We all know that obesity can have serious health risk such as heart disease, high cholesterol and increased risk of early death. According to a new study, obesity can cause other serious problems too, such as loss of vision and hearing.

Hearing loss, according to a study in the American Journal of Medicine, can be prevented by remaining at a healthy weight and by exercising regularly. A study was conducted which measured physical activity, body mass index, waist circumference, and hearing loss and included more than 68,000 women. The women were tracked for 20 years. The study showed that those with a higher BMI were at a 17-40 percent higher risk of hearing loss. It showed that women with a bigger waist circumference also had a higher risk for hearing loss, between an 11-27 percent increase. Walking for two hours a week can lower the risk by more than 15%. This study, however, did not account for genetics or other risk factors, such as a working environment with loud volumes. Women with these third-variables should be exempt from the study’s reported results.

According to another study, obesity can also increase the risk for loss of vision. Obesity is related to the creation of cataracts, which act as a thin film over the eye and impair vision. Age Related Macular Degeneration (ARMD) is another disease of the eye that can be caused by obesity. ARMD causes loss of central vision, and that even a 0.1 increase in the waist/hip ratio increased the risk of ARMD by over 75%. In addition, obesity can cause diabetes, which can cause damage to a blood vessel inside the retina. This study was not described in depth, so it is hard to say whether or not third variables were taken into consideration or whether they would impact the results.

Neither of these articles delved into the actual biological mechanism behind the results. If I were to hypothesize, I would say that it was due to the body working harder to do so many other things because of the increased body weight, that it put too much stress on the other parts of the body, such as the ears and eyes. Or, there could be nutrients in food that, when consumed in large amounts, are dangerous to those parts of the body.

It is hard to say what exactly causes these reactions, because the studies didn’t specify, but it is safe to say that these are just two more extremely dangerous risks of being overweight and obese. There are so many benefits to losing weight that it is always worth a shot to eat right and exercise.

We’ve all been there; sometimes that walk to class just seems impossible. The struggle to walk all the way to your French class in Engineering Unit B (because THAT makes sense, Penn State) is all too real. But, as much as you’re dreading the walk, you also hate the White Loop. So, you suck it up, tell yourself it’s good exercise, and head out. Then, you realize, why should I be stuck out in the cold any longer than I have to? So, you pick up the pace and breeze past all those nerdy engineers that inhabit the southwest end of campus (no offense, guys; one of my best friends is an engineer). Obviously walking is good exercise, and we get plenty here at State, but a new study shows that walking faster for a shorter amount of time has greater physical benefit than walking at a slower pace for a longer amount of time.

 A study conducted by Paul T. Williams examined a group of nearly 40,000 people who walk at varying speeds as their daily exercise. Participants were separated into four groups based on their walking speed.  Approximately a decade later, Williams checked the national death index to see which of the walkers had passed away since joining this experiment. Nearly 2,000 walkers had died. The slowest group, which averaged around 17 minutes per mile (and contained many walkers who averaged over 20 minutes) showed an 18% increased risk of dying compared to the other groups, specifically from heart disease and dementia. The slowest of the group, those who averaged 24 minutes or more, showed a shocking 44% increased risk of death.

This is a very generic study and there could be many other third variables, such as prior health/fitness, pre-existing conditions, or genetics, or it could simply be due to chance. Not much was taken into account other than their walking speed and whether or not they died.  If I were to conduct this study, I would look at the pre-existing conditions of the participants, as well as the cause of death for those who later passed on. Things such as car accidents, murders, or freak occurrences could have caused many of these deaths, making that 18% less significant. On the other hand, with nearly 40,000 participants, there is a lot of diversity. With that many people, the chance that the risk of death with relation to walking at a slower rate seemingly becomes less likely to be a result of third variables or chance.

Andrew often asks us whether or not the “prescribed” action has a greater cost than reward; meaning, whether you believe the results or not, what is it going to cost you to follow the advice given? In this case, I see no reason why people should not begin walking more and at a faster pace. The only thing you’re losing is time, and you could gain numerous health benefits, such as treating high blood pressure  or reducing the risk of breast cancer. Besides, let’s be honest, getting 30 minutes of walking in a day here at Penn State is a necessity. So we wouldn’t even be losing time; by simply walking faster, we’d actually be gaining it. Tomorrow, forget the CATA buses, put on a little Zombie Nation, and pick up the pace on your walk to class; you never know what might happen.

Allergies affect so many Americans, and some people suffer from so many different allergies that it limits the activities they can partake in and the foods they can consume. An article on CNN shows that food allergies are on the rise in the United States, and they looked into the reason why this might be happening.

Children under 18 years of age showed an increase of 18% in food allergies between 1997 and 2007.  According to the CDC, nearly 3 million children had a food allergy at this time. Doctors all over the country have noticed a rise in visits related to allergic reactions, and the National Academy of Sciences decided to look into why more children seem to be developing allergies. The small study took 15 children from Italy and 14 children from a small African village. They compared the children’s gut flora, which is a bacteria that helps with body weight and nutrition (see the link for more info). Those who lived in Italy, which is considered to be a modernized and “industrialized” country like the United States, had less diverse flora in their stomachs than those who lived in Africa. Scientists say this is due to the fact that those in Africa thrive on more organic and varying diets than those in Europe, who eat more sugar, meat, and calories. This causes a lack of biodiversity in the stomach’s bacteria, causing less exposure to bacteria that help to build immunities to diseases and allergies.  They believe that since the environment is “too clean,” immune systems are fighting off foods rather than diseases, since there are fewer germs to be fought.

One proposed way of helping fight allergies is early exposure. Some doctors say that common allergens such as peanuts or shellfish should be given to children as early as possible. How an “early introduction” helps fight allergies was rather unclear; my hypothesis would be that the body will adapt to the foods at the same time it is adapting to so many other things in the world, therefore making it less likely to react negatively.

A study explained by The New York Times exhibits scientific evidence as to why this may be. The study showed that beginning babies on solid foods at the age of 4-6 months while still continuing breast feeding may decrease the baby’s likelihood of developing allergies. Nearly 1200 babies’ diets were monitored between birth and age two through a diary kept by their mothers. Eighty-two allergy-free babies were compared to forty-one who had a food allergy. The scientists took into account birth weight, length of pregnancy, and if the mother had any allergies, and removed the outliers from the study. They found that 17 weeks is the cutoff date for introducing solid foods. Babies who received solid foods before this point were more likely to be allergic. The biological mechanism behind introducing solids along with continuing breast-feeding is that breast milk helps support a healthy immune system. The difference between this study and the other is that this study says to wait longer, if possible, to introduce solid foods. I am curious to know if there is a cutoff age at which these scientists would believe it negatively impacts a child if solid foods are put off for so long. That is to say, if it is better to wait 17 weeks, is it also better to not wait more than 12 months of life before introducing solids? Will that make the immune system too sensitive once again?

The fact that allergies are not merely controlled by genetics is extremely interesting and something that should be pursued further. This data, when comparing the two studies, seems rather inconclusive. Still, people struggle with allergies and many people die from them, so why wouldn’t researching a possible prevention method be worth it? 

Chances are, you know someone who has been diagnosed with autism. It has impacted so many lives all over the world, and science is hard at work to help find possible causes and treatments. Recently, a possible new treatment was discovered and tested. Oxytocin (not to be confused with that awesome stuff they give you when you get your wisdom teeth out), a hormone which helps create emotional bonds and trust, could possibly help children with autism to better their social behaviors.  

Oxytocin, referred to as “the love hormone,” was recently used in a new double-blind placebo trial to test its ability to increase social empathy and connections while lowering the repetitive behavior that is characteristic of autism. The experiment was relatively small (only 17 children), which made the results rather inconclusive. Aside from that, it was a well-designed experiment. A group of children with autism were all given a dosage of something — some children received the oxytocin, while other received the placebo. Then, each child was put into a functional MRI machine, which shows brain activity, and were then asked to answer a series of questions and tests. The questions were geared toward triggering the part of the brain responsible for social behavior which is the same part that the oxytocin impacts.  

The null hypothesis stated that there was no relation — that is to say, oxytocin did not cause any improvement in autistic children. The alternative hypothesis said that there was some sort of connection between the two. The children who received the oxytocin showed increased activity in the part of the brain that controls empathy and reward. Another part of the test also decreased activity due to oxytocin (although it did not say in which part of the brain), which also excited doctors. “If you can decrease their attention to a shape or object so you can get them to pay attention to a social stimulus, that’s a big thing,” said a psychology professor. The part that puzzled me was that children who received oxytocin did not necessarily do any better on the social-emotional test, although that, doctors say, could be due to the fact that it is extremely difficult for children to answer questions while remaining still for an MRI. So, while this was a small test, it showed a strong correlation between distribution of oxytocin and brain activity with regards to social behavior. Because of the promise that this study showed, a larger study will be conducted to reduce the probability that this is all due to chance.

If I were to conduct the next study, I would pay attention to the severity of a child’s autism. This study was done with only mild cases. In the larger study, I would hope to see the level of severity of the disease measured and related to the effects of the oxytocin as well as how much oxytocin was administered. Perhaps those with more severe autism simply need a higher dosage of the hormone, or perhaps their brain is unfortunately too severely impaired to be helped with this medicine. In order for this to be implemented as a common and long-term treatment, tests would have to be run on the lasting effects of increased oxytocin levels on the body and mind, in both healthy people and those with autism. It is unknown whether oxytocin is more effective than other treatments of autism, but based on the given data, oxytocin would probably have to be used in conjunction with other forms of treatment, such as social therapy. 

Another use for oxytocin, which is unrelated to autism, is for childbirth. According to this article, oxytocin is used to both stimulate contractions, and is triggered by the pain from initial contractions. I feel that another study could be conducted which showed if there is any relation between the biological mechanisms for autism versus childbirth, and if so, how that relations works. (For more effects of oxytocin, click here.)

 I think there is a strong case to be made here, as there seems to be a logical biological mechanism that shows how oxytocin can improve social behavior in children with autism.  In the grand scheme of things, autism is a daily struggle for those who have it, and important advances like this really do make a difference. Obviously any improvement in the lives of those children would be immensely helpful to both them and their parents, and I think that science is really on the right track with experiments such as this.

There’s a well-known stereotype that those of Irish descent can hold their alcohol better than others. St. Patrick’s Day, a traditional Irish holiday, has become more of a drinking holiday than anything else (and, as we all know, State Patty’s Day takes that to a whole new level). But does ethnicity actually determine how much a person can drink?

 On the other hand, Asians specifically have a genetic mutation that, as I mentioned, causes them to lack an important enzyme called acetaldehyde dehydrogenase. Consequently, this slows down the rate at which they metabolize alcohol, causing rosy cheeks and increased heart rate after consuming a small amount of alcohol. The whole process is explained here. Essentially, the enzyme that Asians lack is the enzyme changes alcohol into a substance that the liver can process. Those who lack the enzyme get drunk more quickly.

Imagine this: there’s a mysterious force acting on the universe, but no one can see it nor measure it nor study it. No one knows the long-term effects it may have hundreds of years down the road, or even tomorrow. Now, here’s the scary part: this isn’t necessarily just a story. Dark matter is a force that is all of the above. Dr. Larson talked about dark matter during his lecture in class and peaked my interest. I began researching the long-term effects dark matter may have on the universe, if any.

Just as a little review, About.com defines dark matter as “a hypothesized form of matter particle that does not reflect or emit electromagnetic radiation.” In other words, it’s impossible to see, yet it is responsible for approximately 96% of the universe’s observed gravitational effects. Essentially, dark matter holds the entire universe in place. Time Magazine stated that nearly 80% of the universe is comprised of dark matter, and researchers are getting closer to getting some answers. They believe they have discovered evidence indicating the existence of a particle known as a WIMP (weakly interacting massive particle) which could be a form of a component of dark matter. The tricky thing is, they’d be impossible for any type of telescope to see. Now, that situation seems very bleak, so why exactly are scientists so darn excited? Especially when they’re not even sure what they’ve found is a result of dark matter? Basically, there’s not much exciting about it at all, in regards to actually getting more answers. All they’ve got is a hunch and some data that grows stronger everyday. 

When I was a senior in high school, my AP Physics teacher would sometimes have us write what she called PINs, or Physics In the News. These were short summaries of news articles relating to science and included a short analysis as well as some questions about the content. When I heard that this class was essentially more in-depth PINs, I told my adviser, “this is perfect, sign me up!”  I remember writing a PIN on the discovery of the Higgs boson particle, although not much information was known yet. So, I decided to revisit that topic in this blog.

An article on Buzzle explained it even better. The Higgs field acts like a barrier which slows down other particles, due to the fact that it “gives them” mass. What made it so hard to find, according to The Guardian, is that a Higgs boson particle almost immediately changes into different particles. What made it so important for them to find, is that it simply completed their assumptions and helped them better understand the universe. For me, the questions this raises include what other discoveries knowledge of the Higgs boson could lead to and what other questions this raises. Often in science, solving one question opens up many others.

For me, nothing is better than puppies. When there were puppies on campus as a stress reliever last Friday, I was in heaven. But what actually helps reduce stress? After making it through my first round of midterms, I was half-asleep for days, but triumphant. I was also in need of a release. This left me wondering what scientists have found to be the best stress reliever.

This still left me wondering what part of the brain is affected by both the stress and the music? After reading an article on Harvard’s website, that stress causes a signal to be sent from the amygdala in the brain to the hypothalamus. This initiates the “fight or flight” instinct, which also happens when the body detects danger. Basically music will reverse all of these natural body reactions, and help to put oneself back into a normal state, or at least closer to it.

I’ll admit that I’m guilty of reading my horoscope (Pisces, represent!) and thinking, “oh wow this is so true” or looking back and thinking “wow this totally happened.” I’ll also admit to googling what my zodiac says about my personality. Most of us take it at face value and then walk away. But are these types of things actually accurate?

A more likely explanation, brought up by Pacific Standard, says that horoscopes and personality descriptions based on the zodiac are nothing more than general statements. The observations and predictions made based on your sign are usually very vague and can be related to many situations, hence making nearly anyone relate to the topic. Here’s a sample horoscope:

“You may feel as if you’re being drawn in conflicting directions today, yet you still might believe that it’s possible to simultaneously follow more than one path. But the weird truth is that all roads eventually lead you to the same destination now. Entertain as many possibilities as you can and then choose the course of least resistance. There are many ways to make your dreams come true.”

Do you feel like this applies to you? Probably. This is actually my horoscope for today, and I doubt all of you are Pisces. Notice that it contains very general statements with which most people can relate.

MY BEST FRIEND IS COMING TO VISIT FOR THE ILLINOIS GAME!!!!

There are many hypotheses as to how twin telepathy works, or if it’s all just psychosomatic. But, as for me and my best friend, well….