(1)

            With the impossible standards girls feel the need to live up to and the growing rate of obesity, everyone is constantly looking for the next big thing to help weight loss.  I have heard people say before that green tea is good for weight loss and have seen it being sold in stores like GNC, but never saw any evidence backing up everyone’s claims. 

            Researchers of Penn State in the College of Agricultural Sciences experimented on mice the effects green tea would have on their weight gain patterns while also having a high-fat diet.  Mice fed the compound found in green tea (EGCG) had 45 percent slower weight gain than the control group who had a high fat diet without the green tea compound.  They also concluded that the mice fed the green tea supplement showed a 30 percent increase in lipids that suggest the tea limits the body’s ability to absorb fat, making it enhance the ability to use the fat instead of storing it (1).  A problem that could have altered these findings is how relatable they are to humans.  They stated a person would need ten cups of green tea daily to intake the amount the mice used in the study.  They also only focused on already obese figures; resulting in little legitimate evidence on the effects green tea could have on people who are a healthy weight.

            In a second study, they said green tea didn’t only slow down weight gain in mice, but reduced their weight by 49%.  They also claimed that the rats injected with green tea extract daily showed a loss of appetite and reduced their food intake by 60 percent after a week.  This alone led to a 21 percent weight loss in the rats.  They gone on with stating the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition showed green tea increased metabolism by 4 percent.  They claim adding 3-5 cups of green tea a day can help drop extra pounds and give people the energy they need to want to exercise.

            This second study was trying to prove it would increase weight loss, but consisted of many flaws and has been put beside a much better study method stating it does not increase weight loss, but slows down weight gain.  The first study consists of a control group and a group being tested with the green tea extract.  They also informed us of how much extract the mice were receiving and the amount that would be equivalent to for a person to take.  The second study never even mentions having a control group.  They also never claim how much extract is being injected which could result in exaggerated results.  By not having a control group in the second study, it makes it nearly impossible to say they have made a legitimate claim with so many possible third variables.  One third variable they mentioned they didn’t even take into consideration for the significant weight loss in the mice.  They said after a week they were only eating 40 percent as much food as they were before the extract was being injected.  The tea could have kept their metabolism constant (not necessarily raising it) when the body’s natural functions would quickly slow down the metabolism on it’s own if someone were to take in less than half of what they use to ate.  If humans were also given this unknown amount of tea extract, it looks as though it could give them possible eating disorders, rather than healthily improve weight loss.  Since the first study found no signs of loss of appetite and stated their amounts were equivalent to ten cups of tea a day, the second study could be related to a fad diet, which is extremely harmful to the body.  Taking in well over ten cups of tea a day and eating less than half of what you use to?  Doesn’t really sound like a healthy way to lose weight when you put their findings into perspective. 

    (1)  http://news.psu.edu/story/154848/2011/10/04/green-tea-helps-mice-keep-extra-pounds

    (2)  http://www.greenteabase.com/green-tea-benefits-weight-loss/

    (3)  http://www.myessentia.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/green-tea.jpg

    (4)   http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Health/2009/July/660/371/640_skinny_fat_jeans.jpg?ve=1 

           After talking awhile back about the effects of texting on drivers, it sparked my mind again and I decided to see what other studies had to say about it and why they believe their findings are true, but with relation to marijuana use and driving.  We talked in class about the neutral effect texting possibly has because the study we discussed also stated while texting, drivers also slow down.  I wanted to see if there was a possibility of finding something similar with marijuana users.  It’s stated that around 19 percent of teen drivers admitted to driving high in a survey- meaning this doesn’t include the percent of teens that could have lied about not doing this as well. (1)

            Turns out, this widely known myth could be due to the file drawer problem because people simply don’t want to admit that it may not be as dangerous as they want “driving on drugs” to be.  This also has caused very little studies to focus on positive/neutral effects of driving high when everybody is set out to find all negative effects.  Seven separate studies were reviewed that involved 7,934 drivers said, “Crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug free drivers to be culpable in road crashes.” (2) They state people who smoke are more aware of their impairment than drunk drivers, allowing them to slow down and focus harder when they know a response is required.  Although this isn’t a study proving the evidence, it’s the community themselves stating this is what they believe from what they have seen happen in their lives.

            I found a good example of a news report twisting up a story a little to also follow this popular idea of solely negative effects.  CBS stated that a study found “nearly 30 percent of fatally injured drivers tested positive for drugs other than alcohol, with marijuana being the main culprit.” (3) They continued with stating researchers “analyzed nine large-scale drugged driving studies.”  Drivers who tested positive for marijuana within three hours of use were over twice as likely to be in a wreck. 

This sounds more legitimate than the first case made?  Not really.  If you pick apart the report, you can slowly see they are merely proving that their statement is false.  First off, to be accurate with my reasoning, this news report is from October 2011.  Around this time there was an estimated 2.24 million car crashes that led to a form of injury.  30 percent of this would be 320,000 crashes that involved someone who tested positive for drugs other than alcohol.  This also doesn’t necessarily mean that they are using marijuana, because they state it was the “main culprit”, indicating various drugs being used.  They gave us no number stating how many of those drivers had other drugs besides marijuana.  For example, if it is only being considered the “main culprit” and every other drug was five percent of the 30 percent, marijuana use could have consisted of being involved only ten percent of these drug related accidents.  This would reduce marijuana use accidents to consist of 224,000 wrecks, while it already is fewer than 320,000 because the 30 percent of those wrecks are referring to various drugs, including marijuana in the mix.  This means that somewhere between 224,000 and 320,000 accidents involved marijuana use.  Another question is, was that the cause?  They never stated if the drivers who were intoxicated were the cause of the accidents or that their intoxication made the accidents occur.

My last claim to possibly sway your opinion is the statistics on the most common things that have caused fatal car crashes. (4) The first claim they make is that 33% of fatal accidents are solely from drunk drivers, leaving 67 percent left.  It then states a high amount of accidents between midnight and 3am.  They also added that during these hours, 66 percent involved alcohol-impaired driving.  This leaves us with 34 percent solely from driving during the “vampire hour”, which now makes up for 67 percent of all accidents.  The third factor is messing with different technology in the car and distracting yourself (i.e. talking on the phone, texting, etc.)  Which accounted for an additional 5,500 deaths- accounting for an additional 25 percent of wrecks out of 2.24 million.  After confusing you with all of these numbers that actually adds up to being the cause of 92 percent of all accidents leaving 8 percent possibly from marijuana, other drugs and freak accidents.  Even when everything is going right, you risk being in an accident every time you drive.  Is a less than 8 percent change really stating that marijuana is one of the leading factors of fatal car crashes?

Here’s a quick spreadsheet I made to give an easier visual of all these numbers.  This shows that marijuana, along with ALL other reasons for accidents (besides the first three specific ones) are involved in less than 8% of all accidents.  Let me know what your opinions on this topic and if you feel CBS truly did prove the opposite of what they were trying to claim to be true.

(1)(1)  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/23/marijuana-use-driving-under-influence-teens-study_n_1296438.html

(2 (2) http://norml.org/library/item/marijuana-and-driving-a-review-of-the-scientific-evidence

(3 (3)  http://www.cbsnews.com/news/marijuana-a-major-cause-of-accidents-what-study-says/

     (4) http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/06/17/heres-how-many-car-accidents-youll-have/

           There have been numerous studies and findings pointing to the negative effects of divorce on children.  They always state poor school performance, bad behavior, etc.  With the divorce rate in the U.S. around 53 percent, it should be a major concern for how serious people take marriage, sex and the traumatic situations these people are putting their children at risk for.  Over the eleven years a lot of families didn’t experience a divorce, but the ones that did before or during the study were examined based off the age of children during the divorce and the short and long-term effects it had on the kids at home and school.  They found that at all age frames children had “higher rates of externalizing problems than children from two-parent families according to mothers, teachers, and their own self-report.” 

            A report I found how many different sources on various studies showing the bad external problems children of divorce have.  They used data from the National Survey of Children (NSC) that consisted of a sample of 1,423 kids that were evaluated three times over an eleven year span with children in three different age groups: 7-11, 12-16 and 18-22 (3).  To prove the consistency of this finding they discussed another study with a similar type of study (observational) found behaviors in children from divorced families such as “delinquency, aggression, and disobedience” with a third study that showed the same results (4) (5).  Lastly, they discussed a study that showed these children had disobedient and aggressive behavior even when their peers – of two-parent families- did not act this way (6).            

            Every study on this topic has been observational, when we all know experimental studies are much less bias and accurate.  Throughout the reports while examining the families, it’s very likely that the mothers, teachers and kids reported their true feelings towards the divorce in a bias way because of the widely accepted belief that divorce is suppose to effect kids in a negative way.  Another thing they never examined during the studies are all of the kids behaviors that were in two parent families, they only continued to examine the children that were in divorced families.  They also never took into account the parents backgrounds.  For example, how long were the parents married, did they marry because they had a kid, were they good people?  All of these unanswered questions could have also lead to the child’s behavior, not just from the divorce.  Bad parenting plays one of the biggest roles on a child’s behavior, whether there’s one or two parents influencing them.  Overall, the biggest problem I have with all studies done on these negative effects on divorced children is the fact that there must have been a good reason for the parents to divorce, whether they fought a lot, had an affair, or just weren’t happy with their spouse.  After reviewing all of these studies, I wanted to see one on children that are in houses with both parents, but parents that aren’t happy together.  Parents that probably should divorce but for one reason or another felt that it was the right thing to do to stay together.  To me, this seems like it could have a much larger negative effect on a kid than a divorce.  What do you thinks best?  Having one parent around that loves you unconditionally and wants what’s best for you, or having two parents around that are visibly unhappy, constantly fighting and being revealed to that kind of behavior between your parents on a daily basis.  I feel like the answer seems pretty obvious, so why haven’t these studies taken that into account?

(1) http://www.pitt.edu/ppcl/Publications/chapters/children_of_divorce.htm

(2) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm

(3) Furstenberg & Allison, 1989; Furstenberg, Peterson, Nord, & Zill, 1993; Zill et al., 1993

(4) SES Glueck & Glueck, 1950; Nye, 1957

(5) Grych & Fincham, 1992; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1978

(6) Hetherington and colleagues 1978

(7) http://kytx.images.worldnow.com/images/14624183_BG1.jpg

            Our generation clearly loves their music loud.  If you’ve ever been to a concert or anywhere near an amplifier the sound doesn’t seem like it could be any louder.  Why do we think this is fun?  For some reason it seems like our generation loves things that are bad and this is definitely one that people seem to overlook.  While the majority of people have seemed to care less about how well they can hear, recent studies have stated possible connections between hearing loss leading to dementia.

            Frank Lin M.D. is an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University.  He conducted several studies that showed links between hearing and different cognitive problems, the most severe being dementia.  This year him and his colleagues tracked cognitive abilities “of nearly 2,000 older adults whose average age was 77.”  Six years later, participants with hearing loss severe enough to interfere during conversation were 24 percent more likely to have seen their cognitive abilities lessen.  Overall, the researchers concluded that hearing loss sped up “age-related cognitive decline.” 

            A second study Lin was involved in was on 639 people, with a quarter of them having some hearing loss at the beginning of the study and none with dementia.  They were followed and examined every one to two years and after sixteen years, 58 of the participants developed dementia.  They linked the people with hearing loss in the beginning of the study to be more likely to develop dementia.  They also made the correlation that the worse a persons hearing was in the beginning, the more likely they were to get dementia. (i.e. someone with severe hearing loss was twice as likely as someone with moderate hearing loss).  Lin also stated that they took various third variables into consideration including: diabetes, high blood pressure, age, sex and race. 

            Although this claim seems to be a widely accepted theory, there are various things wrong with both studies here.  The first one only consists of older adults, who are already more likely to get dementia than someone who is younger.  Secondly, they never claimed to rule out any third variables in the first study.  The second study was a little more precise, but had several flaws.  They stated that a quarter of participants started with hearing loss and 58 ended with dementia.  This would conclude that only 9 percent of them ended up with dementia and 25 percent had hearing problems.  This means there’s only a possible 16 percent that the hearing loss lead to dementia.  When it’s written that way, I don’t believe it sounds as convincing.  If you still believe these studies were well conducted, realize they never took into account any family medical history and the likeliness of the disease without hearing loss.  This could result in a major file drawer problem.

            There are various forms of dementia that someone that obtain, Alzheimer’s is the most common.  It accounts for sixty percent of all people with dementia.  The first study can be ruled out completely because of the median age because it’s stated that 25 percent of people 85 or older alone have Alzheimer’s just from aging.  The second study can be questioned with family history.  As of now, the genetic research shows that in the 19^th chromosomes passed from our parents, there are certain types that can either increase our risks of dementia or protect us from it.  So, who is to say that maybe even all the participants in the study had these genes?  What do you think?

(1) http://www.aarp.org/health/brain-health/info-07-2013/hearing-loss-linked-to-dementia.html

(2) http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/hearing_loss_and_dementia_linked_in_study

(3) http://www.fightdementia.org.au/understanding-dementia/dementia–heredity.aspx

(4) http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2013/08/17/1226698/796354-hearing-loss.jpg

            I read a blog that made me think about how we learn.  What makes us get that A on a Midterm, or get through finals week with multiple tests.  If someone sat down and studied all the information one time (unless they have a photographic memory) there’s no way they would remember all the information, but we normally find a way to learn it all in the long run, how though?  The way we study and learn everyday things are all perfected through repetition.

            Every time we experience new things we learn from it.  If we experience something a second time, more nerve impulses are sent along the pathway made from the initial learned experience.  This repetition helps us strengthen how well we learn to know that specific thing.  “Repetition strengthens the connections between neurons and makes it easier for impulses to travel along the pathway.”(2) This enhances the process of consolidation, “the process by which memories are moved from temporary storage in the hippocampus to more permanent storage in the cortex.” (1) What this means in more simple terms is that repetition links what people memorize between where short and long term thoughts are stored in the brain.

            A study was done on 88 female college students that had weak natural science backgrounds and listened to a small passage about radar or Ohm’s law one, two or three times (Ohm’s laws have to do with electric currents and is based off a general physics background).  The amount recalled increased with more repetition.  It showed a pattern that recalling, “conceptual principles” and “related information increased”, but at the same time it detected that “verbatim” (remembering it exactly word for word) declined.  (3)

            This study concludes that although this repetition did not make them memorize things word for word, it enhanced their overall knowledge on the passage they had read.  There are many things wrong with this study though.  First, they only used women that were in college.  This means no men, no different levels of knowledge between the individuals and only one small range of ages.  This may only conclude that women in college will benefit from repetition.  Even for that theory, they only studied 88 women, which is not a very large number.  Although the study still seems like it’s right just because that’s what everybody believes, they left out a big role in the study.  It never stated if they had a time constraint on how long they looked over the passage or a constraint on giving their feedback on it.  Although it seemed to be experimental, there were no control groups and no third variables were visibly taken out of the experiment. This next study suggests that feeling like your under pressure with only so much time can cause a difference in how well you can memorize things and the differences pressure plays on age.

            This study looked at the effects of “study-list repetition on false recognition” of things with similar associations examining age and recognition of time pressure.  Participants studied lists of words that were all strongly associated with a word not on the list.  During normal testing, people ages 19-26 falsely stated fewer unstudied words with lists presented several times than lists only seen once than the older participants ages 67-85.  During the experiment involving time pressure however, the older age group remembered a greater number of words from the lists presented multiple times than that of the younger age group. (4)

            I believe the second study shows that the first study needs revised and more detailed, but there are still several things wrong with the second study.  First off, they never state the number of participants in the study, how many are in each age group or account for a younger age group.  Secondly, by choosing words all similar to an associated word not on the lists, the words on the lists were most likely similar to one another as well if they all shared the same associated word.  This could trigger people’s memory to more easily remember the other words or possibly guess some of them correctly.  This one also seems experimental and had two different groups, but still never stated any third variables that would need ruled out (i.e. people with dyslexia, ADHD, etc.).  

So, does it seem like it’s worth cramming some extra information in before that exam tomorrow?  And how well can we really think when were down to the last couple minutes of an exam?

(5)

(1) http://www.ldonline.org/article/5602/

(2) http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_ocr_pre_2011/brain_mind/humanslearnrev1.shtml

(3) http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/edu/75/1/40/

(4) http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xlm/27/4/941/

(5) http://www.redorbit.com/media/uploads/2012/08/health-082312-007-617×416.jpg

            Finishing up that last paper before you go to bed for the night?  Falling asleep in bed while watching a movie?  We all are constantly using electronics, 24/7 (or at least every hour were awake).  They’re extremely useful and convenient, but they can be bad for us to use.  Not only so consistently like many people are aware of, but even more so right before bed.

Using technology before going to sleep leaves people feeling tired the next day and unable to perform daily tasks at 100%.  Charles Czeisler, a scientist with the Harvard Medical School and head of the Hospital for Gynecology in Boston, claims that “exposure to artificial light just before bedtime increases the metabolism and reduces the release of melatonin, a hormone responsible for regulating sleep.”  

Interestingtopics.net stated that in a study conducted, 95% of participants said that they used technology before bed and 67% admitted they were not sleeping enough.  To back up this study, they compared it to the Baby Boom generation (people ages 46-64) are the biggest group that put their kids to sleep with the television versus lullabies.  The study followed by showing that as many as 22% of teenagers admitted they are constantly sleepy, compared to nine percent of baby boomers that weren’t revealed to as much technology growing up.

            Another article I found on telegraph.co.uk also agrees with this statement.  They claimed that “a person’s brain is biologically wired to be awake when the sun is out because bright light after dark causes the brain to stop secreting the hormone called melatonin that makes us sleepy.”  The extra light we’re revealed to confuses the brain.  The article also explains why a lamp is does not affect us the way our electronics do because we are not looking directly into the light it’s giving off.

            Although both of these articles gave good evidence, it was still not matching up with our definition of the “scientific method”, but this last study does.

            In a study published in the journal Applied Ergonomics, they had participants read, play games and watch movies on an IPad or PC tablet for different amounts of time and measured the light their eyes were revealed to.  The study found that “two hours of exposure to a bright tablet screen at night reduced melatonin levels by about 22 percent.” 

            Overall, I believe that all of these articles are good evidence that we can credit our technology for keeping us up so late at night, even on those nights were not trying to.  The last study had a control trial because they measure the participant’s melatonin levels before participating in the trial and using the gadgets directly before bed.  The only fault I could think of is if they were any third variables involved during the study that were not controlled (but they seem unlikely).  It is unlikely, but nobody has tested that a third variable causes younger generations to sleep less, which could result in reverse causation.  Since we are sleeping less, we have more time to spend on our technology.  With this being said, it’s probably best to finish your work earlier in the day.

Age vs. Technology Use Compared to Fatigue

First Article: http://www.interestingtopics.net/say-no-to-technology-before-bedtime-id-520

Second Study: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7731807/Using-laptops-or-iPads-just-before-bed-increases-risk-of-insomnia.html

Third Study: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/really-using-a-computer-before-bed-can-disrupt-sleep/?_r=0

Last Study: http://www.sleepfoundation.org/article/press-release/annual-sleep-america-poll-exploring-connections-communications-technology-use-

Picture: http://mocoloco.com/archives/025718.php

          I have heard the answer to this question go both ways.  I’ve had people tell me that the chiropractor is good and helps their back feel better.  But, I’ve also heard people say it’s not good for you to go.  So, what’s the truth?  I wanted to find out.  I am going to talk about what exactly the chiropractor does, symptoms people have had from it and recent studies done to determine whether it’s doing more harm than good for us.

What They’re Suppose To Do

          On spine-health.com, the definition of a chiropractor is “a health care professional focused on the diagnosis and treatment neuromuscular disorders, with an emphasis on treatment through manual adjustment/ manipulation of the spine.”  They’re goal is to reduce pain and improve the patients functionality.  It is categorized as an alternative to medicine.  They focus on the relationship between the nervous system and spine.  “It is believed to restore the structural integrity of the spine, reduce pressure on the sensitive neurological tissue, and consequently improve the health of the individual.”

Chiropractic Procedures

There are two usual approaches to chiropractic manipulation. 

1.     Traditional chiropractic adjustment

(Spinal manipulation; HVLA)

2.     Gentle/less forceful adjustment

(Spinal mobilization)

     The first method is a “thrust” that’s normally considered manual adjustments.  Chiropractors will apply a short quick thrust over the joints.  The second method is a gentler version of the first method.  This is for people with possible bone problems and cannot handle the quicker thrust.  In this method they use their hands to press down on the spine and adjust it.  Other times, they can use an “Activator” which is “a hand-held spring-loaded, tool that provides a low-force impulse.”

Common Results:

          Webmd.com lists some common side effects that people have after a visit to the chiropractor:

• Pain/Discomfort
• Headaches
• Fatigue
• Herniated disc

Harmful?

           People don’t only question if it’s beneficial, but a lot of people actually think it’s bad for you.  Since there has been no evidence on how effective Chiropractor’s are, I found a study that showed evidence of it being harmful to patients.

Researchers: A J Barrett and A C Breen

Location:  Institute for Musculoskeletal Research and Clinical Implementation, Anglo-European College of Chiropractic, Bournemouth, UK 

           This study was done because of the questioning of the “file drawer problem” with concern to adverse effects of spinal manipulation (the chiropractor).  Eleven questionnaires were sent to 108 consecutive new patients older than 18.  They were asked about adverse effects after spinal manipulation and were completed anonymously.  80 questionnaires were returned with 68 able to be analyzed.  41% reported adverse effects one hour after treatment, this included 50% with extra pain and 32% with radiating pain.  The adverse reactions were recorded in 53% of responding patients.

Overall, the study backs up the evidence saying it’s not beneficial, but adds that it can also be harmful to the patient and cause more pain then they initially had.  The study also argued the “file drawer problem” could be the cause of the study’s results for effectiveness.  They were very efficient with collecting the data and took a wide range of patience results.  So, the studies state we shouldn’t be going to the chiropractor for back pain because there’s no known benefits and also proven negative disadvantages.

What They’re Supposed To Do Paragraph:

http://www.spine-health.com/treatment/chiropractic/what-a-chiropractor

Chiropractic Procedures Paragraph:

http://www.spine-health.com/conditions/sacroiliac-joint-dysfunction/chiropractic-procedures-sacroiliac-joint

http://www.spine-health.com/treatment/chiropractic/spinal-manipulation-high-velocity-low-amplitude-hvla

http://www.spine-health.com/treatment/chiropractic/spinal-mobilization-gentle-chiropractic-techniques

Common Side Effects:

http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/chiropractic-topic-overview

Harmful Paragraph:

http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/93/5/258.short

            After posting a blog about rebound headaches and talking to one of my classmates, I decided to do a follow up blog on two of the most common types of headaches/migraines people get, what they are and research that has been done on the headaches or treatment plans.  There are many more types than I have listed, but I chose the most common ones to discuss and hopefully help anyone out there who’s having problems with them as well.  If you want to know more about rebound headaches or what happens during headaches in general you can look at my other blog here.

Cluster Headaches

            Cluster headaches are a type of chronic headaches.  According to MedlinePlus, they are also four times more common in men than in women.  They also are known to be hereditary and run in families.  Also on MedlinePlus, scientists say they “appear to be related to the body’s sudden release of histamine or serotonin.”  It may also involve the “hypothalamus”, which is in the lower area of the brain. 

There are severe headaches that come out of nowhere.  They normally occur after falling asleep and are on one side of the head.  This is also a headache known to make people have pain behind one eye; but also affects anywhere from the “neck to the temples” (on one side).  It can also cause a stuffy nose, a flushed face and visible symptoms affecting the eye (redness, tearing).  They can occur daily for several months or years without stopping, but commonly have spurs of not getting them as well.  Here are the most common listed things on MedlinePlus that can trigger the headaches: alcohol, cigarette smoking, high altitudes, heat, preserved meats, medicines and cocaine. 

If you have been diagnosed with cluster headaches here’s the treatment involved in stopping them.  First, try to avoid any of the “common listed” things that can trigger these headaches.  If you do then patients are told to treat the pain immediately and also try to prevent them before occurring.  Regular painkillers and OTC medicines take too long to stop them so the best bet (as of now) is prescription medications which can include Triptans, steroid medicines (such as prednisone) and injections of dihydroergotamine (DHE).  These all have specific side effects and must be reviewed with a doctor to see what works best for you.

Tension Headaches

            Tension headaches are often referred to as “stress headaches” and are the most common, affecting thirty to eighty percent of adults and three percent with chronic headaches (webmd.com).  These can be episodic or chronic.  Normally occurring in the middle of the day, they can last for thirty minutes or several days nonstop.  They get worse and worse the more frequently they occur.  The pain varies throughout the day but it usually always there.  It is a throbbing feeling that “affects the front, top, or sides of the head.”  People normally describe being irritable, fatigue, sensitive to light/noise, muscle aching and have problems sleeping/ staying awake.  If they are chronic, they rarely keep people from doing their daily tasks.  Here are the most common causes of tension headaches: not enough sleep, poor posture, emotional/mental stress, depression, anxiety, fatigue, hunger and overexertion.  They can also be triggered by environmental factors like problems with family, friends, work and school.

            The easiest way to treat tension headaches is catching them early when they are still mild and not as frequent.  People will normally start with OTC pain relievers to ease the pain.  If that does not work, doctors usually prescribe a stronger pain reliever or muscle relaxant.  When these become chronic doctors will turn to “preventive treatments” which are medicines taking before getting the headaches.  These include antidepressants, blood pressure medications and anti-seizure medications.  Overall, medicine cannot cure them entirely and in all circumstances the person must recognize stressors and try to deal with them better; which could also be taken care of with stress management/relaxation trainings.

New Treatment Plan Revealed

            For both types of headaches people have stopped them by doing the solutions listed above and adjusting their lives so they don’t trigger them as frequently.  For some people though, even avoiding all the triggers they will still continue to get chronic headaches.  A new study found a solution to these impossible headaches.

            A new study on sciencedaily.com stated “electric stimulation of the peripheral nerve reduced average headache intensity by more than 70 percent.” Billy Huh, M.D., Ph.D., is a professor at The University of Texas and is a medical director of the Department of Pain Medicine there and helped with the research.  The procedure involves “a thin insulated wire that’s implanted in the back of the head (occipital nerve) or in the forehead above the eyebrow (supraorbital nerve).  This delivers electric pulses to block the headache pain.”  The study involved 46 patients who received peripheral nerve stimulation for seven years.  They were followed up with to ask about the results of the treatment and their satisfaction with it.  The study found that the “headache intensity and frequency reduced significantly.”  The average number of headaches per month was half as often and 90 percent of the patients said they were satisfied with the treatment.  The complications that can occur are electrode migration, equipment problems and infection; but are said to lessen and become more accurate as they practice this on more patients.

Overall, I think this sounds like a great discovery that could truly help with chronic headache sufferers.  The few problems I found with this study were only 46 people being tested on and the severity of the complications.  It said one complication is “electrode migration” which is more severe than it sounds.  When these are inserted they can “puncture a blood vessel leading to a stroke or stroke-like symptoms.”  Also, if the patient has any cognitive dysfunction it could worsen and the procedure could affect the cognitive circuits that control the following; depression, laughter, memory problems, or other psychiatric features.  Since “doctors only pay attention when they think they’re right”, I would want to see the count for how many people had a stroke or other physical disabilities after the procedure because it could be a file drawer problem!  Once there’s more research on it and more evidence of being beneficial, it might be the first known thing to take away people’s chronic headaches for good.

Cluster Headaches:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000786.htm

Tension Headaches:

http://www.webmd.com/migraines-headaches/guide/tension-headaches?page=2

New Treatment Plan Revealed:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131013163311.htm

Conclusion:

http://mdc.mbi.ufl.edu/surgery/am-i-a-candidate-for-deep-brain-stimulation-intro/what-are-the-risks-of-deep-brain-stimulation

Picture:

http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/electrical-shocks-help-the-brain-do-math

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2092704/500-electric-shock-machine-boost-learning-memory–scientists-worry-misused.html 

Lately, I have been getting a decent amount of headaches. I wondered why is this happening and why does something so painful and annoying seem to be so common?  Once I started looking into it, I couldn’t believe how many people not only get headaches, but also suffer from constant migraines.  The Migraine Research Foundation stated that over 10% of our population suffers from migraines.  They continued with saying around fourteen million people experience headaches on almost a daily basis.  Wow, think about how rich companies must be that sell pain-relievers for headaches.  Then I wondered, is that what we should be turning to?

What Causes Headaches?

For the majority of headaches, the pain results from signals interacting between the brain, blood vessels and surrounding nerves.  During a headache, certain nerves of blood vessels and muscles activate and send pain signals to the brain.  Although, no one is entirely sure why the signals are activated in the first place.

Under what circumstances are they triggered though?  Sadly, it seems like everything.  Here’s a summarized list of things that can trigger a headache:

A cold, a “blow” to the head, stress, alcohol us, malnutrition, dehydration, changes in sleep patterns, excessive medication use, depression, eyestrain, neck/back strain, secondhand smoke, strong odors from chemicals, noise, lighting, weather changes, lack of exercise and sometimes too much.

The list is basically endless, but what about for those people who seem to almost be getting them?  Just take an Advil and it’ll get better, right?  Wrong.  In fact, a study showed prolonged use of “headache” relieving pills have caused a reverse effect on the users.

Rebound Headaches

According to MD George Krucik, when people get headaches and constantly take medicine for them it can result in “medication-overuse headache (MOH)”, more commonly known as rebound headaches.  There are two main theories as to why this can happen.  The first states that it “diminishes the body’s own defense against headaches” (nbneuro.com).  This takes place because it “disrupts the brain’s production of natural analgesics known as endorphins.”  This basically means that our body no longer produces our natural painkillers and starts depending on the artificial ones we take.  The second theory directly relates to the use of caffeine.  When people take caffeine it “constricts blood vessels” which can relieve pain for a little bit.  Once the caffeine wears off the blood vessels dilate, which they believe could be the reason the headache comes back. 

Although these two theories sound plausible, researches still don’t know what specifically causes these rebound headaches, but from observational studies they have found that after prolonged use of pain relieving medicines, the medicine will stop being helpful and be more harmful.   Here’s a list of the medicines that have been found to cause rebound headaches.

1. Pain relievers (ex: aspirin, Ibuprofen, Tylenol)
2. Ergots (a combination of pain relievers and caffeine)
3.  “Combination analgesics” (These include the top two categories along with acetaminophen (found in Tylenol too)
4. Opioid medications (prescription medicine, ex: codeine)

So, if you find out that this is the reason you’re getting headaches or migraines, it is a hard habit to break.  The best way to stop these headaches is to stop taking the pain relievers.  At first, people will have withdrawal symptoms and possibly feel worse until their body adapts and the headaches go away all together.  On healthline.com it stated that a study found that 67% of people reduced their headaches after not taking pain relievers for two months.  So, do you think you should still be taking medicine for your headaches?

References:

http://www.webmd.com/migraines-headaches/guide/migraines-headaches-basics?page=2 

http://www.migraineresearchfoundation.org/about-migraine.html 

http://www.healthline.com/health/migraine/medications-causing-headaches?toptoctest=expand

http://www.nbneuro.com/reboundheadache.shtml

This is something we all go through, whether it’s from falling off your bike or getting a paper cut.  After discussing how ice slows down the healing process in class, it made me wonder what is the best way to treat a cut and things we do that are actually bad for it. After looking into the research on some common-thought solutions, I hoped to figure out the best way we should deal with our cuts.

Here are the three most common things people do when they get a cut.  I have looked up the research on these solutions so we can know what is best to do for a cut.

1.     Alcohol

2.     Bandages

3.     Antibiotic cream

Rubbing Alcohol:

On wikiHow.com it is stated that for cuts, rubbing alcohol is good for reducing chances of infection and making cuts heal faster.  Alcohol is commonly used as an antiseptic and is widely known to clean out our cuts.

However, Dermatologist Robert Kirsner disagrees.  He is a spokesperson for the American Academy of Dermatology and stated that alcohol can be toxic to skin cells and delay healing.  It does clean the wound, but it is also killing healthy cells.  He also stated the stinging from alcohol is from the cut being cleaned, but also from destroying healthy tissue.

On hubpages.com, the article states that rubbing alcohol is also considered a “drying agent” and it delays the healing process by drying out the newly exposed skin.  Overall, rubbing alcohol stings to use, but is actually causing your skin to take longer to heal.

Bandages:

When it comes to Band-Aids I’ve heard people go both ways about how productive they are.  Some people believe they are good because it keeps bacteria out of the cut, when others have said it’s better to let the cut open to air it out to let it form a scab and heal faster.  Science has proven the “airing out” method to be a myth.  Without bandages, it will scab and that will close off the skin protecting it from infection; but scabs also slow down the growth of new skin cells where the wound is.  Having a Band-Aid will protect the cut from bacteria, keep it moist and the moisture allows faster skin growth for the healing process. 

The downsides to bandages though, are the possibilities of the new-formed skin sticking to the bandage while removing it.  Also, if someone puts a bandage on before making sure the cut is clean, it will trap bacteria inside of the wound.  Overall, they are effective, but still have their knacks you have to watch to make sure they’re being used productively. 

Neosporin:

            What has been said about this gel on wikihow.com is that, if you apply the gel to your cut twice a day, “it will help moisturize and heal the cut faster.” this is a widely used cream for cuts that people have always found to work and not harmful.

Neosporin consists of Neomycin Sulfate, Polymyxin B, Bacitracin Zinc and Pramoxine.  The first three are antibiotics that fight against specific bacteria to help our cuts stay clean.  Pramoxine is a temporary relief for us when we have pain or discomfort.  Pramoxine is the reason Neosporin normally does not sting when applying to cuts.  All of this information can be found on the Neosporin website how each helps us when we have a cut.  Overall, they do help clean our cuts, but I still wanted to look further into these ingredients to see if there are any reasons you should be careful while using Neosporin.  In fact, there are possibilities of “overdosing” on Neosporin. 

If this product is only used on our minor cuts and scrapes, there should be no problems.  But, I do not believe people are aware of the possible hazards that can come with improperly using Neosporin and the bad effects it can have on our bodies.  Most of the ingredients in Neosporin are not absorbed into our bloodstream from applying it on our skin, but in certain situations it is much more likely.  If it is in a very large open wound, a large part of your body or on an infant, it is more likely to go into our bloodstream.  When too much of the Neosporin is in our bloodstream the Neomycin in this antibiotic can sometimes cause hearing loss and kidney damage.  The only other precautions to using Neosporin are for pregnant women and nursing mothers.  Although it has not been proven it will be harmful, it has not been proven safe.  Studies have shown possible fetal harm from the neomycin sulfate and Polymyxin B.  These drugs also have the possibility to “excrete” into nursing mother’s milk.

This cream is a safe way to help our cuts, but make sure to use it properly over a long duration of time.  It is a widely spread product, but every product has it’s hazards that we need to pay more attention to.

The Body:

            When you get a cut you don’t “need” to do anything about it because your body will heal the wound by itself.  First, the body reduces the blood flow to that area to help stop the bleeding.  To protect your skin from bacteria a scab will form.  The body then works on forming a new layer of skin underneath the scab to repair the cut.  Once the new layer is formed, the scab will “slough” off on its own.  This is an efficient way to let your cuts heal, but there is one downside.  Once your cut scabs, if the cut is deeper than the first layer of your skin, it is likely to scar.  Scarring is bad because that part of your skin is unlike normal skin tissue.  Rachel Oswald on howstuffworks.com states that that area of skin “doesn’t have sweat glands or hair growing from it.  It’s also more vulnerable to ultraviolet rays.”

Conclusion:

            Overall, combining Neosporin and a bandage seems to be the best way to handle a cut.  The body will heal the cut the same way as these combined, but this allows it to stay in its natural moist state to prevent the scabbing.  Although this is the best way for the wound to heal the fastest, people should still make sure they are using Neosporin only on smaller cuts and most likely should not when pregnant or nursing until they do further research on it.

Alcohol:

�      http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Rubbing-Alcohol

�      http://www.rd.com/health/wellness/7-first-aid-standbys-you-should-never-use/5/

�      http://annieshealthtalk.hubpages.com/hub/How-to-Properly-Clean-an-Open-Wound

Bandages:

�      https://www.zocdoc.com/answers/10432/is-it-better-to-bandage-a-wound-or-leave-it-uncovered-when-it-is-healing

Neosporin:

�      http://www.neosporin.com/first-aid/first-aid-faq

�      http://skin.emedtv.com/neosporin/neosporin-overdose.html

�      http://www.drugs.com/pro/neosporin.html

The Body:

http://health.howstuffworks.com/skin-care/information/anatomy/skin4.htm

Pictures:

�      http://health.howstuffworks.com/skin-care/problems/medical/flesh-eating-bacteria.htm

�      http://www.wellpromo.com/upload/upimg93/Travel-First-Aid-Kit–Without–137693.jpg