When I was younger, my mom would always want me to have carrots as a snack. When I gave her a hard time because I wanted cookies and sweets instead of carrots she would always respond by saying how eating carrots will help my eyesight. Ever since I have always eaten a lot f carrots thinking that they were the reason for my 20/20 vision but were they?

We all know carrots are a healthy and delicious vegetable that have a good source of Vitamins and nutirents but do they really help your vision? According to an article entitled “Fact or Fiction? Carrots Improve Your Vision?”  carrots do in fact help your vision but only in certain conditions. According to Emily Chew, deputy clinical director at the National Eye Institute, carrots provide beta-carotene which is essential in order for the body to produce vitamin A. The body then uses that vitamin A to help convert light to signals in the brain. In easier terms, vitamin A helps people see better in dim or very low lighting. Additionally, vitamin A is very essential for a healthy cornea. Although carrots are a good source of vitamin A, they obviously aren’t the only source. Products like milk sweet potato and red peppers also have high levels of this vitamin. So why are carrots the only ones that everyone says are so good for our eyes? How can we prove that the vitamin A provided by carrots actually helps our vision? To find results for this hypothesis, an experimental procedure can be conducted. Scientists can have one group of people with all different eye colors and eye sight eat carrots with one meal everyday. On the other hand, there is another group of people all with identical eye color and sight to a person in the other group. These people will not eat carrots with their meal. After weeks of monitoring, scientists will be able to form a hypothesis that either correlates or doesn’t correlate with their hypothesis. Although this experiment could work, there are a couple of flaws. The outcome could easily been due to chance or even a 3rd variable. So even if the evidence does correlate, there is no definite answer derived from that experiment.

Next time you are getting a salad or buying lunch, don’t pick out or eat around the carrots, eat them because they are a great source of vitamin A which is healthy for your eyes.

Sources:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-carrots-improve-your-vision/

Although there is not a current threat to a honeybee extinction, beekeepers have been noticing an increase in the number of bees dying since 2006. If honeybees do eventually become extinct, it can have serious effects on the human population. Albert Einstein once said, “Mankind will not survive the honeybees’ disappearance for more than five years” (Good Reads). So, was he right by saying that?

When I first came across this, I did not think anything bad could come of bees becoming extinct. Personally, I am not a fan of bees. When they are around me, I am always scared of them stinging me. Although bees do have that one negative effect, the advantages that they bring us outweigh the disadvantages by far. According to NBC News, “Honeybees don’t just make honey; they pollinate more than 90 of the tastiest flowering crops we have. Among them: apples, nuts, avocados, soybeans, asparagus, broccoli, celery, squash and cucumbers. And lots of the really sweet and tart stuff, too, including citrus fruit, peaches, kiwi, cherries, blueberries, cranberries, strawberries, cantaloupe and other melons. In fact, about one-third of the human diet comes from insect-pollinated plants, and the honeybee is responsible for 80 percent of that pollination, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture” (NBC News). Our food industry heavily relies on bees to pollinate our crops. If honeybees were to go extinct, the human population would have to seriously change their diets, or else Albert Einstein might be correct with his statement; we might not live longer than 5 years after the extinction of bees.

Unfortunately, nobody can prove if humans will survive without honeybees until honeybees actually go extinct. There has been research supporting each side of the argument. No matter which side is correct, it is clear that if honeybees went extinct, it would be catastrophic for our agriculture. Some scientists are confident that over time other pollinators would take over for the bees. Several groups of pollination experts are already exploring this issue and trying to find an alternative (Native Plants and Wildlife Gardens).

Other scientists are not as confident. If we do not find an alternative to pollinate, the extinction of honeybees will have an effect on all animals. Animals eat plants as well and without honeybees pollinating the plants, they will die off too. If humans’ main source of meat such as cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys etc also die off then humans’ will have a shortage of fruits, vegetables and meat. This could lead to a serious problem down the road (Future).

Since scientists cannot be sure if we will survive without honeybees or not, I recommend that we take serious precautions in helping the bee population survive. Here is a list of things you can do to help keep the bee population alive:

1. Make your gardens bee-friendly
   • Plant flowers that bees like, they get their food from flowers.
   • Give the bees a water source in your garden. Such as a birth bath or a small pond.
2. Eliminate your use of pesticides.
3. Buy organic foods.
4. Support local bee-keepers.
5. Encourage other people to protect the bees as well.

It is important that we take these precautions seriously and spread awareness of this possible honeybee extinction and the consequences it will bring. As I mentioned previously, it is not a current threat but beekeepers are noticing less and less bees so if we do not take action now, this could turn into a real threat soon!

While growing up, my mother would always compare me with kids that were smarter than me. This always gets me upset as a child and I would get angry with my mom for comparing me in such an unfair way. However, after going back home recently and seeing all my childhood friends that I got compared to when I was little, I realized one thing, almost all of them have larger heads than me. As a result of this, it made me curious to find out if having a larger head correlates with higher intelligence.

According to the guardian website, scientists found close correlation between the size of a person’s skull and the results of intelligence and memory tests. According to Dr. Christopher Martyn of Southampton University’s environmental epidemiology unit, “The larger a person’s head, the less likely their cognitive abilities are to decline in later years.” Martyn and his team conducted their studies based on a sample of 215 men and women aged from 75 to 80. Each person was given an initial IQ test and a memory test. After three years, the same group was asked to retake these exams and each person’s cognitive powers were then calculated. Then, individual’s head circumference were measured and recorded. As a result, it was clearly shown that there is a link between head size and the loss of memory and cognitive ability in later life.

Even though this study is very well conducted, it still can’t accurately prove that having a larger head means having higher intelligence. In other words, we cannot assume correlation means causation and there is always the possibility of chance happening. Confounding variables also plays a part in this situation. Did all the participants go to school? Are all the participants properly nourished at a young age? Are all the participants in good health? Another thing is this experiment is biased in age. They only experimented on older people. However, would we get the same result if the experiment were experimented on younger people?

As a result, we can’t assume that bigger heads means higher intelligence based on the data collected. We have to consider many more outside factors. Knowing this, it made me feel better that I have a chance to catch up to my friends even though my head is smaller than theirs.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/sep/28/research.health

http://gnosticwarrior.com/head-size-matters.html

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/brain-size2.htm

According to medicalnewstoday.com heartbreaks can cause real physical pain even if there is no injury on a person’s body. When thinking about break ups, there is a part of the brain that activates physical pain, which adds to emotional distress and depression that a person usually feels along with a break up. Edward E. Smith did a study on forty people from New York City who felt “intensely rejected”. They were told to look at pictures of their friends and think positive thoughts. Then they were told to look at pictures of their exes and think of their breakup. The participants brains were scanned while they viewed pictures of their friends and exes. They also underwent brain scans of the participants comparing forearm pain to the feeling of holding a hot cup of coffee. The researchers found that several of the “same areas of the brain became active when participants felt either physical pain or emotional pain” (Love Study: Brain Reacts To Heartbreak Same As Physical Pain).

The physical pain that people feel from heartbreaks is how their bodies react to their emotions. Depression that is caused by heartbreaks make people feel not themselves, causing them to feel dull and not living life with a positive and upbeat manner. This can causes physical illness and pain. When people feel loss and rejection, the anterior cingulate cortex becomes active, triggering physical pain and distress.

Symptoms of heartbreak include “loss of appetite, insomnia, headaches, stomachaches, nausea, a ton of tears, occasional nightmares, alcohol/substance abuse, depression, eating disorders, panic attacks, loss of interest, fatigue, loneliness and hopelessness” (Ashley Cox).

Researchers concluded that feeling of rejection is similar to physical pain. If you are experiencing emotional pain, click here for tips on how to help get through it.

Heartbreaks affect people differently; some either people go through a very rough time or get over it quickly. What people feel can be because genetics, what chemicals the brain releases, and what areas of the brain are activated.

Sources:

http://www.science20.com/variety_tap/science_behind_heartbreak-33900

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/220427.php

http://malecodependence.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/heartachequotes425crop.jpg

It is 2AM in the morning and you are about to head to bed, however, just as you turn off your laptop you suddenly remember you have an English paper due tomorrow. After minutes of debating whether to do it or not, you turn your laptop back on and you say good-bye to your sleep. Had this situation ever happened to you? As a recent college student, the situation above happened to me many times. I would often pull all nighters in order to finish my work on time. However, the side effect with all nighters is that I would get so tired during class that I would zoon out often or even fall asleep. After realizing my problem, I begin questioning if my terrible sleep habit would affect my GPA. After some research, I found my answer.

According to this article “Larks and Owls: How sleep habits affect grades”, Psychologist Jennifer Peszka did a study on a group of 89 incoming Hendrix College freshman. These college freshmen are in-between ages 17 to 20 and they are asked to fill out a questionnaire about their sleep preferences before arriving on campus. After a year, Peszka asked the same question again to the same group of 89 freshmen in Hendrix College. As a result, it turned out that the night owls (people that sleeps late) averaged a 2.84 GPA at the end of their freshman year. Larks and Robins (people that sleeps relatively early) both averaged a 3.18 GPA. From this we can see that getting more sleep can contribute more positively to one group’s average, while getting less sleep can contribute more negatively to the other group’s average.

Even though this study answered my question, I can’t just assume that sleep schedule directly affects GPA; even though there might be a correlation. However, because this experiment is based on observational studies, we can’t rule out the possibility of response bias and inaccuracy. There is a chance the students from the college may have lied about his/her final GPA on the survey. Also, because the study group of 89 college students is relatively small, this can cause an inaccuracy on the end result. From the experiment, there is also the possibility of chance and third factors that affects the GPA. For example: the person’s IQ, effort, and study habits. As a result, we can’t conclude that sleeping schedules have a direct affect on GPA.

As a result, it can be concluded that one’s sleep schedule does not necessarily affect one’s GPA. Even though the study done by Jennifer Peszka has some flaws, her study still offers evidence that supports the idea of sleep schedule affecting GPA. Personally, I believe sleep does play a part on our GPA and this is why I will plan out my schedule and try to sleep early each night.

http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1903838,00.html

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/colleges-open-their-eyes-zs-are-key-gpa

Everyone had shaved at one point in his or her life. Whether it’s the face, legs, arms, or the head, we’ve all done it. When I first started shaving however, people told me that shaving is not good for you. They told me that shaving would cause your hair to grow back faster, darker and thicker. This statement scared me. Do I really want to shave my leg and end up looking like a gorilla? From my curiosity, I began doing a little research on this topic.

According to scientific American, the theory of hair growing faster, darker and thicker is not true. One of the reasons we believe there is a change in hair growth is the limitation of human perception. The act of cutting hair may actually make the hair appear thicker for a short time period. This happens when a razor slices the tip of the hair, the remaining hair (the root) may appear thicker and darker than it was before the cut. However, this doesn’t change the hair regrowth process. According to Amy McMichael, chair of the Department of Dermatology at Wake Forest Baptist Health said, “People are just not very good observers, but there’s just no science behind hair growing back thicker.”

I know that I can’t just base my conclusion on human perception; therefore, I found studies done to prove that shaving will not cause hair to grow back faster, thicker and darker. The first study was done in 1928. Four men shaved a portion of their faces in one downward stroke while using the same brand of soap, razors and constant water temperature. Then 100 shorn hairs were collected and compared. As a conclusion, there is no evidence that proved shaving speeds up the rate of hair growth. Another shaving study was done more recently. This research made five young white male to repeatedly shave one leg weekly for several months while leaving the other leg as the control. As the result, no significant changes in hair width and the rate of growth were found.

From these two researches, it’s very likely to conclude that shaving does not make hair grow back faster, thicker and darker. However, even though these two experiments were well conducted, there are still other factors to consider. To start off, the studies were biased. The researchers only experimented on white males. This led me to think what if the result of hair growth would be different on females? Would hair growth also be different for people of different races? Besides the bias part, there can also be coincidence. What if a teen’s facial hair grew thicker due to puberty? Third variables also play a part in this case. For example, the food that the volunteers ate might play a role on hair growth.

As a result, it is very hard to conclude that shaving does not cause hair to grow back faster, thicker and darker.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-if-you-shave-or-wax-your-hair-will-come-back-thicker/

http://www.everydayhealth.com/skin-and-beauty/does-shaving-make-hair-grow-back-thicker.aspx

Did you know that eating fruits and vegetables improve your skin tone? I didn’t know this information until my friend pointed it out one day while I was eating carrots. She told me that carrots could turn your skin to an orange color. At first I didn’t believe her, however, after asking Google, I found out that eating fruits and vegetables does in fact slightly change your skin color. I was amazed at this fact and I wanted to learn more on this topic.

I found out that the main reason skin color can change is due to carotenoids. Carotenoids are known to be powerful antioxidant substances playing an essential role in the reactions of neutralization of free radicals. Our human skin, on the other hand, is constantly under the influence of free radicals. Therefore, we can find carotenoids most closely associated with our skin. Carotenoids are found in a variety of fruits and vegetable, especially in those that are red, orange, and green in color. When we eat fruits and vegetables with carotenoids, we can assume that our skin tone can have a slight change due to the carotenoids being closely associated with our skin.

According to Huffington post, an experiment had been done to see if fruits and vegetable consumption changed the redness and yellowness of the people’s skin. Researchers examined 35 white university students between the ages of 18 and 25 for a period of six weeks. These students then answered questions about their vegetable intake and researchers recorded their skin-color. As a result, study found that students who ate the most produce turned yellower than those eating pizza and fries; the students eating vegetables looked slightly rosier.

From the experiment, we cannot assume correlation causes causation and there is always the possibility of chance. Even though the experiment showed that it is very likely that carotenoids can change our skin tone slightly, but there are still other factors to consider. To start off, the experiment preformed is not perfect. The sample size of 35 university students is very small. Also, the data collected might not be accurate. The experimenters were not given a specific meal; instead the study was based on their own eating habits. The study is also biased because all the university students in the experiment were white. Would the skin tone change for people in other races? Confounding variables also play apart in this case. A person getting sick during the time period and not sleeping well can also have an affect on skin color.

As a result based on the study, I would say it is very hard to conclude that eating fruits and vegetables will definitely improve our skin tones.

Change in skin color

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/07/148148858/the-secret-to-glowing-yellow-skin-eat-your-fruits-and-veggies

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/veggies-change-skin-tone_n_1324549.html

http://www.carotenoidsociety.org/article/04/52

Being an avid coffee drinker since the age of ten has caused me to hear the statement “coffee stunts your growth” many more times than I’d like to hear over the last eight years. When I was younger, any place I requested coffee someone immediately said it. Now that I’m older no one makes that comment when I’m enjoying a nice cup of coffee. I personally can’t see how this would even be possible. How could a little bit of caffeine prevent you from growing into your full potential. Are people saying that I would be 5’6 or maybe 5’4 instead of my 5’3 self if I had not drank coffee throughout these years?

The immediate answer I got was “No, coffee does not stunt your growth” according to kids health.org. But then why do I hear this all the time? Studies show that there is absolutely no correlation between coffee drinking and growth rate. A study was done on 81 teenagers over the course of six years. By the end of the study, there was no difference in bone density between the ones who were avid coffee drinkers and ones who drank the least amount of caffeine. Although this study disproved that a cup of coffee day will stunt your growth, doesn’t mean that coffee doesn’t have any negative side effects on growing children, but they are all minor. For example, headaches, irritability, and fatigue. So according to the studies done on coffee and growth stunt, I didn’t lose any inches due to my coffee addiction, which is exactly what I had predicted in the first place. In that case, I will continue to drink as much coffee as I’d like.

http://kidshealth.org/teen/expert/nutrition/coffee.html

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/edible-innovations/coffee-stunt-growth1.htm

Genetically modified organisms are found everywhere in todays foods. The most popular GMOs are corn, soy, and canola, which are present in most processed foods available in supermarkets. Recently many dairy companies banned products from genetically modified cows, because their milk contained a chemical (from the mutated genes) that has been linked to cancer. Since the release of GMOs in 1996, there has been an increase in chronic diseases by 6%, food allergies are becoming more common, autism and reproductive disorders are increasing as well. However there is no compelling evidence that can prove that GMOs cause these problems, and my question is why?

The U.S. is one of the only counties that doesn’t require labeling of GM foods, do you know what you’re eating?

The FDA has required no additional tests of GM food, but the only tests available are poorly executed. Such as Monsanto’s (the man who developed GM corn,) studies on lab rats. The study included 400 rats, 80 of whom were fed GM corn and the remaining 320 had varying diets. However only 40 of the rats fed GMOs were tested for adverse health effects, and although many of the male rats had kidney problems and elevated glucose levels (similar to rats with diabetes) their results were seen as false positives because female rats kidneys were unaffected, and the glucose could be explained by genetic factors. In my opinion it is just as likely that there could be false negatives, especially considering the small test group and the short test period of only three months. I find it ridiculous that there are no long term studies conducted to find the long term effects of GMOs on human health.

The majority of studies completed on the topic of health effects of GMOs are all funded by the same companies who create and sell GM foods. I find the bias of the studies conducted in the companies interest and their results showing GMOs create no side effects undeniably evident. How can you rest the health of ours and future generations in the results of poorly conducted, barely conclusive experiments, like Monsanto’s work?

The high amounts of pesticides and herbicides sprayed on GM crops, as they are modified to live through these chemicals, can not be safe. Many pesticides were used for years before they were discovered to be harmful and banned. So why are we sitting around eating foods made of plants drenched in the deadly chemicals?

There needs to be better more conclusive studies done on the effects, short and long term, of GMOs on human health. As of now I cannot say I am convinced to read every label to make sure I don’t eat any GMOs, but if a reliable study was done that could create belief of causation and not just correlation, I might start watching what I eat more carefully.

Sources:

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2952409/

After multiple trips to the Caribbean islands and countless hours spent hanging out in the sun with my friends, one could say I’ve been begging for my body to receive some color for quite a while. Being a pale teenager has been a serious struggle of mine, especially when taking pictures next to your tan friends has basically become a weekly activity. Now, I’m not asking to look like the infamous Snooki from Jersey Shore, but when I anxiously await for prom pictures to be uploaded onto FaceBook, only to come to the unfortunate realization that I look like a ghost, I have to start wondering what causes our bodies to tan and why I’m not getting any of it.

According to teen health, the sun gives off three main types of ultraviolet rays, which are UVA, UVB and UVC rays. The UVC rays don’t have anything to do with our skin and the way we tan because they’re caught by our ozone layer. Due to mainly UVA, and the few UVB rays that get through the ozone layer, the melanin in our skin is affected and our skin becomes tan.

UVA rays cause tans by oxidating the melanin in our skin, meaning that the melanin goes through a chemical reaction after the exposure to these rays, which is the reason why our skin becomes darker. Once the melanin becomes darker, so does our skin. UVB rays cause tans as well, but through a different type of technique. The UVB rays produced by the sun cause melanin production to grow, and other changes to the cells that hold the melanin, which also leads our skin to become tanned.

Although I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s physically impossible for me to tan, and I’ll probably never get that perfect picture of myself glowing on the beach during my annual family vacation to Aruba, I can’t be the only one who faces the same problem. While taking a drive through my home town, or strolling through State College, anyone will notice multiple tanning salons. How do tanning beds come into play with UV rays and becoming tan? Tanning beds can sometimes be considered a “safer” alternative to tanning outside, but that may not always be accurate. Older tanning beds that produced UVB rays have been replaced by newer beds that use UVA rays, because they don’t burn the skin the same way. While this may be the case, this does not mean that they are necessarily safe. These UVA rays are often thought to be the reason for skin cancer and immune system issues in some cases. So, regardless of whether you’re tanning outside or in a bed, UVA and UVB rays are the reason that our skin darkens. It’s important to remember that even though tan skin may look nicer in the moment, the health affects won’t feel nicer in the long run.

http://teenhealth.about.com/od/bodyimage/a/howtanninghappens.htm

http://sante.gouv.qc.ca/en/conseils-et-prevention/bronzage/

http://www.healthyfoodspace.com/tanning-might-dangerous-dont-know-instructions-according-skin-type/

http://www.standuptanningbed.org/tanning-bed-supplies/

I always feel like I am constantly yawning. Any time I see someone else yawn or even hear someone else yawn I always find myself yawning too. But why does this happen? Why are yawns “contagious?”

When I researched this question I came across three possible hypotheses. The first one is a physiological hypothesis, and is known as the “fixed action pattern.” This hypothesis claims that a yawn is more of a reflex. When one person yawns it triggers someone else’s reflex to yawn which leads to the domino effect. The second possible physiological hypothesis is known as the “non-conscious mimicry” or “the chameleon effect.” This hypothesis is described as imitating someone’s behavior without knowing it. “Subtle and unintentional copy-cat maneuver.” We unconsciously copy someone’s behavior when we yawn after we someone else yawn. Mirror neurons are supposedly the reasoning behind this. Mirror neurons are defined as a neuron that fires both when an animal performs an action and when the animal observes the same action performed by another (conspecific) animal. A good example of mirror neurons at work is when we learn something visually. We find it easier to learn if we see someone else doing the same task. These neurons are triggered when a person sees or hears someone else yawning which causes us to yawn. The third hypothesis was a psychological hypothesis. This one having to do with empathy: the ability to understand what someone else is feeling and partake in their emotion. Also a “subset of mirror neurons allows us to empathize with others at a deeper level.” This hypothesis also includes that the “contagious yawning” begins when a child is around the age of 4 or 5 due to child being able to interrupt the emotions of others.

This study is a perfect example of how data can fit many hypotheses. We do not have enough information on the topic to determine which of these hypotheses can be rejected. There is also a large possibility that there is an entirely different hypothesis. A question like this is difficult to find an answer to. Experiments have been conducted to test exactly how contagious yawing really is. With this particular question, we cannot produce a randomized experiment, only an observational study. In all, there is no answer to the question. Scientists must research this topic further. Even if they find an answer as to what causes yawns to be contagious, they will not say that it is “proven.” Due to the fact that the data might be consistent with another hypothesis. Also if an answer is found, there will always be other scientists out there looking for the “correct” answer because that is how knowledge is gathered, from scientists always looking for errors in other scientists’ work.

So why exactly do we yawn when someone else does? We are still searching for an answer to this question. Although there are many hypotheses out there trying to explain this phenomenon we cannot reject any of them until we have gathered more data on the topic.

References:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/contagious-yawn.htm

http://ed.ted.com/lessons/why-is-yawning-contagious-claudia-aguirre#watch

http://news.discovery.com/human/videos/why-do-we-yawn-video.htm

How many of you have ever been stressed to the first thing you do is run to the fridge and eat whatever you can find. I know I have certainly done my fair share of this. Whether it be a big test, a fight with a friend or even just daily chores and errands that need to get done I know that I always look for the food to help me calm down even though. What I don’t understand is why stress eating happens and how can we possibly stop it.

According to an article called “The Science Behind Stress Eating,” when you become stressed or anxious, more of the hormone called glucocorticoid is secreted  near the taste buds in your tongue which make you crave food. According to another study featured in the article also called ” The Science Behind Stress Eating” states that the high concentration of GC receptors near the tastebuds on your tongue cause you to crave sweet foods such as candy and ice cream. To further test this hypothesis stating that when someone is stress eating, it is normally sweet sugary foods, they could create a observational procedure. Within this procedure they can take different groups of people, some that are very prone to stress, some that are sometimes stressed and some that rarely stress and see what food they tend to crave when they are put in a  monitored stressful situation. If people who were stressed went for the foods such as cookies candy and ice cream, the hypothesis will correlate with the results. According to an article called ” Why stress causes people to overeat” featured on Harvard Health Publications stress eating and eating when extremely anxious causes people to pack on the weight more so than if that person was eating normally. This is due to the fact that this person is going right for the sugary foods that satisfy their craving. Therefore, stress eating is something to definitely avoid.

Another question proposed is where does stress eating come from? Is it genetic or is it something that develops over time? According to an article called ” Causes of Eating Disorders-Social, Genetic and Psychological” eating disorders have been proven to be inherited genetically but would we consider stress or emotional eating a disorder? There is no study that has been conducted that shows if emotional eating in particular is passed down genetically. To find this answer, an observational study can be conducted in which a line of females and males (because girls are much more likely to eat from emotions than boys) from a certain family are observed when they are stressed. Based on how the older generations respond to their emotions in regard to their eating habits, researchers would be able to draw some evidence stating that stress eating is or isn’t genetic. This evidence would either correlate with the hypothesis or not but this experiment has some flaws. Although it may lead to the answer you want, there could easily be third variables that skew the evidence.

Next time you are feeling stressed about an exam, a boyfriend/ girlfriend or even just a fight with a friend remember, stress eating is unhealthy and can be the cause of weight gain so when stressed out, resist your sugary urge.

Sources:

http://www.fitbie.com/2014/06/09/science-behind-stress-eating

http://www.raderprograms.com/causes-statistics/eating-disorder-causes.html

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/harvard_mental_health_letter/2012/february/why-stress-causes-people-to-overeat

All throughout the class Andrew has said that we don’t know much about the human body and we are still making discoveries today. Everyone has heard the rumor that human’s only use 10% of their brains. If your like me, and I believed that it was true, you’re probably a little surprised to find that it has actually been supposedly found to be a myth. We believe what we hear, especially if we hear it when we are little, or if we hear the same thing more than once, then as human nature we are more likely to believe it. That may be the reason why this is such a widespread myth.

According to Scientific America, and neurologist Barry Gordon, it is true that “at certain moments in anyone’s life, such as when we are simply at rest or thinking, we may be using only 10 percent of our brains” (Gordon). This means that at certain times of the day human’s are only using 10 percent of their brain in order to function. However, it does not necessarily mean that humans only use up to 10 percent of brains. Gordon found that human’s actually do use every part of their brain, for different things such as cognitive or motor function skills, and that most of the brain is active most of the time. Another neurologist named John Henley says that with the use of imaging technology studies have found that 100 percent of the brain is used throughout the day, although not all parts may be used at once.

Where did this myth originate from then? According to About Education the myth came from the works of William James, a philosopher and psychologist who published the myth in his book “The Energies of Men” in 1908. About Education also says that the myth “may have been influenced by people misunderstanding or misinterpreting neurological research” (About Education). In other words, because humans, and especially at that time, did not know much about the human brains so they assumed that it only used about 10%, or about as much as we know.

Why is it that people have believed in this myth for so long if it has now been proven otherwise? In my personal opinion, it is because of the influence of the media. Recently, a movie was released earlier this year called Lucy. In this film, Scarlet Johansson stars as a Lucy, who is able to use 100 percent of her brain power, versus the “normal” 10 percent that human’s use. It is media influence and popularization like this that spreads the myth around social media today. Although we are told not to believe what we read on the internet, or what we see in movies, lets face it; a lot of people do.

IFL Science also contributed to the study. Neurologists are still trying to learn a lot more about how the human brain functions. right now we know 10% of the cells in our brains are neuron cells, and the other 90% are glial cells, also called astrocytes. Although we know a lot about neuron cells, scientist still only know very minimal about glial cells, other than that they are used to connect neurons together. However according to IFL Science, “recent research indicates they may be even more functionally important, particularly in forming memories” (IFL Science). So with saying all of this, it has been studied that we can use 10% at one time, but that we use 100% of the brain entirely, and more than 10% can be used at once. Do you think 10% is still a myth?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-people-only-use-10-percent-of-their-brains/

http://psychology.about.com/od/biopsychology/a/10-percent-of-brain-myth.htm

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2872732/

http://www.iflscience.com/brain/do-we-really-only-use-10-our-brain

We all know soda isn’t comparable to green tea in terms of health benefits, but would you go as far to say that they’re as terrible for your body as cigarettes? A recent study has shown that drinking soda has been proven to take years off of your life through harming the immune system, and accelerates the aging process. Why exactly is soda so bad for your body?

Soda consists of many harmful chemical and substances that are known to harm your body, and should be avoided as Reader’s Digest explains. Soda can deplete your calcium and magnesium due to its high levels of phosphoric acid. And in case if you weren’t aware, calcium and magnesium are known to give your immune system a boost. High-fructose corn syrup is known to damage tissue, aid in the development of diabetes, as well as diabetic complications. Most sodas contain a lot of high-fructose corn syrup. Bottled beverages (including water!) contain BPA, which is found in the plastic. The BPA from the plastic can get into your beverage, then into your body. BPA has been proved to harm the immune system as well. Wellness Mama has also made the claim to stay away from soda. Most sodas contain caffeine. Caffeine can be linked to cancer, irregular heartbeat, high blood pressure, and other complications. We’ve all had that disgusting feeling on our teeth after drinking soda, this is because soda can cause plaque build up on your teeth. Plaque buildup can impact your gums and may even cause cavities! Wellness Mama also mentions that soda companies simply use tap water. Tap water alone can potentially contain chlorine, fluoride, and traces of metal. With all of that being said, soda contains a lot of chemicals and substances that can and will harm your body.

Although it is known that soda can harm your body, does it mean that soda could potentially take years off of your life? Time explains how soda can, and will, take year off of your life. Telomeres are the caps at the end of every chromosome, which is in every single cell. The study conducted looked at the telomeres from the white blood cells. Telomeres that are shorter are linked to stress, cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and even a shorter life span. There was a study ((())) conducted to link soda with shorter telomeres. In the study 5,309 adults that drank soda regularly over fourteen years were found to have shorter telomeres. On average, each participant would drink twelve ounces on average, wrote Fox News. The study found that drinking nearly 8-ounces (one can) of soda daily can age you up to nearly 2 years. Some participants drank 20-ounces (a bottle!) daily, which was linked to 4.6 years of aging. Drinking 30-ounces of soda daily is the exact associate in telomere length as smoking.

Personally, I think that the study was conducted well. They had 5,309 participants in the study so I’m assuming that the population was well randomized. They also did the study over a span of fourteen years, which allows the harmful of effects of soda to impact the telomeres significantly. The study also eliminated chance and reverse causation as well. Although the study was conducted well, I would have like to have seen how this compares to people who do not consume soda regularly, and people who do not consume soda at all. A control group would have shown the comparison. The study failed to rule out the option of a confounding variable. Could it be that the participants drank the soda with a cheeseburger or other unhealthy foods? Could the shorter telomeres potentially be due to obesity?

I’ve concluded, for obvious reasons, that soda is bad for you! But, I wouldn’t go as far to say that it is as harmful as cigarettes. The average person probably does not drink 20 ounces daily, therefore soda wouldn’t impact their telomeres as much as cigarettes. Drinking soda in excess may have substantial health consequences though. Either way, maybe it’s time to put down the soda and pick up a water.

As an avid diet coke drinker, I often hear from parents and peers how much worse for me diet soda is than regular soda. When I put Splenda instead of pure cane sugar on my food or in my drinks, I hear the same, that it’s worse for me. The rumor is that artificial sweeteners are worse for your body and give you more cravings? Is this true? And if so, why?

Today, society’s big time producers are under pressure to make healthier products. This includes less calories or if possible, zero. The calories from soda comes primarily from sugar so when producers take and the sugar, they create a zero calorie product. Sounds ideal right?

Well according to Business Insider’s Robert Ferris, diet sodas may actually be worse for your health and your waistline than ones with sugar. The most commonly used sweeteners are aspartame, sucralose, and saccharine. It turns out they might disarray with our bodies’ abilities to process the calories from authentic sweet things thus making it harder for us to metabolize the sugars we get from other sources.

Purdue University scientist Susan Swithers found in a meta-analysis of 26 health and diet studies that artificially sweetened sodas, unlike water, were often still associated with many of the same ailments common in people who drink sugary sodas, and may actually increase the risk of obesity, metabolic syndrome and Type 2 Diabetes (BusinessInsider). Furthermore, Swithers says the trouble with artificial sweeteners is the same thing that makes them so popular, “they taste a lot like sugar and have few or zero calories. For example, the molecule for sucralose (found in products like Splenda), is extremely similar to the molecule for sugar. That is why it tastes eerily similar, it is tricking our bodies into thinking we are eating something sugary.”

On the contrary, CNN’s Jacque Wilson reports of a study conducted by the American Beverage Association, found that diet soda drinkers who continued to drink soda while on a diet lost more weight than diet soda drinkers who stopped. According to Dr. Jim Hill, a researcher on the study, the results weren’t surprising. Those who had to give up diet soda were relying on more willpower to stick to their diets than those who allowed themselves the small indulgence without the added calories, he says.

The data Swithers examines does not establish a direct cause and effect relationship between sweeteners and obesity, it simply sees a strong correlation just as strong as we see with regular soda. There could be other explanations.

A lot of studies suggest that over time whatever calories people think they are cutting with artificial sweeteners might just be returning to them in the form of poorly metabolized sugars from other foods but if they aren’t eating too many sugars from other foods, diet soda can be beneficial.

http://blog.foodnetwork.com/healthyeats/2013/04/23/food-fight-regular-soda-vs-diet-soda/

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/24/health/soda-makers-cut-calories/

http://www.businessinsider.com/diet-soda-may-not-be-any-better-for-you-2013-7