I recently just read an article that was called “Oreos may be as addictive as Cocaine”. Once I saw that title I was very curious about “Milks Favorite Cookie”. This article included a study that was done with rats to see if this addiction was actually true. I found this title interesting, so I continued to read on about this.

This study was done by researchers from Connecticut University. The researchers basically wanted to see if the Oreo cookies were just as addictive as cocaine. After doing these studies the researched looked at how the rats behaved, and  also they looked at the effects  the cookies had on the rats brains.  So what the researchers did was that “they put the rats into a maze, and allowed them to have the choice of going to the part of the maze that had rice cakes, or to the side of the maze that had the Oreo cookies. After that first test, most of the rats went to the Oreo cookies, and not the rice cakes.” (times.com).”Then the  researchers conducted another test where the rats could go to a part of the maze where they would be injected with saline, or they could go to a part were they could be injected with cocaine or morphine. After that test, more rats went to the cocaine, morphine side rather than the saline side of the maze. “(Times.com).

Now at the end of these studies the researchers concluded that  the Oreo Cookie “activated more neurons in the rats brains “pleasure center”, than drugs such as cocaine”.(Times.com). The  pleasure center is basically the parts of the brain that react to certain acts of pleasure such as laughter, sex, drug use etc. (Howstuffworks). Since this was an observational study third variables can play a factor within this because there was nothing that was truly being controlled, it was all up to the rats to see which side they would go to in each of the tests.  I did have a question when it came to the second test. The rats had the choice of going to the side where they would get shot with either saline or cocaine or morphine. How would the rats have known what they were about to get injected with? I understand the rats could probably smell the Oreo cookie, which made them go to that side of the maze rather the rice cakes, but how did that work with the drugs? That is were I say chance could play a factor within this because I don’t understand how the rats could possibly know what was inside of those needles. I would also like to know how many rats were actually being tested because I wonder how many more rats went with the cookies and cocaine, and how much more of an effect did the cookies have on the rats brains than the cocaine had.

This study to me was very interesting, but would not change my mind about eating Oreo cookies at all. I think if a person really likes anything a lot,  there is always a possibility that they could get addicted to it. It is very hard for me to believe that the Oreo cookie could have the same or addicting factors as hard core drugs such as cocaine. If I had more information about some of the questions that I asked, that would give me a better understanding of the conclusion and also make this a more plausible study in my opinion.

Sources:

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/10/16/oreos-may-be-as-addictive-as-cocaine/

http://health.howstuffworks.com/sexual-health/sexuality/brain-during-orgasm2.htm

http://www.oreo.com/default.aspx

Many people think that the more often positive things happen to you, the happier you are. As it turns out, that isn’t true. Happy people don’t experience a larger amount of happy life events than unhappy people. Happiness depends more on perspective, how prone you are to depression, and getting enough sleep.

Ed Diener and Martin Seligman screened over 200 undergraduates for levels of happiness. Then, they compared the upper 10% with the middle and bottom 10%, the upper being considered extremely happy. It was found that the upper 10% experienced no more positive life events than the other two groups (Barker).

These results are probably surprising for most people. It makes sense to assume that the more happy events you experience, the happier you’ll be. It’s very interesting that an observational study such as this proved the opposite.

In another study, Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman and his colleagues asked 909 employed women to record their previous day’s experiences in detail in order to track their moods and activities. They found that most major life circumstances, including women’s household income and various features of their jobs, were correlated only minimally with their happiness (Barker).

In comparison, women’s sleep quality and proneness toward depression were good predictors of their happiness. Based off of these studies, it’s important to remember not to be too jealous when it appears that someone is experiencing many happy events in their life. It’s possible that they’re still not truly happy on the inside.

Works Cited

Barker, Eric. “11 Scientific Studies That Will Restore Your Faith in Humanity.” The Week. N.p., 25 Aug. 2014. Web. 03 Dec. 2014. <http://theweek.com/article/index/266837/11-scientific-studies-that-will-restore-your-faith-in-humanity>.

Barker, Eric. “Are the Big Events in Life Most Responsible for Your Happiness?” Barking Up The Wrong Tree. N.p., 7 Apr. 2012. Web. 03 Dec. 2014. <http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/04/are-the-big-events-in-life-most-responsible-f/>.

Many people will tend to choose food products that are labeled “organic” but that does not always equate to these products being healthier than food that aren’t labeled as organic. There are rules and regulations that have to meet USDA standards about what actually makes food considered organic but the term has a looser meaning than what most would think.

Just because something is labeled “100% organic” does not mean it is the case.  For the products to have the official USDA organic label, only about 95% of the ingredients have to be organic. There are about 200 non-organic substances producers can add to food without relinquishing the title of 100% organic. That 5% could very likely be sprayed with herbicides or pesticides, and the other 95% could be exposed to USDA-approved biological or botanical pest controls. Along with that, products with the label “made with organic ingredients” can have as little as 70% organic content. That leaves an entire 30% that could very likely have ingredients that aren’t approved by the USDA as “organic” or could be a type of pesticide. Another important myth about organic foods are they are much more healthy than foods that are not labeled “Organic”. Organic foods generally are not far superior nutritionally than products that were farmed conventionally. Stanford University conducted a study where they looked at more than 200 studies of the content and associated health gains of organic and non-organic foods. They concluded that there was no clear difference between the nutritional content, although the organic food was 30% less likely to contain pesticides. Organic food also tends to be quite costly.

Even though organic labeling can be deceiving, there are also many benefits to eating organic. Organic foods generally contain more antioxidants, and other nutrients. Also organic farming is meant to be better for the environment than conventional farming. Organic farming also uses less pesticides. Regulations ban or severely restrict the use of food additives, processing aids  and  agents commonly used in non-organic foods, including sweeteners, and preservatives. When it comes to the debate between organic food vs. not organic food, there is not a clear answer. Both seem to have similar nutritional value, but organic has less additives. If you are willing to spend more money to buy organic than go ahead, but you are not necessarily in trouble if you don’t buy organic. Just know that if you live and die by organic produce, you may be getting deceived by some producers. So after this research I would suggest buy a variety of food from a variety of sources.

Sources

http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-evidence-of-health-benefits-from-organic-foods-study-finds.html

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004446

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/organic-food/art-20043880?pg=2

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-19465692

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.

Have you ever misheard song lyrics, but still can’t seem to get the correct lyrics right? Its a pretty strange phenomenon isn’t it?  Even though we know what the song actually says, we can’t help but only hear the silly phrase we thought it once was.  This, unfortunately, happened to me with Taylor Swift’s song, “Blank Space”.  I know the lyrics are, “got a long list of ex lovers, they’ll tell you I’m insane,” but I can’t help but hear, “got along with Starbucks lovers, they’ll tell you I’m insane”.  After embarrassingly messing up the lyrics countless times, I decided to do some research on why this problem occurs.

Apparently, the name for misheard song lyrics is called a mondegreen and yes, there is science behind this term.  In a recent study, Claudia Beck allowed participants to interpret song lyrics that often contain mondegreens and analyzed what is going on when they misinterpret them.  The study found that, “previous knowledge of the alternative percept had a strong impact on the strength of altered perception which is in line with frequent reports that these phenomena can have long-lasting effects”.  Essentially, our prior knowledge and expectations influence the way we interpret things.  So, sometimes your brain will try to switch the lyrics around to what is more relevant in your life or what makes the most sense to the mind.

But why would I hear “got along with Starbucks lovers” instead of “long list of ex lovers” if it depends on relevancy?  I mean, it’s not like the word “Starbucks” is more relevant than the word “ex” in my head (or at least I would like to think so).  Well, according to Kinja, “people, especially adult English learners, are desperately trying to regain the thread of meaning, and make order out of a chaos of sounds. Eventually they trick themselves into hearing something that the recognize, even if it doesn’t make sense”.  So, it could also be that, due to the fact that those lyrics are spoken very quickly in the song, my brain could not make sense of it and quickly tried to replace the jumble with “Starbucks”.

Overall, it is nice to know I am not alone in this unfortunate situation.  I am still curious as to why mondegreens have long-lasting effects on us.  How can we overcome mondegreens? It is a question that I am assuming will be answered in the future, with more research done.

Resources:

http://io9.com/the-science-of-misheard-song-lyrics-1579968707

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0084667

Over the summer, my friend and I both got jobs at a sports bar.  Since she was a hostess and I was a waitress, we were able to work as a team together.  At first when we both applied for the job I was unsure of how good of an idea it was.  We are best friends and I could just imagine us goofing off and getting in trouble all the time.  However, it was the complete opposite.  Even though we goofed off sometimes, we were extremely productive together.  We knew each other so well that I could tell when she needed me for a big party of twenty just by looking at her.  We were also more willing to help out each other.  If I dropped a plate of food, I knew she would rush by my side to help me clean up, while other waitresses had to clean up their own messes.  Unfortunately, she quit at the end of the summer and working without her just wasn’t the same.

Many may argue that friendship in the work place is unnecessary with the old saying, “we’re here to work not make friends”. However, these people have it all wrong.  Although work is still about professionalism, research finds that it is actually better to have a few friends around the office.  Donald Clifton, an educational psychologist who founded Gallup, decided to measure the correlation between productivity and relationships with colleagues. Gallup found that “close work friendships boost employee satisfaction by 50% and people with a best friend at work are seven times more likely to engage fully in their work.”  No wonder my friend and I worked so well together!

Unfortunately, this is not something all companies have realized yet.  According to Harvard Business Review, “surveys after surveys are showing that employee engagement at work is at an all time low”.  If this is true, this is definitely something that more corporations should be focusing on!  In fact, certain companies like Google and Dropbox are big supporters of workplace friendships and have focused on making the workplace environment friendly and positive.

Although I completely believe friendship does increase productivity in the workplace, I do have some concerns about the research.  Reverse causation could easily come into play, as people who are more productive and involved in their work develop friendships with their co-workers.  Think about it: people who are valuable around the office are probably aware of their surroundings and know their co-workers pretty well.  Despite my suspicions within the study, I had never gave much thought to friendships within the workplace and I am grateful I know this now, especially as a young college student.

References:

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/11/you-need-a-work-best-friend.html

https://hbr.org/2013/07/we-all-need-friends-at-work/

http://www.shrm.org/Research/SurveyFindings/Articles/Documents/SHRM-Employee-Job-Satisfaction-Engagement-Executive-Summary.pdf

Have you ever bumped heads with another person or hit your head against something and it takes a couple minutes or more for your head to stop pounding? So this being true, why don’t woodpeckers get headaches? After all, they are bashing their heads against a tree hundreds of times a minute, how are they able to do this?

In order to figure this all out, a team of scientists conducted an experiment with two types of birds; one being the Great Spotted Woodpecker and the Eurasian Hoope. The Eurasian Hoope is not a type of woodpecker, but it does peck its beak against materials like soil. The reasoning for comparing the two is comparing soil pecking behavior to wood pecking behavior. The first step in the experiment is to watch the birds peck at a much slower rate. The scientists constructed a metal cage, one for each bird, with high-speed cameras that the scientists view the birds in slow motion. In order to see how hard the birds were hitting the cage, there was a force censor. With this information, they were able to figure out why woodpeckers are able to do this without dying from multiple concussions.

The next step was to use a special technology called a Micro-CT. A Micro-CT is essentially just a fancy x-ray machine that is used on a desktop computer. The researchers used this solely to see how the skulls of the birds were shaped. Another vital variable in the experiment is to see the strength of the bird’s beaks. If the Hoope has a much more sensitive beak then it would make sense as to why it can not peck at things such as trees. In order to find out this information the scientists used force tests. With the information from the x-ray’s and the force tests, the scientists were able to accurately make a replica of the bird’s skulls. Finally, the scientists used these skulls to smash them using a computer to stimulate the force. Then by examining how the skulls ended up looking, they were able to see how strong the skulls compared. They were right; the woodpeckers were able to protect their birds better than any other birds.

The scientists found several reasons due to the information found from the study that made woodpeckers able to protect their brains better. Woodpeckers move their beaks around when they peck trees. Varying their peckers minimizes brain damage. Woodpeckers have a special bone called the hyoid bone. This bone goes around the entire birds skull and restrains its brain every time is pecks the tree. And finally, these birds have a beak that the upper part is longer and the lower part is stronger that absorb impact the best.

In conclusion, the study finally answer this question that the reason woodpeckers are able to do this behavior is because their skulls are what football helmets are to players, they are able to absorb all kinds of shocks.

Sources:

http://askabiologist.asu.edu/plosable/woodpeckers

Have you ever wondered why your sister’s dirty laundry being left on the bathroom floor can absolutely infuriate you, while your boyfriend cheating on you can somehow be rationalized in your head? No? Just me? Well, Daniel Gilbert from Harvard decided to conduct three studies on this phenomenon. Why do people bounce back more easily from tougher problems?

People mistakenly expect intense unpleasant psychological states to last longer than mild ones. This is an easy assumption to make, considering it would theoretically make sense to be more upset about a divorce over a slow elevator.

In the first study, participants mistakenly predicted that the more they initially disliked a transgressor, the longer their dislike would last. In the second study, participants predicted that their dislike for a transgressor who hurt them a lot would last longer than their dislike for a transgressor who hurt them a little, but precisely the opposite resulted. In the third study, participants predicted that their dislike for a transgressor who hurt them a lot would last longer than their dislike for a transgressor who hurt someone else a lot, but, again, precisely the opposite was the case (Barker para. 1).

These mistaken predictions can be attributed to a phenomenon known as the region-beta paradox. It is defined as “the phenomenon that people can sometimes recover more quickly from more intense emotions or pain than from less distressing experiences” (Region-beta Paradox para. 1).

We rationalize big problems, not little ones. An example given describes a wife rationalizing her husband cheating on her as men needing to try it once and get it out of their systems, while his annoying habits, such as leaving dirty dishes in the sink, are not rationalized at all (Barker para. 2).  Most people would never dismiss a family member leaving dirty dishes in the sink as “needing to get it out of their systems” or some other justification. We don’t rationalize such things, so we become more angry because in our minds there’e no excuse.

Works Cited

Barker, Eric. “11 Scientific Studies That Will Restore Your Faith in Humanity.” The Week. N.p., 25 Aug. 2014. Web. 03 Dec. 2014. <http://theweek.com/article/index/266837/11-scientific-studies-that-will-restore-your-faith-in-humanity>.

Barker, Eric. “Do We Bounce Back Quickest When Life Hurts Us the Most?”Barking Up The Wrong Tree. N.p., 11 Jan. 2012. Web. 03 Dec. 2014. <http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/01/do-we-bounce-back-quickest-when-life-hurts-us/>.

“Region-beta Paradox.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 29 Nov. 2014. Web. 03 Dec. 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Region-beta_paradox>.

With watching two older sisters growing up and now being surrounded by a generation of girls that tend to lack confidence, I have heard numerous complaints about the way they look—from complaining about their shoe size and all the way to not having defined enough eyebrows, I have heard it all. But one of the most common is a woman’s hatred of being a woman. Yes, it is the hatred of having hips. But would women still have this opinion about themselves if they knew that being curvy actually meant that they had more intelligence than another being?

Researches are the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Santa Barbara would like to believe so. Researchers looked at data from a study of more than 16,000 women from 1988 to 1994. These women were categorized by detailed body measurements, their education level, and their scores on multiple cognitive tests given by the researchers. When the results fro the study came out, it was found that women with waists that were about 70 percent of the diameter of their hips scored better on the tests, but only slightly. They also tended to have a higher level of education than less curvy women.

So how does this happen? And are these findings enough to prove that curvier women have the better brains? Scientists think that this is due to the type of fat that is stored in the hips and legs compared to the fat that is stored in the stomach. The fat that inhabits the hips and thighs has higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids than that of the stomach. Omega-3 fatty acids are a healthy form of fat that can be found in nuts and fish. The function of this type of fat is to foster brain growth, making this very reason a possible answer to why these women scored better on the tests. But is this really enough? Can we now say that if you are curvier women you will do better in life academically? This answer is not actually. The difference in test scores and academic ability were small. The curvier women were only scoring slightly better. So I guess it is just as ridiculous as it sounds, yet intriguing. Adrian Furnham, professor of psychology at University College London said that, “As you get older, your waist-hip ration gets worse; that does not mean you become less intelligent over time. To suggest that a 40-year-old, because her WHR is not good, is not intelligent is a misinterpretation of the data. One has to be cautious with what these things mean.”

So even though it would be an interesting and intriguing fact that curvier women are more intelligent, it unfortunately cannot be proven. Instead we have to say that the study that took place was all due to chance.

Sources:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3859175

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7090300.stm

Pretty much since I can remember and I’m sure you all can attest to this, but I have heard or been warned about the effects of global warming and how it will ultimately be earth’s downfall.  Taking a closer look, that may not necessarily be the case.

In the last 650,000 years there have been 7 cycles of glacial advance and retreat with the last ice age just over 7,000 years ago which marked the beginning of human civilization.  In the past 1,300 years the warming trend is very likely to have been induced and is currently proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented before.  There has been a lot of evidence for the rapid climate change that is quite compelling such as how the global sea level has risen 6.7 inches in the last century.  However, that rate has nearly doubled in the last decade.  Since the industrial revolution, the acidification of the oceans has also increased by about 30 percent.  This is from the result of humans emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Another way we can tell that the Earth has been warming is by seeing the thermometer records from all over the world over the past century and a half.  The Earth’s average temperature has risen more then 1 degree Fahrenheit and over twice that in parts of the arctic.  Now this doesn’t mean that temperatures haven’t differed among regions of the globe or different seasons just for being in different parts of the world but if you average out the temperatures over the course of a year, you can easily see the temperatures creeping up.

Obviously we cannot go back thousands of years to tell the temperature of the world although we do have a way to get some insight on our past, trees.  Trees store information about the climate that they live.  Every year, trees grow thicker and form new rings.  In the years where the weather is warmer and wetter, the rings grow thicker.  This helps us study just precisely where the weather has been fluctuating the most.

Many critics argue that global warming isn’t a real thing and we shouldn’t worry about it.  I’m not going to tell you what to believe but I will ask you to at least look at the facts.  The Earth is heating up.  It’s not heating up at a pace where we will ever be affected in our lifetimes or even our childrens children lifetime but that doesn’t mean at some point during mankind’s existence it won’t become a factor.  So, do your part and recycle when you can, don’t litter, and overall just keep your conscience clean by preserving and protecting our beautiful earth as best as you can.  One day it will matter.

Sources: http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-real/
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/global-warming7.htm

I personally struggle with procrastination on a daily basis. For example, this is my first post for this blogging period. I’m not proud of it, and always feel bad while I’m doing it, so why do I still engage in this horrible habit over and over again? I decided this would be the perfect topic to research.

Experts define procrastination as “the voluntary delay of some important task that we intend to do, despite knowing that we’ll suffer as a result” (Jaffe para. 3).

One of the first studies done on procrastination was published in Psychological Science in 1997. College students were rated on a scale of procrastination.  Then, their academic performance, stress, and general health were tracked throughout the semester. Initially, those who procrastinated showed lower levels of stress, most likely because of putting off their work to engage in more pleasurable activities. However, in the end procrastinators received lower grades and reported higher amounts of stress and illness (Jaffe para. 8).

I believe this observational study shows that procrastination is not worth it. Although it may be fun at first, it’s not worth the stress and suffering at the end. However, being able to recognize that it’s a bad habit doesn’t cure someone from it. Most people who procrastinate already know it’s not the ideal method for getting work done, and yet they still do it. Another study was done to put the negative effects of procrastination into perspective and try to explain this issue.

Students were brought into a lab and were told they would be engaging in a math puzzle at the end of the session. Some students were told the task was an important test of their cognitive abilities, while others were told it was made to be meaningless and fun. Before completing the puzzle, the students had a time period where they could either prepare for the task or play games like Tetris. As a result, chronic procrastinators only delayed practicing for the puzzle when it was described as a cognitive evaluation. When it was described as fun, they behaved no differently from non-procrastinators (Jaffe para. 9).

The results of this experimental study initially surprised me. I would have assumed that the students would be more likely to procrastinate if it were a meaningless puzzle. However, after thinking about it, it makes sense. I only procrastinate important school work, never anything that appears fun or unnecessary. “The chronic procrastinator, the person who does this as a lifestyle, would rather have other people think that they lack effort than lacking ability,” says Joseph Ferrari, a professor from the study. “It’s a maladaptive lifestyle” (Jaffe para. 10).

That’s a hard pill to swallow. It appears that procrastination is way more than a bad habit. It’s a true problem in the brain. Ferrari compared it this way: Chronic procrastinators can’t be told to just get things done anymore than a depressed person can be told to cheer up.

Works Cited

Jaffe, Eric. “Why Wait? The Science Behind Procrastination.” Association for Psychological Science. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2014. <http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2013/april-13/why-wait-the-science-behind-procrastination.html>.

Finals are coming up and we all now how stressful this time is. Countless amounts of studying need to be done and the last few assignments need to be completed. The problem is, there is so much to do and staying focused and on task is extremely hard. Many students resort to taking Adderall, which is supposed to be used for people with ADHD to help them focus and not get distracted all the time. Using adderall illegally can be helpful when studying, but it can also have consequences. Students also find other prescription stimulants that can help them focus. Anything they can find, they will use.

A study was conducted by Laura M. Garnier-Dykstra, M.A., Kimberly M. Caldeira, M.S., Kathryn B. Vincent, M.A., Kevin E. O’Grady, Ph.D.,and Amelia M. Arria, Ph.D. in the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. 1,253 college students were assessed from 2004-2009. Each of the participants reported taking an illicit stimulant at least once in high school. There were 49% male participants and 51% female, and 71% of the participants were white (Arria).

During the first year, they completed questionnaires about themselves and had a personal interview to get a better understanding of their use of illicit drugs. Each year within 4 weeks of their original interview in year 1 the students would come back and be interviewed again. The types of things they were assessed on were how much they were exposed to the drugs, their motives behind using the drugs if they used them, how they took the drug (swallowed, snorted, injected, etc.) if they used them, their source of getting the drugs, their GPA, extracurriculars, alcohol use, etc.

The results found that 61.8% of the participants were offered prescription drugs at least once by the end of the fourth year, and 31% of the participants used the drugs (Arria). Studying purposes proved to be the most common use of the drugs and most students got the drugs from their friends. Less than 17% snorted the drugs, and most swallowed them whole (Arria). Lower GPAs and alcohol use were often associated with those who used the prescription drugs (Arria). This begs the question, is it even worth taking these drugs to do better in school if the GPAs were lower than those who did not use the drugs? Although the people who were using the drugs to get high instead of studying could be the ones with the lower GPAs, but that is not stated in the results.

Prescription stimulant drugs do help students focus more and get more studying done, but there are extreme psychological and physical consequences to using these drugs incorrectly. The symptoms of abusing prescription drugs are insomnia, restlessness, weight loss, agitation and irritability, high blood pressure, impulse behavior, and irregular heartbeats (Mayo Clinic). And the next step is becoming addicted to these drugs. This is a serious problem in our society today and it can have life-long damaging effects.

This study shows that most people use prescription stimulants are using them for a “good reason” which is to get good grades not to get high, but it is still something people need to be cautious of. The results of this study could have been due to third variables, or chance. The best way to get solid results on this topic would be to do a double-blind placebo trial. Randomly give half of the participants prescription drugs and half of them the placebo to se how it effects them. But this does not answer the questions of why people use them. It would in fact tough show the effects it has on the body. This would be unethical unless the participants gave consent and agreed to the trial.

In conclusion, students use drugs for all different reasons, but the use of drug stimulants in college students is constantly rising. From 1993 to 2005, the use of stimulant drugs increased 93% (Clinton Foundation). Every college campus is different, but some colleges have up to 25% of their students using stimulant drugs (Arbor). It is a rising epidemic that needs to be kept on watch.

Sources:

Arria, Amelia. “Non-medical Use of Prescription Stimulants during College: Four-year Trends in Exposure Opportunity, Use, Motives, and Sources.” National Center for Biotechnology Information. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Dec. 2014.

Mayo Clinic Staff. “Prescription Drug Abuse.” Mayo Clinic. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2014.

Clinton Foundation. “A Rising Epidemic on College Campuses: Prescription Drug Abuse.” Clinton Foundation. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.

Arbor, Ann. “Non-medical use of prescription stimulants among US college students: prevalence and correlates from a national survey.” National Center for Biotechnology Information. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Dec. 2014.

I’ve never been a fan of milk at all. I do however have no problem with chocolate milk. We hear that milk is good for our bodies but do we really need it? Growing up our parents always tried to get us to drink milk and I’ve always wondered why. Turns out we may not need it after all or do we?

A journal titled JAMA Pediatrics is taking a closer look at the recommended three servings we have always been told was helpful. A pediatricitian named Dr David Ludwig from Boston’s Children Hospital says that recommended daily servings should be looked at and that the servings should have a wider range that is more appropriate. Is reduced fat milk turning out to be harmful than drinking whole milk? Evidence shows that this may just be true. Dr Walter also notes that milk should not be taken out of the diet.

Adults with different diets sometimes get their calcium from other foods. Studies show that this may not be such a big deal after all. Countries throughout the world may not consume dairy foods at all. Rates of osteoporosis don’t seem to vary as compared to those of us living in the United States.  The rates are no higher than they are here. This may be because other countries get their calcium from plants and other sources that contain vitamin D.

Ludwig also notes that some children may have very poor diets and that they may require more calcium. Ludwig states that as high as three 8 ounce glasses to ensure they build strong bones. The debate against fat free or whole milk is still a debate to this day. Studies show that the possibility of obesity is not reduced when drinking fat free or 1 percent milk. When trying to maintain a healthy lifestyle fat free milk tends to be the go to choice. Yes the taste may be bad but the way fat free milk is made is what makes it the best option. To make fat free milk the fat is taken out of the liquid then some nutrients is added. Fat free milk is only 0-0.5% fat when compared to whole milk having 3.25% these percentages come from the USDA. When trying to be fit and healthy always try and get past the taste of fat free milk to ensure you live a fit and healthy lifestyle. Milk is needed for strong bones as well as teeth and still is recommended in our diets.

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/blogs/daily-dose/2013/07/01/how-much-milk-really-need/yT8YraNS4m39XiC8RWxLgK/blog.html

http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/nutrition/healthy-eating/is-fat-free-milk-healthy.html

http://www.holdthecarbs.com/low-carb-milk-mix

I took audio engineering while in high school. There, I learned everything about mixing and sound in general. One thing we focused on was noise induced hearing loss. I was astonished to learn about tinnitus and learn the statistics about noise induced hearing loss. According to an article by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, or NIDCD “Approximately 15 percent of Americans a between the ages of 20 and 69—or 26 million Americans—have hearing loss that may have been caused by exposure to noise at work or in leisure activities.” This is a HUGE number of people especially when it is something that can be prevented.

In a second article I found, this one done by American Hearing Research Foundation, it said that hearing loss could absolutely not be fixed. This is the same as what I learned in class, that once it’s gone, there is no getting it back again. This has been the belief for several years but as I continued my search, I stumbled across a third article, a recent one, in which they could prove the previous beliefs wrong.

Medical News Today published an article about noise-induced hearing loss was restored in mice. Researchers from the University of Michigan and students at Harvard Medical School conducted experiments on mice that could be revolutionary. They increased the protein that is abbreviated as NT3 in the mice with the noise induced hearing loss and were able to see positive results. They found that NT3 is a large part of the communication between the ear and the brain the researchers created an experimental experiment in order to test the differences in the mice. With this they looked at the group of mice that got a boost in the NT3 protein and those who did not. They found that the ones that had the boosted “NT3 regained their hearing in a 3 week period.”

Although these findings are extraordinary, they cannot jump to conclusions about the effects it has on human hearing. The scientists want to see if there would be methods to create a drug that would help with the increase in NT3 of humans and would help regain hearing. They also mention in the article how the researchers only used partially deaf mice so they are uncertain to whether or not it would help fully deaf mice.

Overall, I think it would be really interesting to see where this research can lead to humans. I also would like to follow up and see if they do tests on fully deaf mice because that as well could open doors to the future of reversing the effect of noise-induced hearing loss. I thought this experiment was conducted well in the way that they compared the two groups and I think they should use this type of experiment on humans too (as long as they know NT3 would not be a negative effect).

Anyone who has ever worked in an office building has dreamed of having a nice office with windows that provide a great view. Now, there is one more reason to desire an office like that. A new cross- sectional study  demonstrates how lack of natural light is associated with physiological, sleep, and depressive symptoms. Never in a million years would I have ever thought that light could have such an effect on someone. Furthermore, In the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, research was printed that stated exposure to certain types of electrical light before going to bed at night can increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and cancer. It was difficult to wrap my head around my new discovery at first, so I did some additional research, and discovered even more things that natural light can affect.

Light is vital to our health and survival. With out it, we would not be able to function the same way. It seems a little crazy to think a mere thing like light plays a major role in our everyday lives. A thing that I personally believe most of us take for granted is our body’s internal clock, known as our Circadian Rhythm. Depending on the amount of light we are exposed to, our body will react differently. Here is a very informative video about light and Circadian Rhythm, and how when light is detected, it triggers a chain of events in our body. It discusses several things such as why we wake up when we do, and when we are most productive during the day. I highly recommend you all to view this, as it is a simple video packed with plenty of helpful diagrams and information. I can guarantee that you will learn at least a few new things about your body that you did not know before. I would be even willing to bet that our professor, Andrew Read, will learn something new.

Additionally, studies show that the more light we get during times of when we need to focus, such as work or school, the more alert we will become. Contrary to nighttime, where we need less light so we can relax and get ready to sleep. But of course, this has to be natural light, not artificial light. Exposure to artificial light, especially at nighttime, decreases our melatonin levels. Melatonin is key, as it helps regulate our Circadian Rhythm, as shown in the video.

To be honest, at first, I was very skeptical. I mean, I just thought that you were better off in natural light because it is natural light. Honestly, who doesn’t love going outside and soaking up some rays. But now, I understand that sunlight does directly affect us, and play a critical role in our well-being. Personally, I cannot wait for it to get warmer outside, so we can go out, enjoy some fresh air, and help regulate my Circadian Rhythm.

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/healthy-living/wellbeing/how-light-affects-your-health.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25424517

While walking through the grocery store during a shopping trip over this recent Thanksgiving break, I noticed that one particular item has nearly taken over the dairy isle – yogurt. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to find other traditional dairy products amid the abundant selection of yogurt products. This led me to research some of the health benefits of this increasingly popular food. My findings were intriguing. A recent study conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health reveals a potential link between higher consumption of yogurt and a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes.

 Over 29 million people or 9.3% of the U.S. population have been diagnosed with diabetes according to recent reports from the government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For many of those people, the obesity factor increased their risk significantly for developing the disease. In fact, four out of five people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese.

One problem is that excess fat changes the way that a person’s body responds to insulin -the hormone that allows glucose (sugar) to leave the bloodstream and enter the cells to be used as fuel. Type 2 diabetes occurs when the pancreas doesn’t make enough insulin, or the cells of the body become resistant to insulin. Additionally, as Vivian Fonseca, professor of medicine and pharmacology and chief of endocrinology at Tulane University Health Sciences Center, asserts, “One of the links with obesity is that fat induces a mild, low grade inflammation throughout the body that contributes to heart-disease and diabetes.”

However, people with diabetes can control their blood glucose by following a program that includes regular physical activity, a healthy eating plan, and medication. Education on diet and self-care practices is a critical aspect of controlling diabetes and staying healthy. In light of modern research, it might be beneficial for those striving to prevent diabetes to weigh the costs and benefits of adding a daily serving of yogurt to their diet.

The HSPH observational study utilized a large sample size of adults, tracking the progress of 3 studies: 41,436 men in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (1986 to 2010), 67,138 women in the Nurses’ Health Study (1980 to 2010) and 85,884 women in the Nurses’ Health Study II (1991 to 2009). In 1980, NHS participants were administered a 61 question food frequency questionnaire in order to collect information on their usual intake of foods and beverages. Every two years after, these participants completed a similar yet expanded 131 question FFQ to update their diet records. A similar procedure was conducted in the NHS II and Health Professionals studies.

Throughout the course of the investigation, researchers documented 15,156 cases of diabetes. They conducted a further analysis of individual types of dairy products and their associations with risk of type 2 diabetes. Surprisingly, the researchers found little correlation between general dairy intake and diabetes. However, greater levels of yogurt intake were significantly associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes. The study concluded that a daily increase of one yogurt serving was significantly associated with an 18% reduced risk of developing diabetes.

Because of the observational nature of the study, the associations do not definitively indicate causation. Those who eat yogurt frequently may just have a healthy lifestyle and thus be at less risk. It is also possible that yogurt consumption has a positive correlation with other indicators of a wellness, such as exercise or a healthy diet.

When critiquing this research, it is important not to rule out reverse causation as a potential factor. Some overweight participants and possible diabetics may have tried to incorporate yogurt into their diet as an effort to improve health. Thus, diabetes risk could cause people to increase their yogurt consumption. Even in a study that attempts to control for these factors, chance is always a possibility. Also, because the response-based survey method was used in all three investigations, some error measurement of dairy intake assessment is unavoidable, despite researchers’ efforts to control for variation.

Additionally, since the study did not assess the types or brands of yogurt consumed, researchers cannot definitively attribute observed benefits to various components of yogurt. However, in a recent Forbes interview, Frank Hu, the study’s lead author and researcher, stated, “One hypothesis is that the probiotics in yogurt may help to improve insulin sensitivity and reduce inflammation, but this hypothesis needs to be tested in randomized clinical trials.” Perhaps further research will yield more information on the separate components of yogurt and their different affects on metabolic health.

Overall, eating a daily serving of yogurt is a relatively low cost action that has the potential to yield highly favorable health benefits. However, before immediately adding it to your diet as a means to decrease your chances of getting diabetes, it is important to consider a variety of factors. One should review the financial and opportunity costs that come with buying the product. As long as yogurt consumption isn’t used as a means to replace other healthy habits such as exercising and maintaining a balanced diet, it may not be a bad idea to add it to your diet. Even if you’re not at risk for diabetes, chances are it could play a small role in improving your health.

Sources:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/215

http://www.everydayhealth.com/type-2-diabetes/causes/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2014/11/25/yogurt-may-cut-type-2-diabetes-risk/

We’ve all heard the saying, “Anything you eat after 8pm stores as fat.” But is this actual fact or simply just myth? The correlation people make between late night eating and weight gain is because most people are not snacking on healthy foods such as carrots at 11pm; they are instead over-eating cookies and chips. The truth is, your body does not process foods any differently at 8am or 8pm. It still comes down to the basic math of your calories in versus your calories out. When you overeat, your body will store the extra calories no matter what time of day you are eating them.

According to a study done by Fred Turek (Ph.D.), a professor of neurobiology and physiology in the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences and director of the Center for Sleep and Circadian Biology, he thinks that our circadian clock plays an essential role in food intake. Our circadian clock is our daily 24-hour inner biological cycle and tells our bodies how to regulate sleep. In the study Turek did results found that, “Mice that were fed a high-fat diet during normal sleeping hours gained significantly more weight (a 48 percent weight increase over their baseline) than mice eating the same type and amount of food during naturally wakeful hours (a 20 percent increase over their baseline).” The results are convincing but jumping to the conclusion that eating at night causes weight gain is still a reach because we are not mice. Megan Fellman, a student at Northwestern University in her article Late-Night Snacks: Worse Than You Think responded to the results of the study and said, “Our circadian clock, or biological timing system, governs our daily cycles of feeding, activity and sleep, with respect to external dark and light cycles. Recent studies have found the body’s internal clock also regulates energy use, suggesting the timing of meals may matter in the balance between caloric intake and expenditure.” I agree that our internal clock regulates energy use, but just because our energy level drops at night doesn’t mean our metabolism isn’t up and running.

In contrast to the Fred Turek study, in a study done by The Oregon Health & Science University wanted to end the myth that eating at night causes weight gain. Scientists at this university watched 16 female rhesus monkeys for a year and found that even monkeys who ate the majority of the meals at night were not more likely to gain weight than those that ate throughout the day. I personally agree with the results of this study because it is easier to compare humans to monkey’s than to compare them to mice. These two studies resulted in such different outcomes that it is safe to say more research needs to be done in order to get to the bottom of this claim.

It is no secret that indulging in cookies and other high calorie snacks late at night will cause you to gain weight after you have already had a filling dinner. I think the take away from all of these studies combined is that you should always avoid excess high calorie snacks before bed because you aren’t left with anytime to burn the extra calories. However, if you aren’t able to have dinner till 9pm, go eat, odds are you haven’t exceeded your healthy level of calories for the day. Overall, I think if you keep a healthy balance between calories in and calories out then it doesn’t matter when those calories are eaten.

Works Cited

“Circadian Timing of Food Intake Contributes to Weight Gain.” Wiley Online Library. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2014. <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2009.264/abstract>.

Fellman, Megan. “Late Night Snacks Worse than You Think.” Northwestern University. N.p., 3 Sept. 2009. Web. 25 Nov. 2014. <http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2009/09/turek.html>.

“OHSU Scientists Dispel Late-Night Eating/Weight Gain Myth.” Oregon Health and Science University. N.p., 1 Feb. 2006. Web. 25 Nov. 2014. <http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/about/news_events/news/2006/02-01-ohsu-scientists-dispel-l.cfm>.

Rudis, Jacquelyn. “True or False: Eating at Night Will Make You Gain Weight – See more at: http://www.bidmc.org/YourHealth/TherapeuticCenters/WeightManagement.aspx?ChunkID=156995#sthash.HbKOeaXK.dpuf.” Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2014. <http://www.bidmc.org/YourHealth/TherapeuticCenters/WeightManagement.aspx?ChunkID=156995>.

As we approach finals week many of us are probably going to double the amount of stress we are already under by worrying about how we’re going to do on our finals and if we can narrowly escape our classes with C’s. I have always worried about anything and everything and I was always told that I would worry myself sick. Is this actually true? Can someone actually stress themselves out to the point where they become physically sick?

While researching for this topic I came upon two articles that suggested that this was true in two different ways. The first article from mentalhealthy.co.uk suggests that people can worry to the point where they develop Generalized Anxiety Disorder. This disorder is described by the National Institute for Mental Health as “[worrying] excessively about a variety of everyday problems for at least 6 months.” This disorder affects 3.1% of American Adults and the average age of onset is 31 years old.

On the other hand, an article on Huffington Post suggests that these health problems may be more than just mental. This article suggests that toxic stress hormones can accumulate in the blood stream “which can affect the glands, nervous system, and the heart, and can lead to stomach ulcers, heart disease, and an increased risk of heart attack and stroke”. It seems from the information here that stressing too much can quite possibly kill you, which is a very scary thought.

Now to look at these articles one by one, first of all neither of the articles had any type of experiments or data to back up their claims. So these claims could be true but they could also be somewhat untrue or just plain false. The connections between the stress hormones and the number of health problems mentioned in the Huffington Post article could be caused by a third variable. Also, if this was actually studied there is a chance that these people were already at an increased risk for these health problems to begin with. With both of these articles it is possible that correlation which may have been found in a study which neither of them have may not equal causation.

When it comes to finals week the stress levels go through the roof, but don’t let them go too high. While these articles have no scientific proof that stress causes health problems I believe that the severity of the outcomes is enough for me to try to reduce my stress levels.

Few concepts in science are as powerful, or as widely misunderstood as the theory of evolution. Through his assertion that, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,” biologist and geneticist, Theodosius Dobzhansky, illustrates that an understanding of life’s diversity, as well as the great unity among organisms, can be facilitated when examined within the context of evolution. A recent discussion in my Introductory Psychology class raised the question – “What is the role of evolution in the fields of cognitive and behavioral science?” It provoked me to question evolution’s function in determining an individual’s learning and decision-making skills.

As the unifying theory of the life sciences, evolution by natural selection offers an unparalleled ability to integrate disparate research areas such as those in biology and psychology – an interplay that psychologist, David Myers, recognizes as critical to fully understanding this psychological phenomenon. Thus, the evolutionary perspective creates a powerful framework for understanding the complex patterns of causality in behavioral and mental phenomena. Ultimately, evolution serves to explain the development of species and how individuals can adapt favorable behavior through the biological process of social learning.

In order to understand the roots of behavioral and mental processes, evolutionary scientists turn to the works of the English naturalist, Charles Darwin. Darwin made two major points in his publication, “On the Origin of Species”. First, he argued from evidence that the species of organisms inhabiting the Earth at the present time descended from ancestral species. “Descent with modification” conveys that as the descendants of those ancestral organisms spilled into various habitats over millions of years, many underwent adaptations, which accounted for the vast diversity among organisms.

Darwin’s second point posed a mechanism that enables evolution, which he termed “natural selection.” This is the principle that among the range of inherited trait variations in a population, those “favorable” traits, contributing to survival and reproduction, will most likely be passed on to succeeding generations. Darwin supported this observable phenomenon with empirical evidence of his studies of the adaptations of Galapagos finches and marine organisms.

Individuals often acquire their beliefs and behavior from their parents, peers, and others members of their social environment. “Social learning” is thus an essential part of adaptation and a key factor in a species’ ecological success. Understanding how an individual uses information available from others is important for not only understanding that individual’s decisions, but also for comprehending patterns of change and variation among species over time.

In the study, A Bayesian Approach to the Evolution of Social Learning, investigators at UCLA sought to understand when natural selection will favor individuals who imitate others, as environments change and individuals must determine which behaviors are beneficial to survival. To build models of cultural evolution, investigators modified mathematical formulas drawn from population genetics and epidemiology to account for features of social learning. This Bayesian statistical research approach uses probability estimates to infer the unequal ability of individuals to conform to the favorable behavior of others in changing environments.

As the experiment varies the environment (independent variable) proportionately from state 1 to state 2, the adaptive problem for individuals is to infer the current state of the environment using two sources of information:

1. Other individual’s behavior from the previous generation (social cues).

2. Individually learned details about a habitat, acquired possibly through trial and error processes (environmental or nonsocial cues).

Individuals who exhibit one of two behaviors acquire either a favorable or unfavorable fitness depending on which state the environment is in. Thus, individuals who can accurately determine the current state of the environment, using the two former mentioned cues, will be able to choose the preferable behavior to emulate and survive better. This will result in a higher reproductive success for the individual.

Because the psychological mechanisms that make social learning possible are partly products of natural selection, statistical models can help us understand their design. While this type of experimental approach can help eliminate biases that may arise in other experimental designs, (such as a response based survey), it cannot rule out the possibility of chance. Also, just because there is a correlation between two variables, for example, a fluctuating environment and a decreased chance of perceiving favorable behavior, doesn’t always mean that causation is a factor.

Overall, the results largely support the theory that conformist individuals are favored by natural selection under a wide range of environmental conditions. It is reasonable to assume that during the course of evolution, individuals routinely have had access to many models for which to base their behavior, which raises the possibility that this experiment has underestimated the range of environmental conditions (confounding variables) that favor conformism. Additionally, the researchers may have underestimated the specific strategic circumstances under which non-conformity is critically adaptive – which may require a whole different investigatory lens.

Humans today descended from a long line of successful ancestors. Yet there may be individual and group differences in psychological domains that are partially a result of differential selection pressures on ancestral populations and even subsequent mutations. Daniel J. Krugar of the University of Michigan noted that, “Humans have colonized nearly every land area on the surface of the earth, and each of these diverse ecologies shaped our psychological design.” Today, humans strive to advance medicine, security, and technology, which create an environment that pressures our psychological development. Genes are not the only script for a pre-ordained destiny. Nearly everything about us as individuals is a product of complex interactions between our genetic make up and trigger aspects of the environments in which they are expressed. In the light of evolution, humans can gain a greater understanding of the behavior and mental process that distinguish them from other organisms and the basic biological structures that unify them with all species.

Sources:

Campbell, A., Neil, & Reece B. Jane. (2002). Biology (6th ed.). San Francisco, CA:                          Cummings.

Kruger, J., Daniel. (2009). Evolutionary Psychology and the Evolution of Psychology. Evolutionary Theory and Psychology, 2-4.

Myers, G., David. (2013). Psychology (10th ed. in modules). New York, NY: Worth.

Perreault, C., Moya, C., & Boyd, R. (2012). A Bayesian approach to the evolution of       social learning: Evolution And Human Behavior, 33(5), 449-459. doi:10.1016/                j.evolhumbehav. 2011.12.007

College—filled with many late nights and early classes. But how are students able to survive with the lack of sleep that results from this? With the use of a very addictive drug. No, not that kind of drug, this kind of drug. It’s caffeine. Students often turn to coffee or energy drinks to give them the extra jolt to make it through the day, or to stay up a little later to cram for a test. Across campus, students are constantly downing caffeine, to put that extra spring in their step. Worldwide, over 260,000,000 pounds of caffeine are consumed annually, which makes caffeine the most popular psychoactive drug on the globe. I personally, also drink coffee and energy drinks if I am running low on sleep and need a boost. I never used to drink coffee much until I came to Penn State, but now it seems that I my intake has increased tenfold. I drink everything now, like iced coffee, coffee with espresso shots, Red Bull, and 5-Hour Energy, along with a few others. When my energy is low, these come to my rescue. Unfortunately, it has become an unhealthy habit of mine, and sometimes I find myself in a situation where I need multiple drinks to keep going. The more I spend on these drinks, the more I think about how I am potentially harming my body.

Some of you may be saying, “Wait, caffeine is natural. It’s found in nature, how can it be harmful?” While it is true that is natural, caffeine can be very dangerous. Too much of anything is never good. Excessive caffeine can result in headaches, nausea, and anxiety. This video portrays the worst of what can happen from an overdose of caffeine. The video demonstrates the extreme of what can happen when one overindulges on caffeine. Is that likely to ever happen from drinking Mountain Dew every day? No. Yet, other minor things will most likely occur. But before we delve into the potential harmful side effects, what really is caffeine, and why do so many of us consume it?

Caffeine is a drug that in its purest form is a bitter white powder and in fact does indeed have addictive qualities. Everyone knows that caffeine makes you feel less tired, but how exactly does it do it? Basically it accomplishes this by suppressing it’s similarly structured Adenosine molecules found in the brain. Adenosine molecules’ role is to calm down the nervous system. However, when you consume caffeine, it overpowers the Adenosine, and stimulates and energizes the nervous system. As a result, your heart rate and blood pressure increases, which naturally increases alertness and delays the feeling of fatigue. But what about the “addiction”? It is not a real addiction, but the real reason people need it frequently, or feel “addicted”, is because it just becomes a bad habit they develop where they need the extra energy, and they turn to their trusty caffeine for help. While it is correct that one will experience slight withdrawal symptoms if you go off of it after daily use, it is nothing compared to the withdrawal symptoms another white powdered drug would give you.  

There are a lot of claims about what caffeine does to the body, some of which are supported by numerous experiments, and others that have rather shaky evidence to back them up. There are many facts about caffeine, like caffeine being linked to gout attacks, caffeine raising the chance for women to develop incontinence, and caffeine raising the blood pressure of people who suffer from hypertension. What really astounded me was the amount of data about caffeine that did not have good evidence to support it. Quite frankly, it is a result of the fact that it is just very difficult to conduct an experiment to evaluate the long term effects of constant caffeine use. It is nearly impossible to run a double blind placebo trial that garners good results. Although it boggles my mind that caffeine is the most widely used everyday in the world yet we still unfortunately know so little about it, it is safe to say that unless you devour grams of caffeine per day, you will be fine. Instead you will just have to worry about your wallet because those pricy Mocha Frappuccinos from Starbucks will add up.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/in-experiments-caffeine-accelerates-the-brains-verbal-processing-113759145/?no-ist

http://www.caffeineinformer.com/harmful-effects-of-caffeine

https://www.yahoo.com/health/the-sudden-death-of-18-year-old-logan-stiner-103108598762.html