We’ve always had dogs around my house, and right now we have two miniature English bulldogs named Boo and Harper (not the ones pictured those are Google dogs). And last summer I became obsessed with the idea that they could probably speak English since they had been living in our house for 4 years listening to us talk to each other and talk to them. If I lived in Spain for this long, I probably would be able to pick up Spanish, or at least understand by their gestures and tone of voice what they could be saying. If someone around the house happened to call Boo fat, she always seemed to look up at them really sadly then walk away. While I took this idea to an extreme (“Harper, blink twice if you understand English!!”) there has been a recent study that shows dogs might understand us more than we expect.

The University of Sussex’s School of Pyschology did a study on dogs to see how their brains would respond to humans calling their names. They would play the sounds (of familiar commands or “exaggerated vocal cues”) on both sides of the dog at an equal volume. Experiments showing dog-dog relationships had used this tactic before to see how the dog reacts. The ear correlates with the opposite side’s hemisphere, so if the dog responded more strongly to the left ear, something may be going on in the right hemisphere of the brain.

The study did find that familiar commands showed a response from the left hemisphere and the vocal cues had a response from the right (indicated by if the dog instinctively turned in that direction). The dog uses both sides of its brain when interacting with its owner, which is similar to how the human brain operates. In humans, the left brain deals with language, processing information, and memory; the right hemisphere deals with interpreting emotions and tones as well as recognizing visuals (www.livescience.com). While dogs probably cannot understand English or the words we are saying, they know “”not only to who we are and how we say things, but also to what we say.”

I think this study may be fairly accurate. The hypothesis for reverse causation would be to say that the hemispheres of the brain affect the sounds that are heard, which I don’t think is accurate based on first principles (even if the first event happens milliseconds before the reaction). However, I couldn’t tell if it was the owner’s voice or the voice of the researchers the dog had to respond to. In terms of memory this wouldn’t be a problem, but if it was the owner’s voice that caused the right hemisphere reaction, that could be a possible third variable (the relationship between the owner and his or her own dog). Regardless, maybe I’m biased but I think this study seems sound.

Especially around this time of year the world falls in love with New York City and its beautiful Christmas decorations and bright lights. However, one doesn’t think about how much trash must accumulate in this populated area. A study at North Carolina State was not looking to find answers to the trash question but came to New York to study insects and found a strange correlation.

We calculate that the arthropods on medians down the Broadway/West St. corridor alone could consume more than 2,100 pounds of discarded junk food, the equivalent of 60,000 hot dogs, every year — assuming they take a break in the winter,” says Dr. Elsa Youngsteadt who led the study. She and her students looked at insects and millipedes in a larger group of insects called anthropods. Other examples of anthropods are “spiders, insects, centipedes, mites, ticks, lobsters, crabs, shrimp, crayfish, krill, barnacles, scorpions,” all of which are small creatures with exoskeletons and jointed limbs. (www.kidzone.wz). They originally noticed that the anthropods ate more trash, originally thinking there was a connection between biodiversity and how much the insects ate. Then to see how much the insects ate, they put out “trash” (cookies, potato chips, hot dogs) to see how much they would eat in parks compared to medians. There was also food placed in a cage (so only the anthropods could access it) and food placed in the open to attract animals. They concluded that insects in the median ate 2-3 more times than those in the parks, and that other animals were also eating the food. This made them come to the conclusion that anthropods are competing against rats and pigeons for food and could possibly drive them away.

I think this study is a perfect example of a Texas Sharp Shooter Problem. The study, originally started before Hurricane Sandy to observe urban insects, morphed into seeing how Sandy affected insect populations. Then the study turned into a discovery about where insects like to eat food based on “biodiversity.” And lastly, animals that are not anthropods were studied, but the reason for that comparison is unclear. I’m not sure if they were aiming to prove that anthropods eat as much as animals or if they wanted to rule out some kind of third variable. It seems that they wanted to observe as much as possible but were looking to prove too many theories at the same time.

Overall, I’m not sure if this study was the most reliable. It’s not stated how many insects they observed, how much food was placed out for them to eat, how many insects ate from that pile, …. and how many animals ate the food they were offered. However, I’m glad I got to see a real example of a published Texas sharp shooter problem.

In any TV show, it’s easy to see dramatic fights between spouses or between parents and their kids. While the television industry aims to make these arguments as dramatic as possible to the point of being unrealistic, realistically it might not be a bad idea for kids to experience fighting within the household according to this study.

Two researchers (one of them, Denise Solomon, from Penn State!) in a new study decided to investigate this idea that there could be a link between children who experience verbal conflicts in the house and how they handle conflicts in their relationships as an adult. The researchers chose 50 couples and took coritsol measurements through saliva samples before, during, and after the experiment. Cortisol is called the “stress hormone” and is primarily active during a “fight or flight” response, but if the body doesn’t get a chance to have a relax response high cortisol levels could have health consequences (abouthealth.com). Saliva samples were taken before when the couples were separated individually and interviewed about their current relationships and exposure to verbal aggression as a child. Next, the couple was brought into a room where they had to discuss “an area of conflict” for 10 minutes. The researchers left the couples alone, videotaped the session, and then took saliva samplings twice in the following 20 minutes. Professionals came in to rate the intensity of the fight as seen on the video tapes and the cortisol levels were then calculated.

The study found that “the more intense the conflict interaction was rated between the couples the stronger the physiological stress response to the conflict” (sciencedaily.com). Basically the worse the fight, the worse the resulting stress. This seems like a no-brainer. But for people who had been used to fighting in households, they knew how to handle conflicts and what they should do to cause the least amount of damage to their relationships.

Right off the bat, I think this study is really awkward. The researchers basically made couples fight then watched it on video to see if it was a really bad one or not. Maybe that vibe threw off some of the subjects in the study, but I think that measuring cortisol is a good, concrete way to measure each person’s reaction. Also, testing the cortisol levels before the “consultations” acts as a control. If someone wanted to leave because they felt this situation was weird, triggering their “flight” response, this may make their control unreliable. Lastly, could other third variables come into play? Did all the couples have the same sexual orientation, or were the couples both hetero- and homosexual? And perhaps age could also play into it, since older couples would have more experience dealing with fights or might have more to fight about.

Other things I noticed were that there were only 50 couples, so a future study might need to be expanded. And also, I would like to know how the researchers defined household. Did the people with lower cortisol levels see aggressive verbal fights between siblings or between parents, or did they participate in them for themselves?

Overall, I think the findings in this study are interesting, but it reminds me that correlation does not equal causation. I personally think I can deal with arguments, and my parents never aggressively fought in front of me (although I do sometimes fight with my siblings…). However, after reading this I don’t think I would go and watch family members fight for future benefits.

I would like to make a note before I continue to say that I am not trying to start a fight with those who endorse marijuana use or seem that I endorse it myself. I live in Washington, D.C. where marijuana is now legalized, so this topic pertains to me with the new legislation.

While many people appear to smoke marijuana – in the media’s perception especially – none of these addresses the long-term effects that smoking could have on your brain. Dr. Francesca Filbey, conductor of the newest study at UT Dallas on smoking, says, “research on its long-term effects remains scarce despite the changes in legislation surrounding marijuana and the continuing conversation surrounding this relevant public health topic.” She structured her study so 48 adult marijuana users who typically smoked three times a day were matched with 62 nonsmokers that could counter biases towards race, gender, and age. They also made sure that there was a control for alcohol and tobacco use to make sure that wasn’t a third variable. Subjects were then tested for their IQs and had their brains scanned under three different types of MRIs.

First, the brains of the smokers had a smaller orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), which deals with the senses as well as “stimulus-stimulus learning” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15134840).  While the habitual smokers tended to have a lower IQ, those conducting the study acknowledged “the differences do not seem to be related to the brain abnormalities as no direct correlation can be drawn between IQ deficits and OFC volume decrease.” Another interesting find was that the smokers had an increased connectivity in structure and function of the brain, especially at the age they started, and even though it decreased over 6-8 years it was still a higher connectivity than the non-smokers. While the lower IQs proved the structural and functional creativity do not necessarily equal intelligence, this was an unexpected result from the study.

Although the study is observational, until the long-term effects can be better studied on perhaps people of this generation who will continue to smoke it would be unethical to make people smoke to test how their bodies handle it. I think the survey did a very good job of accounting for third variables and differences in the subjects, even if that meant matching multiple non-smokers to one smoker (which would explain the gap between 48 smokers and 62 non-smokers). However, I don’t think this study should determine how people approach marijuana because it is only the beginning of studies. As Dr. Filbey says herself, “”To date, existing studies on the long-term effects of marijuana on brain structures have been largely inconclusive due to limitations in methodologies…While our study does not conclusively address whether any or all of the brain changes are a direct consequence of marijuana use, these effects do suggest that these changes are related to age of onset and duration of use.”

My dad as a pediatrician and internal specialist would always wince when bleach brands like Clorox would advertise that they were safe enough to clean baby toys. He told me that this type of extreme sterilizing of baby toys gives them less exposure to harmless bacteria which could build the baby’s immune system and protect them from diseases. One study found that there may be a correlation between exposure to everyday bacteria and a baby’s health.

This study aimed to see if exposure to bacteria from the parents cleaning the pacifier by sucking it not rinsing or boiling it increased the baby’s health. 184 infants were studied while their parents had to maintain a daily diary about food intake and significant events and doctors frequently checked on them. At 4 months old the babies were studied for saliva samples, and at 6 months old parents were interviewed for their methods when it came to cleaning their pacifiers. Out of this group of babies that were studied from birth, 65 had parents that would clean the pacifiers by sucking. This same group had less chances of eczema, allergies, and asthma, as well as possibly altered microbes in the mouth seen through the saliva samples. This seems to support the correlation that an increased exposure to bacteria strengthens an immune system compared to those who fastidiously clean.

While the data does seem to support the hypothesis, there could be certain things to consider. For example, there could be third factors. As Dr. William Schaffner said in a New York Times article (even though he did not conduct the study), “It’s a very interesting study that adds to this idea that a certain kind of interaction with the microbial environment is actually a good thing for infants and children…I wonder if the parents that cleaned the pacifiers orally were just more accepting of the old saying that you’ve got to eat a peck of dirt. Maybe they just had a less ‘disinfected’ environment in their homes.” Also, if the babies were born prematurely or were sickly, it could affect how healthy the babies are regardless of the exposure to the bacteria. This plays into the idea of reverse causation: what if the babies who were born with stronger immune systems could handle the bacteria better? Yet because of first principles – the parents sucking/boiling the pacifier and then the consequential health results – this seems unlikely.

Maybe I’m biased towards my own father’s opinion, but I don’t think that this is a bad idea to consider for down the road when raising children of my own. If it’s the principles my dad used to raise me, why not? I don’t think I turned out too terribly.

In a post I put up for the last blogging period, I tried to connect eating with a sense of community. Why do people always suggest eating together to get to know a person better? Dates, coffee meetings, lunches – think about the last time you ate a meal and asked someone to come with you because something about eating with someone else bonds people together. There is little research on this topic I proposed, but one campaign that seems to stem from the same idea is the Family Dinner campaign.

The Family Dinner Project suggests eating as a family for a meal, i.e. dinner, not only bonds the family together but has scientific benefits as well. This website says, “Recent studies link regular family dinners with many behaviors that parents pray for: lower rates of substance abuse, teen pregnancy and depression, as well as higher grade-point averages and self-esteem.” It also correlates lower risk of obesity and eating disorders which I noted in my last post (but we know correlation does not equal causation, if we’ve learned anything in this class, so this is not scientific proof that what I suggested was right).

However, what about reverse causation? What if families in high socio-economic classes that can afford to have dinner together as a family are the only ones making up the study? In that case, maybe the happiness stems from the family unit and their dinners are simply time they want to be together. This study from Cornell researched previous studies on the benefits of family dinners, aka the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health, yet they took into consideration the subjects’ “socio-economic  status, maternal employment, single parenthood, and poor quality family relationships.” This showed that problems like teen pregnancy and substance abuse were not related to family dinners, although there was still a correlation in the study to family dinners and improved mental health and “lower depressive symptoms.” Ultimately, the article concluded that families should aim to have minimum 3 family dinners a week that are unplugged and increase communication between children and parents. This could offer a place of stability in the kids’ lives where they know they have a chance to speak.

Lastly, this article suggests that children and parents eating alone and separately can create health problems based on multiple studies. These studies suggest that family meals can prevent an inclination toward fast food and actually lay down the groundwork for healthier habits and lowered risk of eating disorders in the future. After citing multiple studies, it concludes, “In other words, eating well together more frequently could reinforce good individual eating habits and, thus, help people lead healthier and, perhaps, happier lives.”

While some statistics may be skewed since some researchers didn’t account for reverse causation, overall family dinners do help the children mentally. This is not a direct link to my original blog, but I think it suggests that there may be something about eating with another person that builds a stronger bond.

I constantly find myself eating random food in my dorm when I’m doing homework really late at night. My dad always used to tell me to stop eating after 10 pm – seems that I brought this bad habit from home – and he gave a vague explanation saying that the body turns food into fat after a certain hour at night. It appears that a study has finally found the mechanism behind this fact that I had hoped was a myth.

A study at the Salk Institute of Biological Sciences decided not to look at the question of what to eat but when to eat. They looked at four groups of mice: one group with 24 hour access to high-calorie food, one group with 24 hour access to less fatty foods (control for 24 access mice), one group with 8 hour access to high calorie food, and one group with access to less fatty foods (control for 8 hour access mice). The point was to measure how mice, both with access to the same amount of calories in high-fat foods, could change based on 24 hour or 8 hour eating schedules. After 100 days, the researchers looked to see the differences between the two groups of mice.

The mice with 24 access to the food had more health problems than the 8 hour group, “weight gain, high cholesterol, high blood sugar, liver damage, and even motor problems when put to an exercise challenge” (Walton). The mice with restricted access weighed 28% less than the higher-fat mice. Satchidananda Panda, the leader of the study, concluded, “Every organ has a timer…When we eat randomly, those genes aren’t on completely or off completely” (Walton). This study was done in 2012, and I feel there are few 3rd variables and reverse causation is ruled out by first principles (the food came first then the health problems, both problems didn’t occur simultaneously).

A similar study was made in 2013 that found mice on this disrupted eating cycle were less responsive to insulin when a dim red light kept the mice up all night. Their sleep cycles and eating cycles were off, so the insulin didn’t break down sugars creating fat. This article did not give full details on the study itself, like how it was conducted or what the exact results were, which makes this source a little unreliable (even though it was reproduced on the Today.com). However, the study adds to the original study of 2012 on the mechanism behind the weight gain.

So in conclusion, the study found it was fine to eat on a regulated schedule in order to give the metabolism a time to rest during the night. However, it doesn’t suggest that only eating during an 8 hour span is the healthiest way to go – the food must also be healthy, the same way eating healthy foods late at night isn’t entirely healthy.

My friends and I cheering on our basketball team at the Verizon Center for the Championships

My friend currently at San Diego State has been calling me to see how everything’s going and noted that her school “doesn’t feel like home” because no one has any school spirit and treats it strictly as school, a place to get work done. We both went to a high school that put a heavy emphasis on school traditions/spirit, which naturally made me want to come to one of the most spirited places in the world. For me, school spirit is addicting and I couldn’t imagine going to a school that didn’t care about what was going on outside the classroom. But has it been the key to success all along?

Varsity Brands did a study this September surveying “1,016 high school students, 315 parents of high school students and 150 high school principals across the United States” to ask about school spirit as individuals and as school administrators. Parents and students who noted personally (parents on behalf of their kid) that the students who had a lot of school spirit felt more connected to their school and student body, tended to do better academically, were more well-rounded, and intended to continue their educations to high school. Kids with school spirit tended to outweigh kids who did not have school spirit in these categories by a large percentage. For example, of these spirited students 91% felt more confident, 90% were more likely to be leaders, 88% were happier, 87% were more active in their communities, and 73% felt more fulfilled. However, this observational study does fall into an area whether it is hard to determine if it is enough subjects or not. With roughly 1350 parents and students weighing in on the survey, it might not be enough people. Also, parents speaking on behalf of their kids might not give an accurate representation, though this is less than half of the surveyed percentage. 

However, these are all great, but they seem like soft endpoints. What is actually connecting students to these things? How do we know that reverse causation isn’t causing this (the smarter/more outgoing/leadership kids want to get more involved anyway)?

I haven’t found any studies that show a direct connection between school spirit affecting the brain to cause these benefits such as grades, leadership, overall happiness, etc. I’ve looked into the impact of loyalty on the brain especially in terms of consumer/product relations (“Neuroscience of Member Loyalty” > How the Brain Works Toward Loyalty) and how religion impacts different areas of the brain (“The Brain During Religious Experiences”). One article even suggests these two components are combined to show that Apple fires the same areas of the brain as religious experiences, resulting in consumer loyalty (“Brain Hints…“). These are all loose links, but perhaps there is something in our brains that drives us to connect with our communities through finding familiar communities or stability. Customers can always turn to Apple, believers can always turn to their religion, and high schoolers can come together no matter what clique they hang out with in order to represent their school spirit. Again, these are loose connections, but connections I had to make on my own in order to come to some scientific conclusion outside of the study.

Personally, I will always be loyal to my high school and the teams and traditions I found there. I can even imagine myself sending my daughters to that small, all-girls school. It also clearly had an impact on my friend to the point where she is considering transferring to Penn State to find that spirit and community that defined our high school experience. Maybe it’s not too wild to say that this sense of loyalty that drives us to religion or brands can also drive us towards school spirit.

There are a lot of myths involving playing music while working. Some say it helps, others say its hurts, while still others think that classical music helps developing brains. For a kid in college, what is the best way to go about listening to music while doing work?

A 2010 study from Applied Cognitive Pyschology sought an answer to this question. The study was fairly small with 25 undergraduate students ranging from 18-30 years old. They were asked whether they enjoyed heavy metal music, and if they did they were not asked to be subjects in the test. This is because there were five categories of music or sound that the subjects had to listen to while attempting to memorize a list in five minutes then recall it in a 20 second span. The five categories were quiet, changing-state speech (random numbers from 1-9), steady-state speech (repetition of the number ‘3’), likable music (which the subjects provided for themselves), and dislikable music (a heavy metal song, same one for each subject). The accuracy of memory was measured based on how well the people in the study could recall the lists they had looked at for five minutes.

The study found that the subjects, based on how they rated working with each of the five categories of sound, preferred the music they chose to work with. However, the results from the study proved that a quiet setting is the most productive for the best results on the memory game, and the liked music had as poor results as the disliked heavy metal music. Therefore, even though the subject wanted to listen to the music they requested, it actually did not help them in the study. This suggests that listening to music is less productive than working in quiet settings. However, the study was very small and the age range of 18-30 probably cannot be generalized for all age groups.

What about the good effects of music? What about the Mozart effect that suggests classical music improves certain functions of the brain? This article from the Journal of the Royal Society on Medicine explains that in the past there was one controversial study in 1993 that after listening to Mozart for 10 minutes on the piano subjects’ IQs rose by an average of 8-9 points for a duration of 10-15 minutes. However, these unprecedented results still caused other scientists to try to refute this conclusion. Jenkins, the author of this article, looks at other researchers to discover a few, but not all who have attempted, came up with the same results. The music does have an effect on the spatial recognition of the brain, but the heightened intelligence does not have permanent effects but instead only works for 12 minutes on average. Therefore, listening to Mozart while doing math homework may or may not help.

These two pieces I have reviewed both seem to suggest that since the topic is still so up in the air about the benefits (whether from a small study or inconclusive results on the Mozart effect), I would suggest working in silence in order to prevent distractions.

For as long as we can remember, there has always been a conflict between Pepsi and Coke for the better soda brand. People mark themselves as being loyal to either one company or the other. But really, which one is better? Especially since we learned that sugary drinks might not be that great for you in the first place, which one is worth taking a health risk?

Let’s look at the concrete nutrition facts first. Both facts were obtained from the companies’ own websites and were measured as a 12 oz can. Coke has 140 calories, 45 grams of sodium, and 39 grams of sugar (http://productnutrition.thecoca-colacompany.com/). Pepsi has 150 calories, 30 grams of sodium, and 41 grams of sugar (Pepsico Beverage Facts). Besides the difference in sodium, there really are few nutritional differences between the two. So why are people so adamant about their particular brand?

Psychology suggests that marketing has a stronger pull on consumers than actual consumption of the drink. This article discusses the Pepsi Paradox: even though Pepsi wins in blind taste tests, it cannot compete against Coke because Coke embodies a brand that people have come to love. It even shows the retro 1980s taste test commercial that Pepsi aired showing Pepsi won blind taste tests. This same article explores a study with a blind and non-blind taste test. Pepsi won the blind taste test and stimulated a part of the brain associated with processing different flavors, the ventral putamen. However, in a non-blind taste test, Coke won, which means it would win on the market, because it creates a reaction in the medial prefrontal cortex associated with processing ads.

*Additional note: it should be noticed that the blind taste test, an observational study, announced Pepsi as the winner. However, the test was promoted by Pepsi so there is inevitable bias. However, I believe if the results did not go their way, they would simply not publish them, hence the file drawer problem. Yet the bias of the company conducting the survey should be taken into account. Since this has been brought to the attention of the public, other individual groups have tried out there own taste tests. For example: http://www.thedailymeal.com/coke-versus-pepsi-taste-testing-brands-slideshow

Looking at Coke’s website, they have put a lot of time into dedicating part of their website to their advertising journey so viewers can feel nostalgic and remember the loyalty they feel to the company. We even perceive Santa as a fat man in a red and white suit because Coca-Cola pictured him that way in an ad to match his colors to the colors of their product. PepsiCo’s advertising page is comparatively more bland and does not have the same pride or desire to connect to their audience through past images and marketing techniques.

As a PR major, I find this extremely fascinating that it does not have to be the product but rather how you present the product that can promote it to number one. Lastly, I’ll end with this quote from Leonard Mlodinow, author of Subliminal: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior: “It is that what is true of beverages and brands is also true of the other ways we experience the social world. Our brains employ far more than direct, explicit data on products (or people) to create our mental experience. They key word here is “create”. Our brains are not recording experiences, they are creating them. ”

PGD (pre-implantation genetic diagnosis) is embryo-screening that looks for DNA abnormalities (such as genes for cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, down syndrome, and even gender) if a couple uses in-vitro fertilization to conceive a child (“What Is PGD?”). It causes a lot of debate today because embryos that have certain diseases can be discarded, which some may consider abortion. It also calls other ethical ideas into question: if parents can discard embryos for being a certain gender, what would stop them from discarding dumber, weaker kids in favor of more intelligent and athletically gifted kids?

A study from the Oxford Journals comparing PGD births to babies conceived through intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), both artificial reproduction methods, sought to see if babies born from PGD suffered any health risks compared to babies born through sperm injections. This study monitored all babies born at the Vrije Universiteit Brussels (VUB) between 1992 and 2005. The doctors watched 581 babies and sent questionnaires to their parents when the babies turned 2-months old. However, the control was a group of babies conceived through ICSI “to determine whether potential differences in outcome were exclusively related to the embryo biopsy in PGD and not to assisted reproduction technology (ART) in general” (Oxford Journals). However, in this study the control was not babies conceived naturally, which I feel could have given a fuller picture on the effects of PGD as well as artificial reproduction as a whole. Measuring “gestational ages at delivery, birth weights and major malformations,” they found few differences between the two groups of babies except for the PGD babies were more likely to be born prematurely and weigh less at birth (Oxford Journals). They are continuing to monitor the babies now (this was done in 2009) and have concluded that generally PGD does not affect the health of babies conceived through this method.

However, the unpredictable consequence of the upcoming prominence of PGD is how it could affect the dynamic of the family, something science cannot concretely cover especially this early in the process. Leon Kass, a chair on the President’s Bioethics Council in the United States, claims that parents will start to see their child as property since the selection of features through PGD can “turn the child into ‘manufacture’ and thus impairs human flourishing” (Oxford Journals). This has already been documented in this New York Times article “Wanting Babies Like Them” where it was reported that deaf and blind couples only selected embryos through PGD that carried genes for the same disorder they had. Of the 190 PGD clinics surveyed, 5-6 of them reported cases where babies were chosen based on disabilities found in their DNA. Through a series of anecdotes (this article is not entirely based on the study but instead looks into surrounding view points on the scientific material), the reporter best portrays the conflict when one parent asks her, “What is life going to be like for her, when her parents are different than she is?” (New York Times)

Obviously, PGD is still fresh on the scene. It is unclear how it affects the births of children as well as family dynamics since those born of PGD are not old enough to have encountered many obstacles. Only time will tell how this affects us as a society. As Sanghavi ends the New York Times article, “Of course, part of me wonders whether speaking the same language or being the same height guarantees closer families. But it’s not for me to say. In the end, our energy is better spent advocating for a society where those factors won’t matter.”

Have you ever thought about how sugar is in everything we eat? From drinks of any kind to yogurts to McDonald’s to bread, it really is unavoidable. Most people even claim to have a sweet tooth that excuses them devouring whatever sugary treat they want. What makes us go crazy for sugar? Instinctively, humans have needed sugar to survive, and the brain has not changed its reaction to sugar over years of evolution: “Sugar fuels every cell in the brain. Your brain also sees sugar as a reward, which makes you keep wanting more of it. If you often eat a lot of sugar, you’re reinforcing that reward, which can make it tough to break the habit” (WebMD). 

There was a Princeton study in 2008 that connected rats’ behavior to sugar to those with drug/alcohol addictions or binge eaters. The study states, “Until now, the rats under study have met two of the three elements of addiction. They have demonstrated a behavioral pattern of increased intake and then showed signs of withdrawal. His current experiments captured craving and relapse to complete the picture.” The scientists withheld sugar from the rats, causing withdrawal symptoms, and when they gave the rats renewed access to sugar the rats would binge on it. Since 2008, sugar has been acknowledged as an addictive substance for humans too.

If you find yourself in this article, you can break your sugar addiction at this article: “How to Break Your Sugar Addiction.“

I’ve never been one for coffee and have never been dependent on naps. However, as college seems to run through the 24 hours in the day, students stay up late and wake up early, leaving sleep as a low priority on most people’s lists. Two popular and well-known options to defeating the tired feeling can be found through caffeine or napping. Both, however, have their pros and cons.

Caffeine is a quick fix within arms reach of most places. Any store on campus will sell a Starbucks manufactured drink, some even as powerful as Espresso Shots. And if that doesn’t work, there’s a Starbucks in the HUB as well as access to coffee at any commons area. WebMD says that caffeine can improve memory or concentration and maybe “lowering risks of Alzheimer’s or liver disease.” However, it is habit-enforcing as the drinker becomes addicted to the caffeine. It can also “can set you up for high blood pressure, high blood sugar, and decreased bone density — not to mention jangled nerves” (WebMD). So while coffee is a quick fix that appears to have some long term benefits, it mostly creates a dependence and, for those who drink it regularly and stop, terrible withdrawal symptoms.

Napping can really be a lifesaver, speaking from my own experience. The National Sleep Foundation even breaks napping down into three categories: emergency, planned, and habitual. The benefits to napping are immediate alertness and a sense of a mini-vacation from the day itself: “A study at NASA on sleepy military pilots and astronauts found that a 40-minute nap improved performance by 34% and alertness 100%” (National Sleep Foundation).  However, besides being difficult to fit into someone’s schedule, napping can cause grogginess after waking up, can negatively effect a sleep cycle, and can be “associated with increased risk of heart failure in people already at risk” according to one study (National Sleep Foundation). 

Obviously I have a bias towards naps as someone who doesn’t drink coffee. But which one could be better for those with busy and sleep-deprived schedules? It is an experiment worth testing.

Lately I’ve been reading about Ray Rice and the consequences he has been facing after being caught on tape knocking out his then-fiance, now wife. One CNN article questions whether he can be forgiven like athletes before him (Michael Vick, Tiger Woods) or if the public will harbor the anger in response to the visual image display abuse. Patrick Wanis, a human behavior expert, is quoted in the CNN article saying, “If we see the results of the beating, we react more harshly” and compares the case to Chris Brown and Rihanna’s abusive scuffle in 2009 (CNN). Wanis continues “When we see the bruises, the cuts, the bleeding, the scars, we feel a lot more pain, therefore we respond with a lot more anger” (CNN). Contrarily, Scott Eddi, also quoted in the article, says, “I personally think what he did is despicable … However, we are not his spouse. So ultimately if his wife has shown grace to forgive him … all we can do is support him.” The real question is does our ability to empathize through visual aids have more influence or the reluctance to stand in between people’s personal lives turn us toward forgiveness?

We are drawn to the visual. “A picture speaks a thousand words.” There’s a deeper connection when you can visualize the abuse compared to reading about the Ray Rice case. This study even shows that while spoken word can have the strongest effect on the memory, pictures come in at a close second, leaving written word in the dust. Visuals are crucial for getting points across, either through PowerPoint or through graphic design. Uday Gajendar on graphic design introduces “visual empathy”; by placing oneself in the view of another person they can get to know their everyday life better (in terms of images they are exposed to) and ultimately know the person better in order to appeal aesthetically to them (Gajendar). This creates a link between visuals and empathy, and empathy as seen in this Time study people react if others around them see grosser images than they do. Therefore, seeing the video of Janay Rice being knocked out may make a more powerful statement than simply hearing about it on the news. Will this motivate people to

This article focuses on Janay Rice’s forgiveness of her husband and looks into it as a consequence of an abusive relationship not progress in their personal relationship. It says, “The release of the video may have changed everything, but no one should have had to see it to understand that Janay’s defense of her husband says little about his guilt or innocence…victims frequently defend and stay with their abusers… By the time a man is beating a woman, he has gained some assurance that she will not leave him for it” (Marcotte). The same article links to WebMD’s “Domestic Violence” page that lists symptoms such as depression and isolation, safety concerns, shame, and conflicting emotions that could have motivated her to apologize insincerely. Should the public step in or should they accept her apology as a sign of withdrawal from the public eye?

Is her apology something that should draw the attention of the media in order to reach out and help discuss the issue of domestic violence everywhere or should empathy be disregarded and her family left alone?

I came from an all-girls high school (to which most people respond “is it weird going to school with guys now?!” If you were going to ask that, the answer is “not really I still have guy friends…”) where all of us felt comfortable eating around each other. People baked mountains of cupcakes and brownies when it was your birthday. There would be trays of pizza sitting in commons areas after lunch club meetings had leftovers. When we were bored we might go to McDonald’s or Chipotle. Maybe it was this sense of generosity or maybe it was the fact that my friends have watched me eat abnormally unhealthy amounts of food, but the bond I have with my friends is truly extraordinary. We all can be ourselves around each other no matter how weird, and our group conversation of 18 girls constantly has updates, even though we are all over the United States.

I always assumed it was the idea of being around girls all the time that made us so close, because we could be as weird as we wanted. Could it be the fact that we openly ate that added to this bond?

Think about it. When you go on a date, you usually go for dinner/lunch/ice cream or fro yo. Sometimes for interviews or more formal meetings you will go get coffee. You have probably gone out to innumerable birthday dinners. Other freshmen especially will understand that when someone comes up to you and says “want to get lunch?” it’s a huge compliment and possibly the beginning of a new friendship. What is it about eating in front of someone that seems to connect people?

People always seem to be connecting over food. My freshman seminar bonded yesterday over the fact that the State College Chipotle closed down, and then everyone had an opinion on burrito or burrito bowl. This website suggests that men should take a girl to a date to restaurants saying, “good food sets the right mood for dates.” This Cornell study stresses the importance of families finding time to eat together. And lastly, in this blog post I found a girl countered her own eating disorder by eating with her mom then her husband and continues to make the point that eating together is instinctive, influential of our attitudes, and important to  who we are.

On a much more serious note, eating disorders stem can stem from many causes, such as psychological symptoms. Mental Health America outlines that although there are societal causes and pressures to be skinny, it can also be a direct result of traumatic experiences, depression, low self-esteem, and “using food as a way to cope with negative emotions.” I always assumed close-mindedly that magazine covers and beautiful models were the primary cause of eating disorders. However, those with anorexia will not eat in front of other people and also “withdraw into self and feelings, becoming socially isolated” (Mental Health America). Possibly, as the victim stops feeling comfortable eating around her friends, she feels she can’t connect with them at all creating a vicious cycle of starvation and loneliness.

What connection does eating have to relationships we develop?

As most of you have probably heard at this point, Apple unveiled the new Apple Watch. Looking at the newly minted page Apple has added to their online store, I was greeted with the heading “There’s An Apple Watch for Everyone.” It boasts of the versatility of design between the different bands, metals, and backgrounds They even take into account larger screens for larger wrists. Your Apple Watch can be completely unique – just like you.

Samsung released an ad (an ad that made my dad say “I want that phone“) as early as 2013 according to the YouTube page. This watch does not need to be connected to an iPhone 5 at all times (like the Apple Watch) and instead focuses on advancing technology – it is a watch, phone, camera, and more. Apple on its Features page focuses primarily the fact that this watch is a phone with multiple twists and turns but does not list anything that differs from what the Gear Watch offers.

Even though we can all design our Apple Watches to look differently from each other, are we really being that different after all? Are we helping the advancement of technology or are we too scared to have something on our wrists that looks far too much like a watch phone? One article comparing the two directly admits that the Apple Watch has serious flaws that even Apple wants to work out but sides with critics that the Gear Watch is too…ugly, frankly.

So the question is, which do people side with: technology or design? Conforming or investing in the more advanced equipment?

Hi my name is Chloe Cullen, I’m from Washington, DC, and for now, I’m enrolled in the College of Communications as a AD/PR major. When we were scheduling classes, my academic adviser suggested all of us take a science course. I was confused by the other topics about studying soils and things that generally didn’t interest me, so she told me to take Science 200 because “it’s a science course for non-science people.” I’ve been interested in science but never felt a pull to it. I like the idea of understanding the world around us (ignore the cliche) but when it came down to nitty gritty details (shown in videos like this that I had to use to get me through junior year biology)  I would get completely lost. This explains why I’m not becoming a science major, but I’m taking this class to be able to continue asking questions that no other course – English, Math, Spanish, etc – would be able to answer. Even though I’m not strictly a science person, I am looking forward to having the freedom to continue thinking scientifically.