Most people believe that stuffed animals are only for children but I completely disagree to be honest. Luckily for me, thanks to 35% of British adults, I’m not alone. Studies show that 35% of adults in Britain still sleep with a teddy bear for the purposes for de-stressing while they sleep! In their efforts to re-unite past customers with their lost teddy bears, a hotel chain, Travelodge, noticed that many of the teddy bears they were returning belonged to adults and not small children! After making this funny observation, they surveyed about 6,000 adults to find out what their reasons were behind still using a stuffed animal. Their findings were also just as funny.

As it turns out, about 25% of the male respondents will take their teddy bears with them while they’re away on business (or vacation like this guy). It’s comforting for them, even reminds them of home and plus, ” …a cuddle helps them to nod off.” Fifty- one percent of British adults still have a teddy bear from their childhood and the study also found that the average teddy bear is 27 years old! One in ten single men admitted to hiding their stuffed animals when their girlfriends come over and about 14% of married men hide theirs when friends and family come over!

Among other pro- adult teddy bear loving responses that responsdents gave, it’s easy to see that in Great Britain at least, adults having teddy bears is quite acceptable! It’s quite refreshing that this study was able to test Britons’ level of tolerance towards adults with teddies. However, to take the study even further, it would have been awesome to see them expand on their statement that people use their bears to de-stress while they sleep. Testing stress levels of adults of varying ages who still sleep with stuffed animals and comparing them to the stress levels of adults of the same age would be an interesting start to finding out if there really is a true benefit to hanging on to your stuffed animal later in your life. Or is it all just imagined and a stuffed animal doesn’t really do much else but provide something soft for us share our bed with? Also, it would be interesting to compare Britons’ level of tolerance towards adults with stuffed animals to that of Americans’! I get the feeling that in America, the number of men who carry their stuffed animals away on vacation or business would be much lower than 25%. How much of a difference can be expected when we compare stuffed animal tolerance across cultures?

Babies are extremely delicate creatures and the precautions future parents must take to care for them during and after pregnancy are seemingly endless. Recent studies have found that exposure to smoke before birth is associated with hearing loss in adolescents. Most people are aware that when pregnant, women are not allowed to drink alcohol or smoke as it can lead to a myriad of possible health complications to the baby before and after its birth. Some of these risks include increased risk of miscarriage or stillbirth, increased risk of the baby developing respiratory problems, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, and the list goes on and on. Most women are also careful to heed this advice and cease to engage in drinking and smoking activities during their pregnancies. However, even if the expectant mother isn’t smoking, her unborn baby is STILL at risk to suffer from smoke related health complications– almost as if she herself was smoking throughout her pregnancy.

Secondhand smoke has equally as bad, if not worse effects on the health of an unborn baby than direct exposure to smoke from the mother. According to WebMD, the smoke that burns off the end of a cigarette has more harmful substances such as tar, carbon monoxide and nicotine, than the smoke inhaled by a smoker.  For instance, if the expectant mother works at a bar where smoking is allowed or lives with a heavy smoker, she’s constantly inhaling fumes that are even worse than if she was smoking, herself!

A study conducted by Michael Weitzman, M.D., of the New York University School of Medicine, included 964 adolescents with ages ranging from 12-15 years. Of the 964 of them, about 16% had parents who admitted to “confirmed prenatal smoke exposure“.  The participants underwent standardized audiometric testing in addition to self reports along with serum cotinine levels to find those who were exposed to second hand smoke or direct smoke from the mother. The effects associated with it included higher pure-tone hearing thresholds and an “…almost three-fold increase in the odds of unilateral low-frequency hearing loss, according to study results.”

A quote from the researchers of the study states, “The actual extent of hearing loss associated with prenatal smoke exposure in this study seems relatively modest; the largest difference in pure-tone hearing threshold between exposed and unexposed adolescents is less than 3 decibels, and most of the hearing loss is mild. However, an almost 3-fold increased odds of unilateral hearing loss in adolescents with prenatal smoke exposure is worrisome for many reasons,”.

The data found through the study is valid but we never find out how much exposure the adolescents received while they were in the womb. All the parents had to do was provide the information, “yes or no”, if their child was exposed to smoke before birth. How drastic was the exposure? For the parents whose children were exposed before birth, did the expectant mother just walk through a puff of smoke on the street one day? Or was she constantly around others who smoked? Maybe she was the smoker herself. One way to find this information is to survey the parents of the adolescents. This way, of the 16% of adolescents affected, you can compare the severity of their hearing loss to their parents’ responses about how much they were exposed. This can be a helpful tool in gauging how much exposure leads to what amount of hearing loss. Obviously there is no safe level of smoking during pregnancy. However, it is more than likely that the severity of a child’s hearing loss will vary depending on the amount of smoke they were exposed to while in the womb. What other variables do you think could factor into hearing loss due to smoke exposure?

In a previous blog post, I discussed a study that addressed one of New Yorkers’ biggest concerns about Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposed ban on soda and sugary beverages larger than 16 ounces: how lower income citizens may be disproportionately affected by the ban compared to others who can afford to just buy multiple sodas. Aside from the negative societal affect many feel the mayor’s plan will have, another big problem that opponents of the ban have is that the portion cap won’t even work in the first place, in terms of curbing the rising rates of obesity in New York City. Many a study has been done to test whether or not that is true but through my searches, it seems to me that a good portion of the success of the soda ban is dependent on plain human behavior.

Dr. Brian Elbel, assistant professor at the NYU Langone School of Medicine conducted a study over the years 2008 through 2010 in order to get some information about how the proposed portion cap can affect the average consumer’s caloric intake. Along with fellow NYU researchers, he collected and analyzed 1,624 fast food restaurant receipts from diners in the NYC, Newark, N.J., Philadelphia and Baltimore areas. He found that 62% of non-dairy beverages purchased were over 16 ounces and would thus have been subject to the ban had it been passed. By the end of his study, Elbel found that if all fast food buyers stuck with 16-ounce beverages, the average customer could benefit from 63 less calories per fast food meal. He also found that, “…if 100 percent of sugary drink purchasers alone switched to the smaller soda, the reduction may be as high as 74 calories per fast food trip.” Seventy-four fewer calories for 100% of sugary drink purchasers who opt for smaller sodas is a pretty good result in my opinion. It can go to show that Mayor Bloomberg’s idea of urging New Yorkers to cut down on their soda intake by means of the ban is a reasonable plan.

Simple enough, right? Not exactly. Opponents of the ban feel that instead of people magically not drinking more than 16 ounces of sugar laden drinks at a time because of the ban, they would be driven, to buy multiple 16 ounce beverages in order to be able to still drink as much as they used to! So, what does happen if people buy two 16- ounce sodas instead of one? Elbel found that if the ban doesn’t work and 80% of people decide to buy two sodas, caloric intake from sugary drinks would actually increase.

In this branch of the soda ban war, it appears that it comes down to what people decide to do if the ban does get passed. What factors would lead people to buy two 16 ounce sodas? Do we really crave that much soda? Or will most people just find it inconvenient to have to, in most cases (like at sporting arenas, movie theatres and delis), carry around two cups of soda? I know I wouldn’t but I don’t know what the rest of society would tend to do. It’s not always easy to predict human behavior…

It’s easy to believe that telling a kid that they’re smart and praising them for how great they are will result in a positive effect on that child’s high self-esteem. Who doesn’t feel good about themselves when someone pays them a compliment? Apparently in children this is not exactly applicable. In a study done by the American Psychological Association, “Praising children, especially those with low self-esteem, for their personal qualities rather than their efforts may make them feel more ashamed when they fail…”

An experiment held in the Netherlands included 357 parents with ages ranging from 29 to 66 who read 6 theoretical descriptions of children. Three description reflected children with high self- esteem and the other three reflected children with low self- esteem. The parents were instructed to write down the praise they would give each child for competing an activity. Researchers found that on average, parents gave the children with low self- esteem almost twice as much praise directed at personal qualities (“You’re a great artist!”) for completing their activity than they did for the children with high self esteem. They were also more likely to praise the children with high esteem for their efforts instead of their personality, saying things like “You did a wonderful job on your painting!” instead of telling them that they were a great artist. Lead researcher of the study, Eddie Brummelman, of Utrecht University in the Netherlands, says that although adults may think that it’s a good idea to praise kids, it can have an adverse affect on their self esteem as it leads them to believe that they’re only valued as a person when they succeed. So, when they fail, they feel unworthy.

Another study conducted in the Netherlands continued to prove that point. Three hundred thirteen students from 5 Netherlands public elementary schools, ages 8-13, were told they were playing a computer game against a student at another Netherlands school and a Webmaster would be monitoring their performance. Really, the computer controlled the outcome of the game and the students were split up into winners and losers with groups who received no praise, praise for themselves or praise for their efforts. After one round, each student received the appropriate feedback for the group they were in. After the second round, they were told whether they won or lost and they were then instructed to complete a survey about their feelings of shame. Children who were praised about themselves portrayed the highest increase in shame as compared to the other groups. The researchers were able to come to the conclusion that youth who are praised for their efforts, might not associate their success to their self-worth but instead to how hard they may have worked. So, instead of viewing failure as a flaw in their character and image, like a child who is praised for their personal traits would, they see it as a temporary setback and use it as a tool to excel in the future.

This study would most likely yield similar results when conducted in America, which shows some similarities in our approaches towards praising children. Though the study was done well, I feel that it would be more interesting to conduct the study in a country, like China or Uganda, where culture is much different and adults’ approaches towards praising children may be completely different as well. Or, maybe we may find that they may go about it in a slightly different way, yet the results are comparable! Another way to test for different results could be to even test youth of the same ages but who attend private schools. Maybe in being from a different learning environment and even socio economic background, these childrens’ responses to praise may differ for the “run of the mill” kids who go to public schools. What changes to the study do you believe would yield different results?

Over the years, cosmetic surgery has grown to become a multi- billion-dollar industry in America. Our culture’s fondness of youth leads us to seek ways to stay looking youthful and vibrant for as long as possible. Countless plastic surgeons boast state of the art techniques that will yield natural looking results, take years off of your appearance, and even have you feeling like a brand new model of yourself. But is it really all that it’s cracked up to be? Considering the average breast augmentation surgery starts at $3,800 in costs and face-lifts cost upwards of $7,000, are the results really worth the money? How much younger does the average plastic surgery procedure really make you look? And are we easily fooled into believing that people are more attractive than they really are because we’re lead to believe that plastic surgery will vastly improve upon your attractiveness?

In a 2013 study about perceived age and attractiveness in cosmetic surgery patients, researchers found that contrary to the claims of most cosmetic surgeons, the visible differences in patients pre and post operation are rather minimal. The study included 50 individuals who were randomly assigned either pre-operation or post operation photos of 49 different patients who had undergone various cosmetic procedures with Dr. Peter Adamson, a Toronto surgeon. At a six- month follow up, patients who had had other procedures such as Botox or nose jobs were excluded from the study, so as to keep the focus of the study on just the initial operation performed by Dr. Adamson.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most attractive, about 60% of raters scored patients between a 4 and a 6, showing very little variation in overall attractiveness as reported by Dr. Joshua A. Zimm, lead author of the study. In terms of age, raters estimated patients’ ages at only 2.1 years younger before surgery and 5.2 years younger after surgery, for an overall difference of a mere 3.1 years.

I found these results to be particularly astounding because the common belief is that undergoing plastic surgery is effective enough to do better than only 3 years off of your appearance.

Other similar studies have yielded relatively similar results. According to a New York Times article on cosmetic surgery, one such study was done in 2012 of Dr. Adamson’s patients. On the up side, participants did perceive patients to be about 7-years younger than they actually were. However, these results would have been far more impressive had it not been for the fact that the criteria used in the study was much less rigorous than that of the 2013 study in that participants were only responsible for estimating patients’ ages as opposed to estimating both their ages and levels of attractiveness.

Though it may have been an improvement upon the 2012 study, the 2013 study was greatly flawed in that the researchers made it a point to exclude people who had had other treatments and/ or procedures from the time of their operation to the time of the follow up and study. For example, certain treatments like, fat injections or Botox after a face- lift, help to give patients’ faces a fuller look and attack wrinkles. In addition, they greatly contribute to the youthful aspects of a person’s appearance. However, the unavailability of these post surgery improvements at the time of evaluation show raters an incomplete look at the patients and can give them the wrong impression about what the results of their surgery truly are. Dr. Nancy Etoff, psychologist at Harvard Medical School says, “They’re looking at a face that looks older in some ways, and younger in some ways… It’s difficult for the raters, and confusing.”

In my opinion, one way to improve upon this study would be to conduct it in the same way for the most part. However, instead of excluding patients who undergo other procedures after their initial operations, include them! This way raters are dealing with the “whole package” when they score the patients’ overall attractiveness and youthfulness. This would, in turn, lead to a more accurate estimate of patients’ ages in their post-operation photos. Aside from these small changes, are there other ways to improve upon the study? Also, what about the placebo effect? How integral of a role do you feel it could be playing in the participants’ evaluations of age and attractiveness and thus, the results of the study?

One of New York City mayor, Michael Bloomberg’s health policies that certainly has countless New Yorkers up in arms is his proposed portion cap on soft drinks and other sugary beverages. In his efforts to lower the rising obesity rates among New York City residents, Mayor Bloomberg has been pushing to prohibit the sale of sweetened drinks sold in cups larger than 16 ounces. These changes would affect business like delis, restaurants, fast food eateries, movie theatres and even sports arenas. With the exception of diet sodas, alcoholic beverages, beverages that are over 70% fruit juice, and some milk based products, these establishments would no longer be able to sell sugar sweetened beverages in containers larger than 16 ounces (about .5 liters).

Many people disapprove of the proposed bans from various reasons. They range from, the unfair effects the ban can have on small business who are in competition with convenience store chains such as 7- Eleven who won’t be affected by the ban, to even the exclusion and limits of certain beverages over others being “arbitrary and capricious”. The list goes on but one of the most discussed areas of disapproval has been the alleged negative effect the ban will have on low-income citizens, who tend to drink more soda and sugar beverages than those of their middle to high income counterparts. Those concerned with this affect of the ban also feel that said low-income citizens would also have a harder time getting around the ban by purchasing two 16 ounce beverages instead of one, as they can’t easily afford to do so.

Though this seems like a plausible and understandable qualm, the findings of a recent study conducted at Columbia University would beg to differ. Claire Wang, lead researcher of the study found that although obese people are very likely to consume a high number of sodas and other sugary beverages, people eligible for food stamps are actually less likely to be consuming that much. In the data that she analyzed from 19,000 people across the country, she found that on any given day, roughly 68% of people eligible for food stamps have soda as compared to a 54% of people who are not eligible. An article on cbsnews.com also found that overweight and obese people would suffer more than the poor as 8.6% of overweight people consume over 16 ounces of sodas daily as compared to those eligible for food stamps who consume roughly the same amount of soda as those who aren’t eligible.

Though the conclusion she drew from her findings may very well be true, it’s unclear by how much more the ban would affect the overweight as opposed to those eligible for food stamps. Also, it’s unclear whether or not those eligible for food stamps who happen to be overweight are taken into account. In her study, she touches upon the number of people who buy large beverages at restaurants in a day and the age range of those who do. However, I feel that her findings related to the effect the ban will have on overweight and obese people as compared to the affect it will have those eligible for food stamps would be more concrete if she conducted a similar study finding the number of overweight people who consume soda on any given day. She would then directly compare that percentage to that of both, the 68% of people eligible for food stamps who consume soda and the 54% of people not eligible for food stamps who consume soda, showing how much lower those percentages are than the percentage of overweight people who consume soda. This way, all of the numbers would be readily available for whoever reads the study. There would no longer be any questions about how much overweight people will be affected by the proposed portion cap and her point that the overweight and not the low-income will be affected, would be even clearer. 

Water has got to be one of the healthiest things for anyone to drink. It’s pure, has 0 calories and cleanses your system! But after a while, drinking water gets so boring and dull. In our attempts to avoid sodas and other drinks with tons of artificial sweeteners, we turn to liquid water enhancers like MiO and Dasani or even powdered beverage mixes like Crystal Lite. The companies boast that their products are natural and low in calories but in all reality, they really aren’t that great for us. Here’s the ingredient list of the Strawberry Watermelon MiO flavor.

Notice the section of the ingredient label that says “Contains less than 2% of natural flavor”. What about the other 98% of the flavors… Also, on the label appear the two ingredients Sucralose and Acesulfame Potassium. These are both artificial sweetners! Suclarose can cause migraines, respiratory problems, seizures, and heart palpitations among other health problems on an ever- growing list! Acesulfame Potassium is not much better than Suclarose as it has been linked to kidney tumors.

Based on these tidbits alone, it’s safe to say that artificial water enhancers aren’t the safest to drink with your water, which we consume heavily on a daily basis. A healthier alternative to this? Fruit! Lemons are one of the most commonly used fruits for giving water a flavor boost but cucumbers, raspberries, peaches or even flowers or herbs work just as well and they are all so much more beneficial than using artificial sweeteners.

Using citrus fruit like limes, oranges and lemons are helpful in keeping kidneys healthy by preventing crystallizations and therefore, kidney stones as well as allowing for detoxification of the body as a whole. As well as the benefit of keeping hydrated, by drinking fruit infused water you can still get all of the vitamins and nutrients that you’d get from eating a fruit! Others fruits can even help lower cholesterol, inflammation, and fight off diseases! I bet those Dasani flavor drops aren’t capable of half of that! So next time you find that your water is getting dull, skip those artificial sweeteners and go straight for some fruit! It’s super healthy and tastes just as great! Check out this website for a few fun recipes!

            Everybody knows the saying “The early bird gets the worm”, which I’m sure is true and all but what about the night owl? Studies show that his preference of the late night life can get him the worm just as easily as the early bird who prefers the early morning life (Take that, early risers).

            One such way that the night owl gets ahead of the early bird is in terms of creativity. Jim Horne a professor at Loughborough University says, “Evening types tend to be the more extrovert creative types, the poets, artists and inventors, while the morning types are the deducers, as often seen with civil servants and accountants.” I can speak to this statement, as I am a total extrovert and also a night owl. Various studies have shown that while the night owls are more social, early birds are more logical. Because of this type of personality, night owls tend to be more successful than their early bird counter parts and are also more likely to yield higher incomes and hold more prestigious positions. A great deal of these differences in sleeping patters as well as personalities is innate and can be attributed to nature. However, they also come from the environment we were raised in, how we operated on a daily basis growing up and even the climate.

            Another way night owls get ahead of early birds is that when evening rolls around they experience higher productivity. So, after a long day of work, a night owl is less likely to feel totally drained as compared to early birds who experience their energy peak at around 9 in the morning where it slowly decreases at a constant rate from then on (whomp). In fact, researchers of the University of Southampton also found that night owls might be adversely affected by morning schedules.

            Though the benefits to being a night owl are clear, there are many drawbacks like prolonged grogginess or inability to relax both physically and mentally. Also there are plenty of upsides to being an early bird like being more proactive and a less stressful commute. Either way, whether you are a night owl or an early riser, if you’re unhappy, it’s always to possible to change that by making lifestyle adjustments. Who knows? You may actually be better as an an early riser if you’re currently a night owl and vice versa.

It’s pretty easy to believe that animals are like humans in many ways. One of these ways is in the way they express emotions. Angry bulls charge down matadors, your neighbor’s evil Rottweiler growls at pretty much anything that moves, feral cats attack random French women and their dogs… These rather common (maybe with the exception of the feral cat gang) animal behaviors, present a pretty convincing argument about how animals can get angry at times.  But are animals just really angry? Apparently not…

Fun Fact: Bulls are colorblind… So that red cape we all think is pissing the bull off? …Not the cause of his so called “rage”. The bull charging the matador is his response to the rapid movement of him and the cape!

The evil Rottweiler across the street? Not actually that evil! Many people tend to confuse this dog breed’s tendency to “talk” or “grumble” with an aggressive growl. Turns out that Rottweilers aren’t dangerous creatures or “indiscriminately aggressive”. In fact, if they act as such in non-threatening environments, they should be taken to the vet’s office or a dog behavior specialist for professional help. Believe it or not, they can be pretty loveable pups!

That gang of feral cats in France? The cats were most likely protecting their territory from the dog the woman was walking. Also, a recent heat wave in that area may have been an added source of their unrest.

Just from these examples, its clear that there are many other reasons to explain animals’ seemingly angry behaviors. An article about anger on Howstuffworks.com explains how scientists believe that animals are not capable of the mental component that anger requires. So in that case, if animals are not actually capable of getting angry, how do you explain their angry that we always mistake for their fury? Scientists believe that anger and fear have similar reactions on the body but for animals, they act mostly out of fear as opposed to anger even though their actions may come across as angry. The cats in France, for example, felt threatened by the poodle that was passing through their area. So, they attacked to protect themselves and their territory from a potential intruder.

This is understandable because in a way, humans act the same way. Sometimes we even use anger and fear interchangeably by acting out of fury as a way to cover up our fear or sense of vulnerability.

So next time you think your neighbor’s dog is being evil to you, be sure to realize that it’s just communicating in it’s natural way. And next time you hear of a gang of cats attacking people, just keep in mind that they’re just protecting themselves from what they consider a threat to them. Don’t forget: people don’t say, that animals are more afraid of us than we are of them for no reason!

In my last blog post, I discussed one possible reason youth experience precocious puberty, the onset of puberty before the age of 6 or 7 years in girls and 8 years in boys. Even though the main effects of precocious puberty on a child are physical, an experience like this usually also brings about some type of emotional and psychological distress.

  After some research, I found that one of the biggest causes of this are hormones that the FDA allows in our produce, meats, fast food, and other ready made products. These are ingested by kids where they do, contrary to popular belief, take a toll on their hormonal activity and spur the onset of puberty. Knowing that hormone-laden food has such an effect on developing youth, parents have started making strides to go green with what they feed their children since one of the best ways to bypass the effects of food containing so many hormones and thus, precocious puberty, is purchasing organic food.

Even though doing this may save your kids from one of the biggest ways they can be affected by precocious puberty, another source of puberty inducing hormones lurks in places we would hardly ever suspect: household products. Various toxins can be found in so many of the products we use multiple times on a daily basis. Some of these things are our shampoos, conditioners, hand soaps, body washes, make-up, and cleaning products. These products contain a type of paraben, known as xenoestrogens, which, when in the body, act the same as estrogens do and therefore increase the chances of precocious puberty.

Another source of these puberty inducing chemicals are moth bolls, toilet bowl deodorizers and air fresheners. A study conducted by the CDC found the chemical, dichlorobenzene, in the urine or bloodstream of most of their test subjects. It is believed that this chemical is found in the air we breathe and does have the same effect on youths’ bodies as estrogens do.

From food to beauty products to household chemicals, there are a vast number of places youths can be exposed to the chemicals that spur early puberty. Though, the numbers of children being negatively affected are steadily rising, the FDA among other corporations still continue to make their products with the harmful chemicals inside. Why is it okay for youth to be vulnerable to these products that could tarnish not only their physical but also their emotional and mental well being?