Monthly Archives: November 2013

The Negative Effects of Chronic Dieting

At some point in everyone’s lives they’ve dealt with the feelings of thinking they need to shed a few pounds.  It’s completely normal and in some cases, necessary to improve different health issues, however when it becomes cornerstone of a person’s life, things start to get a little questionable.  Chronic dieting, yo-yo dieting or whatever you want to call it is becoming a real issue in today’s society and one that many people are facing.  A lifestyle of constant restriction is one that no one should face and the negative physical and mental effects it can cause are quite alarming.

Michelle May author of “Eat What You Love, Love What You Eat,” and frequent facilitator of mindful eating workshops discussed this phenomenon of chronic dieting and it’s harmful effects in an article on The Huffington Post.  In it she discussed how humans are virtually programmed to deal with periods of starvation and overeating because of the prevalence of famine in world history, however recent studies haven’t looked at the psychological toll dieting can take.

Many people get caught up in the vicious cycle of yo-yo dieting and can’t maintain the strict food guidelines they place on themselves.  They let food become the enemy, feel ashamed when they can’t stick with it, gain weight back and then start the whole messed up process over and over again.  This chronic dieting is not only harmful physically but causes serious emotional distress that lasts for years. 

Hala Madanat, Ph.D., who has wrote many articles on the idea of restraint stated that, “Dietary restraint may create biological and psychological feelings of deprivation that lead to greater reactivity to food cues, cravings, counterregulation, disinhibition, periodic overeating, and weight gain. Biologically, it is often associated with unhealthy changes in body composition, hormonal changes, reduced bone density, menstrual disturbances, and lower resting energy expenditure. Dietary restraint is further associated with numerous measures of negative affect, diminished cognitive functioning, body dissatisfaction, overvaluation of weight and shape, and eating disorders.” ( huffingtonpost.com )

Why then is dieting restriction still so prevalent in today’s society?  It is most likely due to the idea many have of needing to look a certain way to be happy and live the life they are supposed to.  While this idea is totally false and there is clearly not one way people need to look to achieve happiness, it is what many people believe.  Much of this blame could be placed on Hollywood, The Fashion Industry and the media putting unnecessary pressure on one’s appearance yet those who fuel the fire and believe what they are saying are just as guilty. 

So how does one go about eating healthy and being mindful of the food they consume but not fall into the dark hole of restriction?  This is something everyone should be aware of and learn.  It is also important for many who still need to lose weight for various health related concerns.

That’s where intuitive eating comes in.  Intuitiveeating.com describes this way of living saying, “Intuitive eating is an approach that teaches you how to create a healthy relationship with your food, mind, and body–where you ultimately become the expert of your own body.   You learn how to distinguish between physical and emotional feelings, and gain a sense of body wisdom.   It’s also a process of making peace with food—so that you no longer have constant “food worry” thoughts.  It’s knowing that your health and your worth as a person do not change, because you ate a food that you had labeled as “bad” or “fattening”.” (intuitiveeating.com)

In it’s most basic sense, intuitive eating is being mindful of what you are eating and changing your way of thinking when it comes to food.  For chronic dieters it allows you to stop restricting and realize that you can eat whatever you want and food or your weight does not define you or your happiness.  It allows you to live your life in the most health and balanced way possible.  Although making a complete 360 in how you live your life can be daunting, anything worthy having takes time. 

References:
http://www.intuitiveeating.com/content/what-intuitive-eating
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelle-may-md/yoyo-dieting_b_1887283.html

Kids’ Fitness on the Decline

That’s right, today’s kids are less fit than their parents were at that age. Today’s kids all across the globe take 90 seconds longer to run a mile than their parents’ generation did in 1975 for ages 9-17. Kids vs. Parents

“The new study was led by Grant Tomkinson, an exercise physiologist at the University of South Australia. Researchers analyzed 50 studies on running fitness — a key measure of cardiovascular health and endurance — involving 25 million children ages 9 to 17 in 28 countries from 1964 to 2010.

The studies measured how far children could run in 5 to 15 minutes and how quickly they ran a certain distance, ranging from half a mile to two miles. Today’s kids are about 15 percent less fit than their parents were, researchers concluded.”

kids-running[1].jpg

This news is not surprising. With the obesity problem, video games, lack of physical education classes, dangerous neighborhoods, and better technology, kids have gotten lazier and more out of shape. A study on this large of a scale brings significant evidence to the table, even if it is only observational. Like all studies, there are many variables to keep in mind, but this study is on a very general, so I am fine with the variables not being taken account of. I am interested to know how just the United States kids compare to older generations. I am also interested to know if location plays a role in this, as well as time spent in front of the TV, eating habits, and hours of sleep each night play a role in the overall fitness difference between generations.

I have always had a feeling this may be true. Just hearing stories about the games my parents always played outside when they were younger, as well as my brother and his friends, I just don’t see it with this younger generation. I know my generation was towards the beginning of this lazy era, but my friends and I were still outside all the time playing games. Now whenever I see younger kids whether it be cousins at a family gathering, going to my friend’s house and seeing his little brothers, or simply going to the grocery store, they are always sitting around playing video games. They just bring their Gameboy wherever they go and play it all the time. They never use their imagination and make up a game or just run around playing. It is quite disturbing.

In all, I felt this study was very strong because of it’s general, broad hypothesis, allowing a observational study to support it quite well. How do you feel about the study? If you have a problem with it, how do you think they could have improved it?

Check out this other Kids’ Declining Fitness article.


Pet Ownership and Personality

This may seem like a funny topic, although I have always wondered what made a person a dog lover, or a cat lover. There has to be a reason, considering most people are very partial towards one or the other. I personally, have a dog, and have been a dog person all my life. I have grown up with Shih Tzu’s, and am actually extremely partial towards Shih Tzu’s as well, but that is another story. To me, I feel dogs have more of a personality and can act more as a family member.

            On the contrary, cat lovers really tend to find some kind of personality in their cat. Maybe, they feel that cats are easier going, quiet, and easy to take care of.

            I have made a theory, that people determine if they are dog or cat lovers based on their personality.

            Similarly, I have found an article that has done tests based on a similar theory. There was a study conducted at the Ball State University, where several pet owners were surveyed. They were surveyed about their personalities and the kind of pet they own. Similar to my theory, their results showed, “People believe their own personalities are similar to those of the pets they keep,. Cat owners saw themselves as being more independent while dog owners described themselves as being friendly”.  I feel this makes complete sense for many reasons.

1)  1)  Dogs show the need for more love and emotion

2)   2 )Cats are more independent, thus working well with an independent person

3)   3 )Dogs need to be walked, owners have to leave the house

4)   4)  Dogs attract a lot of attention

5)    5) Cats are invisible during the day

6)    6) Dog will intrude on a persons activities if they are feeling lonely

The list can go on and on…

As for some statistics, the Associate Press/Petside.com poll has shown there are a significant amount of more dog people then cat people. Forty One percent of this testing sample preferred cats, while seventy four percent of this test sample preferred dogs.

Similarly, fifteen percent of adults showed that they disliked cats a lot, while only two percent of individuals said they dislike dogs. I feel this shows a lot about how the majority of the people feel about cats and dogs.

On a different note, studies have showen that pet owners who have both dogs and cats tend to show a personality similar to dog owners.

When thinking if personality is correlated with pet ownership, I believe this is absolutely correct. It is not often that people look into relationships such as this, but it has always sparked my curiosity.

I hope this topic has intrigued you as much as it has me!

http://moderndogmagazine.com/articles/dog-people-vs-cat-people/10716

CAT.jpg

Tomatoes Can Help With Strokes

It’s a vegetable. No, it’s a fruit. Regardless, this food can help save your life years down the road.

In a recent study, scientists found that men who had the highest levels of lycopene reduced their risk of strokes by 55%. Tomatoes and Strokes “The Finnish study involved 1,031 men who were part of a larger study looking at risk factors for the development of cardiovascular disease.

 The men were between ages 42 and 61 and living in and around the city of Kuopio in Eastern Finland when they first enrolled in the study in the early 1990s. Samples of blood were taken at the study’s start and seven years later for most men. The men were followed an average of 12 years.” In total, there were 67 strokes with 25 of them being in the group with the lowest levels of lycopene and 11 being in the highest level.

StrokeWarningSigns.jpg
When doing a study on strokes it is completely unethical to do an experimental study because strokes take such a long time to happen and you don’t know when they are going to strike, so unless you lock men up for years to take out certain variables, you can only really do observational studies like this one. Now just because the group of men with the lowest levels of lycopene had more strokes than the group with the highest levels doesn’t mean that lycopene is a significant factor or even a factor at all in the determination of strokes. No variables were isolated such as amount of exercise, eating habits, or amount of sleep. It was only a difference of 14 strokes.
I have a family with history of cholesterol and heart problems, so I have always tried to eat right and remain healthy. After reading about this study I plan to try to eat more tomatoes, but not go out of my way to attain them because simply exercising or eating other healthy foods seems to me like it would be just as efficient in stroke prevention.
Here are just a few ways to help avoid a stroke. If you have any suggestions or have found a different study on a new way to help prevent a stroke inform me in the comments section. Also, how do you feel about the study that was done? Do you feel it was efficient and reliable?

Left-Handedness and Schizophrenia?

Growing up, we become defined by which hand we use and for what. In other words: you are either a “lefty” or a “righty”. But who knew that such a characteristic could lead to deeper, more biological roots. Researchers at Yale Child Study Center found possible correlations between left-handedness and Schizophrenia. How could this connection be made between two characteristics on opposite sides of the spectrum? It all has to do with percentages. Researchers claim, “10% of the population is left-handed” and 40% of those diagnosed with Schizophrenia are left-handed as well (Sifferlin,TIME). Now there is also 11% of “lefties” that are affected by mood disorders in the population. If you look more closely at these percentages, it is evident that both the percentages of lefties affected by mood disorders and the population of lefties are quite similar (10 and 11 percent). This acted as a launchpad for scientists to start their research. 

writing.jpg

First things first, however, what exactly is Schizophrenia? Medical News Today defines the diagnosis as “a mental disorder that generally appears in late adolescence or early adulthood – however, it can emerge at any time in life. It is one of many brain diseases that may include delusions, loss of personality (flat affect), confusion, agitation, social withdrawal, psychosis, and bizarre behavior.” (Schizophrenia,Medical News Today). 
What is occurring inside the brain of schizophrenics is that their neurotransmitters, that normally send messages to and from the brain, are affected and unable to transport messages properly. So how could this share a connection with those that are left-handed?
Recorded in the SAGE Open Journal, the study was conducted using 107 patients currently being treated at an outpatient psychiatric clinic. Neurologists proposed that because the brain is “asymmetrically divided when it comes to major skills and functions such as language and emotions” lefties are known to use the right side of the brain more often (SAGE, TIME). This side of the brain is associated with mood and emotions. However, because lefties are engaging their right side of the brain more so than the left, they are lacking to engage their language and personality traits. Lefties therefore can suffer from “higher rates of misconnections or failures in the neural network that then contribute to developmental issues or disorders.”(Sifferlin,TIME).
The study was strictly observational and lacked to include results or actions of the patients mentioned before. The hypothesis that left-handedness is associated with Schizophrenia is a well-thought out proposal, however should be tested in order to back it up. I wish the author of this article went more in depth with the study and included how it was conducted. For future reference, I suggest more subjects to be tested with a wide range of characteristics: some right-handed, some left-handed, some diagnosed with Schizo, some not. That way researchers would be able to make connections to help support their hypothesis and fully accept it. 
As for now, there is no reason for a rational left-handed individual to worry. There may be a correlation, but no definite causation as of right now. And just so you left-handers don’t stress too much over this article, here’s an article of famous lefties to make you feel cooler for your unique characteristic!
Sources:
  1. Sifferlin, Alexandra, and Alexandra Sifferlin. “How Left-handedness Is Connected to Schizophrenia.” Time. Time, 1 Nov. 2013. Web. 30 Nov. 2013
  2. Nordqvist, Christian. “What Is Schizophrenia?” Medical News Today. MediLexicon International, 20 Oct. 2013. Web. 30 Nov. 2013.
  3. “Famous Left-Handers.” Famous Left-Handers. M.K. Holder, n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013.


3-Second Rule

You’re sitting at the table with your friend when all of a sudden you drop your Twinkie on the floor. You quickly pick it up.

 “Gross,” your friend says, “you’re not actually going to eat that now are you?” 
“What’s wrong with it?” You reply, “It was on the ground only for three seconds. Three-second rule.”
You then shove the Twinkie in your mouth and enjoy the delicious, spongy substance.
But does the three-second rule actually work? Is it true that if a substance is on the ground for only 3-seconds than it will not have much bacteria on it? Scientists decided to test this theory out.

“Five food items were tested by Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) to see whether the three-second rule could be trusted. Bread with jam, cooked pasta, ham, a plain biscuit and dried fruit were all dropped on the floor and left for three, five and 10 second intervals. These were selected as they are commonly eaten foods and all have different water activity levels; a key factor in whether items will sustain bacterial growth in the three seconds before they are picked up from the floor.” 3-Second Rule

The results of the study were that foods high in salt or sugar were safer to eat after being picked up off the ground because harmful bacteria has a more difficult time living on these substances. This means that fast food, ham, lebanon bologna, and other processed foods are safer to eat off the ground, whereas fruits, vegetables, pasta are not nearly as safe. The dried fruits contracted klebsiella after 5 and 10 seconds. This bacteria “can potentially lead to a wide range of diseases such as pneumonia, urinary tract infections, septicaemia and soft tissue conditions.” And pasta contracted the harmful bacteria klebsiella after three seconds. Food low in water content such as biscuits, are also safe to eat off the ground in three-seconds because bacteria has a hard time thriving without water. 

child_in_high_chair_dropping_food_700-00528910.jpg

The conclusion of this study is hard to understand because the journalist failed to mention it. This was a poorly written article about the study. The journalist said dried fruit contracted klebsiella after three seconds, but quoted the article later saying that it displayed that type of bacteria after five and ten seconds. He concluded by saying how most people only apply the three-second rule at home, but not in public. From the data I found that the three second rule has less of an impact on the cleanliness of our food than most people would think. It is less about the duration the food is on the ground and more about the type of food that was dropped. Foods low in water or high in sugar or salt had significantly less harmful bacteria growing on them than other foods.

In all, I found this to be a poor study. This was strictly observational and no variables were taken into account. Just because certain foods developed harmful bacteria after being on the ground doesn’t mean they picked it up from the ground. They may have caught it in the air on the fall to the ground. Other variables needed to be held in check as well. Lighting may be reason bacteria could grow better. The surface area of the food is a problem, larger surface area means it has a greater chance of picking up more bacteria. Certain areas of the floor may have been more infected than others. 

I would have done the study differently. Dropping the food onto a clean surface with only one type of harmful bacteria existent to see which ones picked it up and which didn’t and do this with multiple types of bacteria for different durations of time. Here are a couple links on how the Five-Second doesn’t work, which is only two second away from the three-second rule. Five-Second 2

After countless years of dropping food on the ground and eating it, I will probably continue to do so because this study was quite weak. I probably won’t do it with fruits anymore though since they seem to soak up bacteria in a matter of milliseconds. If you have any suggestions as to how to better this study or if it may change your habits comment below.

Coffee Drinkers

As a young girl, I loved to drink coffee.  I picked up a bad habit at a very young age.  I drank coffee just about every day.  I still drink coffee, but now I sometimes even drink it more than just once a day.  My grandparents always said that coffee was not good for me.  I have multiple state that coffee is not good for us because of all the caffeine.  This made me wonder if there were any benefits to drinking coffee other than the taste.  Can coffee have benefits for ones-self or is it all just bad for you?

After doing some research, I found that coffee does have its benefits.  One benefit is coffee can help boost the brain because coffee blocks the effects of adenosine which then increases brain activity.  Control studies have shown how the caffeine in coffee helps people’s moods and brain functions.  A study was done which had 130,000 volunteers who were studied anywhere from 18-24 years.  These individual were all between the ages of 40-50.  The researchers kept track of how much coffee each person drank and took into account each person’s life style.  They found that coffee does not increase the risk of cancer or death from anything.   By tracking each person’s life style this accounts for any possible third variables.  So what does this mean?  That coffee is not bad like everyone once thought.  Some of the people they studied even drank up to six cups per day with no increase health risks.  

Also coffee is linked to fighting depression.  The national institutes of health along with the AARP, found that people who drink coffee are 10 percent less likely to become depressed.  The only thing about this study was it was never stated how many people were tested to prove that this could be the case.  Coffee was found to protect people from trying to commit suicide.  100,000 men and women were tested and the results showed that the risk of committing suicide lowered by fifty percent for coffee drinkers.  Studies show how coffee can even help lower the risks of getting dementia, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s by 30 to 60 percent.   People who drink around four or more cups of coffee are suspected to not have diabetes because the antioxidants in coffee helps regulate blood sugar.  Although studies suggest that decaf coffee would be even better for this.  

So are you going to continue drinking coffee?  I say why not, so far everything that was once considered bad about coffee has been looked at again.  There are many benefits to drinking coffee.  Still more studies need to be done, but I believe there are more benefits than drawbacks to drinking coffee.   Although, like anything else, drink in moderation.  Too much of anything is not good for one person. 


coffee image.jpg

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/coffee/

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/why-coffee-good-you-here-are-7-reasons

http://www.eatingwell.com/nutrition_health/nutrition_news_information/health_reasons_to_drink_coffee_and_cons_to_consider?page=3

http://theweek.com/article/index/244468/ 


Add a Pinch of Salt

cartoon_chef_with_salt_shaker_CoolClips_cart0071.jpg

While listening to two of my roommates bicker over whether or not the myth of adding salt to water makes it boil faster I began to also wonder whether or not it was true. My one roommate, Athyna, supported the null hypothesis of that adding salt to a pot of water actually did nothing while my other roommate, Emilie, supported the alternative hypothesis saying that adding salt to a pot of water does cause it to boil faster. I on the other hand also threw out the idea that there may be confounding variables that allow you to believe that the water is boiling faster. I said that the unaccounted factor might be your mind. This placebo affect changes Emilie’s perception of the boiling water because it causes her to think that there is less time going by as she boils water. By adding the salt to the pot of water Emilie may believe that the water is boiling faster in order to reduce dissonance from her original belief when in fact the boiling water could just occur by chance. Maybe she uses less water than Athyna; she could also be more distracted while cooking than Athyna and her completing other tasks may cause her to think that the water boiled relatively fast.

A scientific study that was performed was helpful because it provided a chemical explanation for the failure to reject the null hypothesis. The study showed that if you took two identical amounts of water and added salt to one then the pot with salt will not boil any faster than the pot without salt. The chemical explanation dealt with water’s heat capacity. Although with 100 grams of water 80 grams contains pure water and 20 grams contains pure salt; the mixture would have a lower boiling point than pure water. “Please note that this will not hold true if you take two identical pots containing one gallon of water each and add the salt to one pot because then the volume of liquid in the salted pot will be greater than the one gallon starting point.” The study was helpful because if you truly wanted to have a pot of water boil faster then you could do so by adjusting the proportions of salt and water in the pot.

Another study explains the hypothesis of whether or not salt helps water boil faster in terms of the vapor pressure in the presence of a solute. The addition of the salt content to the water “lower’s the vapor pressure which means that a higher temperature is necessary to boil the water in the solution, hence boiling-point elevation.”  On a positive note the study provided a possible confounding factor of a higher temperature that may have caused Emilie to believe her pot of water with salt in it boils at a faster rate than a pot without salt. The study was not helpful though in terms of providing truth to reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis in terms of boiling speed.

A third study provided truth in rejecting the null hypothesis concluding that there is a significance with the addition of salt added to a potential pot of boiling water. The experimenter provided evidence from an experimental study conducted and explained “when salt is added to the mix, the molecules start to move around rapidly and randomly making the water temperature rise and the water to boil faster.” The study was unhelpful in terms of the consistency of each pot used. I was unable to tell if they had less water and a specific portion of salt in a pot as the first study had shown, or if both of the pots contained the same amount of water and the other just added salt.

With the chemical reasoning from each study I myself concluded to neither fail to reject or reject the null hypothesis. I believe that the speed of the water boiling with the addition of salt has to do with heat capacity. All three studies seem to agree on the fact that when salt is added to water its heat capacity rises allowing it to boil at a greater temperature. So therefore I am now faced with the task of informing my roommates that they were both wrong because salt only affects the temperature at which water boils not the speed. But what do you think? Is it the salt that helps the water boil faster because of the molecules bouncing around? Do you believe that the same results would hold true if a different compound was used in the place of salt? 

boiling-water.jpg

Don’t keep blowing your congested nose!

                Its that time of the year again where just about everybody around you is sick and you’re hearing all the coughing and sniffles in the silence of a test. The other day I had a congested nose and was wondering what the best way to clear it was. As I was searching I noticed that to keep blowing your nose was not the answer, and sadly I learned this the hard way. So why is blowing your stuffy nose bad?

stuffy-nose-headache-400x400.jpg

(This photo can be found here)

                For me I always blow my nose when I cannot breath through my nose and after reading this I realized how much time I’ve spent blowing my nose. In this article they talk about Dr. J Owen Hendley who did research on this theory and experimented by using dye to test the theory. Basically what Hendley found was that the dye was being found in the rear nasal cavity after blowing their nose. The participants also coughed and sneezed and there was almost never any dye found in the rear nasal cavity. According to Hendley stuff getting into your rear nasal cavity is harmless but if you are sick then you could further infection if you “shot” a virus or bacteria into that rear nasal cavity.

                When I was sick I learned here, that you never want to blow your nose when its congested and the only time you should is if your nose is actually running and even then you should take it easy. By blowing your nose while its congested, the membranes in your nostrils are becoming inflamed. When you blow your nose it apparently increases the blood flow in your nose. My way of thinking of it is if you have ever had anything swollen it just blows up like a balloon and from my understanding that is what happens here basically. It seems to me that the nasal cavities kind of get blocked due to increased blood flow in your nose. So, are you going to think twice about blowing your nose?

Nature’s Clean Up Crew

bluebottle-maggot_1689991i.jpg

Maggots are a huge part of the ecosystem. They decompose many dead animals whether they’re in the woods or even on the side of the road. They really are nature’s clean up crew.

Maggots are fly eggs. So flies will lay their eggs in moist rotting material. A fly lays hundreds of eggs and they hatch between eight to twenty hours (“Maggots’ Life”). Their color varies in light brown, yellow, and an off-white. They do not have legs but they have “one pair of tiny hook-like parts to aid in feeding” (“Maggot”). As soon as they hatch they start to eat on the surrounding area where the fly left them. They begin at a length of two to three millimeters. Once they reach ten millimeters in length they enter into the second larval stage. This stage is where the maggots shed their skin and continue to feed. They attain the third stage where they shed once they reach fifteen to twenty millimeters. The three stages are the main feeding stage of the maggot and they can eat for twenty-four hours straight. Flies last as maggots for eight to ten days in warm weather and about a month in cold weather (“Maggots’ Life”).

            Maggots can be used for several benefits to humans. One of the things their good for is to determine how long a body has been dead. Forensics figure out what stage the maggots are in and the weather of where the dead body is located to determine how long the body has been dead (“Forensics”). Another benefit maggots are to humans is that they can help save lives. Maggots are actually used today in the medical world. Doctors use them to eat the dead tissue of a burn or injury of a human being. When the maggots eat the tissue they actually disinfect the wound by killing the bacteria through eating it. For each square centimeter of damaged tissue the doctor will put five to ten maggots on it. Then the maggots would be covered with a wrapped bandaged that still allows them to breath for several days. When the maggots are feeding they can grow from two millimeters to ten millimeters while under the bandage. Patients find the maggots to not hurt while eating the dead tissue but they say it feels like an itch or a tickle. Maggots are only used as a last resort. So this means surgery or “conventional medic[ine]” did not work. This procedure has been found since the 1920’s to the 1930’s during the First World War. Men would save those who were injured for days and found that the ones who were still alive had maggots in their wounds (“Medical”).

            A study done in Israel observed what happens to the bacteria while in the digestive tract of a maggot. The scientists chose “green fluorescent protein-producing Escherichia coli” as the bacteria and used a “laser scanning confocal microscope” to analyze the bacteria while in the digestive system. The results showed that in the mid-gut of the maggot the bacteria was the highest at 52.8%. Though the hind-gut had showed the bacteria had decreased significantly to 17.8%. Then towards the maggot’s butt there was almost no bacteria left, so the feces of the maggot was either uncontaminated or had only a few bacteria left in it (“Destruction”). The study did not explain what kind of chemicals the mid-gut had that destroyed most of the bacteria. Also the study did not specify how many maggots were analyzed and how much bacteria they put in the maggots.

maggot.jpg

 

Works Cited:

“Destruction of Bacteria in the Digestive Tract of the Maggot of Lucilia sericata.”  BioOne. 29 Nov. 2013 <http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1603/0022-2585-38.2.161?journalCode=ment>.

“Forensic Entomology Or The Use Of Insects In Death Investigations.” Investigating Forensics. 27 Nov. 2013 <http://www.sfu.museum/forensics/eng/pg_media-media_pg/entomologie-entomology/>.

“Maggot.” ScienceDaily. 27 Nov. 2013     <http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/m/maggot.htm>.

“Maggots’ Life Cycle.’ Buzzle. 27 Nov. 2013 <http://www.buzzle.com/articles/maggots-life-cycle.html>.

 “Medical Maggots Treat As They Eat.” National Geographic News. 29 Nov. 2013 <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1024_031024_maggotmedicine.html>.

Photo of Maggot:

<http://www.tellmeaboutdiabetes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/maggot.jpg>.

Photo Of Close Up Maggot:

<http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01689/bluebottle-maggot_1689991i.jpg>.