Today as I was walking back class I overheard a conversation between a girl and her mother on the phone. The girl was whining that her mother had decided to buy her a new computer for school, instead of an iPad for Christmas. This led me to realize what many Americans have already realized: we’ve really lost the true meaning of Christmas.

The original reason Christians celebrated Christmas was because of the birth of Jesus Christ, whom they believe to be the savior. After Jesus’s birth the wise men brought gifts to the manger where Jesus was born. You’re probably wondering a fat, jolly man in a red suit came into the equation? Well, the legend of Saint Nicholas states that Saint Nicholas was a very rich and giving man who knew of a poor family with three daughters who could not afford to get married, so Saint Nicholas secretly dropped a bag of gold down their chimney. Then there is also the story that some countries in Europe and Scandivia originally celebrated Christmas around the time of the winter solstice (darkest point of the year) to bring some light into the darkness. These are three really different explanations for celebrating Christmas neither of which anyone really seems to remember anymore. Somehow the magic of Jesus’s birth, the kindness of Saint Nicholas, and the light on the darkest day of the year have morphed into a holiday that revolves around arguments over how nice the gift you get is. Christmas has truly become entirely about materialism.

Some people might say why is materialism around Christmas really relevant, the sad part is that the materialism displayed at Christmas seems to be perpetuating all aspects of our society. Today people put more value on the money they make and not enjoying their job, what you wear is more important than what you think, and money can buy anything or anyone. I suspect gained our greediness and materialism right around the time we fogged up the meaning of Christmas. While stopping the materialism around Christmas may not stop the materialism we see all over society, Christmas definitely contributes to the materialism we see everywhere today.

The short answer to this question is sometimes, but the real story is the effect that traumatic events can have in a baby’s development. To start off I’d like to define what constitutes a traumatic event; traumatic events include, but are not limited to: car accidents, natural disasters, sudden illness, death in the family, abuse/neglect, terrorism or witnessing violence. If an adult were to experience any of these events it would have a traumatic impact on their life and for babies the effect of traumatic events is often magnified.

Experiencing traumatic events before the age of 3 can cause physical and emotional developmental problems in babies. Babies who witness traumatic events often experience issues with mobility and managing or developing emotions. If the traumatic event was witnessing a family member dying or losing a primary caregiver to divorce, babies are more likely to have issues developing relationships and have separation anxiety. Further, in the first few months of a baby’s life they are especially sensitive to arguments between parents or issues with caregivers and they often feel like they caused the event because they don’t fully understand it. Traumatic events frequently lead to physical and emotional developmental problems in babies.

A major issue for babies who witness or experience traumatic events is posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Babies will re-experience the trauma they suffered when they are older through dreams, sounds, smells, or sights. This can lead to issues sleeping, increased anxiety or irritability. However, what is really significant about the PTSD that babies experience it that when they are older they are more likely to remember the traumatic event that happened, than the good events that took place in their childhood.

While traumatic events hinder the physical and emotional development of a baby, they also cause a serious disorder, PTSD. However the question still remains can children actually remember traumatic events that occurred when they were babies? The answer to this depends on the child and how developed they are. For children who are a little older and more developed(around 6) they are likely to remember the actual event, while babies who are only a few months old are likely to experience more negative development effects, but do not remember the actual event. Scientists have determined that there is not a specific age at which children remember or don’t remember traumatic events, because every child responds to traumatic events differently and develops at different ages. 

Sources

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Trauma_and_children_newborns_to_two_years

http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/120665/1/cmhereviewJan12.pdf

From a Gallup pole  done of 550,000 individuals it was shown that Americans who are religious are less likely to be diagnosed with depression. Only 15.6% of religious Americans have been diagnosed with depression, as compared to 20.4% of moderately religious Americans and 18.7% of nonreligious Americans who have been diagnosed with depression. Further, those Americans who are very religious are less likely to report daily feelings of worry, hopelessness, and sadness (click http://www.gallup.com/poll/144980/religious-americans-report-less-depression-worry.aspx).

So why is it that religious Americans are less likely to be diagnosed with depression? The reason religious people are less likely to be diagnosed with depression is because religion often gives people a sense of purpose, something that depressed people often lack. This article further concluded that those who are religious feel a better sense of connection to their community and are more likely to have stronger social ties. Again, depressed people often feel that they are completely alone and that they have no friends. So, according to this study, it is actually the social connections and sense of purpose that religion fosters that causes those who are religious to be happier (study shown here).

Another study done of 2,100 Americans followed from birth to death showed that women who regularly attended church, were less likely to be depressed. However, there was no significant correlation between regular church attendance and men living a happier life. This further proves that God is not the reason that those who go to church are less depressed, because if that were the case women and men would be less depressed. It was noted that women who experienced depression as kids were often found to have stopped going to church services by the time they were 20. This study insinuates reverse causation, because it is not going to religious services that make you less depressed, but it just happens that those people who are not depressed go to church more frequently (for more information click here).

So after reading both of these studies we can determine that those who are religious are actually happier, but it’s not necessarily God that is making them happier. While both explanations as to why religious people are less likely to be depressed are very plausible, neither has been tested repeatedly to see if their theories really hold. So we can conclude that religious people are less depressed, but we still cannot really pinpoint why this is the case.

It was found if one spouse has divorced parents a marriage is twice as likely to end in divorce and if both spouses have divorced parents than the marriage is three times as likely to end in divorce. This is what Wolfinger, an assistant professor at the University of Utah’s Department of Consumer and Family Studies, commonly refers to as the divorce cycle. The divorce cycle states that children from divorced households are more likely to get divorced later in life (this information can be found here).

The question is why is this? Well according to Wolfinger’s research (based on the Survey of Families and Households that includes general background information on families from over 13,000 households) there are several possible explanations (this study can be found here). The first being that children that who come from divorced families are more likely to marry at a younger age and those who marry at a younger age are more likely to get divorced. The other more complete answer is that children who live in divorced families experience more up and down cycles and less stability in their life. Their marriage is then likely to mirror the experiences they’ve had as a child. Relationships that experience constant up and downs typically occur when partners cannot agree to work on the issues in their relationship, when the problems are ignored in a relationship ending the relationship (or divorce) is often seen as the best solution.

However, scientist Ming Cui, University of Florida, proposed that whether or not children are more likely to get divorced depends on their perception of their parents’ divorce. Both the cognitive-developmental model and social learning theory suggest that children’s likehood of divorce is not necessarily due to do whether or not their parents are divorced, but their perception of their parents’ divorce. It was found that commitment to relationships was directly related to whether or not the relationship was viewed as expendable and something that could be terminated at any time. So children of divorced families could be more likely to get divorced if they enter their relationship with the attitude that if there is a problem they should simply end the relationship rather than trying to work out the problem (for more information click here).

As the child of divorced parents I’ve realized two important things: the success of my relationships is directly correlated to the amount of effort I put into that relationship and my parents divorce. However, I like to believe that the study the done at the University of Florida is more accurate, because I think that relationships are what you make them. While it is definitely true that children of divorced parents are more likely to get divorced, I think your attitude towards relationships can change this. So what I’ve learned from these studies is that the best way to a happy and successful relationship (if you come from divorced parents) is to remember that you have to address problems and work them out with your spouse, not just end the relationship after the first argument.

It’s 6am on a Wednesday morning and I’m up for PT (physical training) for ROTC. Of course today is another run. My legs are still so sore from PT the previous day that I’m not sure how I’m going to make it through the run. Naturally, as I’m running up the steep hill on University Drive, I’m contemplating two things: why I ever decided to join ROTC and why didn’t I massage my legs last night. This led me to question whether or not massages can actually help muscles recover quicker after a workout or if it just temporarily relieves some of your pain.

According to this article in the New York Times, the soreness that you feel after you over exert yourself in a workout is due to small tears in your muscle tissue. These small tears are present where damage has been inflicted to the myofibrillar structure, which causes the muscles to become inflamed. In addition when the myofibrillar structure is damaged cytokines are released. Cytokines also cause inflammation and soreness.

In a study done by the Science Translational Medicine journal (for information click here), it was found that those who received a 10 minute massage after they worked out had less cytokines in their muscles. Of the 10 men that were involved in this study each were required to cycle for 30 minutes, then one of their legs were given a massage, while the other was not. It was found that the leg that received the 10 minute massage had less cytokines in it and therefore the athlete was less sore. Further, it was also found that massages stimulated the mitochondria, which are the cells that convert glucose into the energy that is essential for cell function and repair. This means that massages can actually help your muscles recover faster.

On the other hand, Brian Hemmings Ph.D, a researcher at the University College Northhampton in the U.K., found that massages do not speed up muscle recovery. Hemmings conducted a study (found here)here of eight amateur male boxers in which each participant completed two punching trials, one with the boxer just given rest, the other with the boxer being given a massage. It was found that there was no difference in blood lactate levels in those who received massages and those who did not. When blood lactate levels build up it prevents the muscle from recovering and leaves you feeling sore. Researchers did note that those who received massages expected that they would recover faster, simply because they had been given a massage. Hemmings found that massages did not actually help muscles recover quicker, but simply led the athlete to believe that their muscles were recovering quicker.

So the question that I’m still left with is whether or not I should get a massage after my morning PT? The answer to this seems to lie in the fact that while I found many studies debating whether or not massages actually reduced muscle soreness and led to quicker recovery, I did not find studies that claimed that massages had strong negative effects. If there is no harm in getting a massage after you workout, why not get one? If a massage could possibly help your muscles recover quicker or at least make your muscles feel better, then it’s worth it. So after that long run today at PT, I think I’m going to give myself a massage.

Right now you are probably thinking one of two things: what is the broken windows theory or if you are criminology major you are thinking do I really have to hear about this again?

For those of you who do not know the broken windows theory was created from an experiment done by Philip Zimbardo with two abandoned cars; one with no license plate left in a parking in the Bronx and another car left in a parking lot in Palo Alto, California. The car in the Bronx was immediately vandalized with both windows smashed and then the air conditioner was stolen from the car. The car in Palo Alto was not vandalized right away, but then Zimbardo smashed a window in the car and others began to vandalize it. From this experiment the broken windows theory was created, in which it is stated that disorder, or quality of life offenses, cause serious crime. This essentially claims that if minor offenses (like vandalism) go unpunished than criminals will think the police do not care about the community and criminals will be more likely to commit serious crimes.

The question behind this theory and all theories really for that matter is whether or not it is effective in practice? Well in the 1990’s, New York City Police Commissioner, William Bratton; put this theory to the test. Bratton required that police officers implement a zero tolerance policy that addressed order maintenance offenses. This included police officers issuing citations for open container violations, vandalism, and taking vagrants off the streets. Arresting criminals for these minor infractions shows that police do care about the community. The results of this new style of policing showed that crime between 1990 and 2001 decreased by 76%. Arrest rates for minor crimes increased between 1990 and 2001. Further, it was found that precincts with the greatest arrest rates for minor offenses had the largest decrease in homicide and robbery rates. Additional analysis of the results showed that if the rate of order maintenance policing was doubled, it would result in an 11% reduction in robbery and 28% reduction in homicide rates. For more information on how broken windows policing was considered effective check out this article here.

However, there is some doubt about whether or not the broken windows theory is actually effective. While it is true that robbery and homicide rates were reduced from 1990-2001 in New York City, there has not been a direct connection drawn between crime rates and broken windows policing. There are other factors that could have caused the robbery and homicide rates to drop. For instance during 1990-2001, as a part of the problem oriented policing plan there was an increase in police officers in New York City. According to an article from the University of Michigan website it is stated that the crime rates in New York City could have decreased simply due to the factor that more police were hired during that time and not the style of policing that the police officers used. This study can be viewed here.

So my question is if broken windows policing had an impact on crime in New York City could it have an impact on crime in other cities? Look out for my next blog for the answers to this question.

This morning when I went to pour milk on my cereal the date on the milk jug said 9/19/13, realizing that today was the 20^th only a day after the expiration date, I shrugged it off and poured the milk on my cereal anyways. Was eating cereal with expired milk this morning really that big of a deal?

An article from ABC news (Is it OK to Eat Expired Food) claims that the consensus between food scientists is that most expired food can be eaten without serious side effects. However, it seems that there is little research to back up this claim. Most scientists maintain that expired food is considered safe to be eaten, but it will not taste as good. It has been proved that if you are pregnant, an infant, or have some auto immune disease, eating expired food will cause food poisoning in most cases. Further, if the food was not handled properly before it got to the store, such as not being refrigerated, this can magnify the effects of eating expired food. The USDA supports the opinion of food scientists and maintains the viewpoint that expired food is not harmful, but that it will simply just not taste as good.

Another article that I read (Health Effects of Eating Expired Food) stated that eating expired food will likely lead to food poisoning. Food poisoning consists of diarrhea and vomiting that can last for weeks and in some extreme cases can lead to a fever. Further, certain foods such as nuts, apples, and grapes can grow mold called mycotoxins, which can cause itchiness, diarrhea, vomiting, and dizziness.

Typically I am very paranoid about eating expired food. Even though I have personally not gotten food poisoning, some of my family members have, so I am very conscious of it. So this morning when I made the decision to drink expired milk, I was mildly concerned that I might end up puking later in the day. The article from ABC news has claimed my fears that the one cup of milk I consumed this morning will lead me to vomit and have a fever. While I seem to have avoided food poisoning today, to stay on the safe side from now on I think I’ll stick with eating food that is not expired.