As finals week is quickly approaching one word many college students use to describe this hellish week is, well, stressful. In today’s society when we hear the word stress we think of it as a bad thing and want to be “stress free.” Understandably so as nobody wants to feel the weight of the world on their shoulders.

In life I feel like everything we look at has literally to sides to it or another way to approach the situation at hand. In this instance, I believe that stress isn’t as bad as people put it out there to be. In health I used to hear the notion ” there is such thing as bad and good stress.” Not until now did I understand what that meant.

While doing my research I came across the wise words and advice of doctor Richard Shelton (vice chair for research in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Alabama Birmingham) who stated, “after all, the body’s fight-or-flight response is meant to be protective, not harmful. It’s only when stress becomes chronic, or when we feel we’re no longer in control of a situation, that it negatively affects our health and wellbeing.”

Dr.Shelton also verbalized that the stimulation of low-level stressors brings about the production of neurotrophin (brain chemicals) that makes the connection between the brain and the neurons even stronger. In a way this is said to boost brainpower. Shelton also suggests that this boost in brain power can lead to improved memory.

According to researchers, “stress encourages stem cells in the brain to turn into new nerve cells that boost mental agility.” A study conducted on rats brought researchers to interesting results. A group of rats were tested and put into stressful events that would raise blood pressure. This made the stem cells in their brain develop into new nerve cells. These new nerve cells developed weeks later and significantly improved their mental performance. In the study it was said that improvement in mental performance was only noticeable two weeks after instead of an instant improvement. The reasoning behind this was that the new cells needed time to become mature. So the acute stress you experience may not give any results until weeks later.

Now although we are not rats we are very similar (therefore scientist often use them for studies.) Analyzing this study though I feel as though they should’ve had human subjects to make this study a bit more reliable. The ideal scientific experiment design would be male and females around the same age and health standings. Once we can get our subjects we would then have them take a test , that measures mental performance. Then, for a month they will be put in the same stressful environment for a month. Through out this experiment one would have to be diligent to get rid of extra variables. We would also have to ensure that the levels of stress were acute because then we would run into the issue of ethics of whether or not someone should be expose to high levels of stress. In the end, after the month of stress is complete the people will take another test of the same caliber of the first one and to see if their scores improved or no.

Associate professor of integrative biology at University of California, Berkeley says, “Some amounts of stress are good to push you just to the level of optimal alertness, behavioral and cognitive performance.”

In the end, like many other things I think it is safe to say that stress is okay to a certain extent. Like anything in life we must use and take things in moderation, and to me, stress is no exception. In the peer comments I am curious to see how you guys perceive stress and if it helps or hurts you. Many college students live by the saying , “I work better under stress.” Is that you?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2310343/Being-stressed-CAN-good–boosts-memory.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/weird-ways-stress-good/story?id=25085508

http://stanfordmedicine.org/communitynews/2012fall/stress.html

Finals week is slowly approaching so it’s crunch time. And like many people I like to snack while I study. With that being said, I grabbed a box of cheez its and I started to notice something: I could not stop eating them. It seems like each cheez it was my last one, but I would soon catch my hand in the box reaching fro another one. They were addicting! It then dawned on me jow growing up I have always loved cheese! To me, there was a strong correlation between the cheez it and me wanting to eat more of them. I believe the cheez it had something in it that made me want to keep eating more. So like Andrew taught us in order to truly figure things out we must do our research.

So far my findings were strictly observational, fell victim to the file draw problem, and only had one subject(me). After being in class for weeks now anyone knows this is not enough info to start to draw conclusions. I knew I had to change that and draw conclusions from studies that were reliable and experimental with numbers and qualified scientists.

That’s when I came across the work of diligent scientists back in the 1980’s. In research conducted by Eli Hazum and his colleagues from from Wellcome Research Laborities , they found that milk produced by cows contained the highly addictive opiate chemical morphine. As we are all aware, milk is a key ingredient cheese. These scientist are inferring that this is one of the key ingredients that makes cheese so addictive to many.

The scientists also began to dig deeper and found more reasoning behind the addictive food product. The group of scientist conducting this study also found out that cheese contained the protein casein. When digested it is said that this protein turns into casomorphins that bring can bring about pleasurable sensations such as those of opiate. According to Neal Barnard, MD said, “Since cheese is processed to express out all the liquid, it’s an incredibly concentrated source of casomorphins—you might call it dairy crack.”

While all of this sounds good and makes sense I must be a scientist and question these scientific findings. The conclusions drawn from these scientists suggest that it is indeed the ingredients of the cheese that has me addicted. But what if instead it were me. What if a was biologically predisposed to enjoy cheese and cheez its in particular. When we look at this situation specifically it is safe to say that not EVERYONE is addicted to cheese or find it very enjoyable. So could it possibly be something in us that makes us want the cheese more.I believe it is safe to say that we can not automatically rule our reverse causation in this instance.

I start to analyze the study and begin wondering what else is in this “addictive” cheese and what are the other affects of these ingredients. A study in Russia came to the conclusion that the same addictive casomorphin found in cheese could possibly affect the development of a human infant in a negative way, “specifically in a manner that could cause autism.”

I also read that cheese is high in saturated fats and lots of cholesterol that could eventually lead to heart disease and other healthy complications such as diabetes. According to an article published by The New York Times, Americans consume a total of 33 pounds of cheese each year. “Reducing cheese and saturated fat consumption is something anyone can do to prevent heart disease, since ‘Unhealthy diets and lack of exercise may kill about 300,000 to 500,000 Americans each year.'”( http://www.care2.com/greenliving/cheese-contains-morphine.html#ixzz3KxYqXnGm) Must be hard to cut back on something that is very addicting wouldn’t you say?

All in all, I guess I finally got my answer as to why cheese seemed to be so addicting and also learned a bit more about what I’m actually eating. While the studies results kind of scare me and make me think twice about eating cheese I’m starting to wonder if I’m analyzing these studies thoroughly enough. I mean , high cholesterol and fat can be monitored by exercise and other healthy habits. Is cheese really the cause of high cholesterol or is it other factors that could attribute to this health woe? To me this will always been an open question until science can prove otherwise.

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/cheese-contains-morphine.html

http://yumuniverse.com/addiction-to-cheese-is-real-thanks-to-casomorphins/

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/

http://livewell.jillianmichaels.com/cheese-make-fat-5330.html

http://www.livestrong.com/article/457061-can-eating-cheese-cause-weight-gain/

Test , test, and more tests! We are all in college so therefore we have had to take a standardized test or two in our lifetime. Whether it was a state test, a placement test, or our favorites: the SAT and the ACTs. In order to read this blog you have to be in Science in Our World, to be in the class you have to be at Penn State, and to be in Penn State you have to be accepted, and to be accepted you have to take….a  standardize test. While many schools implement these tests to measure the knowledge of a student I look at the actual process and wonder if its really fair. Looking at the big picture kids who grow up in a low income household are essentially put at a disadvantage.

To begin with the test is a bit pricey. So what about the kids who can not take the test multiple times to get the desired score that they are looking for. Now of course there is always the choice of vouchers but you can only use that one time. I’m then brought to kids who are more privileged and have the opportunity to take the test to take the test more than once. To me, this isn’t fair. Nine times out of ten a child does not pick their living situation, but rather they are just born into it and have to make due.

The National Center for Fair and Open Testing measured the same thing I was worried about.  After reviewing numbers provided by The College Board, their findings were sad but factual. In their studies they found that students with wealthier families outscored poorer families by an astounding 400 points. There was an obvious strong correlation between SAT scores and the amount of money the parents made. If you look at the graph below you can see the strong correlation…

Analyzing the findings by the College Board, we must dig deeper as scientist and try and figure out the whys and hows. After viewing the stats it is obvious that the money that the families bring in allow the students to have more resources. With that being said, kids with rich families can buy private tutors or attend  prep classes that teach techniques that can help raise the score of these students. This once again puts privileged kids a few steps ahead of the other kids who are not able to afford these special classes.

Branching off of finances we can assume that families with more money live in better neighborhoods. In  better neighborhoods they have a better educational system or can afford to send their kid off to a private school. These fancy schools have high graduation rates as well as college prep classes. On the other hand students with less money might not get the same opportunity and may end up stuck in a crumbling public school.

As I don’t want to seem like a hypocrite I could see where other may form a counter argument. In my opponents side they may view America as the land of the free and full of opportunity. By that I mean they may believe that a kid coming from a low income family could go out get a job and make something of themselves, or just work harder to get the score that they want.

While both sides make sense, it is scientifically evident that there is certainly a strong correlation between family incomes and the score of the student.

According to The College Board, they notice the many issues with this test and are making a  new test in Spring 2015 that will be designed to be more “fair.” “David Coleman, President of the College Board, told the New York Times that the test (along with the ACT) had ‘become disconnected from the work of our high schools.'”

This new test design is geared towards students despite their backgrounds and family income. To many this isn’t really solving anything because once again, you still have to pay for the actual test. All in all, I think this is a problem that many are starting to become aware of and trying to take action on.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/10/07/sat-scores-and-income-inequality-how-wealthier-kids-rank-higher/

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/08/29/the-correlation-between-income-and-sat-scores/

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/257504/speedreads-how-family-income-determines-sat-scores-in-one-revealing-chart

http://www.msnbc.com/all/sat-scores-trend-family-income

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/files/2013/02/teset11.jpeg

Usually when you first formally meet someone you look the individual in their eyes. To many it is a form of respect and trust; and leads the other person to elude that you have a sense of confidence about yourself. Recently, when I met my friends roommate for the first time we made eye contact. As our eyes met one another she complimented my eye lashes commenting that they were nice. By nice I am assuming she meant long. After she made this comment I got to thinking. What is the actual purpose of our eye lashes. Now ladies, I know you love buying mascara and trying to get the perfect lashes but what exactly do they do except for making our face more appealing?

We also all have seen that new famous vine video highlighting eyebrows and by saying “eyebrows on fleek.” Now other than making them look pretty and keeping them waxed what purpose do they serve. Essentially they are they eyelashes partner in crime, being how close they are.

Given I took anatomy, I know that nine times out of ten each thing on our body serves a purpose. Our fingers grab things, our skin secretes and protects, our hair keeps us warm and protects us, our feet help us walk, our spine helps us stay upright , etc. The list goes on. Often we forget about the purpose of smaller things such as our eyebrows and eyelashes.

According to MeMD medical blog, “As humans evolveed, we lost a lot of excess body and facial hair along the way. But the eyebrows and eyelashes remained a core part of our features.” Going off of evolution , this notion makes sense given we did start out a bit on the hairy side.

Going off of the same medical website , eyebrows serve as the big brother for the eyes. They protect the eyes from sweat and moisture getting into them. Scientists say that the arch in our eyebrows was designed for the sweat and moisture to drip down the sides of our face. According to medical blogger Kat Smith, “experts believe that if humans did not evolve to have eyebrows, we may have developed extremely pronounced foreheads or really long eyelashes to help keep moisture out.”

Unlike the eyebrows, our eyelashes have multiple jobs. First, they protect our eyes from debris and other harmful things that could get in our eyes and cause possible irritation. Our eyelashes also warn us to detect unwanted objects such as flies or gnats. This is why we automatically blink at the first sensation of a foreign object invading our eyes. Some even say our eyelashes help filter sunlight so we don’t get direct exposure to the bright sun( hence, we sometimes wince when we walk into bright light.)

While all this is nice and informative ,in class Andrew always teaches us to be scientist. Find a problem, experiment, ask questions, and eventually try and find an answer. While right now these findings seem to be logical and true ; we have to think about the future and other possible counter-arguments. What if someone later detests the idea of evolution? Then parts of my argument would be proven false. What if someone later in science says something along the lines that our eyelashes true soul purpose was to attract the opposite so we can do what many think our real job on earth is (which is to reproduce.)

With that being said, in the comments I would like to open an argument and ask whether or not you believe that eyelashes/eyebrows have jobs other than what I listed.

http://www.livescience.com/32352-what-are-eyelashes-for.html

http://www.memd.me/why-do-we-have-eyebrows-and-eyelashes/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyelash

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131115-why-do-you-have-eyebrows

As a human being , I found the Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown stories disturbing and sad. After reviewing the facts of both cases it always seems to be an issue of who is really telling the truth: the cop , the neighborhood watch , the victim (who was dead), and witnesses.  While some may view these cases subjective and unfair we must also think about the hundreds of others who have been put at a disadvantage by cops who abuse their power. In the end ,I think it is safe to say that it may be beneficial to put cameras on police officers so we can get the full story of every situation. The real question I pose to the people reading this blog is , is it ethical or not? Is it unconstitutional? Is it invasion of privacy? All these questions are brought up.

In class Andrew always brings up whether or not doing certain experiments are ethical or not. According to president Obama, this is ethical and going off a speech he made Monday he is requesting nearly $263 million to fund this new project. In his plan he wants funding to buy 50,00 cameras. Sadly, if Obama doesn’t get the funding for this his whole idea will fall victim to the File Drawer Problem. Now,while some may think this may solve nothing , a pilot experimental of implementing this system proved other wise.

In an experimental trial using these cameras on police officers in Rialto, California , the results were breath taking. From 2012-2013 , in the first year implementing these cameras “the number of complaints filed against officers fell by 88 percent and use of force by officers fell by almost 60 percent.”

While the plan may see far fetched to those ignorant of the police cameras; some major cities (Chicago, New York, Washington D.C, and many more) are already using them in their police department or plan using them.

To me this will enhance the performance of the police others off of the psychology that people will perform/behave better when they know others are watching. This is known as social facilitation .  After all, if you’re doing what you’re supposed to do why would it be an issue if other people are looking on at you.

While I’m a strong believer in the idea of having these cameras I must step back and really think hard about the cons of this system and address the counter arguments. President Obama must first give more details on these cameras. Will they be on the police officers whole shift? In some cases they officers may feel as though thier privacy is being invaded when they are not confronting someone and doing their job. Also who gets to see these tapes ? Nobody wants an invasion of privacy in a sense that they do not always want to be watched.Americans also might question if this funding could go else where.

Looking at the situation through a scientific microscope we have to think about the actual problem at hand and solve it using the skills Andrew taught us. First when it comes to the validity of a story is the correlation really strong between the what the officer is saying and false information being presented. We must also think are there other factors/variables being included when stories dont add up (confused witnesses, lying victims, etc) All of this must be accounted for before coming to a conclusion that these cameras will be an over all solution to our problem.

I am a bit curious what you guys have to say about this proposed idea , feel free to let your voice be heard; I would love to hear different opinions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/01/obama-police-body-cameras_n_6250146.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_facilitation

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2014/12/obama-requests-75m-police-body-cameras-201412118927522491.html

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20141013/ARTICLES/141019898

While thinking of a topic to blog about I thought why not write about something a lot of us college students know about….credit cards. Believe it or not we deal with these cards everyday. ELion Cash, Meal Points, Visa, etc. It’s in our everyday lives. We need it to eat, pay tuition, shop, and keep our heads above water. Let’s face it, money makes the world go ’round. While cards are convenient , science has proven these plastics rectangles to be dangerous and lethal. There seems to be a scientific correlation between the amount of money you spend on a card as opposed to how much you would spend if you just had cash.

The science behind this idea is that actual cash is tangible; you can feel it , touch it, and see the actual paper that states the value in print. But when it comes to the card it is simply plastic and we don’t seem to make a connection between the card and the actual amount we are spending.

As Andrew would always say in class we need to always have facts and studies supporting our claims. So with that being said we should take a look at a study that was conducted by Dun&Bradstreet that showed that people spent betwen 12-18% more at Mcdonalds when they used their credit cards as opposed to cash. On average when a person uses cash they only spend $4.50, but when they brake out the plastic credit card they end up spending an average of $7.00! That is almost about double.

“In 2012  Promothesh Chatterjee and Randall L. Rose both conducted an observational experiemnt that brought us to the conclusion that  those who use credit tend to focus on the product’s benefits as opposed to their costs. A 2001 study by Drazan Prelec and Duncan Simester had the authors tell randomly selected participants in a study that they would be offered the opportunity to purchase tickets to an actual professional basketball game that had just sold out. These tickets were highly desirable. Participants were told either that they would have to pay in cash or that they would have to pay by credit card. Those who were told they would have to pay by credit card were willing to pay more than twice as much on average as those who were told that they would have to pay by cash.”

As I mentioned earlier we don’t seem to put value on these plastic cards. But of course I need to explain the science behind this reasoning. Breaking into the science of psychology of the spending ,Drazen Prelec and Duncan Simester of the Sloan School of Management at MIT also did a study that got to the core reason why we spend more with cards. They came to the conclusion that we will spend up to 100% more with these lethal cards.

Psychologist  Drazen Prelec(as mentioned before) and  George Loewenstein call this idea “coupling.” They suggest that when you have cash in your hand and feel it in your hands you are a couple and you do not want to leave the money in your hand.

Bringing a counter argument to my own blog I must say another reason why credit cards are so popular and increase spending is because well we can charge on these cards. If someone is full of desire they may fall victim of the saying “spending before you get it.” They may really want something and in reality not even have the actual cash or even have it in their account ; therefore they must resort to using these plastic cards.

I look forward to reading your comments to possibly give me another way to look at this topic and maybe change my person outlook.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-edge-choice/201207/the-way-we-spend-impacts-how-we-spend

http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/tips/credit-cards-make-you-spend-more/

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/retail-therapy/201306/why-we-overspend-credit

http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/help/8-things-to-know-about-credit-card-debt-6000.php

As our class touches on science in our world, I think it would interesting to address another branch of science: social science. In class we often take a topic in science and then address how it affects us (human beings). For example, in class once Andrew brought up the idea if animals can be gay. After this he asked the class how this affects our community as a whole.

Bringing the same teaching style as Andrew to the table I thought it would be curious to analyze and bring about the argument of whether or not technology is good or bad. Recently it was brought to my attention that a Home Depot in California is getting rid of their employees and substituting them with robots instead. This decision brought about much discussion in the science community as well as the political community.

For starters , this isn’t helping our already bad economic situation. Think about how many jobs are being taking away from actual humans. We already know that there are so many Americans without jobs given the unemployment rate in America is 5.8%. In the end this may leave a negative affect on our economy. “The Pew Research Center asked 1,900 technology experts if robots will help or hurt the workforce over the next 10 years. Nearly half (48%) envision a future in which robots displace significant numbers of workers. The remaining 52% say automation will not displace more jobs than it creates by 2025.”

Others worry about the possibly of these robots malfunctioning and possibly hurting the human customer it is serving. To them in a way we have no control of the flaws and possible negative mishaps these robots might cause. To a human we find this alarming because in a sense we have lack of control and certainty. Take for instance a man in Sweden who was attacked and almost killed in 2007 by one of the industrial robots at his work place ( the same type of robots that will be in Home Depot in Cali). According to the actual malfunction the situation at hand was : “Thinking he had cut off the power supply, the man approached the robot with no sense of trepidation. But the robot suddenly came to life and grabbed a tight hold of the victims head.”

Another aspect where technology is harmful to our economic system is the idea that computers may soon take away teachers and result in no need for actual classrooms. Many classes are now online and do not require a physical teacher;  but rather a programmed operating system to do all of the manual work instead. In today’s society you can now get a degree online and not have to spend a single minute in the class room. This ranges all the way to young kids being able to be home schooled right from home on their computers.

While some may view the idea of new technology as being a good things other beg to differ. Like Andrew mentioned in class science is not always good. New things/ideals that we think are good sometimes end up bad (smoking, thalidomide, etc.) Could this be the same for science and its new discoveries. In the end, there isn’t many experimental studies on this topic as that would be very difficult but currently we can infer that there is observational studies going on given how new this problem is. It is safe to say that maybe in about ten years or so we will see true results and strong correlations between technology and its effects on society as a whole.

http://instamun.org/meet-lowes-new-robot-retail-workers/

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/08/06/tech-experts-see-good-and-bad-sides-of-robots/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-nelson/too-much-technology-is-bad-for-the-brain_b_5448015.html

Recently in class I have noticed that something kept popping up. The topic of sugar and the negative effects that it tends to have. For example, in  class there was a discussion on whether or not high sugar filled soft drinks cause weight gain. It was such a hot topic that government officials were pushing to ban extra large soft drinks from being put on sale in an effort to decrease obesity.  Essentially in the end we found out that the more sugary drinks consumed the greater chance there was of weight gain. Our discussion on high amounts of sugar didn’t stop there for it came up again on Test 2 when Dr.Bidwell conducted a study showcasing the effects working out had on the negative effects of consuming the sugary soda.

As all things in life with the negatives come some positives. There are always two sides. In this case I would like to present the idea that some things that are sugary can have a  positive effect on certain people. Believe it or not eating something high in sugar such as chocolate can actually have a positive effect. To some eating a chocolate bar is unhealthy and shunned upon amongst many. But I recently learned that this sugary food product actually does have a positive affect.

While on an online medical journal by NYU, I came across a study that proved my point even more. ” A controlled study of 20 males with mild hypertension compared the effects of 100 g daily of a flavonol-rich dark chocolate as compared to a flavonol-free white chocolate. Results appeared to indicate that the dark chocolate produced improvements in blood pressure. A subsequent study of similar design, this one enrolling 44 people with mild hypertension, found that a much lower dose of dark chocolate (6.3 g daily), also significantly reduced blood pressure levels.<http://www.med.nyu.edu/content?ChunkIID=144581#ref8>. Going along with the commonly known bias we have with sugar, chocolate also contains a fat by the name of stearic acid. While we usually think saturated fats are bad for us, this acid has cardiovascular-preventive benefits.

In some cases some may view my blog and still believe that sugar is no good for you  and you must stay away from it. That is not always necessarily the case. While I will agree abundant amounts of sugar is unhealthy I must also say that it all has to do with using it in moderation. While chocolate is good for the heart if you eat 76 bars a day you might see an increase in your BMI. We have to get away from the stereotype of all sugars being bad.

We all know the notion of “eat your fruits and veggies.” Did you know that the fruits such as pineapples are high in sugar as well(I am also aware that these are natural sugars,but none the less they are sugars.)

Branching off a bit far now I can think of another instance when sugar isn’t that bad of thing. Running sugar back in high school my track coach would always give the athletes these gatorade chews that were high in sugar to enhance our performance to give us a sugar high. While when it comes to healthy the post crash might’ve not been beneficial but our overall athletic performance was enhanced. Times of the athletes approved allowing some to qualify for the state competition , all due to the little “infamous” sugar high.

In the comments, it would be cool to see how you guys view sugar in your everyday lives.

http://www.med.nyu.edu/content?ChunkIID=144581#ref8

http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/truth-about-sugar

http://www.thankyourbody.com/is-sugar-bad/

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/BMI/bmicalc.htm

Growing up I have struggled with ADHD. For those who do not know what ADHD is, it has to do with the inability to focus, pay attention, and the inability to control behavior. ADHD is commonly noticed in young children and is easily spotted in the classroom. Many are put on medications to help lessen the symptoms that make it hard to do well in the classroom. While found in young children, ADHD also affects adults as well.

While growing up I noticed my body would react to things differently than those around me. For example, whenever I would drink coffee or anything with high caffeine levels I would not get “hyper” on the contrary I would become very calm and relaxed. It seemed as though the sugars and ingredients that were supposed to get me up and going was counter productive. As Andrew has always taught us in class, whenever we have a thought we must turn it into a hypothesis, then after we have a hypothesis we must conduct an experiment to see if our notion is true. This is the only way we can come to a logical well supported conclusion. With that being said, I was on a search to see if my findings were correct. Seems as though I was onto something.

According to medical reviewed journal, “Caffeine is a vasoconstrictor. That means it makes blood vessels smaller and reduces blood flow. Amphetamine medications used to treat ADHD also make blood vessels smaller. So caffeine actually mimics ADHD medications.” It is said that this reduces overactive activity in the brain which allows one to better focused.

It is said the caffine allows the brain to release dopamine which is normally low in those who have ADHD. With that being said when one consumes coffee their dopamine levels can get just right , bringing the normally energetic ADHD patient to be calm and at a happy medium. This can overall bring about better concentration and attentiveness in those with ADHD.

It seems as though things with high caffeine levels, are counter productive for those with ADHD. Now what about things that are suppose to calm the average person down such as NyQuil? While there aren’t many facts and studies on this argument I will pose an opinion on this topic to present on argument which might bring about a contreversial discussion in the comment board.

Given the fact that I have ADHD, I have noticed that NyQuil has no affect on me at all. While NyQuil puts my mom and brother(no ADHD ) right to sleep, it keeps me and my dad(both have ADHD) wide awake. Interesting right? It seems as though those with ADHD are breaking barriers and going against what is normal. Instead of feeling sleepy to get a good nights rest to over come the annual cold, I feel wide awake and overly attentive.

In the end, it amazes me the way those with ADHD react to certain things. Whenever I tell my mom about my experiences she shuns me and tells me “shut up and take your nyquil!”. Statistically  since 2011 6.7 Americans were diagnosed with ADHD, that is a huge statistic! With that being said this information affects and is relevant to many people around you.

To open a discussion I am very curious as to how many people have ADHD and experience the same things as I do. I’m curious if those with ADHD react differently to things that contain high caffeine.

http://333oee3bik6e1t8q4y139009mcg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/brainmaps2.jpg

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080310024913AA2w90J

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/data.html

http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/caffeine-shockers-products-surprisingly-high-in-caffeine

Love at first sight or a pure attraction at first sight. We’ve all heard the saying , and some of us believe it while others don’t. Some view that if its meant to be it is meant to be, while others find it impossible to fall in love with someone that they barely know. This is very interesting because is it true that we can really fall in love with someones physical outer appearance  or their  aura?

When people doubt love at first sight they do this for they believe love is more emotional than physical. But have they taken a closer look at the notion “love at first sight?” Love at first sight is not to be confused with an infacuation . You  know that feeling you might get after laying eyes on Brad Pitt or your favorite star. Love at first sight is just knowing that person will mean the world to you.

As we know, when it comes to animals they are attracted to one another by many physical appearances to mate. Animals use scent/ chemical signals (pheromones) to attract the opposite sex. But is it only animals that this happens to? Animals and humans both were ultimately made to reproduce which is done by sexual intercourse. With that being said certain things like colors, facial symmetry, scents, and texture will attract the opposite sex (in both animals and humans).

Studies have recently been conducted to support the idea that certain physical things can in fact attract the opposite sex when it comes to humans. It is commonly known that scents do the trick. While reading an article produced by a science website labeled “Live Science,” a study conducted by Dr. Randy Thornhill from the University of New Mexico blew me away. His study showed  that women are highly attracted to the scent of male sweat especially during during ovulation. When we come to think of it male sweat is there natural untouched smell that naturally can attract the opposite sex.

Thornhill also reported that, “These subconscious scents might be related to pheromones, chemical signals produced by the body to communicate reproductive quality. The human genome contains more than 1,000 olfactory genes—compared to approximately 300 genes for photoreceptors in the eyes—so pheromones have received a lot of attention from basic research scientists as well as perfume manufacturers.” You see,without even knowing a person you can be attracted by their scent which is a physical attribute.

Many scientist have refuted this argument that humans are attracted by the pheromones due to the fact that the place in the brain that detects the smell (VNO) is hard to locate. When they do located this portion they believe it is way to small to really pick up any scents that can actually cause a physical attraction.

In the end, I personally believe that humans are attracted at first sight and can show interest in a person before even speaking to them. I think we are genetically programmed to be attracted to certain people by their physical attributes. As Andrew always states in class , there are always other factors that may contribute to our findings. Therefore my overall theory could be wrong or refuted by many people. After all that is what science is all about. With that being said, I am anxious to see all of the reviews and comments I will recieve.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pheromone

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=116833

http://www.livescience.com/7023-rules-attraction-game-love.html

In class earlier this week Andrew talked to us about if males were toxic. We looked into fruit flies and how the males are so selfish and pretty much use the female fruit fly just to carry his children. In the end, we did find out that the male fruit fly can be pretty toxic to female fruit fly. Very interesting right? Now, do we college students ever step back and think what can be toxic to us? Usually we are so busy we don’t think of the little things that are hurting us.

Recently I began to think that something superficial is very toxic to our generation. That happens to be social media. That ranges from Twitter, to Instagram, to Facebook, to Yik Yak. We spend so much time on these networks but do we ever think about the negative effects it has on us? I mean of course there are positives for we can always stay in touch with those we may not get to see anymore but studies are showing that there are more negatives than positives.

According to Chrone.com, Steven Strogatz from Cornell University concluded that, “social media sites can make it more difficult for us to distinguish between the meaningful relationships we foster in the real world, and the numerous casual relationships formed through social media. By focusing so much of our time and psychic energy on these less meaningful relationships, our most important connections, he fears, will weaken.” In this theory, if we continue to dedicate so much time to social media we will eventually forget the basics in life and the things that actually matter the most. These social media outlets are becoming big distraction in our everyday lives. It brings out the procrastination that us college students are already so prone to.

It is even said that the average person age 18-32 spends about 3 hours per day on social media. That’s 28 hours a week. So within a week you have wasted a whole day on social media.

I personally see those statistics and become alarmed but yet I still engage in these social media outlets. To me it seems to be a stress outlet where I can just relax and surf. Sometimes I even catch myself finding it hard to log out. That brings me to the theory that maybe I am a bit addicted to social media. I’m not the only one who thinks these networks are bringing out an addiction in the user. Harvard University conducted a study to see the addictiveness of social media. They concluded that while their subjects were talking about social media sites such as Facebook their brain experienced the same pleasurable feeling one may experience while having sex or eating or even receiving money. This is said to be why one is so ready and happy to get on websites such as Facebook or Twitter.

Toxic may be an understatement to label these social media outlets. Coming closer to home, Yik Yak made quite a bit of a stir at Penn State University. When people have a surplus amount of free time they result to social media, and that’s exactly what a student did when he made a threat that leaded to his arrest and charges. A student anonymously posted a threat to shoot up the Hub earlier this week. His claim was that it was “just a joke.” We seem to not realize how serious and dangerous these websites and apps can be. We also are quick to forget that once we post something it can always be traced back through out an investigation or screenshots.

In the end, I believe social media is ripping our society apart yet helping it grow at the same time. Technology is a great thing but only when used in moderation. If used responsibly I could see social media taking a turn for the best. In the comments I would be curios to see if people view social media as a good or bad thing.

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/negative-effect-social-media-society-individuals-27617.html

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=define+yik+yak

http://mashable.com/2012/11/28/social-media-time/

http://www.marketingcharts.com/online/social-networking-eats-up-3-hours-per-day-for-the-average-american-user-26049/

As we are all aware, sleep is very important for humans especially us young stressed and hard working college students. Typically, doctors suggest that at least 8 hours of sleep is healthy and will keep  a person functioning perfectly. According to NBC’s report on sleep, “Sleep is also the time when the body does most of its repair work; muscle tissue is rebuilt and restored. We know, for example, that growth hormone is secreted during sleep. This hormone is important for growth in children, but is also important throughout adulthood in rebuilding tissues.” Without this wonderful sleep people seem to not really be themselves. They get irritable , lethargic, lazy, and well not really themselves.

Moving away from the facts lets present the argument at hand. Are we college students really getting the sleep that we need to be completely functional? Let’s face it we have class all day, endless amounts of homework, studying, and then of course time to socialize. We have a lot on our plates. How  could we possible get 8 hours of sleep into our schedules? As young adults we love social media. So when it comes time to get in bed and actually go to sleep we want to relax and surf the web; essentially keeping us up to ridiculous hours.

Even if this doesn’t sound like you, think about all of the  all nighters us college students have to pull. Procrastination is very common in college students, for some reason we love to wait until the last minute. Sometimes we could go days without sleep trying to complete a project on time or to study for that final exam.

According to a study done by Brown University, 18% of college males and 30% of college females have developed insomnia while in college. When you look at it, that is a very high statistic and drives my point even further that sleep is not really a thing for students in college. Brown University also discovered that 73% of students have sleeping problems while 11% reported that they didn’t have sleeping problems. Once again a breath taking statistic that really gets us thinking.

Obviously if college students aren’t getting enough sleep this is a health problem. Should professors give a lesser work load? Should we have better time management? I personally believe better time management is the real solution to this upcoming problem amongst the young community. Many people believe drinking less caffeine and staying away from your phone before sleep will help you get a better nights rest as well.

Out of curiosity, in the comments I would be very interested in who believes we do get enough sleep and who believes that we don’t. This is a bit of a subjective topic and I would love to see all of your responses.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3076707/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/why-do-we-need-so-much-sleep/#.VDgAN1b4vwI

http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/common_college_health_issues/sleep.php

https://www.uhs.uga.edu/sleep/

You run to the store and you notice you’re a bit thirsty. You know you had a long stressful day so you know you want something sweet. Then you come across the refrigerated section and notice a bright colored juice that catches your eyes. It’s the popular sports drink you see all the athletes drinking these days: Gatorade. I mean if Lebron James drinks it why can’t you, right?  All of the ads suggest that drinking this drink will quench your thirst, after all you are thirsty.

Should we be so quick to pick up this attractive drink that appeals to use in so many ways? In our mind when we are deciding to purchase Gatorade, our thought process brings us to a seemingly false positive. We think nothing bad is going on but indeed there is something going on. Studies are currently showing that drinking Gatorade is not healthy for those who aren’t relatively active.

According to LiveStrong.com, drinking gatorade is more detrimental and damaging to your teeth than a carbonated drink such as Coca-Cola(this is due to its very high sugar content). A shocking yet true fact that should be one reason to not consume this drink.  In addition to Gatorades high sugar content, it also lacks nutrition which is essential in a healthy diet. Let’s not forget to mention the additives in Gatorade such as mono potassium phosphate which is the same additive in things we wouldn’t even imagine consuming such as fertilizers and fungicide. Alex Friedman, one who is against this sugary sports drink, adds ” Bromine, which is used in flame retardants” is also used as an additive in Gatorade. It’s scary to think that we could be drinking the same ingredients used in such toxic substances and fertilizers. These things should not be going into our bodies.

The horrors in these sports drinks are very scary when looked at under a microscope. Drinking these sugary drinks could lead to diabetes or obesity. As we know obesity is already a known problems in today’s society. Although I already made may argument shinning Gatorade in a negative light there are SOME certain instances when Gatorade is okay to consume.

If you are an extremely active athlete that sweats a lot at practice and work outs vigorously, Gatorade may be the drink for you. Considering it is high in electrolytes, you can lower your chances of cramping up while playing your sport. You can also be sure that you will stay hydrated consuming Gatorade. This is probably the only exception when drinking this sugary drink is okay; given the fact that when sweating you lose a lot of essential things that your body needs(Gatorade can replace these things such as: salts, glucose, etc.)

In the end, I personally believe drinking gatorade should be avoided as much as possible for those who are not very active. To solve the problem of being thirsty stick to what those in the past stuck to, water. No sugars, no additives, just straight hydration.

http://prezi.com/vkdiybhl7bg5/why-you-shouldnt-drink-gatorade/

http://healthycancerchick.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/gatorade.png

http://www.livestrong.com/article/75345-pros-cons-gatorade/

Jogging. A great way to stay in shape and to take some stress off. We see people jog almost everyday on campus and think , “Boy are they healthy!” While some of us aren’t so physically active , others are extremely physically active and can be labeled and known as a “health junkie.” While we know jogging is very healthy and a great cardio work out we might be over looking some negative aspects of this practice. Let’s say for instance one jogs everyday. Think of all the long term complications they may start to face. Shin splints, bad knees, bad ankles are a few of the many things frequent runners may face.

According to running.about.com, “Beginner runners  may want to start out running every other day, to give themselves sufficient recovery time while still building a running habit.” It seems as though the trick is to give yourself recovery time to allow your muscles and joints to get a rest. When it comes to more experienced runners it is suggested that one still has rest days but to never get lazy and stop their running routine.

So what can you do to stay active and healthy on those days your body needs a rest you may ask? Well FitsSugar suggest to try a different work out that may work on different muscles; this way you can give those other running muscles a break. Try doing yoga, hiking, or a zumba class to stay active on your rest days.

Just curious ,if any of you guys comment back, how often do you guys go jogging and do you see positive results ?

SOURCES:

http://www.everydayhealth.com/fitness-pictures/weird-things-running-does-to-your-body.aspx

http://running.about.com/od/faqsforbeginners/f/runeveryday.htm

http://www.fitsugar.com/Running-Every-Day-Bad-My-Body-3524881

Technology. Now a days people rely on technology for well, almost everything. Banking. Communication. Learning. The list goes on. We rely on technological advances for many of the things we humans do  today. We are in a way very reliant upon the things we use every day just to get use by. Have you ever lost your phone for a day, let alone for five minutes? Lets be real, that moment is scarier than the moment you realize you forgot to do your project on the day that it is due. What about when there is a power outage and its a HUGE #tbt to the olden days where electricity was candles or a big fire. It seems like us, humans are no longer doing manual work to get things done. So lets say one day all this technology we rely on so much is snatched away from us, one day out of no where. What would we do?

According to AboveTopSecret.com, technology is starting to replace humans with machines and various robots. What if technology advances so much people start finding it difficult to find employment. Also, what if technology fails and we lose valuable information we now store online such as bank statements, photographs, and other important documents.

Many say that technology is taking over their lives and often find it hard to stay focused on things that matter the most. How many of you find yourself on twitter when you were really supposed to be doing homework. Or cuddled up watching Netflix when you were supposed to be cleaning your room or having family time. Shocking yet seemingly true, according to a report from Neilson, “The average American adult spends 11 hours per day with electronic media. That includes the age-old activities of watching TV and listening to the radio — which, surprisingly, are the top two digital activities in the average American adult’s day.” Talk about a big time consumer !

Anyways, these were just my thoughts. Not really sure if this is blog worthy but I though it was worth the risk. If any of you guys comment I’m curious to know what kind of a role media plays in your life (no role, a huge role, indifferent?) Let me know!

SOURCES:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread766127/pg1

http://tinybuddha.com/blog/8-tips-to-keep-technology-from-taking-over-your-life-from-wisdom-2-0/

http://mashable.com/2014/03/05/american-digital-media-hours/

For as long as I can remember it has always been preached to me that “drinking isn’t good for you” or to “stay away from alcohol.”  Is alcohol really bad for your health though? Yes, alcohol (in excess)brings out the worst in some of us  and can also cause liver damage but what if we drink it in moderation? Scientists and doctor claim that alcohol is beneficial in a sense that it is heart healthy( helps lower cholesterol) and can boost your brain activity.

According to a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, those who do drink seem to have better brain functions and a lower risk of mental decline as opposed to those who do not drink regularly. After evaluating 12,000 women ages 70-81, moderate drinkers scored higher than those who did not drink. Other scientists and researchers have accredited the intelligence of their subjects to their consumption of alcohol. In the Huffington Post, Cognitive psychologist Jennifer Wiley, led a study where her team got their subjects intoxicated then tested their creative problem solving skills. Those with a BAC level of 0.07 tested higher in creative problem solving than those individuals that were sober. Now don’t read my post and go taking your next exam tipsy , because her same team tested the subjects on memory and they did not do so well( which is no surprise as many of us probably already know).

After doing some research it became apparent that alcohol is heart healthy! According to WebMD, drinking alcohol in moderation can lower your cholesterol by an astonishing 20 percent if one still eats healthy and exercises. Research has shown that “ethanol in alcoholic drinks is the substrate that can help lower cholesterol levels”. Cooking Light expresses on their website that red wine has many antioxidants (the same antioxidants found in grape juice, green tea, and fruits and vegetables) that “protect the heart by decreasing inflammation.”

All in all, alcohol doesn’t seem to be as bad as people like to make it out to be. While there should still be more research and facts to come in the many years, I still believe that recent studies are factual.

Sources:

http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/wine-how-much-is-good-for-you

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/alcohol-smarter_n_1420750.html

http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/wine-how-much-is-good-for-you

Ladies( and possibly some men ;))! How many of you love to get a fresh mani/pedi at the nail salon? How many of you love that feeling of having pretty nails? Majority of us absolutely LOVE it! But are we causing harm to our health? To many, nail polish is simply, well, nail polish. The typical person doesn’t associate anything bad to go with this stylish liquid. To my surprise ,these polishes that I use almost twice a week contain very harmful chemicals.

While doing a bit of reading I learned that there are three compounds (the toxic three) that are found in popular nail polishes that can do serious damage to your health. After reading a blog from the New York Times I was appalled from what I read. According to the New York Times, “The trio consisted of a known carcinogen, formaldehyde, used as a hardening agent, and two materials linked to developmental defects: toluene, to evenly suspend color, and the plasticizer dibutyl phthalate, or DBP, to add flexibility and sheen.” Inhaling the carcinogen formaldehyde can be detrimental to a persons long term health. The issue seemed to cause a bit of a stir where companies claimed to have removed the toxic three from their products; a later investigation determined they simply changed the label and not their actual ingredients. After all, what “Everyday Joe” would know the difference between the compositions of their nail polish and what it contains.

Where does the actual harm come into play? Great question! We all aren’t skilled nail painters. Therefore what if the polish gets into a cut? What if the polish is absorbed by the nail or your skin? What if you inhale to much of the nail polish? Then,BAM! Just like that you have carcinogens, DBP, and toluene all in your system.

While studies have shown everyday people at home (the average teenage girl who paints her nails on occasions) aren’t very much at risk and shouldn’t be drawn back from painting their nails; those in nail salons should be cautious to the everyday exposure.

According to NYT blogger, Deborah Blum, doctors are now warning young girls to avoid using polish and not bite on their fingers for DBP can lead to many developmental disorders in young children.

citations :

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/ask-well-is-nail-polish-harmful/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/health/blog/2013/02/12/nail-polish-health-risk/

http://www.bellasugar.com/How-Get-Nail-Polish-Off-Clothes-22006354

As we all know, the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge is popular amongst stars and everyday people all across the nation. Many of you have probably already been nominated for the challenge and completed it with in your time constraints. For those who are a bit “out of the loop”, the Ice Bucket Challenge is: when one simply pours a bucket of ice and water on themselves then nominates other people to do the same (with in 24 hours) in hopes of raising awareness for the disease ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease). If the person decides to deny the challenge they must donate money to The ALS Association. Well, what exactly is ALS you may ask? ALS (according to websters dictionary) is a “disease of the nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that control voluntary muscle movement.” With no exact cure for this disease, it is very sad , for most patients end up paralyzed. With that being said, researchers are working vigorously to find a cure for this morose disease.

The real question at hand here is whether or not this popular challenge is actually helping with raising money for research. While many blow off the challenge claiming they’re not “band wagoners” ; many accept it and take part in the movement. According to The ALS Association, they have raised a total of $108.4 million as of September 4 due to to the Ice Bucket Challenge. Not to shabby ,hey? So i guess it is safe to say, the Ice Bucket Challenge isn’t as pointless as it seems.

If you guys leave feedback, I’m curious to know how many of you were nominated for the challenge and how many of you accepted it! Also, did any of you donate money?

Links:

http://www.alsa.org/fight-als/ice-bucket-challenge.html

http://www.popsugar.com/Best-Celebrity-Ice-Bucket-Challenges-35505820

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Bucket_Challenge

(I)    While deciding which classes to take I found out that I needed to have a science class. Like most of you enrolled in SC 200, I HATE actual science classes. When I heard of this fun and interactive class I was thrilled to know I could fulfill my requirements in an interesting and engaging way. Being that I am a broadcast journalism major in the School of Comm, a class such as bio or chemistry would be a waste of time and a huge headache!

(II)      Although science literally makes the world what it is today and is very important, it is not my cup of tea. I personally do not enjoy ANYTHING that has to do with science, it does not really grab my attention. I love broadcast journalism and I am very happy with my choice of study.

-Alyssa Gregory