Do we need fingernails to get them painted, to make our rings look good? According to John Hawks, “a biological anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Fingernails are one of the features that distinguish primates, including humans, from other mammals.

They are essentially flattened forms of claws.? Is it because its useful to scratch, peel fruit, open jars, undo nots and shoelaces? It would be interesting if there was a study done that should how people live with fingernails and how people live without fingernails.

I believe their lifestyles would be almost the same. Our nails are made out of a protein called keratin. Maybe this gives our body protein? Is it unknown why we have fingernails? Where do fingernails come from? Do they serve as tools for us and thats it? In my conclusion, it seems as if fingernails are just there and serve as little tools for us to help do little things, that you would never think of is the reason we have fingernails and the purposes they serve.

sources:

http://www.livescience.com/32472-why-do-we-have-fingernails.html

A very highly talked about topic in the US is how much television a child matches or really how bad is television for young kids. Does it effect the development of their attention disorders as they grow to become adolescences and eventually adults? The first two years of a Childs life are critical times for brain development. Electronics and especially TV can interfere with the way the brain develops.

As kids get older, too much TV can effect activities such as being physically active, reading, studying, experiencing social scenes with friends and family. It must be hard as a parent to try and help your kid avoid TV if you watch it yourself.  In some households, the TV is just on even without anyone watching. Some parents buy videos and shows that they think can make their kids smarter. But why not just buy a board game? Or a kids book or game?

According to http://www.raisesmartkid.com/all-ages/1-articles/13-the-good-and-bad-effects-of-tv-on-your-kid, “Researchers from the University of Sydney report a link between total screen time and retinal artery width in children. Kids with lots of screen time were found to have narrow artery in their eyes, which may indicate heart risk.”

In conclusion, i believe that tv at a young age is not beneficial to help a brain develop. I do not think kid shows are even positive for children. The types of kids shows there are today are becoming more and more harmful to a child.

You may hear your Doctor tell you that you need to eat dairy everyday, or your nutritionist may tell you to eat yogurt for breakfast instead of oatmeal. Few people are willing to talk about dairy and tell the truth about it.  For example, my best friends mom used to eat yogurt for  breakfast, and would put cheese on her sandwiches for lunch. She started to feel extremely blooded. She eventually stopped eating yogurt for breakfast, cut out milk in coffee, and absolutely no cheese and lost 10 pounds extremely fast and had zero blooding. I told my mom about it and she started doing the same thing. My mom saw the same results as my friends mom.

According to the Huffington post article, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/19/is-milk-bad-for-you_n_5311851.html, milk is high in saturated fat and switching to skim milk will not do the trick. “A large Swedish study also discovered a link between fattier milk and a lower risk of weight gain in adult women (normal-weight women who drank one or more cups a day of whole milk had a significantly lower chance of gaining weight than those who drank reduced-fat milk).” There are however dairy replacements. Such as soy milk. There are no replacements for ice cream but if you are a milk nut, then soy milk, coconut milk, rice milk, and almond milk, are an options for you.

In conclusion, I believe that cutting out dairy from your diet will allow you to become less blooded and you will loose weight without even trying .

Smokers have different reasons as to why they choose to smoke. It is actually more common for teens to be nonsmokers than smokers. 9 out of 10 high school students do not smoke (Did you know?). But that still leaves some teens that do smoke. Whether it is just in social settings or because they like it or they do it to make themselves feel better, it still has detrimental effects. The question is, does smoking increase depression in teens?

Scientists at the University of Montreal and the University of Toronto did an observational study to test this question. It was conducted by having 662 high school students fill out 20 questionnaires from grades 7 to 11 about their use of cigarettes. The study surveyed students from all different schools so they would have diverse students. Then, they were divided into three groups: non-smokers, smokers who do not use cigarettes to improve their mood or self-medicate, and smokers who do use cigarettes to improve their mood or self-medicate. To find out if the students had depression symptoms they asked how often they felt too tired to do anything, if they had trouble sleeping, if they felt depressed, sad, or unhappy, if they had little hope for their future, and if they were nervous or worried about a lot of things.

The results showed that students who used cigarettes to improve their mood had more depressive symptoms than the non-smokers. They researchers found that students who have “emotional benefits” from smoking tend to be at a higher risk for becoming depressed. Interestingly, the correlation between depression and smoking is primarily seen in teens. Although, since this is a relatively small observational study, the results could very well be due to chance. There also could be many other things besides smoking that cause the teens to become depressed, so third variables are still an option. Also, reverse causation is very likely because teens that have depression could then start smoking to cope with their feelings.

Michael Windle, PhD, and colleague Rebecca C. Windle from the University of Alabama conducted a very similar study. They studied 1,218 students for a year and a half starting when they were sophomores and juniors. Every six months students completed questionnaires, just like in the above study. But in these questionnaries they asked questions such as “temperament, parents’ smoking habits, social support within the family, delinquent activity, alcohol and other substance use, and friends’ alcohol and drug use” (Carpenter). The results showed that students who were heavy smokers in the beginning were much more likely to become depressed over time than those who did not smoke very heavily or at all.

With this study, they also found that teens that had constant depressive symptoms in the beginning of the study tended to smoke more heavily as time went on than those who were not depressed in the beginning. Scientists are not sure whether smoking causes depression or depression causes smoking, but there is definitely a correlation both ways. I think both are very true and the correlation between depression and smoking is growing every day.

According to Michael Windle, nicotine alters the brain’s pleasure centers which causes mood to improve. But over time, the brain develops a tolerance to nicotine so it takes more to get the same effect. This causes heavier smoking. Then, when heavy smokers try to quit smoking, they are much more likely to become depressed which causes them to go back to smoking. It is a vicious cycle that is very hard to break.

In conclusion, there is a very strong correlation between smoking and depression. But, third variables, reverse causation and chance are still possible in both studies.

Sources:

University of Montreal. “Smoking can increase depressive symptoms in teens, study finds.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 27 August 2010.

“Did You Know?” – Facts About Smoking. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2014.

Carpenter, S. “Smoking and Depression Perpetuate One Another, Study Indicates.”Http://www.apa.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2014.

Last week, as our break began, I realized I had a week to get tons a stuff done. To relax at home and just get some stuff out of the way. Turns out, I did anything but what all I wanted to accomplish. Sure, I got some readings done for a class and tried to catch on on some studying, but I failed to do other things that I really could have crossed off my list for good, especially with finals coming up. Before I knew it, it was Sunday and I was on my way back to happy valley and feeling like I’d wasted time. This isn’t a first time I’ve felt this way however, procrastination is not stranger to me. Still, I question why I can’t just change myself and have a better work ethic over night, even after I plan to do things and make note of them. Procrastination is than just laziness!…or is it?

I found, in my research, that procrastination has a number of worthy excuses. Of course, there aren’t too many excuses that would hold up in class and allow you to actually be excused for assignments. However, these excuses are real for some procrastinators. They don’t put things off simply because they don’t want them done! Some people may be poor at regulating themselves and so they often aren’t able to internalize their intentions and act on them, others put things off for fear of failure, and some just may not like their classes or the work assigned and so they avoid it until necessary. So, what makes one a true procrastinator or just a kid with poor time management skills? I honestly, may be the latter, and although there is no clear answer to this as of yet, there are some possible causes out there that may have more credibility than those previously mentioned. Things such as mental disorders could be possible cause of procrastination.

In terms of Depression, it’s no surprise that it may cause procrastination. When a person is depressed they often experience an extreme form of sadness that leaves them hopeless and unable to see anyway to make things better. Depression doesn’t cause procrastination, but it can make it far worse. A depressed person is even less likely to see anything they do as able to make difference in their lives. However, considering that statistically depression is no where near as many people who experience procrastination, there have to be other reasons.

Another is a thing referred to as Irrational Beliefs. People who suffer this often suffer from simple not feeling good enough. In their minds they don’t measure up to what they think they should be, they have unrealistic views of the world that aren’t realistic and react to the world in ways optimistic and/or pessimistic ways that don’t enhance them emotionally. The people who suffer this mentally virtually allow these things to get in the way of their own happiness and motivation. They procrastinate due to anxiety and fear of failure. Here, it’s said that this problem could essentially stem from low self-confidence.

Procrastination for people with ADHD/ADD is just as bad if not worse! People with these disorders are often easily distracted, impulsive and disorganized. These people have difficulty staying focused, controlling their behavior and paying attention.  Therefore, doing work and keeping focused on completing that work is a task hard to manage for them. This link talks all about the problem.

Although I set out to find out why I was procrastinating so much, I found that there may be no real underlying reason, at least not one that couldn’t be combated with few changing habits. I definitely don’t have any of the disorders mentioned above, so if you’re like me, we all may just have sucky time management skills. Sorry, we’re not special snow flakes and all we really need is to do invest in planners.

Sources
http://healthcenter.ncsu.edu/counseling-center/resources/mental-health-and-wellness-topics/irrational-beliefs/
http://www.undoingdepression.com/about-depression/quick-tips/procrastination/
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-procrastination-equation/201101/crazy-procrastinating-maybe
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2013/10/31/adhd-experts-reveal-their-favorite-ways-to-manage-procrastination/

On some day in June of 2013, I happened to be on tumblr at around 3 in the morning. I was interested in a debate one of my followers seemed to be having. Someone had referred to being vegan as “unnatural” and being a vegan, he just had to respond. Up until this point in my life, I had no idea what a vegan was, I thought not eating meat was a vegetarian’s things. I learned that night (or morning rather), that vegans were, if anything, the real deal. Not only do they avoid meat products, they avoid all products that have anything to do with the death of a living animal. No clothing made at the expense of an animals life and especially no food.

But what was interesting about this debate was that this guy, like so many others apparently, thought that humans needed meat to survive. Humans are omnivores, making us able to eat both plant and meat products, but do we need to eat both to live long, healthy lives? These people would get so defensive about their love of eating hamburgers that they would downright dehumanize these people for choosing to be vegan. Of course, there debate was essentially a argument about eating and not eating animals and having the right to choose either way, but It seeing as this was drawing so much hate and debate, I had to find out what it was all about. It started with know what being Vegan even meant.

I did some reseach and eventually learned that many people are under the impression that being vegan is unhealthy and that you have virtually no intake of certain nutrition that they need, but their assumptions are often blind and have no real scientific knowledge behind them. Not because those people are wrong per se, but because they just don’t know much about the vegan diet when they make these claims. It is true that in choosing to be vegan you lose a number of nutrients found in meat and dairy, but a successful vegan diet is simply about making the right substitutions for those products you would otherwise be missing. In fact, being vegan can be a healthy choice or a extremely healthy one, it just depends on the choices one makes in terms of food.  Largely, these potentially lost nutrients would be protein, calcium, vitamin D and vitamin b12 and iron. There are plenty of ways vegans can make substitutions for these and it’s all about a varied and smart diet of course!

In learning of what makes up vegan diet, I found that it, of course, relied heavily on vegetables. To make up for the loss of what would have been protein, vegans should look to things like chickpeas, tofu, peas, peanut butter, almonds, rice, potatoes, broccoli, kale and more. As for calcium, vegans should turn to spinach, collard and turnip greens, broccoli and beans. While vitamin D can’t be made up in food without dairy products, some exposure to the sun daily can act as a healthy replacement. Vitamin b2 is found in animal products and soil, but can be gained from vitamin supplements if needed. Lastly, iron is found in dried beans and dark green leafy vegetables, but can also be gained from vitamin C too!

As a vegetarian, I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to commit to being a vegan, but should I ever decide on it, I can be sure that there is a way to stay healthy and well. Although, this information may never put a end to the rift between vegans and those who eat meat when it comes to the arguments had around killing and consuming animals, it can stand against those claiming that it’s unhealthy to be vegan and that human absolutely need meat to live.

Sources:
http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/nutrition_&_eating_concerns/being_a_vegetarian.php
http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/vegan.htm

Since the beginning of the semester, I have noticed the increase in those who are using vaporizers, electronic cigarettes, hookah pens, and other types of devices that are vaporizers. This made me curious if these types of devices are actually healthier than directly smoking tobacco, or marijuana products using the traditional types of mechanisms. My research led me to many mixed studies where many praised the pros of using a vaporizer, but on the contrary there were many scientists that were very critical of potential intake of toxins. Vaporizers work by heating tobacco or marijuana to a temperature that is hot enough to evaporate the active ingredients, but cool enough to avoid burning. As a result, people who vaporize are not exposed to as many toxins that are found when people smoke it.

According to Science Daily, vaporizers are known to eliminate the intake of harmful toxins. Studies show that the burning of marijuana is linked to the creation of 100 harmful toxins where many are considered cancer causing toxins. Another positive of using a vaporizer is safer for your lungs. Since vaporizing is generally new, there are no long term studies that can technically prove this, but there have been some experts to show that vaping is better for your lungs than smoking. Vaping also gives faster relief to those who use marijuana for medicinal purposes. Since they can control the doses easier and the lungs absorb cannabinoids in a matter of seconds, providing almost instant relief when cannabis vapor is inhaled. Finally vaping comes along with fewer side effects.  According to a large study conducted by the US National Library of Medicine ranked vaporizers the highest side effect satisfaction.

Even though I found a lot of positive feedback and research on the use of vaporizers for medicinal marijuana, there were a lot of negative feed back on the use of electronic cigarettes. According to WebMD News, E cigs vapor produces particles that users suck deep into their lungs, potentially causing or worsening respiratory diseases. Norman Edleman who is senior medical adviser for the American Lung Association, condones the use of E Cigarettes and says it is not a safe option. They have found traces of formaldehyde and other toxins from the use of the e cigarette.

Smoking is never a good alternative, but according to my research it seems like the use of vaporizer has its benefits and seems to be a little safer than the traditional smoking tactic. Even though this use of smoking is relatively new, many scientists have found revolutionary benefits, and have found results which could conclude that it may be healthier for you than smoking. Sure there maybe variables that go along with this, but vaporizers maybe the future of smoking.

Sources:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070515151145.htm

http://www.leafscience.com/2013/11/09/advantages-vaporizing-medical-marijuana/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24175484

http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20140507/e-cigarette-vapor-contains-potentially-harmful-particles-review

Earlier today I commented on a blog about suicides and I spoke about how concussions have recently been contributing to many of the suicides for example the death of Kosta Karageorge.  This topic has always interested me so I decided to look into the details of Concussions and CTE in regards to the NFL and other athletes.

CTE stands for Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy and is a progressive degenerative disease of the brain found in athletes (and others) with a history of repetitive brain trauma, including symptomatic concussions as well as asymptomatic subconcussive hits to the head.  Throughout the last 50, rule changes and equipment changes have occurred frequently due to research and suicides of many of our loved athletes.  You can see the whole timeline of the concussion epidemic in the NFL here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sports/league-of-denial/timeline-the-nfls-concussion-crisis/.

“Dr. Ann McKee, director of neuropathology at Boston College, also serves as a member of the Mackey White Traumatic Brain Injury Committee for the National Football League.”  She has examined many brains of deceased NFL players one including Junior Seau who committed a sudden suicide at the age of 43.  Dr. Ann McKee determined that Junior Seau had CTE and that was a big contributor to his suicide of a gunshot to the chest.  Since then 5,000 NFL players have sued the league over the dangers of concussions and brain damage.

“We have known about CTE since the 1920s, when it was first associated with boxing,” (McKee).  That is where the File Drawer Problem came into play because the NFL ignored and disregarded many signs of injuries in players and developing research.  In 2003 a New York Jets receiver Wayne Chrebet, was knocked out cold and was examined by Dr. Elliot Pellman, the Jets’ team doctor, who is also head of the NFL’s Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee and was sent back into play.  The File Drawer Problem occurs again in January 2004 when “the MTBI committee publishes a paper in Neurosurgery emphasizing that the NFL’s concussion problem is relatively small” saying that athletes recover quickly from concussions.

“CTE results in memory loss, mood swings, change of behavior, and sometimes suicide,” (McKee)  In a study of 80 former football players 77 of them showed definitive signs of CTE.  CTE has even shown up in the brains of healthy 18 year old high school football players.  CTE progresses even after a player has retired and there is no treatment or way of knowing you have it until after death.  Countless athletes including: Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher, 36-year-old Pittsburgh Steelers offensive lineman Justin Strzelczyk, Philadelphia Eagle Andre Waters and many more have passed away due to CTE and an alarming rate of Athletes are dealing with issues from countless hits to the head during their career in the NFL.

CTE and concussions are a huge deal and are contributing to many deaths and problems for athletes during and after their career.  The NFL has covered the severity of the issue but recently has promoted research and funded research to help learn about CTE.  Hopefully one day we can protect our athletes from head trauma possibly better designed helmets or different rules but for now head trauma remains a serious issue in the NFL and for its athletes.

Sources Cited:

http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/Brain-Injury-Expert-Says-Concussions-Having-Devastating-Impact-On-Football-283528921.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/30/us/nfl-concussions-fast-facts/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sports/league-of-denial/timeline-the-nfls-concussion-crisis/

Just imagine: you’re dancing with beautiful ballerinas on an island made of dark chocolate and shortbread cookies. Flowers are falling from the sky like rain. Everything is in slow motion. You’re cheeks are cherry red from all of your laughter; it is absolute paradise – suddenly….you wake up. Immediately you know you’re never going to experience that again because it was only a dreams and dreams aren’t meant to be relived…or are they…?

In 2011, some research had been conducted to figure out if we can, in fact, see what our minds are visualizing inside. Surprisingly..it’s actually possible. Scientists from UC Berkeley have a system they developed that analyzes brain activity and matches it to different motions and shapes. The subjects were fed these video clips that are on the left side of the screen and what researchers were able to reconstruct is showed on the right.

The way they break it down and figure out what our brain sees is based on a map of our brain that is flattened and studied based upon which parts of the visual cortex are flared up. It is explained in further detail in this video.

They used three different subjects for the experiments—incidentally, they were part of the research team because it requires being inside a functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging system for hours at a time. The subjects were exposed to two different groups of Hollywood movie trailers as the fMRI system recorded the brain’s blood flow through their brains’ visual cortex.

The readings were fed into a computer program in which they were divided into three-dimensional pixels units called voxels (volumetric pixels). This process effectively decodes the brain signals generated by moving pictures, connecting the shape and motion information from the movies to specific brain actions. As the sessions progressed, the computer learned more and more about how the visual activity presented on the screen corresponded to the brain activity. –http://gizmodo.com/5843117/scientists-reconstruct-video-clips-from-brain-activity

It seems as though our brains can construct things that are more familiar to us (like people) as opposed to things that are less familiar (like abstract art)(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/mind-reading-brain-reconstruct-face_n_5049255.html). However, this technology still opens up an unimaginable amount of doors for us – especially in psychological areas. Using these techniques we can further analyze the human mind and better understand what someone is or was going through. It’s a great new way to communicate what we mean.

The only downside that I can see to this is people taking advantage of this technology… But that’s besides the point. I’m really impressed with this technology and I’m surprised I haven’t heard of this already, considering this research was conducted three years ago. With my experience in psychology classes, I know it’s still being taught that it’s not possible to view the images our brain sees and the only brain behavior we can study is brainwaves. It makes me wonder why these studies haven’t been as widespread as they ought to be. Although I admit, some of the brain images would be a bit hard to depict if they weren’t compared side-by-side to the actual images but I feel like that’s something that will improve as technology gets better. It’s also important to consider the fact that this was only a study done using the most basic form of visual perception so of course it’s going to look a bit botchy. And who knows, one day we might actually have a vivid movie that we can replay on special pillows that capture our dreams and oh what a day that will be!

Bibliography

Diaz, Jesus. “Scientists Reconstruct Brains’ Visions Into Digital Video In Historic Experiment.” Gizmodo. N.p., 22 Nov. 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2014. <http://gizmodo.com/5843117/scientists-reconstruct-video-clips-from-brain-activity>.

The end of the semester is coming up and everyone has serious studying to do. By this time we are thinking about final exams and focusing on time management in order to achieve the final grades we long for.

Many of us have stayed up countless number of hours trying to cram excessive amounts of information into our brains before a big test but is this really helpful? How long should we really be studying for in order for our brains to absorb the information needed?

Studies have shown that students entering their first year of college are used to high school studying habits, that is, an average of about 5 hours of studying a week. This, however, tends not to work for college students. It is said that college students should be studying on a 2:1 ratio. For every one hour that you are in class, you should study for 2 hours, with a maximum of two 15 minute breaks. If you are studying for an exam, you may want to increase your study time to 3 hours at the max, adding on another 15 minute break period.

According to “The Science of Brain HQ”, over time, our brain gradually slows down. It begins to miss many details making it more difficult to remember and react to what we saw or heard. This is a big reason for taking breaks after a while of studying. You need to refresh your brain- perhaps with a glass of water or juice or a light snack.

Here is a short video discussing effective study habits.

http://www.brainhq.com/world-class-science/brainhq-effective/science-brainhq

http://science.psu.edu/advising/success/learningscience.html/

As I started to pack for thanksgiving break, I came across some leftover candy that I still had from Halloween. I then thought a blog about candy would be pretty interesting to do. So as I searched the internet for some sort of topic I can write about for candy I came across a very strange article. The article was called ” Candy- gobbling kids may turn violent as adults”. (NBCnews.com).  So I thought this was an interesting thing to say about candy and kids, so I went on and read about it and looked at the study.

This was a study that was done by British experts who claim that children who ate candy daily grow up to be violent in some kind of way. ” British experts studied over 17,000 children born in the 1970s. Their conclusions were that “of the children who ate candies or chocolates daily at age 10, 69 percent were later arrested for a violent offense by the age of 34, and of those who didn’t have any violent clashes, 42 percent ate sweets daily”.(NBCnews.com).  After the studies were done, Simon Moore who was a part of these studies agreed that they needed more studies to be done to really prove this. The experts and Moore tried to “find more controlled variables that linked the candy to the violence such as the child behavior at home and also, the lifestyles that they were living”.(NBCnews.com). Moore concluded “that the candy could not be the blame for the children’s violence in their adult lives, but there could be a link, but it is just hard to say at this point in time”.  I Agree with Moore that in order to truly get to the bottom of this, more studies should definitely get done because this is a very interesting topic.

Since this was a study and it was an observational one.Third variables can play a huge role as to why these children became violent in their adult lives. Like Moore said ” parents who consistently bribe their children into good behavior with candies and chocolates could be doing harm to them”.(NBCnew.com). Also because since this was such a huge study it is more likely for a third variable to occur because there are so many people being studied that it’s more likely for something to be different. This also goes with the concept of chance playing a role in this study because anything could have occurred during the years in between of the childs life before ending the study. When it comes to direct and reverse causation I say that there could be a possibility, but in this case  I do believe like Moore said, “that more studies need to be done” (NBCnews.com). The direct causation would be that eating candy can lead to a person becoming violent,The reverse causation would be that a violent person eats a lot of candy, but it is actually hard to say that it could be reverse causation also in this instance because when it comes to a study being done over a certain amount of time reverse causation can be ruled out.  I will say in my opinion this was an “ok” study. When Moore talked about looking at the more controlled variables in the study, I believe they should have been doing that from the beginning to try and get a more accurate possible answer to this question. To go further into finding out if candy and violence could be a possible link, I think researchers should start off a little bit smaller with the studies. What I mean by that is,  when Moore talked about parents bribing their children with candy, I think that should be a study of its own.  This study would compare how a child acts when it must be bribed all the time with candy compared to a child who has to be bribed little or to none: seeing their personalities, and actions etc. The smaller studies could give more answers and lead up to better conclusions in my opinion. I do agree with Moore when he said ” this is an incredibly complex area”(NBCnews.com), because it is, and I believe that it is a very difficult link to match up with one another. Overall this is a very cool topic to think about when it comes to kids and eating candy.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33091821/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/candy-gobbling-kids-may-turn-violent-adults/#.VG6svcnYEcw

While obviously no one likes to think about it, pets get older. It can be so hard for a family to have to imagine their lives without a pet in it that they have had for a long time. Many animal lovers wish their pets could live as long as the owners just to avoid the sadness of losing them. But, there hits a point that it is no longer healthy to keep the animal alive. The pet is sick or old and it becomes inhumane to force the pet to continue on. I have a very old dog that I have had since I was three years old and I don’t want to see him pass away ever. He’s so old now though I constantly wonder if he’s even happy living due to his weakened body. With such worries come the concerns of how to handle the rest of the pet’s life. Often a talk the vet has to have with owners is regarding euthanasia. I personally wonder what is in this shot that allows the pet to pass away peacefully. Let’s find out.

Euthanasia is basically a sedative overdose. This provides that the pet will drift painlessly into sleep and simply “stay asleep.” Most of these drugs are intravenous injections and are done as a two part series. The first is usually to put the pet to so sleep and the second is to kill the pet. There are several different options for euthanasia. To understand the best option for the animal is to understand each drug individually.

Telazol is the first sedative available. Telazol has tiletamine and zolazepam in it. The combination of the two drugs allows for a very effective anesthetic. No pain is felt during this option.

Ketamine is another option and “has some pain-relieving effects, which makes this combination preferable to some veterinarians for routine use during medical procedures.” Both ketamine and telazol work very well however, ketamine is sometimes used as “club drug” and is thus not kept in many vets’ offices.

Propofol is commonly used in vets’ offices for anesthesia. However, propofol is very expensive. What veterinarians will commonly do with this drug is keep what is left in the “one-use-only vials” to combine and use it as the first injection for the two injection series for euthanasia. Being as the pet is being put down anyway, spreading infection is not a concern, and saving the remainder from these vials is permitted.

Medetomidine is a very good pain reliever for animals but can be expensive for larger dogs.

Acepromazine “is a tranquilizer commonly used in vet practice to chill out aggressive dogs through IM injection.” Acepromazine is popular because it is cheap and not commonly abused.

A drug commonly used in the first injection for a two part series is Xylazine. Xylazine is a tranquilizer for horses but is very inexpensive to use to euthanize small dogs.

As for the second shot used in the two part series, the most commonly used is Barbiturates. This basically sends the animal into cardiac arrest very quickly. Being as the animal is heavily sedated first, the pet will feel no pain. However, there is always potential for the sedation methods to be less effective than expected and for the pet to twitch or appear to be in pain before dying. The two part injection method has become popular for the reason that the animal will feel no pain and will appear to feel no pain, thus making the loss easier for the owner.

What mostly needs to be kept in mind when deciding whether to euthanize an animal or not is what is best for the animal. Having an honest discussion with a vet is one of the best choices to make. All of the above drugs have been tested thoroughly and provided the safest results. It is never safe to give an animal the cardiac arrest causing drug without atheistic first. It is unfortunate to lose a pet, but it is even more unfortunate to be uneducated about the matter and allow the animal to suffer.

works cited:

http://www.petmd.com/blogs/dailyvet/2009/october/21-4845

Growing up, we’ve all have these great candy-like multivitamin. But as a kid the concept of eating a multivitamin is just great because it’s almost like candy. But now what is the incentive of taking multivitamins? Well, our bodies need some essential vitamins and minerals from our diet, but sometimes it’s very tough to get in all those vitamins and minerals everyday. And when you start missing an essential vitamin or mineral, the human body starts to develop a deficiency.

A multivitamin is a pill, which consists of several vitamins and minerals our bodies need to function healthily. When we start to slack on our diets, multivitamins come to the rescue. Although multivitamins are no replacement for a balanced diet, they do help us sustain a healthy lifestyle. “That said, it’s better to get these nutrients from sunlight (in the case of the hormone, vitamin D) and whole foods. “Our healthy diet goes so far beyond what a pill can offer — known and unknown,” says Zaretsky, pointing to the fiber and phytonutrients that foods contain and pills lack.” It’s always a better idea to get vitamin and minerals naturally, rather than just abusing the pill. “Just because [a multivitamin] doesn’t do everything for all things, doesn’t mean you can’t consider all of its effects, said Dr. Michael Gaziano, chief of the Division of Aging at Brigham and Women’s Hospital”. Whenever general multivitamin studies are done the sharpshooter problem is always evident. So many factors are put in perspective that it is evident, that the multivitamin will not help reduce the risk of every disease, such as heart disease. “Study found daily multivitamin use for an average of 11 years had a modest effect on preventing cancer in men over age 50. Older men who took a multivitamin long-term had an 8 percent lower risk of cancer compared to those who took a placebo”. Looking at this statistic, it is evident that a multivitamin does have a positive impact on the human body. A multivitamin may not help improve the chances of reducing all diseases, but then again it is a supplement. The fact that it helps a few diseases makes an impact and should change the perspective of many.

Nowadays the problem is many have come under the influence, that multivitamins don’t actually work. And the supplement companies are just selling placebo pills. A study done by Chinese researchers go on to prove the importance of a multivitamin’s function in an active body. Chinese researchers took samples of male military personnel after a rigorous military training event. After this training event most men showed signs of overtraining, including increased thyroid function, decreased adrenal, testosterone, and immunological functioning, Then the personnel were put into two groups, one group received a basic multivitamin and the other group received a placebo. After a span of a week, with the aid of a good diet, those receiving a multivitamin saw improvement on in immunological function as well as conserved mental constraints such as fatigue, anger, and general mood.

More about this study could be read at this link:

To conclude, it is evident that multivitamins do have a positive impact on active individuals. When our bodies fail to get all the vitamins and minerals, a multivitamin will fill that gap. Many people still argue that multivitamins don’t work, but no one has ever overdosed on vitamins, so the rational person would chose to take vitamins. Multivitamins may not help in every aspect to help overall health, but the few aspects it helps in, should make the rational person to start taking multivitamins regularly.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/should-you-take-a-multivitamin_n_1725380.html

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/research-you-can-use-3-cutting-edge-studies.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/mixed-results-multivitamin-benefits/story?id=17645048

During this past week off, I can assume a lot of us participated in the annual Thanksgiving stuff your face fest. While of course it is great to see family and friends during the celebration, a lot of time is focused on the meal. However, it seems that as soon as the meal is done, people tend to feel a sudden grogginess. They feel a need to nap off their meal. So why are we so tired after eating our turkey dinner? Is it something in the turkey or is that just an old wives’ tale?

Many people accredit holiday drowsiness to the L-tryptophan that is in the turkey. “L-tryptophan is an essential amino acid” and amino acids “are the building blocks of proteins.” Tryptophan cannot be produced by the body so we get it from our food. Turkey is not the only food product with tryptophan though. Tryptophan is also in “poultry, meat, cheese, yogurt, fish and eggs.” Tryptophan is used to make a B vitamin, and B vitamins aid in the making of serotonin. Serotonin is a chemical in the brain that affects your mood. Being as tryptophan helps the body produce serotonin, it is assumed that the more turkey consumed, the more tryptophan in the body, and thus the more serotonin made. Serotonin additionally helps create melatonin, which is a chemical in the brain that affects the sleep cycle. So can mass amounts of tryptophan really be the mechanism in turkey leading to sleep?

Turkey actually “contains no more of the amino acid tryptophan than other kinds of poultry. In fact, turkey has slightly less tryptophan than chicken.” So we should be just as sleepy when we eat a chicken breast as after Thanksgiving dinner, if the tryptophan consumption theory were true. Elizabeth Somer, MA, RD, stated that “it’s a myth that eating foods high in tryptophan boosts brain levels of tryptophan and therefore brain levels of serotonin.” Serotonin boosts actually come from small carbohydrate snacks. So the exhaustion from eating our turkey dinner may be from digestion and not what is in the food itself.

Overall, being tired after Thanksgiving dinner is less connected to the turkey being consumed and more so the quantity of food. The more food we eat, the harder the digestive system has to work, and that takes a lot of energy from the body.

What would be interesting to see is a trial where there are two groups eating different meals before going to bed. One group would be given a light carbohydrate snack and the other a heavy meal. Both would fall asleep for different reasons, the carbohydrate snack because it affects serotonin and the heavy meal because of the digestion. To see which group slept more soundly would be interesting. It would also be thought-provoking to see if the meals affected the subjects’ dreams differently, or if they dreamed at all. The experiment would technically be experimental since the food would be given to different groups, but observations would need to occur to draw conclusions over what food will make you rest the most easily. All in all, just food for thought!

Works Cited:

http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/the-truth-about-tryptophan?page=3

Do you ever get dizzy and sick from the sight of blood? Every movie, TV show, or picture that contains blood, real or fake, is enough to make me sick, or in some instances collapse to the floor. I always assumed it was normal for people to faint at the sight of blood since it is normal for me, but most people do not have such a problem with it. So, what causes some people to faint when they see the red liquid, while others don’t even flinch?

First of all, it is important to see what causes fainting in the first place. This article explains what happens in the brain that triggers fainting, aka vasovagal syncope. The vagus nerve in our brains synapses onto something called the nucleus of the solitary tract, abbreviated as the NTS. Stimulating the NTS is what causes the bodily functions that lead to fainting: a drop in blood pressure, drop in heart rate, etc. The nerve stimulations are triggered by stressful events. This explains why things such as hunger, dehydration, and intense heat are such common reasons that people lose consciousness. So, where does the sight of blood play into all this? For some, that scene can register as a stressful event. Stress and intense emotion are factors that trigger the vagus nerve to synapse, and so if someone is very sensitive to gruesome scenes, the NTS will be stimulated just the same. So, it is really up to how each individual interprets the scene in front of them. Some people may just feel uneasy and turn their heads, but others can register this on a deeper level, which leads to the common phenomenon of people fainting at the sight of blood.

I do not think an experiment can or needs to be done to test this, since it really depends on the individual and how they process what they see. If we see a gruesome image in class, each student is bound to react to it differently. This cannot be due to reverse causation either, because we know that fainting is final result, not the cause. So the takeaway from this is, if you have a tendency to get woozy from seeing blood, then you should avoid some horror movies or some PowerPoint slides in class. If you do not feel any discomfort when seeing certain images, then go right ahead and look; your nervous system will be just fine.

With the change of weather, I noticed I have been less inclined to be active and more inclined to focus and study my schoolwork. This got me wondering if there is any correlation between the temperature, and your academic performance. When it is hot out I find it difficult to concentrate and easier to be distracted or sleepy. Due to these observations I decided to see if there were any studies that would go along with my hypothesis.

When researching this I found out that there was a study that had similar results to me. In the study they organized students from Westview High School in Oregon where an initial test was administered  in six different classes. The test included how they would memorize shapes, recreate them, name basic shapes, colors, and solve basic math equations. The students were randomly picked, and the tests were random so no student had a greater opportunity. Also the students were given a 10 min waiting period before receiving the test so they could get adjusted to the temperature. After administering the tests, the reuslts showed that when it was 70.5 degrees students scored an 86.7%. When it was 73.6 degrees the students recieved an 82.5%, and when the temperature was “neutral” at 72.5 degrees students received an 86.9%. Even though these results matched my hypothesis, the numbers were not really spaced out. So I researched some more and found out the school did the same study with more drastic temperature change and these were the results…

.

This experiment shows that students will perform better when the temperature is colder rather than warmer, but they will do the best when the temperature is neutral. This makes sense because students won’t feel as distracted by the temperature, and also wont be drowsy or tired by heat. Even though this makes sense this experiment had some faults. The tests were administered in different rooms which could cause different distractions, also there were different people taking different tests which could result in a louder or quieter classroom. Also they took the tests at different times of the day.  This could one mean students who took the test earlier could be more tired, and also more sunlight which also make students less tired. This experiment rules out reverse causation. Taking away from this study I agree that I would rather work in a place that is cooler than hotter but the ideal place to excel is a classroom in which it is a neutral temperature.

Source: http://healthyschools.cefpi.org/temperature.html

Ah, it’s that time of the year. Thanksgiving. The day where 76 million of us gather around a table for dinner and- to say the least- stuff our faces with food. This day has always been a very special day for my family full of traditions. My brothers and I even have a competition to see who can eat the most. However, in recent years, the Thanksgiving meal hasn’t left me feeling so well. I feel sluggish and immediately tired after eating, and my stomach hurts for hours after. I know what youre thinking as a solution- just eat less –but what if I told you there was something else you could do? The answer is simple: drink more water!

Supposedly, having a glass of water with a meal not only causes you to eat less but also causes you to choose healthier options to eat. Bettina Cornwell and Anna McAlister conducted many studies researching the correlation between food and drink combinations. They observed that those who consume a soft beverage before eating, are more likely to choose densely packed with calories food. Those who were given water before eating were more likely to eat vegetables, and more of them too!

So, drinking a glass of water before a meal will not only fill you up (causing you to not eat as much) but will also trick your mind into choosing a healthier meal. Water is also a zero-calorie beverage, so you don’t have to worry about adding extra calories to your meal either!

The Harvard School of Public Health has also researched the affects of beverages. They found that after people consumed a soft beverage, they were actually left feeling less full than if they had the same amount of calories from solid food. So, if you’re much better off eating a 200-calorie sandwich than drinking a 200-calorie soda. Fruit juice is also not a good option. It actually contains the same amount of sugar and calories as soft drinks on average, even though it may be higher in nutrients.

Essentially, it is just best to stick to water.   You will eat less and eat healthier! This Thanksgiving, try drinking a glass of water before you eat and maybe you will opt for the green beans instead of mashed potatoes! Happy turkey day everyone.

References:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666312001572

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks/sugary-drinks/

I wrote about soft drinks and the affects it has on our bodies in an earlier post so I decided to investigate the artificial sweeteners and sugars used in drinks further and what really is the better option.  The only way to stay completely stay away from the dangers of sugar and artificial sweeteners is repaving them with other options.  Instead of soda maybe water ad instead of dessert maybe fresh fruit with natural sugars.

There are only 5 FDA approved artificial sweeteners: sucralose (Splenda), acesulfame potassium (Sunett, Sweet One), aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet), neotame, and saccharin (SugarTwin, Sweet’N Low).  It is hard decision when debating which sweetener to use.  “It’s a taste issue,” says Barry Popkin, professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina’s Gillings School of Public Health. “They each have separate taste effects and different people react differently to each of them.”  Although this is true I think this is a possible bias because I think nowadays people are more health concious about what drinks they consume.  People choose diet sodas because they feel that they are a healthier alternative to regular soda.  Artificial sweeteners may not be a better option, just a different taste.

My mother uses Stevia with her tea every day and it has 150 times the sweetness of sugar but there are health concerns and it has been prohibited in the US until 2008.   Stevia is a natural sweetener but companies refine it a great deal before it is released to the public making it a somewhat artificial sweetener.  Artificial sweeteners trick your body by using less quantity to trigger your bodies receptors and this is why you will taste a stronger taste if you eat one sweet n low packet rather than a sugar packet.

One of my main concerns with artificial sweeteners is the unpredictability.  There are many people who believe artificial sweeteners cause cancer in people and there isn’t conclusive evidence supporting this yet but its certainly a possibility.  There has been an association with cancer and artificial sweeteners in rats which have some people questioning sweeteners safety.  Sweeteners like Aspartame and Saccharin have gone through studies and have been taken off the market due to risk to humans and this is what makes me question other artificial sweeteners.

In regards to the choice between sugar and artificial sweeteners,  http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/health/artificial-sweeteners-soda/ has a great explanation on the benefits of both.  Sugar is suggested more for the taste and artificial sweeteners for people trying to lose weight because they don’t have calories.  The one problem is they trick your body  by making it believe its going to get sugar and it doesn’t always know how to respond.

Like in class when we learned about how cigarettes were once thought of as healthy I think the same aspect can be connected with things like phones, high fructose corn syrup and artificial sweeteners.  I believe that since there is so much unknown about how the body deals with artificial sweeteners the best thing to do is stay away from it.  Look for substitutes and limit all the sweets you eat.

Sources Cited:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/health/artificial-sweeteners-soda/

Something I’ve had to deal with all my life was being allergic to fruits. Fruit allergies are a form of a food allergy in which someone has an abnormal immune reaction to the proteins found in fruits. It’s just my luck too that I absolutely love fruit, and can’t go a day without eating one. Luckily, I am not allergic to all fruits. I am able to eat grapes, watermelon (and mostly all melons), oranges, etc. A lot of my favorite fruits are still available for me to safely consume. Unfortunately, a lot of my other favorite fruits will eventually bite me in the bottom later. Or in this case, bite me in the throat.

The symptoms of fruit allergies are a nuisance. Your throat begins to close up or become extremely itchy. Your ears, tongue, and lips can all become extremely itchy. Sometimes you grow temporary hives around your lips that are excruciatingly painful. These can last somewhere between 5 minutes to an hour. Depending on the consumption of fruits that you were allergic to. Personally, I suffered some painful symptoms in my days of fruit eating. I had no self control and because I so loved pears, mangoes, plums, and cherries, I just ate them!

This brings a topic of whether or not people can grow out of these allergies. I’ve researched this and found that some people have lifelong allergies and there is no evidence that people could potentially outgrow it. No studies were found to suggest that it grows worse overtime, but by personal stories I can say that my allergies gradually got worse. The more I ate fruits that I was allergic to, the worse the symptoms got (I know, I have serious self-control issues!).

The most common allergies in fruits are found in the rosaceae family. The fruits in that family consists of apples, plums, pears, mangoes, cherries, and peaches. Of course those are all my favorite fruits and I’m unable to eat them. However, something I noticed was that I am allergic to most fruits that have skin that people typically peel off. This brought me to another question. Do the pesticides on fruit play a factor in my allergic reactions? I found that many people get fruit-allergy symptoms through the pesticides found on the fruits that are used to prevent bugs from eating them. The pesticides then contaminate the whole fruit, so peeling the skin off does not help remove the pesticides.

This is something that bothers me. There are no cures to this allergy and that’s very upsetting to me and those who have fruit allergies. I’ll never be able to enjoy a nice succulent apple without enduring the pain afterwards. I’m curious to see if anyone else suffers the same problem as me? If so please share your comments below!

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_allergy

http://www.swallergy.com/fruit-vegetable-allergy.html

http://www.allergyuk.org/allergy-to-fruit-and-vegetables/allergy-to-fruit-and-vegetables

http://www.medicaldaily.com/antibiotic-pesticide-residue-food-may-cause-severe-allergies-fruit-contaminated-300926

http://srxa.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/fruit1.jpg