I don’t know about you, but I can’t get through my day without a nice little afternoon nap.  It usually leaves me refreshed, recharged, and ready to attack the rest of my day.  But there are those off-occasions when I wake up from a nap feeling like I just got hit by a bus.  Why does this overwhelming feeling of grogginess happen?  I will explore this question through this blog (and potentially* a couple others).

The feeling of grogginess experienced after waking up from a nap is known as “sleep inertia”. Sleep inertia occurs when you wake up from “REM” (rapid eye movement) sleep, the deepest level of sleeping.  When you wake up during REM, you still have high levels of melatonin, causing sleepiness. The longer you sleep, the higher level of melatonin is observed during REM stage.

Does this mean I should avoid long naps?  Well, not necessarily.  With the intentions of finding the ideal amount of sleep for astronauts, David Dinges, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, led an experiment in which 91 volunteers spent 10 days living on one of 18 different sleep schedules, all in a laboratory setting (NASA).  The experiments measured subjects’ cognitive functions as well as body temperature and hormone levels.  The results were interesting, as they found that longer naps actually benefited certain cognitive functions, but not others.  Dinge says “To our amazement, working memory performance benefited from the naps, [but] vigilance and basic alertness did not benefit very much”.  Dinge found that the total amount of sleep during 24 hours remained the most important factor.

But, since these subjects took longer naps, wouldn’t that mean they were in REM and should have actually felt groggy?  Again, not necessarily.  REM, as well as the other stages of sleep, occurs in a cycle. This cycle is best interpreted through a visual:

As you can see from the graph, REM occurs roughly around the one hour mark, then returns to the lighter levels of sleep.  I believe the subjects in Dinge’s study slept through a cycle of REM and awoke in a lighter stage of sleep.  That would explain the improved cognitive functions since REM has been shown to boost memory processing, creativity, as well as emotional and procedural memory (Pinola).

Now one could argue that Dinge’s study was flawed.  Ninety-one subjects is by no means a large sample size, especially if he was testing eighteen different sleep cycles.  The study also doesn’t disclose whether or not there was a control of any third variables or rule out reverse-causation (maybe smarter people sleep better).  With that in mind though, we should seriously consider the effect of the sleep cycle on naps.  It’s not a matter of how long you nap, but rather where in the sleep cycle you wake up in that has the impact on grogginess.  I look forward to further looking into the perfect nap in my next blog.

Works Cited:

NASA. “NASA Naps – NASA Science.” NASA Science. NASA, 3 June 2005. Web. 8 Nov. 2014. <http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/03jun_naps/>.

Pinola, Melanie. “How Long to Nap for the Biggest Brain Benefits.” Lifehacker. KINJA, 4 Sept. 2013. Web. 8 Nov. 2014. <http://lifehacker.com/how-long-to-nap-for-the-biggest-brain-benefits-1251546669>.

Valley Sleep Center. “12 Facts About Sleep Inertia.” 12 Facts About Sleep Inertia. 3 Nov. 2014. Web. 8 Nov. 2014. <http://valleysleepcenter.com/blog/12-facts-about-sleep-inertia/>.

No, I’m not going to be discussing the poorly made 2001 movie that probably made your childhood slightly uncomfortable.  However, I will be discussing how loyalty differs between the animals.  If you’re like me, you’re a dog person through and through.  I’ve had a dog my whole life and I love my dog more than some* (most*) family members.  Inversely, I hate cats.  The whole species makes me sick.  I believe that dogs are inherently more loyal than cats by a long shot.  This got me thinking, is there any science to support my belief? Let’s take a look.

Behavior towards humans differs between the two animals based on how they have socially evolved in the wild.  Dogs travel/hunt in packs and are subservient to a “pack leader” (Hartwell).  Because of this, domesticated canines view their owners as the pack leader and act submissively and seemingly loyal towards them.  Cats on the other hand, are not pack animals with an inherit form of leader or hierarchy.  They are used to hunting alone and only socializing with other cats if enough food is present.  This is why domesticated cats seem more distant and cold to their owners; owners need to prove their worth to the cat if they want loyalty or affection.

The loyalty of dogs have been tested quite literally to their limits.  Around a century ago, a brutal experiment vivisected dogs in order to test their loyalty.  Owners abused dogs to the point where they actually removed a fully conscious dog’s eye from it’s socket. Despite all this, the dogs proved to remain “loyal” to their owner by continuing to lick their owners hand throughout the abuse (Hartwell).  Now, thankfully these experiments would never happen in today’s society, but we still have to take the findings under consideration.  Although disgustingly unethical, these experiments prove that dogs will continue to remain loyal to their owner regardless of how abusive; they simply don’t know what else to do.  Because cats do not have the same sense of rank as dogs do, they do not tolerate this type of behavior regardless of what kind of attachment they develop with their owner (Hartwell).  At a very evolutionary and biological point of view, it can be found that dogs are innately more loyal than cats.

An experiment with a dog interacting with a robot has yielded some pretty interesting results.  As you can see in the picture above, scientists put hand like gloves on a robot with a monitor and had the robot interact with the dog.  The robot would point out food to the dog and the dog would actually go fetch the treat.  The dog would subsequently display affection to the robot, almost as if it were a real person.  Scientists found that the dog responded better when they displayed a human face on the monitor with real recorded speech as opposed to a blank screen with robotic beeps.  One could definitely argue that the experiment was faulty since it only tested one dog and failed to test any other breed. I would love to see a trial in which they pinned several breeds of both dogs and cats with said robot and observe how they respond.  Seeing how a cat would interact with the robot could potentially be very interesting.  Would the cat respond positively to the robot and fetch the treat, or would it treat the robot with the same cold behavior cats often treat people with.  What can we take away from this experiment?  Well, dogs definitely respond positively when given a treat.  It’s quite clear that, when proven that it will be cared for, a dog will reciprocate that loving behavior back to its owner; or in this case, a robot.  I look forward to continuing this discussion in a further blog exploring more behavior patterns between cats and dogs.

Works Cited:

DailyReporter. “Proof That Dogs Are Loyal to ANYTHING That Feeds Them: Scientists Find They Will Even Bond with Robots (you Wouldn’t Catch a Cat Doing That).” Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 14 Sept. 2013. Web. 2 Nov. 2014.

Hartwell, Sarah. “Are Dogs More Faithful Than Cats?” Are Dogs More Faithful Than Cats? Messy Beast, 1 Jan. 2001. Web. 2 Nov. 2014.

I have a bad sweet tooth.  There. I said it.  The first step to solving a problem is by admitting it.  I came to this realization after I found myself at midnight studying and subconsciously munching on little chocolate candies my mom sent from home.  I’ve noticed that I do my best work when I’m eating something (preferably chocolate).  Then I thought about the discussion we had at the beginning of the semester about the correlation of Nobel Prize winners and Chocolate Consumption by country. So I wondered; does chocolate make you smart?

Cocoa, the main ingredient in all chocolate, has proven it already has some health benefits.  Cocoa is full of antioxidants and some essential fatty acids.  But the question remains, does chocolate make you smart? 

Wofford University conducted a study with nine college aged students, eight males and one female.  They hooked subjects up to a cap that analyzed their brain waves as they completed exercises that tested their memory and reaction time.  After a baseline test, subjects were given half a bar of dark chocolate (higher in cocoa than traditional milk chocolate).  After 15 minutes, subjects then underwent tests again.

Results showed no significant change in the performance of brain waves, memory, or reaction. However, this should not be taken as chocolate has no effect on the brain, duh.  I believe the null result is a derivative of the poor experiment design.  To begin, the experiment only had nine subjects, not nearly enough to provide a trusty experiment.  Also, eight of the nine subjects were male; an overwhelming discrepancy in subject diversity.  The experiment itself was faulty.  For one, there was no control group nor was there a presence of a blind test.  All of these factors could attribute to the result of the experiment, which could very well be a false negative.

Dr. Jacob Schor held an experiment with a very similar concept.  Schor took 90 elderly individuals with mild cognitive impairment and put them into three groups.  All groups were given a chocolate shake to consume each day; one group given shakes with a high potency of cocoa, one group given shakes with moderate potency of cocoa, and one group given shakes with low potency of cocoa.  What Dr. Schor found is that after 8 weeks, participants consuming the high and intermediate cocoa products did significantly better on both trail-making tests and had significantly better verbal fluency scores.  None of these test results changed in participants who consumed the low-flavanol cocoa.  In an extremely thorough and well-executed experiment, Dr. Jacob Schor may have proved that Chocolate can have positive cognitive implications.

Bottom line? Nothing is conclusive yet. It will take many other tests like Jacob Schor’s to prove that chocolate positively effects cognitive ability. But that won’t stop me.  Next time Andrew gives a test, I’ll be sure to have a big fat bag of chocolates next to me…. It’s for my brain, ok.

Works Cited:

Schor, Jacob. “Chocolate May Improve Cognitive Function.” Natural Medicine Journal. Natural Medicine Journal, 1 July 2013. Web. 20 Oct. 2014. <http://naturalmedicinejournal.com/journal/2013-07/chocolate-may-improve-cognitive-function>.

Wofford College. “The Effect of Dark Chocolate on Cognitive Functions.” Wofford. Wofford College, n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2014. <http://webs.wofford.edu/pittmandw/psy330/exps/2013/BMexp1.htm>.

As a young man who has considered going the military route, I often find myself asking if I have “what it takes”.  Well, what exactly does it take?  Physical ability and aptitude of course, but I’ve come to realize that the most important trait to have is superior mental fortitude.  The ability to operate at a high level of stress is crucial for anyone who wants to pursue a career in warfare.  In fact, the military is conducting studies in order to analyze and increase soldier efficiency in the face of stress and trauma.

PTSD is one of the most prevalent dilemmas that US soldiers have to deal with today.  PTSD occurs when the body fails to deescalate from the chemical reaction that occurs when one is under stress/fear (Wallace).   The military is actively trying to find new ways to combat PTSD. Nuerobiologist Lilianne Mujica-Parodi studied this fear induced chemical reaction in the brain by wiring up different subjects as they skydived from a plane.  She noticed that many subjects’ fear response system was flooded with stress hormones.  There was, however, a small group of subjects who showed clear cognitive activity in the face of this scary situation.  Mujica-Parodi describes this optimal fear response to “accurately assess risk, save room for cognitive thought, and rapidly return to baseline when the danger passes” (Wallace).  She defines this as the warrior brain.  Doctor Mujica-Parodi believes that her research, although still experimental and still working out third-variables, could one day become a part of standard military screening; for emotional and cognitive fortitude.

Navy SEALs, widely considered the most elite special force unit in the world, already use their own kind of mental testing/training.  Before potential SEALs begin their training, they take an aptitude test.  On this test, there is a section that addresses how they would respond under an adverse situation.  It has been proven that those that do particularly well on this section typically succeed in surviving SEAL training.  There is also a strong correlation that SEALs have an extremely low probability of being diagnosed with PTSD, but no official experiments have been conducted to test this.

The military is also taking measures to help soldiers already with PTSD.  Doctor Marvin Paulus gathered 20 Marine veterans diagnosed with PTSD to conduct an experiment.  As a baseline test, Paulus prodded the Marines by temporarily restricting their breathing and showing them unpleasant images.  Brain scans of the subjects showed the overflow of stress hormones typically experienced by those diagnosed with PTSD.  Paulus then sent the subjects to an eight week course on relaxation and meditation methods meant to coax their experiences on the battlefield.  Follow up tests showed a significant decrease in stress circuit activity and increase in cognitive activity through adversity.  This theory that meditation can heal PTSD is not new, as Samurais regularly practiced meditation to balance their lives was warriors (Wallace).  It could be argued that there are some fallacies in Paulus’s trial.  One could certainly argue that the trial size was too small or that the lack of a control group deter from the experiment’s results.

Warfare, much like mankind, is evolving.  In this age of advanced weaponry, it is important to not lose focus of what is really important; the warrior.  We should put as much effort into training the body and mind of our warriors as we do into the weapons they carry, so as to compartmentalize and develop the most apt warriors on the face of the planet.

Works Cited:

Wallace, Kathryn. “How the Science of Fear Makes Soldiers Stronger | Reader’s Digest – Part 3.” Readers Digest. N.p., 1 Feb. 2013. Web. 14 Oct. 2014. <http://www.rd.com/health/using-the-science-of-fear-to-make-soldiers-stronger/3/>.

After today’s discussion in class, I felt intrigued to look into the dangers of diet and alternative soft drinks.  The active ingredient in any drink that claims to be diet, zero/low calorie, or no sugar is aspartame.  Aspartame is made by joining together two amino acids, aspartic acid and phenylalanine.  Aspartame is “200 times sweeter than sugar” (American Cancer Society), so much less of it can be used as a sweetener and in turn lower calories in a product.

The speculation behind whether or not aspartame is bad for you is unclear.  There are some doctors that say “drinking 2 or more diet sodas per day actually increases your chance of being obese by 57 percent. A Nurses Health study suggests diet soft drinks can even effect your vital organs” (Chavvaria).  However, the American Beverage Association released a follow up statement declaring that aspartame “has been deemed safe for decades by the world’s leading toxicologists, as well as the National Cancer Institute”.  There is clearly a major rift in the scientific community about aspartame.

There is another school of thought about the effects of aspartame that belittles the theory of weight gain, and that is the belief that aspartame can cause cancer.  A study by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition claims men who drink more than one aspartame sweetened drink per day are more susceptible to developing different forms of blood cancer. That been said, that very study conceded the fact that they cannot rule out that the results of their study may have been due to chance.   Two Italian researcher conducted an experiment in which they gave one group of rats a high dosage of Aspartame and kept the other group of rats controlled.  The results showed that the rats given aspartame developed different forms of leukemia lymphoma (American Cancer Society).  Inversely, the FDA and EFSA have called these studies out for lack of important data and non controlled variables (American Cancer Society).  Again, a major rift in beliefs by several different groups of scientists.

If there is one thing we can be sure about aspartame, it’s that we cannot be sure.  So many of the experiments and studies done on it’s effects have proved to have been faulty in some way, shape, or form.  The decision comes down to the consumer.  Do we choose to stick with the devil we know in sugary sodas, or the devil we don’t know in diet beverages?  This question will continue to haunt us until any solid, reliable data comes forward.

Works Cited:

American Cancer Society. “Aspartame.” Aspartame. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Oct. 2014. <http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/aspartame>.

Chavvaria, Lisa. “Diet soda dangers: New study may link aspartame to cancer.” FOX 32 News Chicago. FOX News, 25 Oct. 2013. Web. 9 Oct. 2014. <http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/20939173/diet-soda-dangers-new-study-may-link-aspartame-to-cancer>.

Back when I used to play football in high school, I was sure to always carry a bottle of Ibuprofen everywhere I went. Wake up? Ibuprofen.  Headache?  Ibuprofen. Practice? Ibuprofen. It became more about having piece of mind than about actually treating pain. Now that I simply workout and lift weights for personal purposes, I’ve begun to question my bad habit of consuming anti-inflamatories.  I broke it down logically; wouldn’t consuming anti-inflamatories before lifting weights with the intentions of making your blood rush into your muscles be contradictory?  Turns out I was right. An article on BodyBuilding.com by Jacob Ormes states “several studies determined that the body’s muscle-building response to training was more or less shut off in people who regularly used anti-inflammatory drugs”.

No pills for this guy, just a whole lot of iron

With this in mind, let’s flip the logic on it’s head.  Since decreasing of swelling is bad, then does that mean increasing swelling is good? Yes, and there’s now a way to supplement it.  Enter Arachidonic Acid.  Arachidonic Acid (ARA) is the primary fatty acid used to cause muscle inflammation and, subsequently, muscle recovery (Ormes).  Although it’s name may sound like the poisonous venom from some giant spider found in a horror flick, it’s actually been scientifically proven to improve weight-training.  The University of Tampa conducted an 8-week double blind placebo trial in which they observed the results of weight-lifters who consumed a supplemented amount of ARA and a control group that didn’t.  They made sure to not ‘periodize’ the training of the athletes, giving the athletes more of a chance to become fatigued and plateau.  This effectively cuts out the variable of valuable rest time gained in off-days.  The results came back and showed a significantly greater amount of lean muscle and strength gained in the ARA group than the placebo group (Ormes).

But uhhhhh, how exactly do I get ARA?

Great question.  ARA is most commonly found in foods like steak, eggs, fish, and chicken.

Mmmmm, BROtein.

But supplementing ARA in other ways has proved especially effective.  ARA can be found in over the counter athlete multi-vitamin packets as well other easily accessible forms.   The bottom line is clear; if you’re serious about weightlifting and are sick of plateau’s in your progress, stay away from the pain pills and get some Arachidonic Acid in ya bad self.

Works Cited:

Ormes, Jacob. “Arachidonic Acid: When Inflammation Is Good – Bodybuilding.com.” Bodybuilding.com. N.p., 25 Sept. 2014. Web. 1 Oct. 2014. <http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/arachidonic-acid-when-inflammation-is-good.html?mcid=facetraining01092714>.

During every workout, you reach a wall.  A wall that stands between a good workout and a great workout.  There are different ways to attack this wall.  Some use caffeine, maybe a pre-workout drink, some simply use mental fortitude.  But there’s a very overlooked secret weapon out there that can not only can you over that wall, but right through it.  What is it?

Music.

Music is an extremely effective means of getting and making the most of your workout.  I often find listening to music while lifting weights helps me achieve heavier lifts at higher volumes.  Zoning out to a gym playlist is an extremely beneficial means of powering through fatigue.  How exactly does music provide us with this newfound strength?  The answer is that music distracts our minds from body awareness (Grannell).  To put this in more simple terms, music distracts us from pain.  This is extremely interesting as this could quite possibly be applied to other fields as well.

The Rock gets it

With this logic in mind, it would seem very logical that music should be used in several other fields.  I would be interested in seeing how music applies to hospital patients, factory workers,  veterans with PTSD, etc. Anyone who may be experiencing stress/pain may find the benefits of getting lost in the euphoria of music.  There are actually current studies and experiments that show that music therapy can relax and soothe the symptoms of cancer in cancer patients (American Cancer Society).  With no real cons to using music as a form of therapy, it should certainly be considered a form of treatment for everything.

So next time you need a pick me up, feel sick, sad, or simply need to get a sweat in; put in your headphones and play your favorite playlist.  You won’t regret it.

Works Cited

American Cancer Society. “Music Therapy.” Music Therapy. N.p., 1 Nov. 2008. Web. 23 Sept. 2014. <http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/mindbodyandspirit/music-therapy>.

Grannell, Rachael. “7 Reasons You Should Listen To Music When You Work Out.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 1 Nov. 2013. Web. 22 Sept. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/01/why-exercise-workout-music-playlist_n_4173931.html>.

In this blog, I will be discussing the anabolic window. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this term, it refers to the ~30 minute window one was after a workout to consume proper nutrition and build lean muscle. A reaction that builds molecules and stores energy is called an anabolic reaction, as opposed to a catabolic reaction which releases energy (Midlands Tech).  The goal as a bodybuilder, or as an athlete in general, is to achieve that anabolic reaction and avoid a catabolic reaction.  So the question looms; is the anabolic window a legitimate thing to consider while training?

In a recent experiment, results show that those who consume protein directly after exercise actually experience no different effects than those who consume the same amount of protein spanned throughout the day (Barnett).  These results are shocking for a guy like me, who sprints to my locker to fill up my shaker and guzzle down a protein shake, swearing by the infamous anabolic window.  You can imagine these results spun my world upside down.  However, the experiment did have it’s flaws. For one, the experiment tested inexperienced athletes.  Some of the results experienced simply could’ve been from a significant increase in protein and exercise from these trainees.  Also, the tests tracked protein but not carbohydrates.  Who is to know that some of the subjects were eating a discipline dose of complex carbs or if others were eating pastries and chips?  These unknown variables leave a lot of doors open and don’t make the experiment completely reliable.

In my opinion, I believe the anabolic window is true to an extent.  However, I also believe that protein intake directly after a workout is not as important as overall nutrition throughout the day or quality of the workout itself.  The anabolic window is just a small facet of the body’s temple of health.

Works Cited

Barnett, Jeff. “Is the Anabolic Window a Myth?.” Breaking Muscle. N.p., 14 June 2014. Web. 16 Sept. 2014. <http://breakingmuscle.com/nutrition/is-the-anabolic-window-a-myth>.

Midlands Tech. “Catabolic and Anabolic Reactions.” Catabolic and Anabolic Reactions. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Sept. 2014. <http://classes.midlandstech.edu/carterp/courses/bio225/chap05/lecture1.htm>.

The most hot button topic in football, maybe even the sports world in general, is the issue of head injuries in athletes. The numbers are staggering:

(Fetchero)

And things have only gotten worse since 2010. In 2013, there were 228 diagnosed concussions in the NFL (Breslow).  That’s an appalling 663% increase! With such a drastic spike in concussions, there must be some kind of explanation, right? Let’s take a look at this graphic:(Breslow)

After further analysis, it would be fair to say that the further away from the ball a player is lined up, the more likely they are to suffer a concussion.  That is to say, the further they line up from the ball before it is snapped. I believe this is because there is a higher chance of partaking in a high speed collision.  Let’s keep that in the back of our mind as we move forward.

But that certainly doesn’t explain why there have been such a dramatic increase in concussions.  I’ve developed a theory that this outbreak in head injuries is due to players literally becoming bigger and faster, thus resulting in a larger impact and collision. The average weight of a running back in 2000 was 218 pounds (Stuart).  The average weight of a defensive back was 197 pounds (Stuart). The fastest forty yard dash recorded by an NFL player in 2000 was a 4.38 (NFL Combine results) Today, the biggest running back and defensive back in the league are Mike Tolbert and Laron Landry, weighing in at 245 pounds and 225 pounds respectively (NFL).  Also, the fastest forty yard dash record in 2014 was a 4.26, ran by Dri Archer (NFL).

The sharp juxtaposition of these numbers illuminate the fact that the size and speed of players have changed considerably since 2000. This radical increase in sheer athleticism could correlate and explain why there has been a such a huge epidemic with head injuries in today’s world of football.  Moving forward, it will be interesting to see how athletes continue to progress as well as the advances made in technology to stop these potentially life altering head injuries.

Works Cited

Breslow, Jason. “NFL Concussions: The 2013-14 Season In Review.” PBS. PBS, 30 Jan. 2014. Web. 5 Sept. 2014. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sports/concussion-watch/nfl-concussions-the-2013-14-season-in-review/>.

Fetchero, Sam. “NFL: Will the Rate of Concussions Increase If the Season Extends to 18 Games?.” Bleacher Report. N.p., 27 Mar. 2011. Web. 5 Sept. 2014. <http://bleacherreport.com/articles/629467-will-the-rate-of-concussions-increase-if-the-nfl-extends-the-season-to-18-games>.

NFL Combine Results. “2000 NFL Combine Results.” NFL Combine Results RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Sept. 2014. <http://nflcombineresults.com/nflcombinedata.php?year=2000&pos=&college=>.

NFL. “LaRon Landry.” NFL.com. NFL, n.d. Web. 5 Sept. 2014. <http://www.nfl.com/player/laronlandry/2495658/profile>.

Stuart, Chase . “How much bigger are players now? » Pro-football-reference.com blog.” Profootballreferencecom blog RSS. N.p., 27 Feb. 2008. Web. 5 Sept. 2014. <http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=493>.

Hello everyone! My name is Nick Jacoubs.  I am a freshmen from Boston Massachusetts, so chances are my favorite sports teams are better than yours.  I am taking this course because my advisor told me about how much non-science majors loved the class.  I am not planning to be a science major because I simply find science boring and monotonous.  I am much stronger and passionate in tasks involving interpersonal relationships, which is why I am intending to get my degree in Public Relations. If you don’t know what I look like, here’s a picture:

Say hi to me, I don’t bite (no promises though).