Everyone knows that there is currently a video game epidemic. Whether its on Xbox 1, PS4, or an iPhone, nearly everyone is participating in some type of gaming. In addition, as everyone knows, game addiction is very serious, and is a leading cause of obesity among children. One-third of all American children are obese or overweight and now affects 17 percent of all children and adolescents in the United States, close to triple the rate it was 30 years ago. Some measures have been taken to help make the gaming world more physically oriented with inventions of the Nintendo Wii, and more so with the Xbox Kinect and Play Station Move. However, are these inventions working?

A test was run over a 16-week period at an obesity prevention program with children ages 8-12. The study showed how active gaming included in an obesity treatment program could help promote physical activity, and present the issues of childhood obesity.

The results proved successful. All children exhibited significant and reductions in weight. “Given the popularity of video games, it is valuable to see how active video games in an evidence-based weight-management program can help make a positive impact on our national childhood obesity crisis,” said Deneen Vojta, M.D., a physician executive at UnitedHealth Group. One patient, Ravyn Hill, a 12-year-old who participated in the study, lost nearly eight pounds throughout the four-month program.

The study showed that it was a complete success in reducing weight gain- and increasing wait lose for children who participated in the program.

Now I found this study very promising for the reduction of childhood obesity, however, there are some variables that I question. What happens after the test? While in the program using the physical gaming systems was successful, I wondered how successful it would be in an everyday household. While the study did state that it resulted in a significant increase of 7.5 minutes a day of moderate-to-vigorous activity, I wondered if kids on their own would continue the trend. I know as a very physically active, Xbox and Kinect user myself; I even would choose the game console over the physical console every time. I had a hard time believing that kids would choose much differently. I decided to look for more information to see if kids, who didn’t participate in the program, would choose the physical gaming opposed to the controller gaming. However I could not find any polls done on which is more popular among kids. What I did find, however, was some unhappiness with the kinect and PS Move’s functionality. While the idea for a physical game experience is a great idea, many flaws in the sensors capabilities cause users to get frustrated and loose interest in using it. An argument could be made that maybe the consoles use would be more popular if there weren’t so many technical difficulties, which is something easily within technologies reach, and being worked on everyday.

Yet, there is one more issue facing the reality of children playing physical video games over controller ones. While the Nintendo Wii’s, the first physical gaming experience, sales were extremely popular when it was first released; recent years haven’t been so kind. That’s disturbing for those hoping that physical gaming is the answer to childhood obesity.

While It is great to think video games could change to help kids loose weight instead of gain it, it still is a little ways off. Great strides have been made to make the physical gaming experience more fluent, and I do see in the near future a game system that could break the bank and revolutionize physical gaming. Until then, we have to hope that people continue to choose to play active video games over motionless ones.

Resources:

http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/newsroom/articles/feed/unitedhealth%20group/2014/0303studyactivegaming.aspx

http://www.education.com/reference/article/causes-childhood-obesity/

http://bgr.com/2014/03/14/xbox-one-worst-features-kinect/

http://www.geekwire.com/2013/xbox-360-wii-ps3-won-console-generation/

As everyone knows there is a huge drinking culture at Penn state, as there is at most colleges across the county. But when was it that human beings developed a taste for a substance that hindered their senses, and probably at first didn’t taste very good? I decided to look into it.

I recently wrote a post about meat consumption and how it influenced evolution of the human brain, as it turns out, this topic falls under a similar category.

According to Science daily and NBC news, Humans began to have a knack for consuming alcohol around 10 million years ago, however it was not that they were throwing down beers for enjoyment. Early hominids developed the ability to digest alcohol when they began to eat rotting fruit that contained large amounts of ethanol in them. In case there was no fresh fruit to be eaten, it was an important adaption for hominids to be able to eat and digest the rotting fruit so that they could survive.

It was not a simple adaption however, that these hominid’s made when it came to breaking down ethanol, it was actually a genetic mutation. This mutation came coincidently when humans began to travel the forest floor. This would explain why Orangutans, who spend most of their time in trees opposed to on the ground, can’t metabolise alcohol where as Chimps and Gorillas can, similar to humans.

How did scientists discover this information about our early ancestors? By studying resurrected enzymes in the digestive tracts of humans and models of protein functions based on natural history and evolution. The evolving catalytic properties of the resurrected enzymes display that our ancestors gained a digestive dehydrogenase enzyme, capable of metabolizing ethanol, around the time they began to walk the forest floor. The ADH4 enzyme, the first enzyme exposed to ethanol in the digestive tract that is capable of metabolizing ethanol, in our more ancient and tree-dwelling ancestors did not as efficiently oxidize ethanol. The change suggests that exposure to different dietary sources of ethanol, in the form of fermented fruit, increased in hominids during the early stages of their adaptation to a terrestrial lifestyle.

I found this extremely interesting, and don’t have much of a critique for the articles that I read, that all contained generally the same information. Something more I would have liked to get out of the study is, when dealing with eating ethanol, when did it become an enjoyment instead of a last case scenario. One scientist claimed, “I suspect ethanol was a second-choice item,” when it came to choosing fruit on the ground, so when did humans begin to eat it/ drink it just for the sake of getting drunk? There probably never will be an answer because it is basically impossible to test our early ancestors behavioral actions, or when they decided that it was fun to feel the reactions of the ethanol on their body. There were probably 3rd variables as to why and when it became a leisure activity besides the taste and feeling that ethanol had.    Overall it was very cool to learn about how alcohol was first introduced into the human mindset.

Sources:

http://www.sciencedaily.com 

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/weird-science/why-humans-drink-alcohol-its-evolution-plus-bad-fruit-n259446

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2856241/We-ve-drinking-alcohol-TEN-MILLION-years-study-finds.html

http://rt.com/news/210555-primates-consumed-alcohol-humans/

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/11/26/1404167111.abstract

Everyone has heard the famous phrase “an apple a day keeps the doctor away,” While I don’t think this phrase should be taking completely literal, I did wanted to look into if there is actually any medical benefits of eating an apple a day.

Prior to researching I thought there would be little evidence that a single piece of fruit would have enough benefits to seriously help your health. However, what I found was surprising.

An apple a day can lower the chances getting diabetes, high blood pressure, as well as many types of cancer. Apples also contain pectin, which is a form of soluble fiber that lowers both blood pressure and glucose levels. In addition, they are full of Vitamin C, which helps boost immunity and is good for overall health. Apples act as a toothbrush as well, cleaning teeth themselves and also getting rid of bacteria inside the mouth and on teeth, which helps reduce the risk of tooth decay.

One article claims that while all these advantages are great health benefits, and apples should be eaten if you’re trying to maintain a healthy diet, they outright most likely will not keep a doctor away. “An apple a day can be a good idea if it replaces less healthy foods,” “If you are replacing high-fructose corn syrup or other high calories, high carbohydrate foods with an apple, this would be very healthy.” Says one article.  However, that doesn’t mean they necessarily keep the doctor away.

But according to an article on WebMD, an apple a day can keep the doctor away. Vitamin supplements can be helpful, but they are not as wholesome and beneficial as the fruit and vegetables themselves. One fresh apple alone is equal to 1,500 milligrams of vitamin C. Another amazing aspect of the apple has to do with cancer cells. Using colon cancer cells treated with apple extract, a group of doctors found that 50 milligrams of apple extracted from the skins of the fruit, decreased the cancer cell growth by 43%, while the same amount of extract from the flesh of the apple decreased cancer cell growth by 29%. So lots of the importance in the apple comes from its skin not the flesh of the fruit. With discoveries of the cancer-treating effects and other health benefits of apples, it would not be so far fetched to say that in fact, maybe not one, but an apple or two a day could actually keep the doctor away.

It should not be thought that eating only apples for every meal will keep you immortal, but including an apple or multiple fruits and vegetables into a healthy diet could lower your chances of many diseases and sicknesses leading to a lessened risk of having to be treated by a doctor. I also don’t recommend giving up going to the doctor because you eat an apple everyday, but it is important to know that apples can possibly help you not have to go as frequently.

There is always the risk of chance when it comes to disease and science, so it is hard to determine fully the potential powers apples hold when it comes to healing sickness or preventing it. However according to the reports I’ve read apples help! So, I’m going to go out and eat an apple!

Sources:

http://health.howstuffworks.com/mental-health/human-nature/health-myths/an-apple-a-day1.htm

http://www.uamshealth.com/?id=12428&sid=1

http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20000621/benefits-of-eating-fruit

As I ate a hamburger at Roxy’s, I wondered what caused human beings to take the route of eating meat and being mainly carnivores, opposed to many other animals that are herbivores, only eating plants, fruits and vegetables. As it turns out humans were not always meat-lovers.

The earliest ancestors of the human kind only feasted on vegetables, berries, and nuts. Therefore more food was needed to be consumed in order to fulfill the hunger of a full-grown human being. “You can’t have a large brain and big guts at the same time,” said Leslie Aiello, an anthropologist and director of the Wenner-Gren Foundation, In addition to eating larger amounts, one would need a large gut to digest it all, so in the case of early humans, digestion was the energy hog of the body, thus not allowing large amounts of energy to go to the brain.

So a major dietary change somewhere around 2.3 million years ago marked a major turning point in the evolution of our species. States Aiello.

Research done on skulls of early hominids claim that regular meat consumption led to a change in the human skull, and a larger brain. Scientists argue that eating meat, which is filled with calories and fat, our ancestors could spend more energy building a bigger brain, and less energy on digestion. Early humans consumed lean meats, which added to a healthy and calorie-dense diet, which provided enough energy to power the brain’s expansion.

However, it is also proven that it was not meat alone that contributed to evolution. Another key introduction into the human diet was cooked vegetables. Raw foods are very nutritious but it is hard for the human body to get at the nutrients it needs without them being cooked. Also there is a lot of time and energy used in chewing raw vegetables, with cooked vegetables time is being saved and humans are getting more from them.

While I found the claim that meat caused increased human brain size very interesting I wondered if it suffered from a Texas Sharp Shooter Problem. Could the introduction of meat into a diet be a small subset of characteristics that lead to an increase of brain size and development? The articles make no mention of other possible things that contribute to enhanced brain development such as forms of communication, creation of tools, social complexity, and other things that cannot be examined in artifacts. I think it would be hasty to say that meat alone caused increase human brain size.

So, I have a heavy critique of claims saying it was only meat that lead to increased brain size. While I do think it played a role in the development of our species and increase of the brain, I don’t think it was the sole or even the strongest factor in brain enhancement.

In the end we may never fully know what was the biggest factor in human brain evolution was, and how much of a factor meat was in the equation. While it did play some roll, it is fair to say that meat did not make humans what they are today all by itself.

Sources:

http://www.npr.org/2010/08/02/128849908/food-for-thought-meat-based-diet-made-us-smarter

http://frugivoremag.com/2012/12/does-eating-meat-make-us-smarter-humans-science-thinks-so/

http://www.livescience.com/23671-eating-meat-made-us-human.html

Many have seen the AMC TV show Breaking Bad. In the series, the main character, Walter White, creates Meth Amphetamines in order to get some money for his family while he suffers from terminal cancer. Walter creates meth that is blue and has a purity rate of 99%. I decided to do some research to see if not only this blue meth, but also a meth with a 99% purity rate, could exist. And wanted to see how accurate Walters techniques in creating his “RV Meth” where.

The first issue was the blue meth. Most Meth Amphetamines comes in a clear crystal like form, thus getting the name Crystal Meth. Would it be possible to make it blue? While meth can come in multiple other colors such as gray and pink, it is very rarely blue. It is possible though; a Kansas-city police chief said that he has come across blue meth on the streets of the United States, but it not quite the same as Walters. The meth that was found with a bluish hue was no more potent than the standard white crystal meth found most places through the US. So while it is a possibility that there is blue crystal out there somewhere, it is not quite what fans of the TV show may be thinking of. Another key thing to note is that meth created at a purer rate does not turn blue; it actually turns more of a yellowish hue. The idea of a purer type of meth becoming blue is most likely inaccurate.

The second issue is whether or not a 99% pure Crystal Meth could be created. While this I found to be very unlikely, I was shocked at what I found. According to a Denver police report, 77 people were arrested for drug trafficking, what authorities were surprised to find was meth that was in fact 99% pure. So, White’s meth is possible, and his meth may possibly have been outdone!

Finally the question of whether or not Walters’s tactics and resource could in fact provide what he needed to create good quality Methamphetamine. According to analytical chemist Jonathan Parkinson “Breaking Bad does a really great job with the science.” Most of the ideas used in Walter White’s process of cooking meth could be actual ways one could create meth. However, one critic notes that it would be possible for Walt to cook the way he does, it would be very difficult to cook it on as large a scale as he did in the show. The show also leaves out vital steps in creating the meth so viewers don’t try to go out and make some of Walters’s meth themselves. Another point to consider is that in the show Walter uses P2P in his process, however the DEA is very aware that P2P is used and has a close watch on it, so Walter probably would have struggled in his creation a little more in a real life situation.

The conclusion is that Walter actually would be a good cook. While he may not be as successful if he was a real drug lord due to his lack of resource, he sure makes for an innovative chief! Through this research it has been determined that it is possible for all three of my questions to be created in the real world. Breaking Bad did it right.

Links:

http://www.ibtimes.com/breaking-bad-chemistry-truth-behind-blue-meth-walter-whites-process-1411068

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/digital/fact-vs-fiction/breaking-bad-fact-vs-fiction-walter-whites-secret-formula-15826137

http://slumz.boxden.com/f5/may-31-meth-of-99-purity-found-during-drug-bust-in-denver-1932803/

One of the most abused drugs by college students today is Adderall. A drug meant to help increase attention and focus is often taken by students to cram in hours of studying without disturbance or distraction. In a 2006 study, conducted by the Department of Communication at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, researchers found that 34 percent of the undergraduate students who participated reported using ADHD stimulants illegally. Many students reported that the drug helped them achieve better grades, and I can attest to that. As an individual who is prescribed Adderall and take it legally, I can say that my grades greatly improved once I went onto the drug. I felt much more focused, and got through my schoolwork easily without too much distraction. However, I did face negative side effects.

As a daily user I dealt with loss of appetite and lack of sleep, in addition to frequent headaches caused by my lack of eating. I’m not the only one who experienced these side effects… Many students claimed that they would experience major mood swings, or even changes in personality when they were on the drug or when they started going off the drug. Other popular side effects can include nervousness, stomach pain, nausea, and vomiting.

So this raises the question is it worth it? Should students risk the consequences just to get a few more hours or studying in?

While clearly it is necessary for some individuals diagnosed with ADHD to use the drug, I wondered if there have been any placebo trials on non-ADHD drug users. Maybe if they thought they were taking a pill that helped their focus, then their focus actually would be enhanced.

One study I found was done on 584 children ages 6-12 who were given daily doses of Adderall. An important aspect of this case was that all the patients’ satisfied the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Only 509 completed the entire trial. The conclusion of the test was all active treatment groups showed significant dose-related improvement in behavior from their baseline tests. After only reading this study, one would think… It Works! But not quite.

One detail that caught my eye was that all the patients fit a mentally challenged criterion, but I would like to find out its effects on everyone, not just mentally challenged. Another thing I feel this study lacked was any negative aspect. Upon reading it, the impression is given that Adderall is a completely successful drug that should be used regularly. I disagreed, so I found another trail that seemed closer to what I was looking for.

This trail “included exposures in a total of 1315 participants in clinical trials (635 pediatric patients, 350 adolescent patients, 248 adult patients, and 82 healthy adult subjects). Of these, 635 patients (ages 6 to 12) were evaluated in two controlled clinical studies” In this study 2.4% of patients with ADHD ended the trial due adverse reactions (including 3 patients with loss of appetite, one of whom also reported insomnia). This test was much more in depth and fell in line with what I thought I would find when I looked up Adderall trials.

In the end I think it can be concluded that while the drug clearly benefits those who take it, unless you are properly prescribed the drug, it could hurt you in the long run. Adderall should not be taken by students who don’t need it, because, they could face other problems besides not knowing enough information for a test.

Links:

http://www.rxlist.com/adderall-xr-capsules-drug/side-effects-interactions.htm

http://www.livescience.com/41013-adderall.html

http://www.dailyillini.com/features/health_and_living/article_a8c04c9a-3e8d-11e2-96b6-0019bb30f31a.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12165576

Another tabloid cover another nose pick. The ever-popular photograph of a famous celebrity caught in the act, forever to be scrutinized by the media. One day upon looking at the cover of one of these magazines I couldn’t help but to think “Is it worth it? Did you really need to pick your nose?” Which led me to another thought… Is picking your nose beneficial at all. So I decided to write a blog post about the benefits, or not so beneficial effects, of nose picking.

While I found it absolutely disgusting, the first article I came across was about a test ran by a Canadian academic. He believed that there were health benefits to picking your nose and than eating your mucus… gross. His argument stated that picking the mucus out of your nose and then eating it, allowed small amounts of germs back into your immune system, thus actually helping your immune system. Who would have thought eating boogers helped you stay healthy?

A different article talked about the benefits of just getting the mucus out of your body but not necessarily eating it. It brought up the point of it being a social frowned upon, similar to farting or burping in public. While they all may be poor choice of conduct in public they are all very healthy for your body. This article discussed what boogers really are: a build up of dust and germs. Therefore getting those out of your body are perfectly sensible and are good to do! The same article even discusses that you feel better after getting boogers out of your nose, and how it could lead to more comfort in your nose and actually help you relax and sleep better. If you are able to clear out your nasal passages you are more likely to breath better while falling asleep and thus are much less likely to snore!

The message of this article: Pick your nose and tell others to pick theirs too.

Are there negative sides of picking your nose? in a general search for negative effects of nose picking, the only thing I found to be an issue were nosebleeds caused from cuts in the nose by fingernails. If you ick your nose but cut the barrier of your nose, then your immune system could be disrupted and you would have an issue. (via Dr. Oz) So if you have long sharp nails… You may want to find a different alternative

In the end it turns out that picking your nose is actually something people should be doing more often. While eating ones on mucus does seem a bit disturbing, studies have shown that something in the make up of snot can actually help ones immune system. Maybe some day picking your nose will no longer make you a social outcast, but for now… don’t do it in public!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2316509/Could-picking-nose-GOOD-One-scientist-believes-boost-immune-system.html

http://neerizzle.hubpages.com/hub/Picking-Your-Nose-Is-Healthy

http://www.wellbuzz.com/dr-ozs-advice/dr-oz-gross-habits-is-picking-your-nose-bad-for-you/

Notes are essential to a college student’s career; everyday students frantically jot down whatever they can before the professor moves on to the next topic. If given the opportunity, some choose to take down notes on their laptop, while others go for the classic pen and paper approach. While note taking is a completely personal preference, I decided to look into if there was any scientific data about which type of note taking is better for memory.

In my research the answer was unanimous. Writing is more effective. However, I enjoy typing my notes, and feel like I can read through my notes easier when I’m studying for a test if they are typed. I also feel like I get more notes down when I am typing them opposed to when I have to physically write them with a pen. So, what exactly are the reasons why writing is better?

First off, writing is much better for long term-memory. If you physically write something down then you are more likely to remember the information over a longer period of time. This could be related to an idea that “words can rush out in their raw, feral state when the pen is your tool” (via Lifehacker) This is saying that writing with a pen basically allows you to express more fluently your true thoughts and ideas on paper, while with technology there are more distractions on your page, and it is easier to lose concentration of the ideas you’re trying to express.

Second, not only can writing notes be more effective, but also taking notes on a laptop could actually hinders one performance. According to an article, (via boston.com ) even when all distractions are eliminated from writing, it is still drastically more effective to write notes by hand. What is interesting about this particular study is that while it found that typing is less effective, many students, who were asked which note taking style they felt was better for learning, chose computers, like myself.

The study also showed that students who type are more likely to write down not only more words when they take notes, but also write down the notes more word-for-word than students who write their notes would. I found this particular statistic interesting because it would make sense that information would be easier to remember if it was in your own words and not the words of someone else.

In regard to taking notes verbatim from a lecture, there was a study done where two groups were given either a laptop or notebook to write notes down as they watched a “TED Talk.” 30 minutes after they were giving questions regarding the talk. While the two groups tested equally on recalling facts, those who wrote their notes did noticeably better on conceptual problems. This is related to the fact that the notes were longer and more overlapping with the lecture itself, and not in their own words/thoughts.

Ultimately all the studies that I read argued that writing notes is better for memory and note taking period. While I probably will continue to take my notes in classes with my computer, it was very interesting to look into what would be the better route to go.

http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/writing-notes-by-hand-better-than-typing/2459536.html

http://lifehacker.com/5738093/why-you-learn-more-effectively-by-writing-than-typing

http://www.boston.com/health/2014/06/05/take-note-this-handwritten-notes-are-more-effective-than-typed-ones/Ypp4ahKuX2Zd0OtUqBw79H/story.html

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/take-notes-by-hand-for-better-long-term-comprehension.html 

While it is obvious that superheroes are in no sense real people, a thought came to my mind about which superhero is the most plausible. After all, technology and technology is becoming more and more advanced everyday, so I decided to do some research to see what I could find.

I picked 4 super heroes to examine and to choose as the realest possible super hero.

First on my list was Iron Man:

Since Iron man himself holds no true “Super Powers” as a human being, I decided to look into his suit first to see how close technology has gotten to an actual “Iron Man Suit.” While multiple articles claim that a suit with the strength and protection of human being, or stronger than a human being, is very much possible, the many features of the suit are far off. The voice activation of the suit is similar to what we see in many devices today, such as the IPhone’s “Siri.” The jet-pack suit however… Not so much. While there have been some jet packs made for soldiers in combat, they are made for not far distances, nor much height off the ground, thus creating the first road block in Mr. Starks suit. Also, the idea of an energy source that can replace a human heart is a little far fetched. Overall Iron Man could be possible but most likely will be a little ways away. On the possible super hero scale I give it a: B-

 Second up on the list is the Incredible Hulk… Didn’t take much research to determine that a guy with anger problems turning into a big green monster wasn’t coming anytime soon… Then again who knows what bath salts can do… Overall Grade: F-

 Finally on our list we have Batman. Batman off the top of ones head, would think no way, a guy running around with a black mask on and cape to match? There cant be any reality in that. But after looking into the bat of the night, I found an interesting realization. Most of the tools Batman uses in his crime-stopping efforts are not out of technologies reach in the slightest. A bat-shaped boomerang, a fast moving car with some cool touch ups, and a sidekick with an even brighter costume. Batman in the world of possible superheroes, pretty much fits the bill. Using really only his wits and sheer strength to beat the efforts of not only the joker, but also the Riddler, Penguin, and Bane, is badass. Using real-world science and technology to his advantage, Batman also is the savviest superhero of them all. Batman’s overall Grade: A-

Of the multiple articles I looked at, near all of them agreed that Batman could be coming…

Batman takes it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/05/03/how-close-are-we-to-a-real-iron-man-suit/

http://io9.com/5811568/what-is-the-most-scientifically-plausible-superpower

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-knight-shift-why-bat/ 

The other day in class we had a pop quiz that dealt with a test that had hamsters sleep with lights on, and  measured how it affected their sleep cycles. While it is equally as bad to sleep with the television (or worse), as it is to sleep with the lights on, I wondered if it was bad to fall asleep while listening to different music or sounds. I decided to research if different soothing sounds or certain music could help someone fall asleep and have a positive affect on ones sleep cycle. Another reason this topic seemed so intriguing to me is because I have a significant amount of trouble falling asleep, and college hasn’t made this issue any easier. According to The National Sleep Foundation in 2011, Generation Y has more difficulty falling asleep than any other population. (Via NPR)

One article that I came across not only said that sleeping with certain sounds was good for you, but it helps you to remember certain information related to those sounds when you wake up. Doctors ran a test where they would show patients images with sound cues and they would have to remember the location of certain images. The patients would then take a nap, and the doctor would play cues from some, but not all of the images. When they awoke they would retake the test, and the patients were much more accurate at matching the images with the sounds. This test gives some insight into possible advancements in sound and sleep technologies.

A different article talked about which sounds in particular are good for helping one fall asleep and stay asleep, and ones that are not.

While sounds may vary per individual, some of the more recognized effective sounds can be: White noise, Nature sounds, and music with a soothing voice. Most music with upbeat lyrics tends to keep the mind awake, which would make it harder for one to go to sleep and stay asleep.

According to the British Academy of Sound Therapy (via RYOT), the scientifically most relaxing song ever recorded is entitled ‘Weightless,’ by Marconi Union. Here is a link to the song here (Weightless). I decided to listen to the song to see if truly was as relaxing as they say it is… I was asleep in a matter of minutes, and my blog writing was interrupted. However, I found something that could put me to sleep, which is a success in itself, so I couldn’t complain too much.

While I thought that some types of noise would help ones sleep habits, I didn’t think that there would be other benefits such as increase in memory. I found the two articles that I looked at to be very informative, and coincidently, in line with I thought I would find when I started researching the topic.

As someone who struggles to get some Z’s, I think that some of the information I found out could be useful for myself, and I imagine many others with going to sleep at night.

So next time you’re debating between falling asleep to Netflix or listening to music, throw on some Marconi Union and you’ll be out in seconds.

“Now we are waiting for video conformation from New York” I heard the other night as I watched football games through Sunday evening. I remember thinking to myself “this is stupid, and it takes an hour for them to figure out if one inch of his toe stepped out of bounds, lets just play the game.” Every year more and more technology is being brought into the league to help insure that referees are never wrong, and that every play is 100% correct. While it does make the game fairer, I’m not quite sure how I feel about it.

Reports have even claimed that starting in the near future, cameras could be placed on the sidelines so that refs will have conclusive evidence of plays from every angle. No longer will there be any angle of a play that coaches, refs, and fans won’t be able to see. An Article claims that “it makes sense for the NFL to do all it can to help the officials do their jobs better.” However is it becoming too much?

I feel that it is almost to the point where referees aren’t even going to be needed on the field. Soon cameras will be able to dictate every single play, call penalties, touchdowns, timeouts, and more. What will be the point of having the refs?

The era we live in is all about advancing technology to the next level, especially in sports. In some ways it has been positive, such as safer helmets to prevent concussions and microphones in helmets to help the Quarterback get play calls, however the replay is becoming overbearing. It seems now that a fan can’t go through watching even a quarter of football without some controversy of a call that needs to be reviewed.

I think that there needs to be a human element to the game. That’s the way the game has always been and it’s the way it always should be. Sometimes refs do make mistakes, but that is part of the game, the referees are only human. Life itself isn’t 100% fair 100% of the time, so why should a sports game be? There needs to be a little bit of luck that goes a teams way every once in a while.

If cameras take over the league then an aspect of the game, that has been present since the beginning, will be lost. The Game of football is one that is evolving more and more every year, but I don’t want it to loose its fundamental elements. Ultimately I disagree with the articles that claim that video is helping the league, and I would hope to soon see a discussion through the NFL about the impact of non-human elements throughout the game of football.

“Is That British?”

In my mind, one of the most fascinating things to the human ear is an accent different than your own. Unfortunately, I am from Washington DC and there isn’t much of a “DC Accent.” So upon coming to Penn State, and talking to people with all different accents, especially those super cool one of a kind New Zealand accents, made me think about what it all started. What is the root of all the accents? While this question may sound rather trivial, I wanted to know how  it all started. How did Pittsburgh English become different than British or New Zealand English? So I did some research.

One article talked about New Orleans. If you spend one day on the streets of the French Quarter you would be able to hear a very unique accent. The cause of this is that 1). Many different countries inhabited New Orleans originally, thus causing a unique form of dialect that was adopted over time. 2.) More isolated areas, such as New Orleans, have more unique vernaculars, because there was no contact with other regions when the language was being developed.

This would also make sense for Australians and New Zealanders, who are completely secluded from any of form of English, thus it was easy for them to adapt a new form of English that was different than the British and American forms of the language.

Now that answered my question as to why different areas have different accents, but how was such a drastic change in accent created between British and American English… After all, the first Americans were British themselves.

One article claims that education plays a large roll in the different accents. This is the point that I most agree with. It makes sense that lower income areas, where education is less valued, there would be a larger language barrier. More people didn’t learn the proper forms of English and therefore just picked up different words and phrases from those around them, creating slang.  That would explain why different places around the United States have different types of accents.

Ultimately, there are multiple different causes to why accents have been created for the English language, and one reason cannot get all the credit. I think The education cause makes the most sense, and It was interesting to find out a little about the origin of accents.

“Out with elbow soreness,” a phrase that Baseball fans around the world have come to hear way too often. The increasing number of players who are forced to receive “Tommy John” surgery is ridiculous. With a 700% increase in the surgeries’ frequency, it has caused many to search for a better way. I decided to do a little research into some of the ways that doctors and scientists are attempting to deal with the problem.

“Tommy John surgery,” is necessary when the ulnar collateral ligament in the elbow becomes damaged. Doctors replace the area with a tendon from somewhere else in the body. The surgery was deemed the “Tommy John surgery,” after the Los Angeles dodgers pitcher, Tommy John was the first major league pitcher to get the surgery done. Here you can see what one pitcher, Joba Chamberlain, decided to do with the scar from his surgery, and Tommy John himself

. 

One of the new inventions to help stop the injury, is the Motus pitching sleeve (via The Bleacher report.) This pitching sleeve was created to help decrease the number of Tommy John surgeries in youth and professional players. Still in its prototype stages, the sleeve resembles any other brand of compression sleeve that you see pitchers, and many athletes wear in their respective sports. What differentiates this sleeve from the others, is the small motion senses that are located in the elbow of the sleeve. The consumer downloads an app, which connects to the sleeve’s censors, and plugs in their height and weight, then with some assumptions made by the app, it is ready to test the motion of your arm. With this technology, the app can tell you when forces are up in your arm, and at which points in your pitching motion, you are exerting the most force. This could revolutionize pitchers arm protection and hopefully bring a strong decrease to the number of superstars that are plagued with the injury.

While the sleeve may help solve the issue, the question also must be asked what caused this rampant increase of surgeries, and is there a natural solution to stopping it? After a little research I found that most people believe that the true cause of the injury is that pitchers are just throwing way too much. “Kids are getting run into the ground,” Yankees relief pitcher Shawn Kelley told a reporter. (via sbnation) Starting at a young age kids begin on an intense path of daily bullpens, pitching lessons, and long tosses. Thus, their arms are getting worn out before they are even in high school. Maybe the best solution is to refrain from making kids throw like they are professional baseball players. Could one less long toss a day keep the doctor away?

Ultimately, while the invention of the pitching sleeve could revolutionize the protection of pitchers arms for years to come, I feel trainers and doctors need to start taking a larger look at younger kids pitching habits. If this problem can be solved, not only will it be healthy for all those who play the game, but also more exciting for the fans that wont have to see their favorites pitchers sidelined with this epidemic of an injury.

My Name is Austin White, I’m a communications major, and I decided to take this course because my advisor said I should take it. I am awful at Science, and  I don’t think I will be a scientist because outer space is scary to think about. Andrew will be a really cool teacher, but I don’t know if he will be quite as cool as Walter White. Mr. White has probably taught me more about chemistry than any science teacher I had in high school… probably because I was watching breaking bad in chemistry class.