I’ve never been much of a fan of anything sweet in my coffee, but some of my friends load up on the Sweet n’ Low every day. According to a new study, these artificial sweeteners could be just as bad, if not worse than regular sugar.

The study found that consuming artificial sweeteners seem to contribute to “glucose intolerance” which has connections to high blood sugar. In experiments with humans and mice, scientists found that the mixing of components of the artificial sweeteners with bacteria in our digestive tracts led to higher blood sugar levels when consuming sugary food later. In one small trial of seven people, participants were given the FDA’s maximum recommended amount of the sweetener saccharin, or Sweet n’ Low, and four of those seven contracted blood sugar problems. Another study involving seventeen obese people was conducted where scientists measured the effects of the sweetener sucralose, or Splenda, blood sugar and insulin levels rose.

This is a relatively new finding and should definitely be researched further, but the small trials still leave me skeptical. A study only made up of seven people does not carry much weight for me and the study that involved obese people makes me question whether changes in their body occurred because they were obese or if their reactions would generalize to everyone. Overall, I probably won’t be convinced until there is a more conclusive study done, and I won’t needlessly worry my friends over something that could just be anecdotal evidence.

Sources:

smithsonianmag.com

sciencedaily.com

The other day, an article caught my eye because the headline was titled, “Poorer Kids May Be Too Respectful In Schools.” I went back to it because I was curious as to what possible reason there could be for poor children being so much more respectful in the classroom that there was an article on a scientific website about it.

The article actually went on to explain that an observational study found that, in a third through fifth grade classroom, working class children were less likely to ask for help than middle or upper class children and that when they do ask, they are “less aggressive about it.”

The study then said how it was likely due to the fact that working class parents may give their children less guidance and want them to work out problems on their own, while middle class parents encourage their children to seek out help and be assertive.

In my opinion, this is a lot of speculative conclusion from an unreliable study. It appears that a lot of classrooms were observed, but there could be so many third variables at play such as age, personality, location, even time of the year. Also, just because shy kids happen to more often be working class, doesn’t mean they are shy because they are working class, because correlation does not equal causation.

I think this study could use a lot of improvement, such as a bigger sample size and more look at the details instead of grand conclusions drawn from little evidence.

Sources:

scientificamerican.com

PTSD is a very serious issue today that controls the lives of many people. However, a scientist at the University of Bonn believes she may have found a new breakthrough in treatment. She has found that the hormone oxytocin, which already exists in our brain, called the “love hormone,” may be the key to relieving anxieties of PTSD stricken people.

Her experiment included 62 men who were subjected to a type of “Pavlovian fear conditioning” in which they would be presented certain images and then given a small electric shock. After an initial MRI, half of the participants were given oxytocin and half were given a placebo and were given the test again without the electric shocks.

What they found was that those who had been given the oxytocin had increased activity in the prefrontal cortex, where fear is controlled, than those who did not receive the hormone.

I think this is a good example of a well done experiment that could have a lot of potential. Double-blind placebo trials can be very successful, and although it was unspecified whether it truly was a double-blind trial if the administrators knew what they were giving to the subjects, this experiment was well conducted. Because they had a control group and measured the subjects before and after the hormone was injected, it’s unlikely third variables are at play and the findings are much more credible. One thing that is concerning however is the sample size. 62 males is not a very diverse or conclusive group, but because it was the first trial there could be more chances to expand the study. I certainly hope this continues to be researched because from this study it looks like a promising possible solution for a problem that so many people are struggling with.

Sources:

scientificamerican.com

America has some of the cleanest drinking water in the world. We strain it, filter it, treat it, all before it gets to our plumbing and yet we still go out and buy a water purifier to stick in the fridge. So do these filters actually work? One study concludes that Brita filters can lower the minimal amount of chemicals, but ultimately the water is completely safe before it is filtered. So why do people use these filters? Some complain that they can taste certain chemicals, like chlorine, in their tap water and others just don’t trust the safety of their water.

I was surprised that this article didn’t mention how some people’s water safety is very relative. People who live in areas where fracking is an issue have had water come out of their tap that is so toxic that it can be set on fire. It’s safe to say the water coming out of their tap is a lot less safe than someone living in a different area, so the case against getting or not getting a water filter is very subjective. Ultimately, it is up to the consumer and their own level of comfort in drinking their own water and the condition of the water in their area. For many, investing in a $20 water filter is worth it compared to the risk of ingesting toxins that may have slipped through the system, but it is ultimately a personal choice.

Sources:

webmd.com

today.com

New studies show that popular anxiety drugs such as Valium and Xanax may be linked to Alzheimer’s disease. More specifically, elderly people using these drugs long term (three months or longer) have a 43 to 51 percent higher chance for developing Alzheimer’s. A Canadian study of 1,800 Alzheimer’s patients and 7,000 people without Alzheimer’s showed that those taking the anxiety drugs were “far more likely to be in the Alzheimer’s group.” Some doctors have admitted that they are not sure whether the drugs were directly causing the disease or if people use the drugs to treat early signs of Alzheimer’s.

This study is interesting for people who are older or know someone who is older and currently taking one of the drugs listed. There is a chance that there is some correlation between anxiety drugs and Alzheimer’s, but as we know, that does not equal causation. The study could also be due to chance, as it was just a standalone study with nothing to compare to. Reverse causation could be at play here as well. Maybe people predisposed to get Alzheimer’s develop anxiety as an early symptom before the disease hits them, which is touched on as a possibility in the article.

The study was also only done on people who live in Quebec, which allows for the possibility of third variables being at play. Maybe contracting Alzheimer’s and taking anxiety drugs has something to do with living in Quebec.

It seems that this problem is relative to the person who is taking the drugs. If their anxiety is a bigger concern or risk than the possibility of developing Alzheimer’s, they will probably continue to take the drug. Some people’s anxiety I’m sure is so unbearable, taking themselves off the drug just because there is an inconclusive chance they could develop Alzheimer’s is not worth it.

It’s an interesting study that could potentially affect a lot of people, but for now it seems like a concern to be left up to the people impacted.

Sources:

nbcnews.com

Energy drinks have become somewhat of a fad in recent years. Teenagers and young adults are the most common consumers of these drinks, which on average contain significantly higher levels of caffeine than a regular cup of coffee of the same size. I personally just stick to coffee when it comes to my caffeine intake but I have quite a few friends who also drink Red Bull and Monster frequently and I have always wondered if these drinks are any worse than coffee or tea or have any significant long term effects on the body.

One study measured the short term effects of energy drink consumption on the heart using MRI technology. The study contained fifteen men and three women of good health with an average age of 27.5 years. The researchers took cardiac MRIs of the subjects before and one hour after they drank one energy drink containing 32mg/100ml caffeine. The results of this experiment showed that after consuming an energy drink, the participants showed increased strain on the left ventricle of the heart, which pumps oxygenated blood to the rest of the body. Scientists revealed that it was inconclusive if this would impact daily activities or athletic performance, making it a soft endpoint.

This study does draw some conclusions that could be consistent with the hypothesis that energy drinks are unhealthy, but the size and execution of the study does not make it reliable. As there were only fifteen people involved and a mere three females among them, it is difficult to call this a legitimate study. It may have been received more credit if more information had been gathered such as participants’ physical responses compared to a control group.

Most scientists can agree however, that energy drinks that are mixed with alcohol, such as Four Loko or Joose, pose strong potential hazards to health. Observational data over the years has been all but conclusive in pointing to alcohol laced energy drinks as the cause in some critical health problems experienced by otherwise healthy young people, a statistic that has doubled in the years between 2007 and 2011.

Because I personally do not drink energy drinks, I cannot say whether I think they are worth giving up based on the data presented. For those that do consume energy drinks, I suppose it is a personal choice as to whether the benefit of drinking that Red Bull outweighs the potential risks associated with it.

Sources:

HuffPost

Medical News Today

At one point or another, I think all parents have told their children, “If you eat too much chocolate it will give you pimples!” I was always the one to argue with my parents, saying that acne comes from blocked pores, which eating certain foods has no effect on. But is there any truth behind this claim, or is a just a ploy for parents to get their children so stop eating so much candy? Many other factors have been proven to contribute to the appearance of acne such as family history, age, and stress levels, but could diet have something to do with it as well?

One study included 65 participants with a ranging severity of acne and divided them into two groups. “One group was given a chocolate bar enriched with 10 times the normal amount of cocoa. The other group was given a placebo bar (without the extra cocoa). The groups were told to eat the bars daily for a month.” (bbc.com) After three weeks, the groups switched bars and scientists, who were monitoring the students’ acne weekly, reported no effect on acne development. This, however, does not account for the fact that breakouts may have occurred mid-week. Also the fact that the Chocolate Manufacturers’ Association of the United States of America conducted this study leaves room for some skepticism. (bbc.com)

Another study took 27 college-age students and told them to “eat large amounts of chocolate, milk, fizzy drinks and roasted peanuts every day for a week.” (bbc.com) No outbreaks were recorded, but the study is not dependable based on the small amount of subjects and timescale as well as the lack of control group.

There have been some smaller, more conclusive studies that show strong links to chocolate and acne, but for the most part, scientists are still somewhat unsure exactly how some diets can affect the skin. (bbc.com)

There is the possibility that there are other factors in affect as well. Stress causes inflammation, and therefore, acne and stress can also lead people to binge eat junk food, including chocolate. Until there is more concrete evidence, it looks as thought chocolate and acne share nothing more than a casual link.

“Must be a full moon tonight” is a common saying when confronted with a person doing something strange or out of the ordinary. Even the word “lunacy” is derived from the Latin luna which means moon. Is there any proof to this superstition though? And does the moon really have a great affect on the behavioral patterns of life on Earth?

The moon’s effect on water was the earliest believed reason for behavioral changes in humans. It was thought that because humans are about 80% water the moon had some effect on our bodies that caused abnormalities. This theory was debunked when scientists proved that the moon only affected open bodies of water like oceans or lakes and not say, a glass of water sitting on the coffee table. (scientificamerican.com)

Since then, some studies have still tried to prove that the full moon does affect humans, but most theories have not held up upon further investigation. For example, one study attempted to show a correlation that traffic accidents were more likely to occur on full moon nights. This study is merely observational, not experimental, but it does show some type of correlation. When further investigated however, it was found in the period that was studied, full moons occurred on weekends, when more people drive. This is a good example of critical science and how it’s good to look closely at scientific findings instead of taking them at face value, because sometimes it is the third, confounding Z factor that makes a difference. (scientificamerican.com)

There is also something to be said about the psychology behind strange happenings on a full moon. Most people are aware or at least have heard of the superstition, so when something odd occurs, they are more likely to take notice of it because they know there is a full moon. This is an interesting notion because it introduces the possibility of reverse causation. It could be that because people are aware of the full moon superstition, they unconsciously, or consciously, act out of the ordinary.

Either way, there is no scientific or biological evidence that this claim has any truth, but so far it does not appear there has been any concrete experiments done.

I worked at a coffee shop over the summer and one day a family came in and ordered their son, who looked to be no older than 10, a large mocha latte. After they left, my coworker and I were both incredulous. She mentioned something about the kid not growing if they kept that up. I didn’t know what she was referring to so I asked her what she meant. She went on to tell me that caffeine stunts your growth. I was just shocked that anyone would buy a $6 cup of coffee, let alone for a little kid.

It did get me thinking though. There is no reason that children need caffeine for energy, so could there be negative effects on them? And for that matter, did extend to soda and other caffeinated foods or just coffee? And does this rule apply to adolescents and others who are still growing as well?

Some scientists claim that it is just a myth and it originated from the long-held belief that caffeine was thought to be a risk factor for osteoporosis. This, in turn, led coffee to be associated with reduced bone mass. (nytimes.com)

The only other study that came close to answering the question was a study done to test the effects of caffeine on 81 adolescents over six years, which “found no correlation between daily caffeine intake and bone growth or density.” (smithsonianmag.com)

From this information, it can be assumed there is no proof that coffee stunts children’s growth, but there is no proof it doesn’t stunt children’s growth either. The way to truly prove that this is just a myth would be to have an actual experiment, which I could not find in my research. One source even admitted that it was difficult to study the long-term effects of caffeine on children because most parents are not keen to let their child have daily cups of coffee.

Another study I found was unrelated to the question of coffee stunting growth, but it did acknowledge that adults who drank excess amounts of caffeine absorbed less calcium, which is necessary for bone growth. Scientists went on to say that this should not be a problem for many adults as one tablespoon of milk is enough to offset the equivalent of 8 ounces of coffee, so anyone with a balanced diet needn’t worry. (smithsonianmag.com)

As of now, there is no evidence that coffee stunts growth, but just because there is no evidence that it does doesn’t mean there is not still a possibility.

The old wives’ tale that you can “catch your death” from going out in the cold without properly dried hair is something I know I have been personally subjected to since I was little. Although, if you really think about it, can it really be true? Colds are caused by viruses, but is there any possible way having wet hair can make you more vulnerable to sickness?

There have been quite a few studies done on this exact problem with interesting results.

Some studies were done where scientists have set up a laboratory and “lowered the temperatures of volunteers and deliberately exposed them to a cold virus.” (bbc.com) Apparently, some succumbed to the illness while others did not leaving the results inconclusive.

Another experiment was also conducted where subjects were placed in a chilled laboratory with half of the people sitting with their bare feet in a tub of cold water and the other half sitting without their feet in cold water for the same amount of time. The subjects were later returned to their daily lives and within five days twice as many people who were exposed to the cold water had developed a cold. (bbc.com)

This experiment shows an interesting correlation, but it seems to be just a correlation. This experiment does not offer a solution as to why or how a chill can result in cold symptoms, nor does it test for it. There is also the question to whether cold/wet feet are equal to wet hair. Since wet hair is the real hypothesis that is to be tested, it would not prove much to test another body part. There is also a strong possibility that this result may only be due to chance. The people who were chilled could have interacted with a sick group of people upon returning to their real lives, which could have made them ill regardless of their exposure to the cold water. Because correlation does not equal causation, the experiment has nothing meaningful to contribute to solving the problem.

Yet another study was done where scientists inserted the cold virus into the noses of people who were exposed to cold/wet conditions and people who were not and the results showed that both groups contracted the cold. (abcnews.com) This experiment does not prove much either because both groups had the virus purposely inserted into them, almost guaranteeing they would get the cold, rather than trying to find if the chilled people were more susceptible to the virus on their own.

All the information and experiments I have found have not been convincing to me either way. Most of the experiments were much too flawed to draw any good conclusions for the answer to my question. From what I know, colds are caused by viruses and until there is proof that cold/wet hair makes people more susceptible to the viruses, I am going to believe that catching a cold from wet hair is a myth.

As college students, sleep is something that is often forgotten and treated like any other daily task. I know I personally have to make sleep a part of my schedule in my calendar as if it’s just another thing I need to get to at some point during the day. A few years ago I got in the bad habit of staying up until nearly 2AM every night doing work and waking up at 6AM to do it all over again. Of course, my mom, who insisted this lifestyle was bad for my health, berated me for this. Always my response to her would be, “I’ll catch up on sleep over the weekend!” It seemed to work for me too. I would sleep about 10 hours per night, with occasional naps thrown in as well and the entire span of time I did this I never felt continuously run-down or unhealthy but when I think about it more it really makes me wonder if it is actually possible to “catch up” on sleep. I thought this would be a pertinent topic because I know for a fact that other people my age also have the habit of getting little sleep during the week and then trying to equalize it on the weekends. Can you really catch up on sleep? Are the recommended sleeping hours (eight hours per night) subjective to the person or necessary for all humans to function? Was it my age or another factor that made me feel like I could go with such little sleep?

The first thing I found was that the recommended eight hours is actually an average. Experts say that some people require only six hours while others may require up to ten. (Scientific American) Also there is such a thing as “sleep debt” otherwise known as the amount of hours we owe ourselves when we skim off on our daily requirement. People can reduce some of their sleep deficit, but most experts agree that if the amount of sleep lost totals more than five hours during the week, there’s no getting it back. (Scientific American)

Interestingly enough, Penn State’s College of Medicine did a study on this very subject a few years ago. Subjects slept a full 8 hours for four nights to establish a baseline, then 6 hours for six nights to simulate a typical work week, and finally 10 hours for three nights in “recovery sleep mode.” Throughout the study they measured daytime sleepiness levels, stress levels, attention span, and inflammation. After the recovery period, everything had returned to normal except for attention span. The takeaway from the study was that recovery periods of sleep can be effective, but will not “fully restore health and function.” (psychologytoday.com)

All in all, this experiment gives some insight into whether “sleep debt” is a real thing, but there are still some factors that may have compromised the experiment. As the subjects were just 30 college age students, it’s possible their sleep schedules were already out of order. Also details were not given as to how the people were monitored so they slept the full amount of time, as some people take longer than others to fall asleep and some may have woken up earlier than they should have.

Even without the experiment, most data on the subject suggests that overall, recovery periods of sleep may work short term, but could have negative effects down the line. For me personally, it is helpful to have this information in the back of my mind when I know I have gone to long without a good night’s sleep during the week. I’m still not sure if I will be able to change my current habits because I’ve been practicing them for so long, but at least I won’t be fooling myself anymore.

Hi everyone, my name is Chrissy and I’m a freshman in the College of Liberal Arts studying Communication. I picked SC 200 because it seemed like the perfect course for someone like me, who is interested in science and the various concepts, especially the controversies and questions that arise from looking deeper into things.

I am not planning to be a science major because my talents are in writing and speaking and I just do not have the knack for the math and laboratory portions of science. Also my science experience through most of my schooling was basically centered around memorization, which Andrew mentioned was not his goal in teaching this class, so I am excited to see what I can get out of this class!