” in men.  This conclusion is consistent with the null hypothesis.  Nightshade vegetables are also linked to lupus, so I then went to the Lupus Foundation of America’s website.  This is the only website that provided a negative health effect that stems from tomatoes.  The website says that nightshade vegetables, tomatoes being one of them, could potentially increase joint pain or lupus flares.  This information cannot be heavily relied on because it is based solely on anecdotal evidence.  Essentially, the myth that tomatoes can lead to inflammation is based entirely on what can be considered hearsay. This information is in agreement with the alternative hypothesis, but again this information cannot be heavily relied on.

tomatoes

This article, found on the website of the World Cancer Research Fund International, actually shows the beneficial side of tomatoes.  The author, Dr. Edward Giocannucci, is an extremely well decorated figure in the medical industry who focuses on how different factors link to “malignancies.”  The article mentions a study, that held compelling evidence that tomatoes are beneficial.   The article then mentions that a more recent study was inconclusive and did not provide strong evidence that tomatoes have any benefits.  That study can be found here.  In the article’s conclusion, it mentions a study where a high intake of lycopene, a carotenoid found in tomatoes, led to a decrease in the formation of blood vessels in cancers.  These cancers depend on the formation of blood vessels, so a decrease in them would be beneficial for the individual.  These results of these studies are consistent with the null hypothesis.

lycopene

Most studies that investigate the effects of tomatoes are observational studies, because experimental studies would be very hard to perform, and would be largely inconclusive due to the chance factor.  Many of these observational studies, that provide evidence that tomatoes are beneficial, can be found here.  The studies and article are mostly in accordance with the null hypothesis.  My findings are actually the contradictions of the alternative hypothesis, showing that tomatoes are actually beneficial.  I was hoping that this would be the result before I began my research.  Now I can peacefully enjoy my chicken cutlet sandwich with tomatoes, mozzarella, and balsamic dressing, all in between two pieces of a French baguette.

Does school start too early?

As college students, we have the blessing to be able to close when we will take our classes – we wouldn’t have to wake up until 1 pm if we wanted to. However, there are the unlucky few who must get up at ungodly hours for 8 and 9 ams, as do all high school kids and middle school kids. While thinking about the half asleep college student dragging himself to his 8am, you have to wonder: can school time affect school performance?

Null Hypothesis: School times do not affect school performance

Alternative Hypothesis: School times do affect school performance

How early do most schools start?

According to Science News for Students, most schools start anywhere between 7:30 and 8:30 am. The earliest class available for Penn State, for example, is 8am. However, this means that teenager has to get up at around 5-5:30 in order to start getting ready and preparing for the day. Considering most teenagers don’t go to sleep much earlier before midnight (most wait to sleep till later as well), that leaves anywhere between 5-7 hours of sleep for the student. While that may seem like a lot (for college students it does), the recommended amount of sleep for teens is around 9 hours, so we are severely lacking

What’s the biggest problem with schools starting early?

This biggest issue is the simplest one: teens aren’t getting enough sleep. According to Science News for Kids, waking up so early causes students to lose a big part of their REM cycle – or deep sleep. Why is this important? Because it is during REM that the brain recharges and prepares for the day ahead. When REM is lost, the brain and body lacks the energy to keep focus, regulate mood swings, and can lead to mood disorders and weight gain.

Why does losing sleep affect a student’s learning?

Losing sleep can negatively impact a student’s learning because a student cannot be fully invested and class and activities without the proper amount of rest. According to School Start Time, losing sleep will cause the students to not pay attention, lose motivation, lose focus, not retain memory, and negatively affect basic cognitive ability such as making decisions, elaborating on ideas (or even remembering them), and will cause students to lose creativity and elaborate thinking processes.

How can we fix this?

According to School Start Time, when students go to bed earlier and wake up later, their grades tend to improve. Students also need to sleep the appropriate amount (again, around 9 hours) on the weekends to prepare themselves for the week ahead. Unfortunately, do to the high controversy of this matter between school boards, teachers, and the students themselves, most studies on how school times affect academic performance are either not well researched or suffer from the file drawer problem (in other words, no one bothered to publish them or make them known).

Conclusion:

While there appears to be evidence linking school start times and cognitive performance, we can neither reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis. This is because not enough research has been done on this subject, and it will take numerous, extensive studies to get a definitive answer.

However, there is enough evidence where it is logical to take reasonable steps in order to get more sleep.

As a college student who rarely gets more than 5 hours of sleep a week, I strongly recommend catching up on sleep however you can, whether it be through naps, staying in on the weekends, etc. Losing sleep is detrimental to your health and well being, so try and rest as much as you can.

Web Sources: herehere

Photo Source: here

 

Do hair growth treatments actually work?

Back in October, Joe Buck, a famous sports broadcaster for Fox, told the public that he was addicted to hair plugs.  After a surgery to add hair to the front of his head, Joe Buck was unable to speak.  The exact reason for why his vocal cord was paralyzed, post-surgery, is unclear, but it was accepted that it was a result of the surgery.  His entire career is based on his ability to speak.  Surgery is most definitely scary, and if I was Joe Buck, I would have opted for a safer way.  This made me wonder, did Joe Buck try other hair growth treatments?  Are hair growth treatments even effective?

Joe Buck

After researching multiple different studies, I have come to the conclusion that for the most part, hair growth treatments do promote hair growth.  Although the treatments do promote hair growth, no one treatment is one hundred percent effective.  I was surprised to find that more often than not, hair growth treatments do work, mainly because all the hair growth commercials on TV look so fake. The null hypothesis of this study is that hair growth treatments do not work.  The alternative hypothesis is that hair growth treatments do work.

 

According to this study, chemicals can be used to promote hair growth.  The chemical used in the study is called dendrobium candidum polysaccharides, which can be abbreviated into DCP.  The experimental, randomized control trial had 30 mice that were randomly divided into a control group and an experimental group.  The only difference between the two was that the experimental group had been subjected to DCP.  The result was that the experimental group grew much more hair and even had a higher survival rate than the control group.  The DCP hair treatment worked and therefore is consistent with the alternative hypothesis.

This experimental study was not able to promote hair growth using their specific treatment.  The scientists from this experiment attempted to apply minoxidil, a synthetic drug used to promote hair growth, to the skin of newborn mice over a 25-day period.  Hair growth was not affected, at least recognizably.  Therefore, the result of this study is consistent with the null hypothesis.

 

The Columbia University Medical Center has published a paper, that claims to have found a treatment that successfully promotes hair growth.  They claim that this can be done by “blocking enzymes in hair follicles.”  The findings of the study were published here as well.  The study found that a type of enzymes can be used to rapidly promote hair growth.  The study was conducted on hairless mice, but would restore hair growth in men with pattern baldness.  This hair growth treatment was wildly successful and two of the enzymes have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  This hair growth treatment has been deemed safe and effective.  Essentially, this treatment works, and therefore the results of this study agree with the alternative hypothesis.

The same enzymes that were mentioned in the previous paragraph, were used to treat 12 individuals suffering from alopecia areata (a disease that causes hair loss).  This clinical trial was conducted over a period ranging from 3 to 6 months.  The participants’ average hair regrowth had risen to 92 percent at the end of the trial.  When the trial ended and the treatment stopped, some of the patients began to experience hair loss.  The results of this study are also in accordance with the alternative hypothesis.

 

Hair growth treatments do work, more often than not.  I don’t know if Joe Buck has plans to undergo anymore hair plug transplants, but if he did, I would urge him to look at different options of hair growth treatments.  Scientists are always performing experiments trying to perfect hair growth treatment, so it is just a matter of time until scientists find the treatment that is effective without fail.  Thankfully, I don’t have to worry about hair loss, but if I did I would find comfort knowing that hair growth treatments do in fact work.

Why is Netflix an Addiction?

Over the course of the past five years I have seen a collective total of twenty-five different television shows. This is why I would consider watching Netflix to be one of my guilty pleasures during my spare time. One episode after another passes and before you know it you’ve already seen five episodes of your favorite television show in just one sitting. How could that even happen one may ask. That is because Netflix is an addiction. With a multitude of options to choose from just at the convenience of your fingertips it’s hard not to get sucked into the world of Netflix. My underlying question here is why has Netflix become such an addiction to so many people aside from myself?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Study One

The company Harris Interactive conducted a study on behalf of Netflix that consisted of approximately 1,500 participants. They used a survey in order to conduct the study and took into account age, sex, race/ethnic background, education, region, and income to complete a thorough analysis. In this study, the company wanted to see how many people binge watched Netflix on a regular basis. Out of the 1,500 participants, 61 percent of people binge watched regularly. In addition, 73 percent of people binge watched between 2-6 episodes of the same show and the same percentage of people were also noted to have positive feelings about binge watching Netflix.

In order to provide additional information about the study, the following statistical information will be listed:

  • 76 percent of people found that watching several episodes of a television show of choice helped them to relax.
  • 79 percent of participants find that watching several episodes of their show of choice make it a more enjoyable experience for them.
  • 76 percent of streamers said that watching Netflix on their own time is their preference.

This cross-sectional study did not suffer from the file-drawer problem since it was published and was also able to reflect the theory that Netflix is an addiction. In addition, the study did have a causality because there was a relationship between the participant and the Netflix television show the viewers chose to watch. I think using a survey method was the best thing to do for a study like this. However, some people may be embarrassed by how much they watch Netflix and chose not to answer the questions on the survey truthfully which would alter the results and potentially the conclusion. In order to avoid this for future studies, a case control study could be a good alternative.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Study Two

Light has been found to be a large factor of an individual’s regulation of sleep. Something as simple as having a light on can alter a wake cycle which is why when it’s late at night and the light from your laptop is on from watching Netflix it can keep you awake. According to recent studies that have been conducted, bright lights such can increase the amount of serotonin in individual’s brains. For those who do not know what serotonin is, according to Medical News Today it is a neurotransmitter that contributes to the feeling of happiness and is what keeps one in a good mood. This means that not only can an individual watch more television due to the bright light omitting from the screen, once can do so happily.

This was an observational study because the researchers observed the findings in participants’ brains. Since it was observational, there was no bias present. Another alternative to this study would have been implementing a randomized controlled trial. That way, they would be able to implement various methods and techniques into the study to make it more effective.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Take Home Message

I used two different studies because I thought it would be a good way to gather more information on the topic. Both of the studies focused on different reasons as to why Netflix is an addiction. Ultimately, I think that another part as to why it is can be due to compulsiveness as well as boredom. In addition, Netflix is also just an enjoyable pastime. I think the first study was stronger because it provided more statistical information to back up the claims of the study whereas the second study was discussing about a concept. Overall, I think that both of the studies presented accurate information and reasons as to why Netflix is an addiction.

Wet hair and Colds

All of my posts seem to be from my childhood, but when I was younger I was never allowed to go outside in the cold when my hair was wet. My parents told me that I was going to be sick if I do. One time in high school I didn’t bring an umbrella to school and it started to pour. I was convinced that I was going to get sick until one of my friends said that it’s myth that wet hair outside in the cold will get me sick.

I don’t know who to believe, my parents or my friends so I decided to do some research about it.
This article I found by Sarah Klein of the Huffington Post explores the question of getting sick by being outdoors with wet hair. She states the results as you can only contract a cold by being infected by the virus. There’s no way for you to get sick with wet hair. Klein mentions a quote from Dr. Pritish Tosh that you can only be sick if you have the virus. But according to Klein, she recommends that you don’t go out in extremely cold weather due to hypothermia etc.
desktop-1425911284
According to an article by Claudia Hammond from BBC,  she says there have been studies set in Germany and Argentina that have found higher rates of sickness in the winter. But then also brings up the point of a third confounding variable that affects the sickness in winter. According to Hammond, she said that when it’s raining or snowing many people are indoors more often and they contact the germs from being so close to other people. She also brings up a study lead by Ron Eccles from the Common Cold Centre in the United Kingdom, he was curious if the low temperatures and nasty weather conditions increase the chances of the virus. The experimental study conducted included the motions of participants to soak their feet in below freezing water for some time. While another group (independent variable) sat a bowl with nothing in while still having their socks and shoes on. The results were no effect from either of the groups initially but a few days later have discovered that the people who had their bare feet exposed were more likely to contract a cold than the other group.

The results are interesting, although the study done by Ron Eccles doesn’t really affect the wet hair of a person but their feet. Maybe their feet contracts sickness more for some reason.

Source: http://www.viralnova.com/frozen-hair/ 

The Truth Behind our Bad Hair

The first semester of the year can be a stressful time, new classes, new friends and new activities. As the semester progresses we may notice our hair feeling fine and beginning to thin out. You may believe this is due to all this new found stress and activity, however, this is not the case. The water we use to shower everyday is the source that is essentially killing our hair. I uncovered this the hard way, my hair began to fall out and literally turn green, yes you heard me right green. Penn State water is unlike anything we are used to, Penn State uses a type of “well water.” Well water is made up on minerals such as magnesium and calcium and can be extremely tough on your already vulnerable hair. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, it is estimated that more than 85% of the water used by consumers in the US can be classified at some level of “hard” water. Due to the lightness of my hair the chemicals in the well water tinted parts of my hair green, the type of hair you would find with chlorine damage. I noticed my hair breaking as well, so I called up my hair dresser who explained this water theory to me. These chemicals can even damage your skin and your scalp. Hard water makes it difficult to even wash your hair, leaving your hair feeling greasy and dirty. Hard water tends to make the scales stand up, which makes your hair feel rough and tangly. Since your hair is tangled and rough, it is more difficult to rinse out all of the soap. Soap is less effective in very hard water because its reacts with the excess minerals to form calcium or magnesium salts. Over the past few weeks I have been extremely cautious when it comes to treating my hair and here are some tips I have discovered:

Treatments

  • there are treatments you can buy in stores or make at home that strip your hair of the chemicals from the hard water
  • Filtering your water, there are filters you can buy and place on your shower head

Well water is all around us and we need to be educated on the subject in order to ensure healthy hair. Please monitor your showers and if your hair is starting to feel damaged, take action to save it!

http://www.chagrinvalleysoapandsalve.com/idascorner/shampoo-hair/how-does-your-water-affect-your-hair

http://thepioneerwoman.com/life-and-style/help-well-water-is-ruining-my-hair/

unknown unknown-1

Does Watching TV Too Long Hurt Your Eyesight?

There have been multiple speculations that watching TV too long or too much hurts your eyesight. This article is all about myth busting and solving and researching rumors that people have said to be true. This article confirms that watching TV too closely or too long cannot permanently damage your eyesight. Although it cannot cause permanent damage there is still the chance of a minor headache or tired eyes. This was just a myth that many people believe to have been true as well as myself. My mother always used to tell me if I watch TV too much it will cause damage to my eyes. I’m not sure if she was just trying to scare me or if she actually thought it was true.

Image result for watching tv too close

According to this ophthalmology article watching TV too close wont cause damage to your eyes but if being watched in the dark it can cause eyestrain. Eyestrain can be as small and simple as blurred vision or just simple pain around the eyes. It is said to be more of a child habit that we eventually grow out of. There is no evidence of this being true so scientists must call it a myth.

Image result for eyestrain

Source 1: http://www.rnib.org.uk/nb-online/busting-myths-around-eyesight

Source 2: https://www.aao.org/eye-health/ask-ophthalmologist-q/can-close-tv-viewing-damage-eyes

Yeah, he’s drunk

For a lot of young adults who pursue a college education, drinking and college go hand and hand. Obviously, I know that when we as humans consume alcohol and exceed our personal sobriety thresholds, we become impaired. What I want to know, is what causes us to experience symptoms of being drunk when we drink an excess amount of beer? Also, for us guys, is there a possible correlation between alcohol consumption and bravado? A null hypothesis is that there is absolutely no correlation between beer consumption and one’s confidence. Let’s see…

beer-intropic1

Symptoms:

According to this website, there are many symptoms that come along with being intoxicated. These symptoms include trouble keeping your balance, trouble seeing, delayed reaction times, a hindered ability to speak and difficulty in regards to recognition. The website also explains that several factors will come into play when it comes to your body’s determination of how effected it will be by the symptoms. Factors such as age, general health, gender and one’s tolerance level, just to name a few. This article, states that the kind of alcohol that we consume is ethyl alcohol. Obviously, beer goes through a fermenting process and is composed of a wide variety of ingredients. I found an article that outlines an essay written by Dr. Robert S. Gable. According to Dr. Gable, he states that, 33 grams of ethyl consumed in the amount of two cans of beer (12oz.) would start to have effects on a healthy person of 155 pounds. If we do the math, 33 grams of alcohol consumed over two 12oz. beers would equal about 16.5oz. of ethyl alcohol that make up a single can of beer. This article states that your liver takes on, by far, most of the brunt in the ethyl alcohol consumption process. It goes on to explain that enzymes help turn alcohol into acetaldehyde, which is the toxin that enhances the symptoms you have while experiencing a hangover. As most of us know, symptoms of a hangover are strongly relatable to being overly intoxicated. But don’t worry, it also informs us that your body will metabolize the acetaldehyde, ensuring that the effects will go away in time. The same article, then goes on to explain that alcohol raises inhibitory neurotransmitter activity, specifically gamma amino butyric acid. Due to the increase in gamma amino butyric acid activity, alcohol, in our case ethyl, acts a a Central Nervous System depressant. These negative effects to our CNS correlate with physical and cognitive impairments such as the ones I listed above.

gettyimages-2735305-0pic2

Beer and Bravado:

Ever notice that “one guy” or at time “guys” at a party or a bar that seems to be overly intoxicated and over confident? It’s obvious that the effects of alcohol has this guy believing he can ram through a brick wall. I believe that a possible correlation between beer and bravado can be justified by one’s longing for social acceptance. In this article on debunking liquid courage, Dr. Scott-Sheldon states the possible fact that, students specifically, may believe that consuming alcohol will result in a positive change in their personalities. In her meta-analysis study, Scott-Shelton, used the sociological method of incorporating 19 different alcohol expectancy challenges to over 1,400 college students. Scott-Shelton actually concluded that her intervention caused the students to reduce the amount they drink and the amount of alcohol expectancies.

After reading about her study, I wonder if it is it all in our heads? If someone can learn how to socialize more effectively and have more confidence, could we see a possible end to the “drunk guy” at parties and bars? Personally, I would guess that it’s highly unlikely due to the large amount of universities and college students.

References:

source1

source2

source3

source4

 

The Effects of Concussions in Football

Ever since I was born football has been a major part of life. I feel like I could throw a perfect spiral before I could even walk, complete exaggeration but still. My father is a die hard Philadelphia Eagles fan along with the rest of my extended family so I am not shy to watching a good game on a Sunday afternoon. I have even spent years watching my two brother’s play football so I feel like at this point I am basically an expert. However, despite my extended knowledge regarding all things football one thing that always trips me up is the injuries due to football, especially concussions. A concussion is a type of brain trauma due a blow to the head that causes the brain to move quickly back and forth. This movement causes the brain to “stretch and twist” creating extensive damage. Football players are way more susceptible to this injury due to the manner of the sport. When a 200 some linebacker tackles you and your head slams to the ground there has got to be some damage.  This damage is some serious business that could affect a player for the rest of their life. Web MD states that athletes who have repeated concussions are more likely to get long-term brain damage including a condition known as chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a brain disease that resembles dementia. This leads me to wonder, when is enough enough? How many concussions are too many? A study from a Boston University neurosurgery professor states that it is not about the amount of concussions but the “total brain trauma.” Research suggests that if someone has already received one concussion, they are 1-2 times more likely to receive a second one. If they’ve had two concussions, then a third is 2-4 times more likely, and if they’ve had three concussions, then they are 3-9 times more likely to receive their fourth concussion and so on. These constant traumas have led to depression and death, with some cases not even being reported. The most common symptoms for concussions are headaches, dizziness, memory problems, cognitive problems, and somatic complaints. Due to it’s aggressive nature football is one of today’s leading reason’s for concussions and permeant brain damage. I concluded that while it is detrimental the amount of times you are concussed it is the amount amount of head trauma that really makes the difference.

unknown

Links:

http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/features/football-player-concussions#1

http://www.concussiontreatment.com/concussionfacts.html#sfaq2

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/553967_3

Picture Link:

http://www.nj.com/times-sports/index.ssf/2011/12/the_philadelphia_eagles_are_st.html

Caffeine…. Friend… or Foe?

I’ve always been curious about whether or not caffeine actually stunted a person’s growth. Before, I heard it, but never looked into it, and cut out caffeine. Then I realized that I’m 20 and at this point, I’ll probably never be 5’8″ and said “screw it”. Taking this class, however, has sparked my interest once more.

To embark on my research, I first visited an article from Harvard Health. One of the first things it pointed out was that there is no scientific evidence to say that caffeine will stunt a person’s growth. As we have learned in class, for example with the “Does prayer heal?” question, no scientific evidence does not mean no. This could be a result of the file drawer problem. Though, it does mention the overwhelming amount of studies that have been does on coffee, which makes sense for a drink that is so widely consumed.

Apparently there was a misconception that caffeine causes osteoporosis. Osteoporosis is a condition that weakens your bones. It’s the reasons milk was most likely shoved down your throat as a kid (calcium helps prevent osteoporosis). Yet, osteoporosis has not been linked to reducing height. However, some time ago, studies came out suggesting that caffeine leads to calcium excretion. Despite the hype this drew, the results of calcium excretion were small. Also, it was noted that coffee drinkers drink less milk, which is a clear confounding variable that would seem to have a direct connection to lack of calcium and thus osteoporosis. *Osteoporosis can lead to height loss, but this is due to fractures in the discs of the spine.

It is also noted that human growth usually ends before excessive caffeine consumption starts. Women stop growing around the age of 15-17, and boys a little after. I know at least for myself, I did not start an obsessive coffee addiction until I got to Penn State. High school was a simpler time. Also, height is something that is largely controlled by genes (nature) rather than nurture. Nurture does play a part, but if you’re upset because of your height, blame your parents, or rather genetics.

A NY Times article says it’s really just an old wives’ tale. It mentions a study involved 81 adolescents. The null hypothesis is that caffeine will not stunt a child’s growth. The alternate hypothesis is that caffeine will stunt a child’s growth. The adolescents were studied for six years. This is a longitudinal, observational study. The conclusion found that the adolescents who consumed the most caffeine did not lose any bone density. This would accept the null hypothesis and reject the alternate hypothesis. However, it could be a false negative. It does not suffer the file drawer problem clearly because it is published, but that does mean the study itself is perfect. 81 people is not a large sample size, and six years is not that long of a period to follow. Since it is an observational study, it is also not possible to rule out confounding (third) variables, which very well could have attributed to the findings. I would love to see the results of a randomized, control trial. For now, however, it looks like caffeine is in the clear.

In conclusion, we’ve all stopped growing, so consume all the caffeine you won’t. It’s not going to affect your height at this point regardless. But continue to have calcium, because osteoporosis can still happen to you.

unknown-3

Sources:

http://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/can-coffee-really-stunt-your-growth

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/18/health/the-claim-drinking-coffee-can-stunt-a-childs-growth.html?_r=0

Are E-Ciggarettes as bad as smoking

Many of my friends like to smoke but in distinct way. Some of them like to use vape pens or Electronic cigarettes and others are cigarette smokers. For me I’ve always found smoking to be bad for a person but everyone has their own preference and chooses what they want to do in life. It has caught my attention that recently I’ve been seeing a lot of people using the vape pens as an alternative for smoking you see a lot of college students turning using vape pens.

On social media and even in the news the vape pens are shown to be the new thing and that they are better then cigarettes because they don’t have any side effects or have any effects on the body. I’m not convinced so I decided to do research on this.

In a journal article by Janet Raloff and Beth Mole of Science news for students. They talk about how that scientist have found that in studies that have been done E-cigarettes in fact aren’t harmless. Chemicals in E-cigarettes  damage tissue in the lung this can cause a reduction in the ability of the lungs to keep out germs and other harmful chemicals or substances.

That being said there have been studies done in regards to electronic cigarettes and them causing harm but this is not enough to say that electronic cigarettes aren’t safe; they don’t have nicotine in them which is what cause smoking addiction because all that is in theme is flavored liquids and that turns into vapor.

Sources:

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/vaping-may-harm-lungs

http://lubbockonline.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/superphoto/15077877.jpg

Power Naps

With finals week, right around the corner many students will be getting lesleepdeprivationss and less sleep in order to study.  President elect Donald Trump claims he only gets 4 hours a sleep a night.  If this is actually true how is he able to be productive throughout the whole day.  I have heard different thoughts about the idea length of a nap in order to maximize time.  I wanted to research what the ideal length for a power nap is.  My hypothesis is that a power nap should be about 20-30 minutes.

There are 4 stages of sleep Each sleep is deeper and deeper with less brain activity.  Power naps keep you in the lightest stage of the 4; by doing this it keeps you from falling into a deep sleep.  When you fall into a deeper sleep and don’t go through the whole sleep cycle it can causes that you to feel more tired when you wake up .  This usually occurs in naps that last around one hour long.  Most of the time sleeping an hour long can do more harm than good because you can actually wake up more tired.

There is one story that says Steve Fossett only slept for 60 minutes over a 67 hour flight.  During this time Forssett broke the record for longest flight around the world.  He slept in twice each time only 30 minutes long.  Forssett said after the naps he woke up energized and focused.  This case is just an anecdote of one person’s experience.   The national sleep foundation also recommended to nap around 20-30 minutes for the best effect; however, I could not find many traditional studies about this.  I found a lot of conflicting information that said a 45-60 minute nap can improve your memory.  As Andrew said in class one day the science behind sleeping and why we sleep in very confusing and not that well understood.  I believe this could be a reason for why I kept finding conflicting information.  From what I found there was not enough evidence to accept or reject the hypothesis.

Should Schools Be So Hasty To Drop Cursive?

In many schools across the country cursive writing is being dropped as a part of the curriculum in English classes. Many see it as a practice that is becoming obsolete. I went to a high school where until eleventh grade all assignments had to hand written and in script. We also only had the option of handwriting our notes, nothing could be typed. According to my teachers writing in cursive helped us do to do better and made our though and creativity flow more smoothly and transfer better into words. We were also told that notes were to be handwritten because they helped us to remember the information better. To me always having to write out my assignments seemed tedious and annoying, especially because I had never learned to write in cursive, but were my teachers right? I ventured out into cyberspace to see what evidence there might be in support of their claims. 

My null hypothesis was that cursive did not affect your writing or intelligence more than any other type of writing style.

The alternative hypothesis was that writing in cursive does indeed improve writing and or creativity.

Most specialists and psychologists agreed that cursive is good to learn and use, but did not have much scientific data to back it up. Suzanne Buranch Anderson wrote in The New York Times that cursive writing is better for memory and thinking and language skills and that was the general consensus in scientific and psychological magazines, but very few people had studies to back up this information, just stating that they were specialists in the field. However I did find one study with very promising data.

In 2012 Marie-France Morin, Natalie Lavoie and Isabelle Montésinos-Gelet did a study for the University of Montreal testing out the effects of different writing styles. For participants they used students in Quebec, where the process of learning to write manuscript and cursive are both alive and well, unlike in many U.S schools, where cursive had been kicked to the curb. They split the seven hundred and eighteen second grade students into three learning groups, those who learned print, those who learned cursive, and those who learned print then cursive.

The results showed that learning solely cursive writing yielded the best results when it came to skills in syntax. These students were able to spell and had higher writing abilities overall. They found that students who wrote in cursive understood the concepts of words better because they were not just a bunch of separate symbols next to each other, but one flowing connected writing. Having this sort of flow to their writing helped them get ideas down better and faster (before they could be forgotten) because they were not pausing as much as their print and print-cursive counter parts. This led to their increased graphic-motor skills which is why they are more skilled than their print counter parts. The reason why print-cursive students were not as proficient, and in fact were least proficient of the three, is because they are not able to fully progress in one style. Instead the automation skills they are beginning to learn in print are barred by switching to cursive, causing their spelling and ability to get down their ideas to be hindered.

In this study the alternative hypothesis turned out to be right, as do my old-school teachers. Cursive does indeed appear to increase ability to write more fluidly and help you get your ideas out better, and just causes improved syntax overall.

As we are reminded constantly in class, correlation does not equal causation, and a third variable or just plain chance could be the reason for the cursive students increased skill sets, but personally this evidence makes me grateful for the hours spent writing out my homework assignments.

Sources:

1

2

3