Well, does it? I ask this question whilst sipping on a very delicious white chocolate mocha. As you can guess, it would take some pretty damning evidence to get me to stop drinking my precious coffee, is there any? Lets take a look.

A study done at Western Australia’s School of Medicine and Pharmacology, conducted an experimental study on male rats (yes rats, not humans) in which they were separated into three groups; a group fed a normal diet, a high fat diet, and a high fat diet + CGA. CGA otherwise known as Chlorogenic acid is a polyphenol, ”Polyphenols act as antioxidants. They protect cells and body chemicals against damage caused by free radicals, reactive atoms that contribute to tissue damage in the body.” (MedicineNet.com) The importance of CGA all has to do with its relationship with coffee, it is “a major component.” (Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry) The rats fed a high fat diet+CGA showed fat retention not found in the other groups. The CGA + high fat group also “had a tendency for a higher degree of glucose intolerance and increased insulin resistance.”(The Telegraph) The researchers found that after so much CGA the cost far outweighed the benefits, for the “diet-induced obese mice.” (Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry)

Courtesy of; http://www.medindia.net/patients/firstaid-heatstroke.htm

Fortunately for me, it looks like I wont be stopping my coffee consumption anytime soon. I have laundry list of problems with this research and how it has been interpreted, like the The Telegraphs misleading header “Regular coffee drinkers at increased risk of weight gain.”  First things first, the only rats that gained weight were the already “high fat” fed rats. There is certainly a possibility that reverse causation was involved, perhaps the fat in the rats caused the CGA to not do its job. Secondly, the research was done on all male rats, who knows maybe humans who are on high fat diets react differently to CGA, not to mention woman and men may differ in how their bodies use CGA. Finally, the researchers only found CGA to have a negative effect on health fallowing excessive intake of it, over four coffees, I certainly don’t drink that much. A whole lot more research is necessary in order to actually find out if coffee causes obesity, preferably on humans this time. In the mean time, it looks like the average coffee drinker is out of the blue.

Sources:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10085206/Regular-coffee-drinkers-at-increased-risk-of-weight-gain.html

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf400920x?prevSearch=Supplementation%2Bof%2Ba%2BHigh-Fat%2BDiet%2Bwith%2BChlorogenic%2BAcid%2BIs%2BAssociated%2Bwith%2BInsulin%2BResistance%2Band%2BHepatic%2BLipid%2BAccumulation%2Bin%2BMice&searchHistoryKey=&

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=16619

Just this week, after an excruciatingly lengthly day I flipped on my TV, little did I know that MTV would pop up. The scene that appeared was laden with f-bombs(bleeped out) and other vulgarities, I changed the channel so fast I can hardly remember what the TV show was and what the individuals were actually doing. What I do remember clearly is how shocked I was after turning on the TV, all I wanted to do was watch the news or maybe a lighthearted movie. This got me thinking, how many times have children been in this same scenario after a parent or older family member didn’t change the channel? Numerous studies have found correlations between aggressive behavior and violence witnessed on the TV screen, so how could a parent not put on parental controls or take measures to avoid their children’s exposure to this material? Well, according to a study released just two days ago in the Pediatrics Journal, parents have become desensitized to what they see on TV.

My initial thought was, of course this had to be the answer to why children come into contact with material meant for adults, but as always further examination was needed before jumping to such conclusions. The study, conducted on 1,000 parents with children 6 to 18, had the participants successively watch various movie scenes that included violence and sex, according to Variety. As the participants watched more and more scenes they became more and more “desensitized.” The results found came about from asking parents how they would rate a movie after each clip,“after the first movie clip, respondents thought the minimum age to see a movie with that kind of violent content should be 16.9 years old on average and 17.2 years old for sexual content. After watching the sixth and final scene, parents grew more lenient, deeming 13.9 years acceptable for violent films and 14 years old for sexual ones.” The results stated above clearly show a disparity in age requirements after successive watching of scenes.

Courtesy of: http://www.topics-mag.com/edition02/tv-violence-yuko.htm

I see the results of this study as very credible, the sample size was large, bias within the study seems non existent, and it was completed in a timetable appropriate for such research. The study itself claims none of the authors had potential conflicts of interest or financial stake within the study. It is also imperative to note reverse causation can be ruled out, there is a clear cause and effect, not a correlation in the study. Due to chance I can’t definitively say that parents desensitization contributes to children’s access to disturbing material, but it surely looks like a possibility.

Sources:

http://www.apa.org/pi/prevent-violence/resources/tv-violence.aspx

https://www.apa.org/pi/prevent-violence/resources/violence-youth.pdf

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/10/20/study-parents-are-desensitized-to-sex-and-violence-in-film/

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/parents-desensitized-to-sex-and-violence-in-movies-study-finds-1201333956/

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/10/15/peds.2014-2803.full.pdf+html

1- http://variety.com/2014/film/news/parents-desensitized-to-sex-and-violence-in-movies-study-finds-1201333956/

In my senior year of High School as the year dwindled down there was talks of possibly ridding my school, and the county as a whole, of our vending machines. It turns out this same discussion had been going on for a while in states all over the nation. It was a topic I had a hard time wrapping my head around and up until this day I still struggled with what was the right decision in this debate. Do the burdens placed upon the health of students outweigh the funds donated to schools by companies like Pepsi and Coca-Cola? Well, according to a study led by our own PSU researcher Jennifer Van Hook, the answer is no.

There is no disputing the unhealthy and almost wasteful calories within most vending machine food. It is also widely accepted amongst the medical community that foods like chips, candies, and sodas (all found in vending machines) significantly contribute to childhood obesity. It is the issue of wether or not vending machines themselves are putting children at higher risk of obesity that is still up for debate. According to the New York Times, a study done by researchers at the Pennsylvania State University has found no support of a correlation between junk food sold in school and obesity. The researchers reached this conclusion after an observational study of 19,450 students from their fifth grade year to eighth. “In fifth grade, 59 percent of the children attended a school where candy, snacks or sugar-sweetened beverages were sold. By eighth grade, 86 percent did so.” Researchers then analyzed the weights of children who attended schools that did and did not sell junk food, they also analyzed numerous other scenarios like that of comparing students who ”always attended schools with snacks with those who moved out of such schools.” The data was analyzed in various manners, each of which showed “no correlation at all between obesity and attending a school where sweets and salty snacks were available.”

After combing over the study I found it to be overall well done. Its sample size was extremely large, used previous research, and the purpose of the research was clearly stated. With the exception of the possibility of bias, considering Penn State is an institution of higher education that sells junk food, I see no real issues within the research. With this data in mind and knowing the monetary benefits for schools with vending machines, I see the benefits as outweighing the costs. Perhaps it isn’t so bad for schools to have vending machines.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/health/research/study-finds-no-childhood-obesity-link-to-school-junk-food.html?_r=2&

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/nu/he/compfoods.asp

http://www.rand.org/standards/standards_high.html

http://www.wgem.com/story/16771820/schools-say-vending-machines-actually-benefit-students-school

courtesy of: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/other-gadgets/vending-machine-pictures.htm

It seems like everyone listens to music, varying genres, but still music. Stop anywhere on campus and look around, I guarantee you’ll spot loads of people with headphones on. I know I notice it everyday, so much so that it made me wonder if what people constantly listen to actually effect their daily lives. I went strait to rap for an answer, a genre listened to by many, especially teenagers. Also a genre plagued by lyrics that are widely known to promote violence, drug use, and the subjugation of woman. Could this genre of music do harm to the lives of its listeners? After googling for what seemed like hours, I finally found research that was blog worthy, a study by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE) on individuals who listen to rap.

1,000 community college students answered a survey on their music habits and lifestyle choices, like their intake of alcohol and drugs. The results from this observational study, analyzed by the PIRE yielded results the found listeners of rap music more prone to “alcohol use, illicit drug use and aggressive behaviors.” This was not surprising to me considering how often the lyrics of this genre are based off the same harmful behaviors mentioned above. In fact it almost certified what I had already felt prior to even looking at the research, but further examination of the results made me doubt my intuition, a commonly wrong thing.

Courtesy of: http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/music/images/17251399/title/headphones-photo

The outcomes of the study in actuality are clouded by possibilities of reverse causation, confounding variables, and of course chance. It is absolutely possible and never disputed in the study, that people who exhibit behaviors like drug and alcohol use could just be more likely to listen to rap. Researchers in the study itself mention “young people with tendencies to use alcohol or illicit drugs or to be aggressive may be drawn to particular music styles.” In addition variables like income level could play a role in the results. Many studies have shown a link between low socioeconomic level and increased risk to harmful behaviors. This particular variable is never taken into account in the study to rule it out.

While I see sufficient evidence of a correlation between rap and alcohol/drug use I cannot agree that one causes the other. Further studies that eliminate confounding variables and reverse causation are needed in order to find actual causation. For now, i’ll just keep listening to my pop music.

Sources:

http://www.pire.org/detail2.asp?core=38134&cms=294

http://www.mtv.com/news/1528932/study-says-hip-hop-listeners-more-prone-to-drug-use-aggression/

While researching for my previous blog post, Is the Media at Fault, I happened to land on an article that found a correlation between television and brain cells. This sparked my interest and led me on an internet goose chase for a study that found any correlation between mobile devices and braincells. I eventually found one but was left with a further question of wether or not using multiple devices led to more brain cells being lost. It is widely assumed amongst society and especially our parents, that too much television and use of our phones is bad for us, but what if we use them together? Is it even worse?

First of all, multiple studies have shown that television in fact does not kill brain cells. It has also been found through many studies that there is no substantial evidence to support the claim that devices like cell phones kill brain cells either, the radiation is far too little. There is always chance though and on the assumption that things could change I have decided to evaluate the fallowing study through the eyes of one who still believes the devices really kill brain cells, like my parents. After all it is not the actual results of the study that I care most about but the way in which it was conducted.

courtesy of: http://sachendra.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/multiple-devices.jpg

In a study done by researchers at the University of Sussex’s Sackler Centre for Consciousness it was found that people who used a higher number of devices at the same time had “smaller grey matter density in the part of the brain known as the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC).” They determined this after doing a study, on 75 individuals who responded to questions regarding their use of devices. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used to analyze the brain of the human subjects. The first issue I initially found with this research was the number of people being analyzed, far too small of a number in my opinion. Additionally, the study did not explicitly say if the subjects were randomly selected, compared to a similar group of people who didn’t use as many devices, or their age groups. The concerns I have all are critical in determining if a study is well done and credible. Without an answer regarding my concerns I cannot take this study too seriously.

Another issue with in the study, is the correlational findings. It is even stated within the article, Tweeting While Watching TV Linked to Fewer Brain Cells, that a “predilection for using several devices at once isn’t necessarily causing a decrease in gray matter, the authors note — this is a purely correlational finding.” It could very well be that the people who use more devices at once, do so because they have smaller grey matter density, according to the article.

All in all I find this study to be too flawed for serious consideration and as a result I am left with no real explanation for the decrease in brain cells of those who use multiple devices. I can only hope that carefully done and credible research can be done on this subject in the future.

Sources:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.5203v1.pdf

http://mentalhealthdaily.com/2014/03/04/myths-of-things-that-kill-brain-cells-alcohol-cell-phones-marijuana-et-al/

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/09/inside-the-brains-of-people-who-tweet-and-watch.html

It is right around the time of year, when TV shows new and old make their season debut. As is every year I pick a few to keep up with throughout the season. The newest addition to my small lineup is ABC’s newest project by Shonda Rimes, How to Get Away With Murder? A drama, depicting a Law School Professor and the methods she uses to successfully represent guilty clients. It was around the half way mark of this program when I thought, what drives individuals so far as to kill? No one would need to represent the guilty if they just reverted to proper logic like every other human. I thought of the usual culprits the media depicts like genetics, familial upbringing, and socioeconomic level as risk factors for committing homicide. All of them plausible answers that could very well be supported and ones I most likely found to be true. But there is also that with which cant be explained, like those who kill with seemingly no possible explanation, they’re just bad people. Despite all that we see as variables in creating killers, what is it that throws these individuals off the deep end?

The answer according to Dr. Park Dietz is the same being that reports these horrendous crimes,  the media. He came to this conclusion through largely observational research based on no real quantitative data, but that of what he’s seen and heard. He interviewed some of the biggest mass killers America has seen and “concluded” from that the media inspires copycats through its coverage. The article goes on to provide an example that supports Dr. Dietz claim, the surge in copycats fallowing the medias coverage of the 1982 Tylenol Poisonings. After the media, in the area where the killings occurred, were persuaded to decline their coverage, the threats decreased. That example provided to support the hypothesis of Dr. Dietz is the perfect illustration of an anecdote. I would be more convinced if there were hundreds of examples of this occurring. I would also be persuaded if the research was actually well done. Of course, with this type of research it would be impossible to conduct a double blind placebo trial as one it would be highly unethical and two its hard to commit murder without knowing that you’re doing it. But a larger sample size or in this instance more cases would severely help the argument. Another issue is the lack of evidence based science and instead experience-based science. Furthermore I find it hard to rule out the possibility of reverse causation, could it be that potential killers have planed a similar crime and are waiting for the right time, like when the media is saturated with similar stories. Whether or not the media plays a role in pushing people to kill I don’t know, but what I do know is that much more science based research is needed. Only after that will we maybe have a convincing answer.

Courtesy of http://www.socialmediatrend.in/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/media.jpg

Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/does-the-media-help-pull_b_639020.html

http://everydaypsychology.com/2008/07/why-do-people-kill-typology-of-violent.html#.VCsJ41Y3fwI

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1878063,00.html

http://www.socialmediatrend.in/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/media.jpg

“Entitled” is a term that has become synonymous with our generation. How true that statement is, I don’t know, but what I do know is that everyone around us seems to believe it. I came upon a Reason-Rupe Poll, a public opinion research project, that suggested that indeed 65% of Americans found us to be exactly that. In a society that always publicizes the negative what else was there to expect? But a closer look at the Reason-Rupe poll shows some issues within telephone polling system in general that make me question wether to believe this research. The first of which happened to be that it was a telephone poll. Telephone polls are prone to being ignored, especially with caller ID, and as a result response rates have become a concern. In fact a Pew Research publication highlights this issue amongst its own process. With response rates as low as 9 percent as found in the year 2012 by Pew its hard to see public opinion polls like that of the Reason-Rupe poll as true representations of the American public. How many individuals actually responded out of how many tries was not made clear in the Reason-Rupe poll and as a result I find it hard to completely agree with their research. Until more research is done I guess I and the rest of our generation will wait to see what the world thinks of us.

Courtesy Of: someecards.com

Sources:

http://www.people-press.org/2012/05/15/assessing-the-representativeness-of-public-opinion-surveys/5-15-12-1/

http://reason.com/poll/2014/08/19/65-of-americans-say-millennials-are-enti

http://www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/Nonresponse.pdf

“Do I have a problem?” That’s the question I was forced to ask my self after experiencing lethargy and persistent twitching of my eye tuesday morning. I couldn’t seem to pin point what was going on with me until I realized I had missed my morning cup of Vanilla Caramel Cream Coffee two days in a row. It was a staple of my morning routine and somehow in the mess I like to call airplane travel, I had skipped over that vital part of my day. Even more frightening than missing those cups of coffee was the fact that I hadn’t missed one in months. In actuality, I couldn’t even remember a recent day that I hadn’t had coffee. Shortly after coming to that realization I rapidly searched the internet for signs of caffeine withdrawal, and as suspected, was showing the exact symptoms described. But was it really caffeine withdrawal?

According to the article “Withdrawal Is Real” , yes. The article takes it a step further by saying researchers have found sufficient evidence to call caffeine withdrawal an actual mental disorder. Dr. Roland Griffiths of John Hopkins goes on to support the article after analyzing sixty-six previous studies on caffeine withdrawal and goes as far as to say that, ”13 percent of people develop symptoms so significant that they can’t do what they normally would do.” That thirteen percent seemed to be where I fell. I was abnormally tired and seemed to be running on nothing.

Courtesy of:  http://blog.eventbrite.com/11-ways-to-improve-your-sleeping-habits/

But it wasn’t until after a few hours of rest that I realized my lack of sleep could be running me down too. Maybe it wasn’t the coffee, but rather hours of lost sleep devoted to homework and studying, catching up to me because I didn’t have that cup of joe to get me going. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that coffee serves as the energy source for many individuals lacking in the sleep department, myself included. With that in mind, I noticed almost identical symptoms described for those who were missing quality hours of sleep and those in caffeine withdrawal. A glaringly confounding variable was in between me and figuring out what truly was the cause of my symptoms. Researchers can go about this issue by observing those who intake caffeine but also get an average amount of rest. The sleep patterns of the individuals studied by Dr. Griffiths were not made clear in the article and therefor make it tough to decipher what issue, sleep or caffeine, were causing there symptoms. Research that clearly rules out sleep deprivation could go a long way in proving caffeine at fault to many coffee drinkers.

For now, I have nothing to loose by getting my sleep schedule back on track. But as far as my morning cup of coffee goes, it’s going to take some pretty damning evidence to change my ways.

Sources:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/caffeine-withdrawal-is-real/

http://blog.eventbrite.com/11-ways-to-improve-your-sleeping-habits/ (Picture)

Matt Moore, Ivan Nova, the next big thing in Major League baseball; Jose Fernandez. All the newest and most famous victims of the torn Ulnar Collateral Ligament otherwise known as the UCL. It’s an injury that has taken the MLB by storm recently and stirred a nation wide conversation on what exactly has caused this sudden up tick in patients. Well, I’m here to say this seemingly “sudden” up tick has been a long time coming. Its been building up for years and it has taken the loss of Baseball’s best arms to finally clear the way for a discussion about what is causing this wave of Tommy John surgery.

To put it simply, the human body is far from built to throw 100 mph consistently. It all boils down to physics as stated in the article “How the 105-mph Fastball Tests the Limits of the Human Body.” In fact according to Dr. Glenn Fleisig of the American Sports Medicine Institute “the amount of torque needed to throw in excess of the century mark is greater than the amount of force the ulnar collateral ligament can withstand before giving out.” In a world that trains kids at younger ages everyday to throw faster and harder every time they’re out on the mound, the words of the like of Dr. Fleisig are not welcome. I’ve had a front row seat to it.

Source: HowStuffWorks, 2009 another blog that provides some insightful points on Tommy John Surgery; http://blog.drstankovich.com/big-concerns-around-more-kids-getting-sport-surgeries-today/

I’ve grown up around baseball and the politics of the game. With a brother and dad heavily involved in youth baseball I have seen first hand the recommendations of individuals like Dr. James Andrews(which can be found here: www.asmi.org/research.php?page=research&section=positionStatement) thrown out of the window for the sake of letting players play even more than the huge amount of time in the year they did. Players playing on more then two teams to get as much playing time as possible? Seen it. Coaches stretching out pitchers more then they know they should? Seen it. Kids going down with elbow and arm injuries because of some mishandling by there parents and coaches? Seen it way too much.

What I have seen before my eyes is certainly enough evidence for me to believe the culture of youth baseball today and the weight is puts upon the anatomy of its pitchers is heavily correlated to the instances of Tommy John surgery throughout all spectrums of baseball. Could it be something else? Of course. But the truth of the matter is that the facts we have today gathered by the American Sports Medicine Institute point to precautions starting at the youth baseball level as the best way to avoid Tommy John. New evidence that is totally contradictory could come out tomorrow but we only have today and with that what we can do now.

Sources:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/sports/physics/how-the-105-mph-fastball-tests-the-limits-of-the-human-body

http://blog.drstankovich.com/big-concerns-around-more-kids-getting-sport-surgeries-today/

www.asmi.org/research.php?page=research&section=positionStatement

Hi Everyone! My name is Brittney Falcon and I’m a freshman in the Smeal College of Business pre-major. I’m from sunny Tampa, Florida and below is a picture of my hometown. I chose to take this course because it was the only science class on the schedule of courses that grabbed my attention and sparked my interest. Although I’ve always enjoyed science classes I decided not to major in a Science because I can’t see myself enjoying a career in this field.