I despised high school.

I loved seeing my friends everyday. I liked most of my teachers. I had fun in most of my classes. I enjoyed most of the material. What I did not enjoy was that I had to do all those great things while running on less than six hours of sleep, dragging myself from class to class, brain-dead. Why couldn’t school just start two hours later?

Most high schools in the nation, including mine, start their school day around 7:30 in the morning. This means that teenagers have to wake up as early as 5:30 in order to make it to school everyday. The problem with this is that adolescents are biologically wired to stay up late at night and wake up late in the morning. Schools need to take this into account and adjust their start times so that students are not tired during the day.

Currently, only fifteen percent of American high schools start at 8:30 or later, and forty percent start before 8:00. This leads to teens getting six to seven hours of sleep per night on average, when they need eight to ten to function properly. A National Sleep Foundation poll found that 87% of high schoolers get less than the recommended 8.5 hours of sleep per night.

The lack of sleep is taking a huge toll on the nation’s high schoolers. Sleep deprivation leads to a lack of focus and impaired memory, both of which are imperative in a learning environment. This is in addition to all the negative health consequences that a lack of sleep entails, such as increased risk of high blood pressure, obesity, and cancer.

The biggest obstacle in changing high school start times, as it so often is, is money. School districts like to use the same buses for high school, middle school, and elementary school kids. This means that they have to wake up at staggered times in the morning. However, elementary school kids should wake up earlier, because high schoolers typically have more stress and tend to go sleep later due to their natural circadian cycle. The other problem is that parents like to drop their kids off to school in the morning, before they go to work. Parents will have to adjust their schedules so that kids can get more sleep, and our nation’s youth can become more productive, healthier, and safer.

I sit at a desk or couch for over 8 hours, every day. Whether I am studying, watching TV, or surfing the web, I am constantly sitting down. Over time, the negative health effects of sitting will harm my body, possibly in irreparable ways. But just how bad will the consequences be?

There are many different studies that have been done on the effects of sitting, and there is little controversy over whether sitting has consequences or not. Sitting for long hours can lead to lower mental health and a higher risk of being disabled. People who sit for more than 6 hours a day have a 64% greater chance of heart disease. They can expect to live for seven less years than their standing counterparts. It also puts people more at risk for several types of cancer.

However, with all the data against spending time sitting, what intrigued me was the possibility that this was all a result of reverse causation. What if people who are unhealthy are more likely to sit all day, and are skewing the data? Obese people tend to spend less time exercising and more time sitting down. People with disabilities tend to spend more time in hospital beds or wheelchairs. Simply put, it is more difficult to stay on your feet if you are out of shape and/or unhealthy.

Another possibility is that of a third variable. Personally, when I sit down for hours at a time, I tend to snack and eat much more than if I am busy doing an activity that keeps my mind occupied. Could it be that people who sit more have more trouble controlling their diet, and eating healthy foods consistently? The first snack I will reach for while studying is a bag of potato chips or sunflower seeds, neither of which are particularly good for me. Active people are more likely to eat healthy foods to support their active lifestyle.

There is no doubt that sitting for long hours every day is correlated with an unhealthy person. However, there is still doubt in my mind as to whether sitting is the actual cause. Sitting could be the result of an unhealthy person. Many people who work office jobs that are healthy will use a standing desk, which helps support a healthy lifestyle. Whether this correlation equals causation is yet to be seen.

During the first blogging period, I noticed a large influx of posts detailing reasons marijuana should be legalized and its potential benefits. So far, the fight has been fairly one-sided, so I’d like to play devil’s advocate and make the argument for it staying illegal. I expect this post to be fairly controversial, and I hope it can foster a good discussion.

First of all, it can be addictive for many people. A famous example is Lady Gaga, who smoked 15-20 marijuana cigarettes per day at one point in order to cope with her anxiety. Dr. Drew Pinsky has treated marijuana addicts for the last 20 years, and explains, “It would be malpractice to say that cannabis isn’t addictive.” He explains that while he has no preference in the marijuana legalization debate, he wishes the government would “pass laws that enhance health, not jeopardize it.”

Amsterdam is one of the most famous cases of a city legalizing marijuana. In fact, it has turned into a tourist destination for marijuana users. However, citizens have become more and more worried about the increased exposure of the drug to schoolchildren. Many kids are showing up to school high, and school officials can do nothing about it. Amsterdam is one example of legalizing marijuana going wrong, as many young children are being exposed to the drug, which can be extremely harmful at their age.

While there are many who will debate this, there are negative mental and physical consequences to using marijuana, especially amongst children. A study done by scientists at Northwestern University linked casual use of marijuana to brain abnormalities. The more joints a person smoked per week, “the more abnormal the shape, volume and density of the brain regions.” This study shows that there may be evidence against the idea that casual marijuana use has few negative health consequences.

Marijuana causes a general loss of motivation. From personal experience, my friends who regularly smoke are less likely to do well in school and are more likely to smoke a bowl than do a more productive activity. This is because long-term smokers are less able to produce the chemical dopamine, which plays an important role in motivation.

While smoking marijuana probably is not going to kill you, there is a case to be made against using it regularly. There is also evidence against legalization, as evidenced by the city of Amsterdam. As weed becomes more and more common, it will be easier for kids to get their hands on it, and could cause more kids to develop mental deficiencies.

“It’s a bit like walking down a long dark corridor never knowing when the light will go on.” -Neil Lennon

“Depression is a prison where you are both the suffering prisoner and the cruel jailer.” -Dorothy Rowe

There are few diseases that suck the soul out of a person like depression. It is a mood disorder which causes a lack of emotion and a loss of interest in life. Depression is not a sign of a “weak” personality, and it is not something one can simply “snap out” of. People with depression have trouble finding the motivation to do many day-to-day activities, and often feel like life is not worth living. In its most extreme form, depression can drive one to commit suicide.

The reason for this post is articles like this one, which describes depression as the new “trendy illness.” If you have not seen this article before, I suggest standing near a wall while reading, so you can hit your head against it. The article goes on to describe how the middle-class women saying they are depressed should “get a grip,” and that the poor never suffer from it. It also states that it is a relatively new condition, and that her “mother’s generation never dealt with it.” There is a lot of misinformation and confusion surrounding this mental disorder, and it has caused a great deal of harm to those who actually suffer from it.

Depression has been one of the toughest illnesses to subdue. Only one-third of people with major depression will be cured after a single round of treatment. For the majority of people, medicine still does not work. Currently, the best cure is a regular exercise program, which can cure people with mild depression and help improve those with moderate or severe depression. The biggest problem with this method is that those who are depressed have trouble finding the motivation to do much of anything, including exercise. Maintaining a regular exercise program is nearly impossible for most with depression.

For those of you who think you have depression, help is near, and people want to help you. Learning more about your disease is a great first step towards recovery, as well as understanding that depression can affect anybody, regardless of age or socioeconomic status. Therapy, medicine, diet, and exercise can always be a great help when trying to cure depression.

If you believe a friend or family member has depression, remind them that you are there for them. In addition, point them in the direction of additional helpful resources, such as therapists and doctors. Once again, depression is not a weakness and there is nothing wrong with seeking help for it. My grandfather suffered from depression and has since recovered, and my sister is currently suffering from it. It is a very real disease that is one of the most difficult to overcome.

Suicide Hotline: 1-800-784-2433

Texting: Text ANSWER to 839863

When I am walking to and from class every day, I often get irritated by the number of people who choose to drag themselves down the sidewalk at a snail’s pace. Now, I can take comfort in knowing that they will potentially face health consequences for it in the future.

Walking is the most popular form of physical activity in America, with 62% of the population taking at least one 10-minute walk per week. It is one of the most basic forms of exercise, and something almost everyone does in some form during their day. However, some people are getting more benefits out of it than others. A study done by Paul Williams of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory showed that there is a correlation between the speed that people walk and how early they die. Walking with a brisk pace has significant health benefits and can extend longevity over those who walk at a relaxed pace. This study also shows that slower walkers are at higher risk of heart disease and dementia later in life.

Another study from the University of Pittsburgh confirmed these results, stating that there is a correlation between how fast people walk and how long they live. The researchers found that each increase in gait speed of .1 meters/second correlated with a 12% decrease in the risk of death. The reason behind this is that walking speed reflects vitality, as it involves so many different organs and systems of the body.

With many different studies confirming the same result, it is difficult to remain skeptical as to whether walking fast is that much healthier than walking slow. However, as soon as that question is answered, another rises– walking or running?

Different studies will give different answers. The Daily Mail states that walking is as good for you as running, and will equally reduce the risk of high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and diabetes. They re-confirmed the importance of walking at a brisk pace, and state that the total energy used is more important than the intensity of the workout.

On the other hand, the New York Times prefers running to walking, as runners are much more likely to maintain a healthy weight, even if energy expenditure is around the same. This is due to runners being more able to control their appetite and eat healthier diets, for reasons that are still unclear.

My theory is that people who start walking are typically unhealthier than those who start running, and the NY Times has skewed data because of it. Reverse causation comes into play here, as people who are unhealthy are more likely to walk, rather than the other way round. Not many severely obese people will start jogging as soon as they start exercising.

In the debate of walking at a normal pace against walking at a brisk pace, we have a clear winner. Walking quickly has numerous health benefits that can be obviously seen and have been studied repeatedly. However, the debate between walking and running continues, as both sides have convincing data to back them. At the end of the day, both are fantastic for the body, and the benefits of one over the other are minimal.

When students first arrive on campus in their first year, the sheer amount of things to do and keep track of can get overwhelming quickly. In addition to classes, there are clubs and activities that students get involved in, as well as meetings and socials to attend. For many, one of the advantages of staying on campus is the wealth of additional resources available. Whenever one has questions or feels distressed, RA’s, advisors, and other students are almost always readily available and willing to help. When moving farther away from campus, the ease of access to these aides is greatly decreased and it can add to a student’s worries.

The result of the added companionship and help of living on campus is often higher academic performance. Students who live off-campus are nearly twice as likely to get a GPA below 1.0 as those living on campus. In addition, those living on-campus have an average GPA that is anywhere from .19 to .97 points higher than their counterparts. Possibilities for the academic gap could be that the libraries are in easier walking distance of those on-campus, as well as the offices of professors, study groups, and academic advisors. Many large universities also provide tutoring and student organizations dedicated to learning on-campus.

However, there are several problems with trying to quantify the benefits of living on-campus. For example, many students who choose to stay on campus are in better financial situations, as most believe it is more expensive. Studies have shown that there is a correlation between financial situation and higher academic performance. Therefore, it is possible that the theoretical correlation between living on-campus and better academic performance is really just the well-known correlation between wealth and grades.

Another problem is that the majority of students who stay on campus are freshmen, especially in schools that require all freshmen to stay on-campus. This can lead to comparisons of academic performance between freshmen and upperclassmen, which can be unfair and lead to bias, in either direction. Unfortunately, in schools that require freshmen to stay on campus, there is no control group.

Finally, the students who choose to stay on-campus are those who believe that the decision will help them more than staying off-campus. If the same students stayed off-campus, it is possible that they would perform differently. At the same time, the students staying off-campus believe that it is the best decision for them, for financial, academic, or social reasons.  Without a control group for both, there is no way for us to tell whether staying on or off campus is the better decision. Ultimately, every student is different, and will have to decide for himself/herself whether to live on or off-campus.

Study groups are a huge benefit to living on-campus. While they exist off-campus, the difficulty of finding and gathering a group increases the farther a student moves away from campus.

My 8th grade health teacher was teaching us about anger management techniques, and he suggested one that I found particularly interesting. Does punching a pillow or a punching bag or something similar really serve to calm us down and make us feel better? If anything, I would think that it would make us angrier. At least, that’s how it has been in my experience. Listening to music or taking a nap works much better, in my anecdotal experiences.

Scientists have found that swinging at a punching bag can actually increase anger and aggression levels. It does nothing to calm you down, and is no help in relieving one’s anger. This works in the same way that swearing at someone who you are angry at will only serve to make you angrier. Empathy is key when trying to reduce anger levels, not retaliation. There is no such thing as “blowing off steam.”

In 1999, a laboratory experiment was run in order to test the hypothesis that punching bags relieved stress. A group of people was intentionally made upset, and then were split into two groups. One group was then told to punch a punching bag for two minutes, while the other group did not. The group that had punched the bag was notably more angry after the two minute period than the group that had not. The subjects linked the anger they had with the aggression of punching the bag, and were unable to calm themselves.

Why is punching something still being commonly recommended as an anger-management technique? It is clearly a poor method for reducing in stress, as it does the exact opposite. Hopefully, health teachers will be educated on this and punching a bag will cease to be recommended to kids. Anger management is not something to be taken lightly, and utilizing science to recognize the best management techniques is imperative.

Growing up, I was constantly in front of a computer, TV, or cell phone screen. My mom would constantly yell at me to get off and go outside, but I enjoyed them much more than going out to play. Looking back, I wish I had balanced my time better and spent more time outside. However, was my screen time really all that bad? Was it, “rotting my brain,” as my mother used to say?

In America today, most children spend an average of three hours per day watching TV, and an average of 5-7 hours total on screens. The most obvious consequence of this is the subsequent inactivity, as kids in front of a screen could be spending that time exercising. Also, kids are likely to snack on unhealthy foods while in front of the screen, such as potato chips or candy. This is due in part to the large amount of advertisements for unhealthy foods on television. Another less known consequence is that screen time actually increases rates of depression and anxiety amongst children. According to a study by Iowa University, children “get more sleep, do better in school, behave better and see other health benefits when parents limit content and the amount of time their children spend on the computer or in front of the TV.”

However, there are benefits to screen time as well. Computers can be used as a fantastic tool for schoolwork. For example, this blog post would not be possible without my trusty MacBook Pro. Children enjoy stories more when they read through an interactive tablet, rather than just a book. Similarly, there are many educational apps that can help children learn and develop basic skills.

“Screen time” is such a broad term, it has become difficult to lump it all together. An hour spent watching an action movie will have a much different effect on a child’s mind than an hour spent on an educational iPhone app. It isn’t about what the screen is, but rather, what is on the screen. In addition, too many hours spent inactive in front of a screen will lead to children losing time they could spend being physically active and/or learning. However, there is nothing specifically bad about screen time other than that it can be a fun way to spend those inactive hours.

In America, we are bombarded by advertisements with the famous slogan, “Got Milk?” They usually feature a trending athlete or popular figure with a milk mustache, and they never advertise any particular brand of milk, rather milk consumption in general. However, it is interesting to note that the ads have not been particularly successful, as milk consumption has actually fallen every year since the advertisements were introduced.

There has been some controversy surrounding milk and its supposed health benefits over the past few years. Several studies have shown that drinking milk may actually not be as healthy as most are led to believe. Milk has a high caloric and saturated fat content, which can lead to dietary issues. Some people believe that milk can help prevent bone fractures, but many countries where little to no milk is consumed have very low rates of fractures. There is also data that shows that prostate cancer could be linked to high levels of milk consumption.

Perhaps the most interesting point in the debate over whether milk is healthy or not is that it may not be a good source of calcium. I found this particularly interesting, because I had always associated milk with calcium and vice versa. Several studies have hypothesized that milk increases the acidic levels in the body. In order to compensate for this, the body will pull calcium from the bones, and therefore reduce overall calcium levels.

Should people reduce their milk consumption levels? While milk may or may not be a good source of calcium, it has other dietary consequences, such as calories and saturated fat. It also is not a good option for the 3/4 of the world that is lactose intolerant. There are better options for calcium, such as kale or salmon. With so much evidence showing that milk is not as great as the commercials would have us believe, people should start using alternate sources for calcium.

Approximately 66 million years ago, an asteroid struck Planet Earth and famously caused the dinosaurs to go extinct. It worked out well for humans, as it allowed us to become the dominant species on our planet. Prior to going extinct, various species’ of dinosaurs existed for 165 million years. The question troubling me yesterday was that if it happened to them, why not us? Do we have the technology to stop an asteroid of that size if it was on track to hit Earth?

NASA keeps close tabs on any and all nearby asteroids that could potentially collide with Earth. Their goal is to have 90% of asteroids bigger than 1 kilometer in diameter catalogued by 2015.  However, even if they were to find an asteroid that was set to collide with Earth, it would have to be identified early in order to have a chance at saving the planet. Saving the planet would likely entail either deflecting the asteroid enough to make it miss or by blowing it up using a missile or nuclear warhead.

Considering the dinosaurs were around for millions of years and were forced to go extinct relatively quickly, it is scary to think that the same could happen to us. Luckily, we are more intelligent than the dinosaurs were and we may be able to plan ahead enough to avoid a catastrophic asteroid collision.

At this time, it seems unlikely that any asteroids large enough to cause a mass extinction are on a collision course with Planet Earth. Currently, the next large asteroid set to hit Earth that we are aware of will hit us in the year 2880. In my opinion, by that time, we should have the technology to evade a collision. While the dinosaurs met an unfortunate end, our intelligence should allow us to continue to dominate Planet Earth.

It is common knowledge that the clothing we wear affects how others view us. Humans tend to be, by nature, stereotypical. We read each outfit and have a pre-determined idea of the background of a person, socioeconomic status, and personality traits.

“Choice in clothing can communicate responsibility, status, power, and the ability to be successful.” (Turner-Bowker, 2001)

“When teachers dress more formally, such as when they wore suits and dress shoes, they are rated as more competent, but when instructors dressed more casually, wearing jeans and a t-shirt, they were rated higher on sociability, extraversion, and having an interesting presentation.” (Morris et al., 1996)

Lauren McDermott of Walden University and Terry Pettijohn II of Coastal Carolina conducted a study on how branding on clothing affects the perception of college students. In order to conduct the study, they branded two identical grey sweatshirts with a K-mart logo and an Abercrombie & Fitch logo. A third plain grey sweatshirt with no branding was used as a control. Students were asked to judge the socioeconomic status of models wearing each of the three sweatshirts. As expected, the students wearing the Abercrombie sweatshirt were deemed to be wealthiest, followed by the unbranded sweatshirt and the K-mart sweatshirt.

This experiment had a great premise behind it, and was well executed. However, it had one major flaw that may have thrown off the entire experiment. Abercrombie & Fitch has a poor reputation with many college students at this time, as is evidenced by their falling sales over the past few years. Due in part to controversial remarks by their CEO that went viral and countless discrimination lawsuits, Abercrombie has lost much of its former credibility amongst college-age students.

While the execution of the experiment was flawless, the fact that college students don’t view Abercrombie as a desirable brand must have influenced the results of the experiment. Had a trendier, more favorable luxury brand been used, the results would have been skewed much farther and the students wearing the expensive brand would have been viewed as even wealthier than they were in the original experiment.

Works Cited

Morris, T. L., Gorham, J., Cohen, S. H., & Huffman, D. (1996). Fashion in the classroom:

Effects of attire on student perceptions of instructors in college classes.

Communication Education, 45(2), 135-148. doi:10.1080/03634529609379043

Turner-Bowker, D. M. (2001). How can you pull yourself up by your bootstraps, if you

don’t have boots? Work-appropriate clothing for poor women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(2),

311-322. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00215

“In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids. Candidly, we go after the cool kids.” -Former Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries

(i) During freshman orientation, we were given computers and told to choose our courses for the upcoming fall semester. I chose to pursue a science-related course, as they seemed to be the most readily available (I had difficulty finding open courses due to my late orientation date). When the advisor passed by, I asked him which course he would recommend. He showed me this course and informed me that the teacher was excellent. I took his word for it and am glad I did, as the class seems to be engaging and interesting.

(ii) Throughout high school, I never really found any joy in taking chemistry, physics, or biology. This worried me, because I had had some excellent teachers for those subjects. If those teachers couldn’t make me enjoy their classes, then there would be no way I would enjoy pursuing a career in science. Also, my business classes in high school were always my favorite, and I was heavily involved in the DECA business conference and competitions.

-Somil Patel