In Part 1 of this blog, I looked at a study that was referenced a lot in my research of why vegetarianism could lead to a healthier lifestyle. It was a huge observational study and eventually concluded that vegetarians live longer than meat eaters. Now, as promised, I’ll look at the other side of the conversation.

A lot of people believe that vegetarianism can actually lead to a less healthy lifestyle because meat contains many important proteins and nutrients that aren’t as prevalent or concentrated in vegetables, fruits, legumes, dairy, and grains.

For example, there is an essential nutrient in meat called vitamin B-12 that is responsible for “keeping the body’s nerve and blood cells healthy and helping make DNA”. It also, “helps prevent a type of anemia called megaloblastic anemia that makes people tired and weak.” However, because vitamin B-12 is only found naturally in meat and dairy products, a strict vegetarian may find it hard to intake the daily-recommended amounts. This deficiency can “boost blood levels of homocysteine, an amino acid implicated as a strong risk factor for heart disease and stroke… [and] promote blockages in arteries over time.

A study published by a team of German researchers in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, examined the status of vitamin B-12 in a group of 95 vegetarians (66 lactovegetarians- no meat poultry, or fish and 29 vegans- no food or animal origin) and 79 omnivores, all of which had maintained their current dietary habits for over than a year. The scientists further screened these participants to exclude those that had associations with any of the following…

• Renal disease

• Current consumption of weight-loss diets

• Current pregnancy

• Medication or metabolic diseases known to influence nutritional status.

All subjects were also asked to “complete a preliminary questionnaire about lifestyle factors, the degree of animal-products restriction they followed, and vitamin consumption.” Then, the researchers collected twelve-hour fasting blood samples from all the participants and analyzed the levels of vitamin B-12 using biochemical markers. 

The results showed that 92% of vegans, 66% of the lactovegetarians, and 5% of meat eaters had a vitamin B-12 deficiency. These findings held true even though 17 vegans (59%) and 13 LV-LOV subjects (20%) reported supplementing their diet with bioengineered B vitamins.

How much stock can be put into these findings though? Well let’s analyze the study.

The participant pool was a good sample size (165 people total) and was split between vegetarians (58%) and meat eaters (42%) pretty evenly. As mentioned before, the researchers also controlled for a number of possible confounding variables. Even though the study was partially observational, the researchers did take measurements of the participants’ 12-hour fasting B-12 vitamin levels to see how the x variable (type of diet) affected them. Furthermore, the report of the study is thorough and detailed, allowing the experiment to be easily reproduced. All in all, I’d say that the research was carried out well.

However, there were a few potential flaws. Because participants were responsible for classifying their own diet before the study, researchers really have no way of knowing if what the subjects reported was completely accurate. In addition, even though some confounding variables were controlled, more could exist. Last but not least, as always, the findings could also have been do to chance. 

Ultimately though, I believe that the results of this study should at least be a warning to people considering a vegetarian diet. They don’t necessarily prove that a diet without meat is unhealthy, but they do provide some evidence to support the claim. In my personal opinion, I’d have to do more research before making a final judgment on whether or not vegetarianism is worth it in the long run. It’s also important to remember that many people choose to be vegetarians for reasons other than the potential health benefits. For example, some people don’t eat meat for spiritual or ethical (animal rights) reasons. In the end, it seems like the benefits of vegetarianism are ultimately determined by whether or not an individual believes the potential risks are less than the potential rewards. 

Vegetarians are strange people. Alright, maybe they’re not strange, but for the longest time I did not understand them. As a culinary enthusiast (I don’t cook much, but I love to eat), I couldn’t fathom why someone would want to eliminate a whole food group from their diet. Especially meat.

I couldn’t imagine how anyone could survive without steak, chicken, ham, pork, and most importantly, bacon. Then, I actually befriended one of those odd individuals. She had been a vegetarian most of her life and swore that it was one of the “best choices” she ever made. When I asked her why, she told me that vegetarians are much healthier and live longer than people who eat meat. Naturally, I was and still am skeptical. It’s always been my belief that anything is fine in moderation. That’s why in this two-part blog, I intend to be as objective as possible and look at both sides of the argument. First, I’ll examine a source claiming that vegetarianism is healthier than a diet with meat.

According to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, a Journal of the American Medical Association, vegetarians live longer than meat eaters. Researchers at Loma Linda University in California “tracked 73,308 members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church for almost six years. Researchers then found out what type of diet participants ate”. They were then sorted into categories including “non-vegetarian, semi-vegetarian, pesco-vegetarian – includes seafood, lacto-ovo-vegetarian – includes dairy and egg products, and vegan – excludes all animal products”. Every year, the researchers sent out a questionnaire to find out the current health status of the subjects and more importantly “how many of those participants had died and how.” After the study was complete, the researchers controlled and adjusted for the following factors…

•    Age

•    Gender

•    Race

•    Smoking status

•    Exercise

•    Income

•    Education

•    Marital status

•    Alcohol intake

•   Geographical region

•  Amount of sleep per night

At the end of the study, the research showed that vegetarians experienced 12% fewer deaths over the period than did regular meat eaters. Furthermore, they decided that being vegetarian played “a big role in protecting the participants from heart disease, from which vegetarians were 19% less likely to die than meat-eaters.”

From this data, the researchers concluded that there is a strong “overall association of vegetarian dietary patterns with lower mortality compared with the non-vegetarian dietary pattern…. [and] some associations with lower mortality of the pesco-vegetarian, vegan and lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets specifically compared with the non-vegetarian diet.”

However, like in all scientific studies, the credibility of the findings must be carefully analyzed.  Overall, the study seems to be solid. There were a lot of controls, a very large sample size, and a significant difference in the death rates of vegetarians when compared to meat-eaters. Yet, the research was far from perfect.

To start, the study was observational and a cause and effect relationship cannot be established from the results of observational data. Another problem is that, because the sample size was so big, there was no real way to ensure that the participants were following the diets that they initially classified themselves in at the beginning of the study. Participant bias could have also affected how people filled out the portion of the questionnaire about their health status. The subject pool was also from a single church. Therefore, even though some of their demographics were controlled, the participant pool might not be a good representative of the human population as a whole. 

As a result, from this study alone, I cannot definitively say that vegetarianism is any healthier than a diet with meat. I tried to find an experimental study on whether vegetarians live longer than meat eaters, but could not. Therefore, without more scientific evidence, a rational person should not become a vegetarian with the rationale that it will prolong their life. 

As a kid, I always knew what I wanted to be when I grew up. Now, even though I don’t like to admit it, I realize there’s no chance of it actually happening. That’s because my childhood dream was to become a professional baseball player and play for the New York Yankees. However, my ambitions didn’t end there. As a diehard baseball fan and hopeful future pitcher, I wanted to be one of those Major League fireballers who could blow 100 mile per hour fastballs right by the opposing batter for the strikeout. Unfortunately, I’m 5’10” 150 lbs, and a completely mediocre athlete. However, I’ve always been curious as to why some people can throw harder than others. In professional baseball, pitchers’ fastballs range in speed from the upper 80’s to over 100 miles per hour, but the average in 2013 was  

Does a pitcher’s max velocity depend on their physical size, strength, technique, or something entirely different?

Adrian Bejan, a professor of mechanical engineering at Duke University, believes that “for pitchers…height means speed”. To explain why, Bejan utilizes a well known scientific theory that he personally developed known as “constructal law”. 

This theory states that a “larger and taller machine…is capable of hurling a large mass farther and faster” than a shorter, smaller machine.” In other words, on average, larger and taller pitchers tend to throw faster than smaller shorter pitchers. When larger pitchers fall forward towards home plate when delivering a pitch, they are able to utilize their greater masses to generate more force behind the ball. That is why, according to Bejan, pitchers tend to be the tallest players on the field. After compiling years and years worth of statistics with the help of his students, Bejan found “The average height of the pitchers active at least one season has increased almost at a constant rate during the past century from five foot, nine inches to current levels” and that “Shortstops and second basemen, who have the shortest throws to first base, tend to be the shortest players on the field.”

Bejan’s theory makes sense when you look at current pitchers like Aroldis Chapman of the Cincinatti Reds. He is 6′ 4″, 205 pounds, and has the fastest pitch on record in an MLB game (106 mph). The theory also checks out when looking at baseball legend Randy Johnson who was 6′ 10″. weighed around 225 pounds, and consistently threw in the upper 90’s. However, if physical size plays that big a role in a pitchers’ max velocity, what explains guys like Billy Wagner who could top 100 mph on a radar gun while only being 5′ 10″ tall and weighing 180 pounds?

George Washington University professor Dr. Neil Roach argues that physical size and muscle strength are not nearly as important to a pitchers’ velocity as is technique. In a recent report in the science journal Nature, Roach detailed an experiment he did as a graduate student at Harvard in which “used motion-capture video to analyze the throwing motion of 20 college athletes, who hurled baseballs at a target about 100 feet away, with and without a brace that restricted shoulder motion”. 

Then he and his team “analyzed the structure of the shoulder and upper arm, the motion and the forces involved, and concluded, first, that muscles alone cannot account for how hard and fast humans throw”. After measuring the amounts of torque generated by the rotation of the players’ humeral bones during the cocking phase of their different throwing motions, it was found that pitchers that generated more humeral torsion threw at higher velocities than those who didn’t. In addition, when the rotation of the players’ humeri was restricted by a brace, they’re pitch velocity declined significantly.

So what does that all mean? According to Roach, a player can gain significant velocity on their fastball by solely changing their mechanics. With the help of coaches, pitchers can learn how to speed up their shoulder (and humeral) rotation, generating more torque and therefore more miles per hour on their pitches.

In my opinion, Adrian Bejan and Dr. Roach are both correct because it seems to me that physical size and pitching motion are both significant factors in determining how fast someone can throw. However, I put a lot more faith in Dr. Roach’s findings. Bejan merely had a theory and did an observational study of historical data while Dr. Roach conducted a well-designed experiment. I acknowledge that the sample size of 20 college athletes is small, but the other aspects of the study were carried out well. For example, in selecting the 20 participants, Dr. Roach controlled throwing ability by requiring all potential subjects to pass a “performance task” before being selected. In screening the participants, Roach also collected data on height, joint segment lengths, circumferences, and controlled those variables accordingly. Lastly, his experimental report is thorough and details how all the measurements involved were carried out making the study able to be reproduced with greater ease.   

In conclusion, I don’t know if researchers involved in sports science will ever truly know what factor is most significant in giving a baseball player the ability to throw fast, but now I’m definitely interested to read more on the topic.

What do you think gives certain people the ability to throw so much harder than others?

Every time there’s a mass-shooting or violent tragedy involving a kid or young adult, politicians seem to love drawing connections to video game violence.

 In the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre last year, the reactions were no different. When it was found that Adam Lanza, the shooter, spent many hours each day playing violent video games, there was a media firestorm. 

Ralph Nader came out and publically denounced manufacturers of these games, referring to them as “electronic child molesters” that were partially to blame for the tragedy. Governors, mayors, and senators all over the country followed suit in voicing their disapproval. Vice President Joe Biden even went as far as proposing a tax on violent video games to try and discourage them from being purchased. Yet, in my opinion, very few people based their beliefs on scientific evidence. Instead, the connections being drawn seemed to be purely anecdotal and driven by people’s natural impulse to act quickly to solve a terrible problem.

As a result, I became curious. Could video game violence actually be a cause of youth crime?

Ohio State psychology professor Brad Bushman, in conjunction with researchers in France and Germany, decided to use the scientific method to investigate this problem. In his study, 70 students from a university in France were assigned to play either three violent (Call of Duty 4, Condemned 2, and The Club) or three nonviolent (S3K Superbike, Dirt 2, and Pure) video games for 20 minutes per day on three consecutive days. Then, each day, participants were given the beginning of a scenario and asked to list 20 things that the main characters might say or do next. For example, “in one story another driver crashes into the back of the main character’s car, causing significant damage.” Whenever a participant predicted a violent or aggressive response to the scenario, the researchers recorded it as a measure of “hostile expectations”.

Then, in the second part of the study, “Each student was told that he or she would compete against an unseen opponent in a 25-trial computer game in which the object was to be the first to respond to a visual cue on the computer screen. The loser of each trial would receive a blast of unpleasant noise through headphones, and the winner would decide how loud and long the blast would be”. Researchers then compared the volume and duration of the noise chosen by the violent video game players to the non-violent as a measure of “aggression”.

According to research, students who played the violent video games became more aggressive and expectant of hostility over the three-day period while those who played the non-violent games saw no change. Bushman concluded, “I would expect that the increase in aggression would accumulate for more than three days. It may eventually level off. However, there is no theoretical reason to think that aggression would decrease over time, as long as players are still playing the violent games”.

Assuming aggressive people are more likely to commit crimes, these findings seem to support the claims that violent video games are a cause of youth delinquency. Yet, the credibility of Bushman’s research must be carefully examined.  

The experimental design of the study seems to be moderately strong. Given the fact that 70 people isn’t a huge sample size, the research was still carried out well. The subjects were even partially blinded to the true purpose of the research because in the beginning they were told that they “would be participating in a 3-day study of the effects of brightness of video games on visual perception.” By doing so, researchers avoided some risk of participant bias. For example, if the students in this study knew that the effect of video game violence on aggression was being tested, they might have changed their answers in the scenario part of the study or their choice of punishment for the loser of the game in the second half of the research.

Yet, there were still a few issues that I had with Bushman’s research.  In the first part of the study that involved scenario expectations, it was left up to the researchers to determine what responses qualified as “violent” or “non-violent”. Therefore, it’s hard to know exactly how violence was defined and the experiment may not be as easily reproduced. Another problem with the study that Bushman somewhat acknowledged is that it was only carried out over 3 days for 20 minutes per day. Even though the participants who played violent video games seemed to experience increased aggression in the short term, the long-term effect was unanalyzed. In addition, the results of this study could be due to chance. 

Reverse causation is also possible because its plausible that people are buying and playing violent video games because they already have aggressive personalities.

For these reasons, a rational person should not jump to the conclusion that video game violence leads to real life crime. While the theory seems logical, there is not enough scientific evidence to back it up. In fact, there doesn’t even seem to be a correlation. 

After writing (In and) Out of My Mind- Part 1, I began thinking more and more about the earworm phenomenon and Kraemer’s findings. That’s when I remembered something that I learned about last year in my PSYCH 100 class called Gestalt psychology.

Gestalt psychology deals with visual perception and how the human mind tends to complete patterns of visual stimuli even though they may not be whole. In other words, when the brain receives bits of disconnected information, it automatically tries to consolidate it into a form that is more usable. For example, when a person sees a dotted outline of an image, often they can still tell what that image is because their brain fills in the spaces. This seems like it is very similar to how the auditory cortex behaved in Kraemer’s experiment. When songs that that the subjects were familiar with were played and then muted for 2-5 seconds, their brains seemed to fill the gap, effectively “completing the pattern” of auditory stimuli. In my research, I still haven’t been able to find a direct biological mechanism for why this happens, but I find the connection fascinating.

In my opinion, there are probably multiple triggers for the earworm response, but it seems to me that it is unpreventable given the amount of information scientists currently have and uncontrollable. All in all, a song getting stuck in your head may be a nuisance but it is ultimately harmless.

Now, what if you have a song stuck in your head already and want to get it out?

Many people that I’ve asked believe that the best way to do this is simple; listen to another song. However, when I tried this, the new song would sometimes get stuck in my head and I’d be left with the same problem.

Ira Hyman, a professor of psychology at Western Washington University, came up with a different solution. She “surveyed 299 students, playing songs by Lady Gaga, Carly Rae Jepsen, Beyonc�, the Beatles, Rihanna and Taylor Swift. The students rated the songs [based on personal preference], then completed puzzle tasks [of different difficulties], reporting back immediately after the puzzles, and then again 24 hours later on whether the song had returned.” After all the participants’ responses were in, Hyman concluded that, “The return of intrusive songs depended on cognitive resources: people reported that intrusive songs returned during low cognitive load activities, and we found that overloading the cognitive systems with challenging activities increased intrusive song frequency.” Following this logic, the best way to get a song out of your head is to do a puzzle that is neither too easy nor too difficult. In the study, 5 letter anagram puzzles fit this definition best. However, assuming the findings are accurate, I’m guessing that the best activity for each person varies based on their intelligence level.

Of course, Hyman’s study is observational and must be treated as such. Unlike the Kraemer study that I addressed, Hyman never took quantitative measurements of the subjects’ brain activity during and after listening to the songs. His results were based entirely on what songs the participants reported as getting stuck in their heads. This means that the results could have been subject to both interviewer and participant bias. Possible interviewer bias might be that Hyman somehow intentionally or unintentionally influenced the responses of the subjects. On the other hand, the participants in the study could have answered the survey questions about which song stuck around based on what they believed should have happened.

As a result, I don’t put much faith into the accuracy of Hyman’s findings, but I find no harm in seeing if they work for me. I already have some puzzle games on my phone, so it’d be pretty easy to try them out next time a song gets stuck in my head. After all, I’d do just about anything to get “Call Me Maybe” out of my brain.

Do you know what the most annoying thing in the world is? Now some of you might answer, “world hunger” or “sickness” or “taxes”, but I’d beg to differ. For me, the most annoying thing in the world is when Carly Rae Jepsen’s song “Call Me Maybe” comes on the radio. That’s because even though I turn the radio off within a few seconds, that’s all it takes for the chorus to start playing over and over on an endless loop inside my brain.

In an attempt to learn more about why this happens and possibly how to prevent it, I decided to investigate what happens in a person’s brain when a song gets stuck in their head.

Hey readers! Instead of boring you with a typical introduction of my name, hometown, basic interests, etc., I figured I would tell you something about myself that I think is more interesting. So here it goes…

Hi, I’m Evan Hayowyk and my name is completely unique. Out of the approximately 7.2 billion people on this planet, my family members are the only ones with the last name Hayowyk. Broken down even further, I am 1 of only 5 living Hayowyk men in the world and none of the others share my first name. So, in other words, I am the only Evan Hayowyk you will ever meet or not meet. Want to know how I know this? No? Great, because I don’t feel like explaining my whole family history in an initial blog post for SC 200.

So why’d I take this class anyway? For the same reason I ask then answer my own questions in my blog post…I like sounding intelligent. I actually first learned about SC 200 while reading an article in Onward State awhile back about the best Gen Eds at Penn State. The course was described as a “thinking-based class rather than a formula plugging class with a “professor [that] has an awesome accent”. That was enough to spark my interest. I’ve always enjoyed classes centered around critical thinking a lot more that those in which you have to rely on the memorization of facts. That’s why SC 200 seems to be the perfect class for me. It’s so unlike the other boring, question-answer type science classes that I’ve taken in the past that I actually find it intellectually stimulating. 

Even so, I’m not going to be a Science major. Business has been my favorite subject ever since I took my first intro class in high school so I plan on going into Finance. However, even business involves science, so I know that what I take from this class will still be applicable in my future career.