I think everyone has such experience, when we were a kid we fall in crazy love of an idol. We listen to their songs over and over again. We buy their albums and even the cloth which idols spoke to. Some crazy idolaters  waiting their idol shows up in the airport, the supermarkets, even on the streets. What’s more, a real crazy story is that a girl was so crazy about the idols and she did not want to study even if she was only 13 years old. The father crazy about an idol and her father endured a along time. One day she said, “ I love my idols more than  my parents.” Her father was very angry when he heard this. He lost all conscious and killed his daughter then commit suicide. My classmate in my high school. She is crazy about a super star who is a handsome man. When she went shopping with me, she must went into the shop where the star advertised. She would buy a lot of stuff even if some objects that she would not use them. Some girls like idols so much they carve idols’ names on themselves’ arms. I think they are really crazy. So why some kids so crazy about celebrities and how could we keep idolaters emotion under control?

The definition of Idolater is that the person that admires intensely and often blindly one that is not usually a subject of worship.  According to could you fall in love blindly, as a society, we put a lot of emphasis on appearances. Looks play a large part of our lives, whether it’s how we look or how we perceive others. Stars’ attractive faces or dance are powerful enough for a naive teenager. Kids go through physical and psychological transformations during that time and it is also time they need to put their passion on something. A real person may refuse their love, however, a celebrity won’t. In this case, they would volunteer their money and time for them. In this way, stars get suppot they want and spread more information about themselves through their fans. Secondly, teenagers lack of family love easily in love with stars. A lot of stars have tough childhood, they get over it and became famous. Teenagers with family issue will find the common between themselves and stars. Through this way, teenagers love them more and think of them as their mentor.

So I wondering if there is any physchological reason exists on the phenomenon? Evolutionary psychologist Francisco Gil-White, from the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia explians, “Humans have a biological predisposition towards recognising prestigious individuals and acting sycophantically towards them. In the ancestral environment, prestigious individuals would be followed by people who wanted to gain information about successful living. Modern-day children who follow celebrities may be more popular because they are using this inbuilt mechanism to determine who and what is ‘cool’ “. So actually admire celebrities kind of not our choice. We were born this way. Social evluation teach us to learn from the successful people. Especially when we are young and havn’t form judgment on the surroundings we are more easily get effected by others.

I think admire celebrities is not a hazard thing. However, we always need to keep in our  mind that there is a line there. Like why we really obsess over celebrities says, “They are regular people in very high-profile jobs.” I once love a singer crazily, but after a few years the passion all gone. During the time I like him I didn’t spend a lot money on it, I just download his songs and listening. Sometimes talk to my friends how much I like him. I always keep in mind it’s not worth it to spend too much time and money on it. We are the master of ourselves’s life so don’t pay attention too much on celebrities life. Besides I think the right lead from teachers and families are really important. During the transformations time tell them such behavior is understandable but do not put too much passion on celebrities.

Finally, the idolaters can hurt themselves. On March, 20 2014, a new would be spread q

Sources:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idolater

Could you fall in love blindly http://www.dearvagina.com/could-you-fall-in-love-blindly-literally/relationships/love-and-dating/

http://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/counsellor-articles/why-do-kids-actually-fall-in-love-with-celebrities

For the longest time, parents have to make decisions for their kids. This is because kids are either to young or naïve to make decisions for themselves, so parents do it for them. However, at what point in a child’s do kids make life-changing decisions for themselves?

There is a 5 year-old girl named Julianna Snow. Ever since she was born, she has had an incurable neurodegenerative illness called Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease. This means that the peripheral nerves are damaged around the brain and spinal cord. Julianna is stable right now, but the muscles that control her breathing are so weak that if she gets a simple cold, she could die. According to Julianna’s doctors, she most likely will have to end up on a respirator for the rest of her life. At this point, Julianna’s parents did not know what to do. Should they let their daughter live a long painful life on a respirator or should they make the heartbreaking decision to take her off the respirator and end her life? They decided to do what most parents would not. They let Julianna make her own decision. This is a conversation between Michelle Moon, Julianna’s mom, and Juliana. 

Michelle: Julianna, if you get sick again, do you want to go to the hospital again or stay home?

Julianna: Not the hospital.

Michelle: Even if that means that you will go to heaven if you stay home?

Michelle: And you know that mommy and daddy won’t come with you right away? You will go by yourself.

Julianna: Don’t worry. God will take care of me.

Michelle: And if you go to the hospital, it may help you get better and let you come home again and spend more time with us. I need to make sure that you understand that the hospital may let you have more time with mommy and daddy.

Julianna: I understand.

Michelle: I’m sorry, Julianna. I know you don’t like it when I cry. It’s just that I will miss you so much.

Julianna: That’s OK. God will take care of me. He’s in my heart.

Julianna chose to live a short, happy life instead of a long, hard life filled with many hospitals visits and a 24/7 respirator. She wanted to enjoy life while she could. She wanted to go to school, play with her friends, and run around on the playground. In the mom’s blog, she said “We believe that sometimes it’s an act of love not to do ‘everything’ to extend life and focus instead on giving your child the most beautiful life possible for as long as you are allowed.”

I found this quote and story very inspiring. Julianna is only 5 years old and knows the life she wants to live. She is very mature for her age and her parents respected her decision to not continue going to the hospital. I understand why her parents allowed her to make her own decision about her life, but it put them in a difficult position. They obviously did not want to see their daughter continue going through pain, but they also did not want to see their daughter die.

This case has created a lot of debate about if kids should be making such important decisions like these. Truthfully, I believe think there is neither a right nor wrong answer. Either decision that you make, there will be consequences and benefits. Personally, I think that I would make the same decision Julianna’s parents made. I would do anything to make my daughter happy and I would rather have her live a short happy life instead of a long, hard life. What do you think you would do in this type of situation?

The widespread use of marijuana is prevalent and increasing. Half of Americans proclaim that they have tried the substance at least once while twelve percent have used it in the prior month (6 facts about marijuana). Recent research reveals that nearly six percent of all college students in the United States smokes at least once a day, meaning that the substance is “abused” by one in every seventeen students (marijuanause).

These statistics are still recorded despite strict regulations on the drug, as the United States Controlled Substances Act lists cannabis as a Schedule I drug, citing its “high potential for abuse and lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision” (FDA). This law deems any form of the substance illegal. Yet, alcohol and tobacco, two substances that can be attributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths in the United States and abroad annually, are completely legal. Approximately eighty-eight thousand Americans die each year from alcohol poisoning while more than four hundred thousand die from tobacco use (CDC). Conversely, cannabis itself is nontoxic and cannot directly cause an overdose or death. Other than slightly affecting the hippocampus, the part of the brain responsible for memory, marijuana has no long-term affects on the body. The correct use of marijuana can additionally offer medical benefits in those affected by a variety of disorders.

A certain use of medicinal marijuana alleviated the intense and dangerous symptoms of Dravet Syndrome in a toddler by the name of Charlotte Figi. Dravet Syndrome is a rare form of epilepsy that causes frequent and sudden seizures that cannot be controlled by medication. This treatment “decreased [Charlotte’s] seizures from three hundred a week to just one every several days” (21 Medical Benefits of Marijuana). Moreover, a highly regarded Harvard psychiatrist penned an open letter to the NFL’s commissioner “imploring him to actively support research into using cannabis to treat long-term head trauma” (The NFL Should Combat Concussions with Cannabis). He advocates employing the substance to lessen bruising in the brain and help protect it. In addition to these health benefits, cannabis and its derivatives can reduce the symptoms of chemotherapy and even slow the progression of Alzheimer’s disease.

Several states have experimented with the legalization of recreational marijuana, namely Colorado, Washington, Alaska, and the Washington, D.C. In January 2014 alone, the sale of cannabis generated two million dollars in tax revenue in Colorado (CNN). The federal legalization would not only provide substantial amounts of tax revenue, but it would also establish an entire industry. This would contribute to the prosperity of the economy. Whether or not the national consensus supports the legalization of marijuana, it is undeniable that its use would be beneficial both medically and financially.

Stephen Wiltshire, a man diagnosed with Autism at the age of three, has often been referred to as “the Human Camera.” After being flown in a helicopter high above the streets of Manhattan, Stephen was able to draw the immensely detailed skyline across an eighteen-foot canvas purely from memory. These sketches are so detailed that he even includes the correct number of windows on each skyscraper. He has performed this astonishing trick eight times, drawing major cities from London to Hong Kong. (Wiltshire draws NYC for UBS). Similarly, paintings by Iris Halmshaw, a mute Autistic toddler, have been compared to those of Monet. (Iris Grace Halmshaw). These pieces sell for up to thousands of dollars. Although both of these individuals have serious mental disorders, they have remarkable abilities that are incongruous to their mental state. These two, along with many others, have been identified as savants. This condition is known as Savant syndrome. Those with this rare condition have been classified as geniuses in disciplines ranging from music to art to mathematics.

Although as many as one in ten autistic individuals have Savant syndrome, only half of recorded savants are autistic. According to Dr. Darold Treffert, the syndrome is caused when there is either damage to or dysfunction in the left hemisphere of the brain and still-available brain tissue rewires in the right hemisphere and improves right hemisphere functions (Where do Savant Skills Come From?). This explains the improved artistic abilities that savants are known to have, as the right brain is typically associated with creativity, art, and music. The fact that the elderly who experience dementia in left brain typically become more attracted to art reinforces this explanation.

However, these scientific theories have not yet explained the many types and abilities of savants. Some have particularly keen memory skills and have been recorded to memorize entire encyclopedias or phone books, while others have the ability calculate complex math problems in their heads. Although most are born with these extraordinary abilities, some acquire them after head injuries. Jason Padgett, a “self-described jock and partyer,” was attacked outside a bar and was left with a severe concussion coupled with PTSD. However, the incident, although traffic, gave him the ability to “see the world through the lens of geometry” and rendered him a mathematical genius (Brain Injury Turns Man into Math Genius). He claims to be able to visualize many mathematical and physical concepts, from pi to Hawking Radiation. He is an example of a mathematical savant. Yet, many savants have combinations of all these skills.

Three finals, four term papers and two group presentations. The average college student’s final few weeks of a semester tend to be associated with an overwhelming amount of stress. After talking with a few of my relatives over the holiday break, many told me, “Don’t stress. You’ll get sick and then you won’t do well on your assignments anyway.” This got me thinking. Is there any truth to the idea that stress suppresses one’s immune system?

It is tough to answer this question without first recognizing what stress is. Stress* has three components; there is a stimulus (stressor), a reaction in the brain from this stimulus, and a subsequent fight or flight response in the body.

Contrary to what many may think, stress is not all bad. There are two types of stress: acute stress (lasting a few hours) and chronic stress (lasting months). The question is, do these different types of stress affect your immune health the same way?

It all started with an observational study conducted by Janice K. Kiecolt-Glaser in 1984. She measured 75 first-year medical students from Ohio State University to see how the amount of “Natural Killer Cells” was affected by the stress of finals week. A natural killer cell is a lymphocyte, which is a type of white blood cell that makes up a human’s immune system. Kiecolt-Glaser found that this natural killer cell count decreased significantly during final examinations compared to a month before (where stress would be much lower). Since a low level of the natural killer cells indicated a weaker immune system, Kiecolt-Glasser saw a negative association between stress from final exams and students’ immune system function. So, as stress levels increased, the students’ immune systems functioned worse and worse.

There is not much to critique with this study. The researcher used an adequate sample size. The sample of 75 is greater than 30, which makes it large enough. Unfortunately, we do not have conclusive evidence that the stress of tests caused the decreased immune function since this was only an observational study. This also means that third confounding variables could have influenced the observed relationship. For example, finals weeks are usually bad weather times (freezing cold or high pollen), which could be the reason for the weaker immune systems. Another flaw I found in this study was the fact that it was a volunteer sample from one school. This creates bias and may make it hard to generalize results to the entire public. Nonetheless, this study has been the reason as to why many believe all stress is bad for one’s health.

As I said before, it turns out that some stress is not harmful. Actually, short-term stress is showing signs of being very helpful to human’s immune health. Firdaus Dhabhar conducted a study that showed how mice that experienced acute stress had an enhanced immune response. The hypothesis was that mice under acute stress would have an enhanced immune response to an adverse stimulus placed on their skin. There were two experimental groups: a stressed group and a “not stressed” group. The ‘not stressed’ group was the control group. To induce stress, he locked the mice in a mesh cage for two and a half hours.

The results were interesting. By the second day after introducing the stimulus to the mice’s skin, the stressed mice had a 60 percent increase to the area of skin, and the not stressed mice had a 30 percent increase. The more the affected area increased, the more immune system cells were arriving at the site. These results were consistent with the original hypotheses that stressed mice would show a “significant enhancement of the skin’s immune response.” Dhabhar also found the biological mechanism behind these results. It was something called gamma interferon, which regulates immune response and is vital to the enhanced effects on the immune system observed during times of acute stress.

So what do these findings mean in the real world? Basically, when we as humans are under short-term stress, our immune systems start to work harder to help us handle the stress. This, in turn, makes us less likely to get sick.

It could be easy to speculate with these results Dhabhar attained. Though it is not completely clear what the sample size for each specific group was, no group had a sample size greater than 9 mice. Also, I cannot find any similar research being replicated by other scientists. This would make me cautious accepting the results as they stand. I would like to see more studies and a meta-analysis of those studies to fully accept Dhabhar’s findings. Also, mice were used instead of humans. There is nothing that stands out that would have me question his use of mice, but another argument could be whether or not this theory extends to humans. I propose a similar experiment to be done but with humans instead. Instead of testing the effects of gamma interferon with immune response, I would be interested to see how an acute stressor affects a human’s immune response. It is probably not ethical to lower a human’s gamma interferon count so I would not initially test for it. I would instead focus on acute stress as a whole and its effect on the human immune system.

So what does this all mean? It means you may not want to listen to your relatives when they tell you all stress is bad. If you stress chronically, you may be at increased risks of becoming ill as Kiecolt-Glasser showed. However, if you stress a few hours before a big exam, or daunting lecture, you may just be increasing your odds of fighting off an attack to your immune system. The human body has a fight-or-flight response to stressful events for a reason. It is to help us. Not hurt us. It is not in your best interest to try to eliminate stress completely. Just keep it acute and not lasting months on end and you should not have to chalk your cold up to stress.

*If Stress article cannot be opened – https://umm.edu/health/medical/reports/articles/stress

Photo URLs:

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Who would have thought that sitting at a desk all day at school or at work can actually harm you? Apparently, sitting is the new smoking. In other words, sitting in a chair all day is harmful to one’s well-being and there are studies that show that sitting for long periods at a time at work can take years off your life expectancy. How is this even possible?

Six hours. That is how long one should be sitting throughout the day. Anything more than that makes a person 40% more likely to die within 15 years than someone who sits for less than 3 hours. Sitting causes weight gain and other and issues with the human body. Obese people sit for 2.5 more hours a day than do thin people. This can’t be a coincidence. Obese people tend to be less active. . Along with watching one’s caloric intake, the common recommendation of the many various diets and weight loss programs is to become active. Even simply increasing one’s activity by 15 minutes to start makes a significant impact to one’s health. Lastly, while you are seated, leg muscles are shut off, calorie burning drops to 1 per minute, and enzymes that help break down fat drop 90%.

It is difficult for students who need to study and do homework and adults who work at a desk to not sit around all day. Am I supposed to stand in the middle of the library doing my homework? Surprisingly, the answer to that question is yes. Standing and getting work done is the new phenomenon and can increase productivity. Also, standing can be better for your health. According to Men’s Fitness, “not only does working standing up not overtax the brain, it has the added benefit of burning 80-100 calories an hour, improving blood flow, alleviating back pain, strengthening muscles, and actually boosting productivity.” It seems hard to believe that standing can actually increase productivity. But, there are many reports where companies use standing desk and have seen increase productivity.

Some of the large companies that now offer standing desks are Google, Facebook, and FF Venture Capital. “Google offers standing desks to employees as part of their employee-wellness program” states ReadWrite. In other words, employees looking to improve their health or who have a health issue can request a standing desk. More than 250 employees working at Facebook use standing desks. In a study that they performed, they found that people who used standing desks had high energy levels in the office and were able to focus on a task more easily. Facebook recruiter Greg Hold said “ I don’t get the 3 o’clock slump anymore, I feel active all day long.”

If you think a standing desk is weird, what would you think of a treadmill desk? Yes, a treadmill desk. It is exactly what the name suggests. Instead of a chair to sit on at your desk, you walk the treadmill. This may sound crazy, but studies show that the treadmill desk is actually beneficial to an individual. Canada based researchers
analyzed the strongest 23 active desk studies. What they found was that both types of desks reduced sedentariness and improved mood, but the treadmill desk clearly offered greater health benefits but seemed to slow done someone’s work pace at first. They also found that workers mood changed from being fatigue, tension and depression to more vigor, energy, focus, and happiness.

In addition, further proof that too much sitting is not conducive to a healthy and productive lifestyle is the introduction of the FitBit and other similar devices. Individuals wear these devices like a watch, but they can track their steps taken for the day as well as receive alerts that they have been sitting to long and need to get up. I find this would be helpful to remind me to get up and take a walk throughout the day.

While I agree with the proven health risks associated with a sedentary lifestyle, the idea of studying or working with a standing desk is a personal choice. Personally, I need to be comfortable when I am studying or doing work. If I am standing up I believe I will be distracted with my work as my legs will start to hurt and I will get uncomfortable. I understand that it can increase one’s productivity. But, that is all based on who the individual is and how they work best.

If you’re like me, my suggestion would be to make sure you do not sit too long consecutively and make a point to take a quick walk. Not only will this give you a break from studying, but your health will also be benefitting.

A commonality in human diets are nuts, specifically tree nuts. It is widely thought that tree nuts such as walnuts, almonds, and cashews are good for your body and decrease health risks. That is why tree nuts are a commonality in human diets. Just how healthy are tree nut and what type of health benefits does it have for humans? Let’s find out.

Multiple studies have been published in this topic. The first study that I am going to discuss was published in Oxford University Press Nutrition Journal. This study was an analysis of 36 studies, observational and experimental, on the health benefits of nuts. The analysis of these studies found that people who ate the most nuts had a 15% lower chance of getting cancer than people who ate the least amount of nuts. But, the study did not find a noteworthy difference in the risk for type 2 diabetes.

This study is strong because it is analysis of 36 different studies, which include many people and extensive research. The combination of experimental and observational studies also make this study a credible one. One downside to this study is that 3^rd variables can come into play. The scientists who contributed to the study mentioned that while some studies that they included in their analysis tested for 3^rd variables such as diet and BMI (Body Mass Index), not all studies did. This can taint the validity of the study because 3^rd variables still come into play. Also, the scientists mentioned that it is a possibility that the people who ate the most nuts were just healthier overall. Therefore, the study can be credited as proof that eating nuts decreases health risks, but direct causation is not possible without further studies.

Another study that I am going to discuss was published in The New England Journal of Medicine on November 2013. This study included close to 120,000 participants. The participants answered a variety of questions about their diet at the beginning of the study, and then every 2-4 years during a 30 year follow-up period. The results of the study found that people who ate nuts everyday lived longer and had healthier lives than people who did not eat nuts every day. More specifically, people who ate nuts every day were less likely to die of cancer, heart disease, and respiratory disease than people who did not eat nuts every day. Also, those who ate nuts were 20% less likely to have passed away during the follow-up period than those who did not eat nuts every day.

This study is one that can be proof that eating nuts is healthy for a human and reduces health risk. The main reason being the length of the study and the number of people that participated in it. The study had close to 120,000 participants. Therefore, the study covered a wide variety of people and ruled out some 3^rd variables such as gender. Also, the 30 year follow-up period and all of the studies done during that period also make the study credible because of the extensive amount of data collected during that period.

In conclusion, the hypothesis that eating nuts can lower health risks is true. In the first study, a meta-analysis found that people who eat nuts had a 15% lower chance of getting cancer than people who ate the least amount of nuts than people that did not eat nuts. In the second study I talked about, a study found that people who ate nuts everyday were less likely to die of cancer, heart disease, and respiratory disease than people who did not eat nuts every day. Although some 3^rd variables are possible, these studies are still valid. Therefore, if you want to live longer, eat some nuts!

Sources:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1307352#t=abstract

http://nutritionreviews.oxfordjournals.org/content/73/7/409

http://www.aicr.org/cancer-research-update/2015/06_24/cru_Analysis-Suggests-Nuts-Lowers-Cancer-Risk.html

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-nuts-linked-to-healthier-longer-life-201311206893

http://www.livescience.com/52895-walnuts-linked-health-improvements.html

http://www.allergysf.com/allergy-education/big-8-top-food-allergens/

http://www.medicaldaily.com/national-nut-day-2014-peanuts-tree-nuts-and-how-each-helps-your-health-307642

For some people, resisting the new shoes or nice sweater on sale just is not possible. I know personally every time I start browsing the internet I end up on Forever21’s website with a cart full of clothing. A shopaholic is defined as “someone who shops compulsively and who may feel like they have no control over their behavior.” I have heard this time numerous times in my life time, although it is generally referred to in a joke matter. Is it possible to be an actual shopaholic?

Shopaholics are real and they come in all different types of forms, according to psychguiedes.com. The different types are as followed:

• Compulsive shoppers– they venture out to the stores when they’re feeling some sort emotional distress
• Trophy seekers– they are after a very specific product and don’t stop until they find the perfect thing
• The “Big Spender”– looking for expensive/flashy items
• Bargain shoppers– buying things you don’t need just because there’s a sale
• The shopper who buys things just to return them
• Collectors

1. Causes:

In an observational study done at Indiana University, they looked at how the brain functioned while certain people shopped. As shoppers bought more and more, their brain’s released endorphins and dopamine. While this could be by chance, it is believed that the feeling caused by the release of endorphins and dopamine is addictive. In other words, it is the way your brain feels while shopping that causes the addiction. According to Professor Ruth Engs, 10-15% of people have this feelings. According to Donald Black from the University of Iowa , “nearly two-thirds of all shopaholics struggle with depression or anxiety.” This made me question the difference between an anxiety disorder and a shopaholic and whether or not the two were the same thing. While bother show similar behavior, shopaholics display unique behaviors as follow:

Sign/Symptoms:

• Spending more money than they have
• Angry or sad shopping
• Spending habits are putting relationships at risk
• Can’t control spending habits
• Lying about how much they spent
• Hiding evidence of shopping (bills or receipts)

Most people report the short term shopping addiction effects to be positive since the initial rush of a shopping spree is what triggers an addiction. The long term affects are what tends to be the problem when it comes to shopping problems. The severity of shopping problems can vary obviously. While some people just max out credit cards or spend their money, others end up taking second mortgages out on their house. No matter what the case is, it will definitely have an effect on not only your life, but the life others and relationships you hold with them. According to experts, such behavior can even lead to divorce. While this disease by not sound that serious, the Chicago Tribune found that many people with shopping problems actually suffer from withdrawal symptoms comparable to drug addicts. This includes feelings of irritability, anger, and depression. In a study done by MSN Money, they were looking for a drug that could treat those with shopping problems. While these researches have not found anything to treat the problem directly, ABC News did a report on a drug called memantine, which was developed by Annals of Clinical Psychiatry. This drug was originally designed to treat Alzheimer’s, but was thought to be able to help with the compulsive behavior shopaholics generally have.

The correlation between those with anxiety and shopping problems is strong. While forms of anxiety may not be proven as  the cause of a shopping addiction, there are studies showing they correlate. In an experimental study done with a controlled group, a huge improvement was seen those who were given an anti-anxiety medication versus those who were not when it came to spending habits.  All the effects of the drugs are still being analyzed, but a few side effects showed the following:

• Nausea
• Insomnia 
• Increased anxiety
• Excess sweating
• Fatigue
• Headaches

What’s the conclusion?

Being a shopaholic is a real disease. While it correlates strongly to those with anxiety disorders, there are distinct differences between the two. It is unknown whether or not anti-anxiety medication is the best treatment for this problem or not, but it a problem that is definitely underestimated.

Just because you enjoy a shopping spree every once in a while doesn’t necessarily mean you are a shopaholic, but if you find yourself experiencing out of control behavior, it may be a problem. If you take a look through your closet at there are multiple items that still have the tag on them, it may be time to get some help. The best advice for most shopaholics is to try new things, like running, movie watching, or crafting. Look for what triggers your shopping escapades and do NOT do that. Whether it is stress at work or an argument with a loved one, resist the urge. Do not go to the mall unless it is necessary and avoid going on the computer to online shop. Instead focus on your newly founded hobby and enjoy life with more money and less stress!

Did your door peak open with no one on the other side pushing it? Or did you hear foot steps from upstairs, but you’re the only one home? No matter what it be, we have all had some rather creepy and unexplained things happen to us. Is it a ghost that causes these weird phenomanas?  Or is there more rational reasoning?

While the hunt for proof of ghosts is a large one, at the moment most ghost research is based off of assumptions. For example, researchers will assume something like ghosts can show themselves in the form of dark shadows, and then try to prove that point. While that is one way to go about trying to prove something, it is not exactly the most scientific. Assuming theories about ghosts has not lead to any earth shattering breakthroughs. As we learned in class, the proper way to test a hypthosisies is by going through the scientific method. It is necessary to collect data and evidence, conduct tests, and use your results to draw a conclusion.

Below is a table from assap.ac.uk , which gives examples of different assumption based experiments that have been conducted throughout the years:

While these assumptions may or may not hold truth, it is not scientifically proven. Many methods people consider “evidence” like Ouija boards, orbs, and those who claim to be able to communicate dead, can be conducted at any point, which makes the conclusion open to a number of third variables that have not be considered. The problem is that these studies can be conducted in a haunted area, or a not haunted are, but the results can end up being exactly the same regardless of the scene. With that being said, many places have a history that would lead the average person to believe ghosts reside there, the readings in an EMF meter can be different in any given building, and a vigil could given off the same results no matter where you are. The research just simply is not scientific.

What’s the right approach?

The scientific method is an investigation based on evidence. To begin, there is no room to assume anything about ghosts within the study. You must consider all prior experiences a strange event, that could be connected to anything, not just ghosts.  Start off looking for witnesses, one who witnessed an unusual event unexpectedly. If you can find two or more people have the same stories, it is pretty reasonable to begin a study. After a site to conduct your study is established, it is time to explain the witnesses’s stories. Possible explanations for every scenario, not just ghost related ones, should be throughly tested. While you may want to believe the stories are connected to ghosts, is it possible they were all just a series of unconnected events. If a study is conducted based on evidence, you result is more likely to be accurate. Unlike assumption based studies, evidence based studies explain observations from witnesses that were not expecting any signs of a haunting. Going off that, it is more likely that the observers have more accurate and real answers, as they were not looking for anything to begin with.

Findings and ghost theories

Many people based their opinions on ghosts on their personal experience, rather than what’s important: scientific findings. Some people think ghosts are spirits that have died and have trouble “crossing” to the other side, and some think they are simply a configuration of the mind. They different types of ghosts range from the following:

• Poltergeists
• Residual 
• Shadow people
• Intelligent spirits

While these are thought to be the different “types”, it can vary and more can be added to the list at any time. Many people believe in ghosts because what they see on TV or hear from other people. It is not hard evidence that leads them to believe in ghosts. Another thing that tripped a lot of ghosts believers up is Albert Einstein’s law that energy cannot be destroyed or created, which is why many people in ghosts. While this does sound reasonable, physics does not support this theory. After death, our energy is turned into heated. The animals who eat our bodies (bacteria, bugs, plants, etc) receive this energy. Our bodies do not transform into orbs that float around and show up later in people’s family photos  (or at least there is no proof of that).

With all this being said, there is no scientific evidence that ghosts exist. There are one of two options, and those are that ghosts simply do not exists, or that ghost hunters aren’t quite up to par yet. Ghost hunting is not the way to prove ghosts exists. Certainly it creates memories and funny stories to share with your family around the camp fire, but when it comes down to it, ghosts can only be explained by scientific experiments that are tested through the scientific method.

The latest Hollywood fad has been tying an extremely tight corset around your waist while working to shed some inches of body fat. This is known as waist training, and has made appearances on the social media websites of many known celebrities such as Kim Kardashian and her sister Khloe Kardashian. While the Hollywood celebs swear by this, I decided to look into some expert opinions and see how well this method really work for shedding some lbs off your mid section.

According to medical expert Mary Jane Minkin, who was a clinical professor at Yale School of Medicine, “Medically, it doesn’t make sense that that clinching your waist tightly will make it permanently smaller. Once you take the garment off, your body will return to its usual shape. It’s also uncomfortable, restricts your movements, and if you wear it really tight, it can even make it difficult to breathe and theoretically could cause rib damage.” This is a general consensus among experts. While it is thought that wearing the waister trainer makes you sweat more, the general rule is that 3,500 calories=1lb. With that being said, the amount you sweat from it will not cause your to lose so much weight you really see a difference.

So if waist training isn’t the answer, what is?

Want to lose weight and see results? The best way to do that is, you guessed it, eating healthy and working out.  While we all want a quick fad diet/form of exercise to help us lose weight quickly and keep it off, it just isn’t possible with changing your lifestyle. A well balanced diet with the right amount of complex carbs like bread, rice, and whole grain pasta, dairy/milk, lots of fruits and veggies, and protein are what is necessary to live a healthy life and see the results you want to see. Balance is essential in a healthy diet. It is important to eat the right amount of nutritious food in order to maintain a healthy body weight. The ideal plate is shown on the right, produced by Harvard’s Health Publications. In America, it is no secret that obesity is a problem. According to a national tally on http://www.niddk.nih.gov, “More than two-thirds (68.8 percent) of adults are considered to be overweight or obese. More than one-third (35.7 percent) of adults are considered to be obese.” To me, this is alarming. It is not only in the United States either. According to  www.nhs.uk, majority of adults are overweight/obese in England as well. It is bad enough that adults aren’t focused on living a healthy life, but children aren’t either. According to the same site, 33% of children from 6-19 are overweight and 17% of children are obese. That means 1 out of 3 children are overweight and 1 out of 6 children are obese.

Now you may be asking, what’s the big deal?

Being overweight can cause many healthy problems including the following:

• Diabetes
• heart disease
• high blood pressure
• liver disease 
• osteoarthritis
• cancer
• stroke

In a study done at the University of Pittsburgh, 94 people that were 70+ years old were observed. Researchers wanted to see how the brains of people weight normal weights varied from those who were over weight. A healthy weight is determined from a BMI (Body Mass Index) Calculation. For example, if you are 5’6″ and 135 pounds, that is considered a healthy weight. If you are 5’10” and 190 lbs, you are considered overweight/unhealthy. This method is generally pretty accurate, with the exception of those with a large amount of muscle mass. The results of this study are startling. Those who were obese were said to have 8% less brain tissue than the healthy weight participants. Those who were overweight had 4% less brain tissue. “This represents ‘severe’ brain degeneration, that’s a big loss of tissue and it depletes your cognitive reserves, putting you at a much greater risk of Alzheimer’s and other diseases that attack the brain… But you can greatly reduce your risk for Alzheimer’s, if you can eat healthy and keep your weight under control,” says Dr. Paul Thompson, UCLA professor of neurology. These weren’t the only findings either. Many other areas of the brain such as the frontal and temporal lopes, anterior cingulate gyrus, hippocampus, and basal ganglia were effected. This means that those who were overweight had poorer memory, attention and focus, long-term memory, and coordination than those who weren’t. Not only that, but those who were of a healthy weight actually looked about 8 years younger than those who were overweight and 16 years younger than those who were obese. While there could be third variables such as smoking and sun exposure of their lifetime, there is certainly a correlation between brain function and appearance based those who are of a normal weight and those who are overweight/obese.

Changing your diet change be a tough thing to do. According to exploringthemind.com, only about 5% of people actually succeed in changing their habits. In a study called the cookie study, it proved just how hard it is to avoid foods completely. People were brought into a room a given puzzles to solve. In another group, they were asked to do the same thing with a plate of cookies in front of them that they could not eat. The results showed that the group with cookies in front of them did much worse than the other group, because people can only consciously focus on one thing at a time. While this could be due to third variables such as how hunger the participants were, it is likely that the cookies were a distraction and very hard for some people to resist. With that being said, trying to completely avoid unhealthy foods is just not possible, making it hard to change your eating habits.

IT IS POSSIBLE 

While it may be difficult, it is very possible to live a healthier life. By joining the gym and eliminating as many unhealthy options from your life as possible, such as the bag of chips in your pantry or chocolate cake sitting on your kitchen counter, you can avoid the temptation and live a healthier lifestyle! The more you do to live a healthier, more positive life, the better results you will see.

I’m sure most of you have heard of the stereotype “dumb blondes.” I know I have heard it a thousand times considering I have blonde hair. I do not know how that stereotype even started. How does the color of one’s hair determine if they are smart or not? I know when people say it they mean it as a joke, but it now it has prompted me start to think if blondes are actually less smart?

In one study, researchers showed pictures of women wearing a blonde, red, and brown wig. The picture of the woman in the blonde wig was rated as less intelligent compared to the other pictures. Another study done in 2006 studied the hair color of 500 United Kingdom CEOs. The conclusion of this study was very similar to the one before. The study showed that he blonde CEOs were underrepresented in the workplace compared to the rest of the population. Lastly, these same researchers surveyed photos from a number of different magazines across a couple of years. They found that there was a higher percentage of woman with blonde hair featured in the magazine than any other color. After reading these studies, it made me think more about this stereotype. It seems to me that people don’t take blonde haired woman seriously. People see them more as models or designers instead of CEOs or managers.

There are many successful blonde haired women in the workplace. The first one that came to my mind was Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a former United States Secretary of State, U.S. Senator, and First Lady of the United States. She represented New York in the U.S. Senate from 2001 to 2009. J,K. Rowling, a famous British novelist, best known as the author of the very famous Harry Potter fantasy series. Martha Stewart, an American business woman, writer, and television personality. Marissa Mayer, current president and CEO of Yahoo! Before she was president of Yahoo! she was an executive and spokesperson for Google. One physical trait that all of these woman have in common is that they are successful blonde business woman. They overcame the stereotype and showed everyone that blond-haired w
omen, can be very successful in this world.

Another question I have always wondered about this topic is which hair color do guys prefer? Many people would assume the answer to that question is blondes. However, that assumption would be incorrect. Surveys and studies have shown that guys prefer brunettes over blonde
s. Why is that? One study says this is the case because men consider brunettes healthier and therefore better life mates. Another study of 6,000 people reveal that brunettes earn a higher salary and are considered more intelligent. Men prefer brunettes over blondes by a rate of 46% to 19 %. That is a large percentage. All of these conclusions are based on the stereotype that blondes are dumb. The only way that these results will change is if people stop using stereotypes to judge a person. How can you tell if someone is smart or not by their hair color? Obviously, we know the answer is that there is no correlation between the two. One needs to learn so much more about the person before making any judgement.

As a blonde haired college student, I obviously am going to think that these stereotypes are wrong. I would say I am doing pretty well in school so far and did well in high school too. But the lesson here is so much more. People are always making judgements on others based on first impressions and one’s appearance. It is important to get to know the person. The world now is very tense with the various events happening everywhere. We have to be careful not to simply judge someone by their looks or a stereotype. Get to know someone, talk to them. More times than not, I am sure you will find that the person you have met is so much more than the stereotype or first impression you had.

And I bet you thought this blog would not have as much meaning as the title led you to believe initially. See, don’t judge a book by it’s cover or a blog by it’s title.

GMO’s stand for genetically modified organisms, which according to http://enhs.umn.edu, defined as a broad group of plants, animals, and bacteria that are engineered for a wide variety of applications ranging from agricultural production to scientific research. GMO’s are seen everywhere now a days, and pose many significant health risks and hazards to the beings consuming them. The main problem around GMO’s are that they are often found in human food. According to the FDA website, the only food approved that contain GMO’s are plants. While every food that has been genetically modified is technically approved by the government, they are not considered safe or regulated by the FDA. The effects of consuming GMO’s range from bad nutrition, toxicity, allergens, and antibiotic resistance.

• Allergens to food from GMO’s

5% of kids and 2% adults in America suffer from food allergies. Food allergies are extremely dangerous if a person consumers the food they are allergic to and this problem is a considered a health threat. According to webmd.com definition of an allergic reaction is “An overreaction of the body’s natural defense system that helps fight infections (immune system). The immune system normally protects the body from viruses and bacteria by producing antibodies to fight them. In an allergic reaction, the immune system starts fighting substances that are usually harmless (such as dust mites, pollen, or a medicine) as though these substances were trying to attack the body. ” In genetically modified foods, the main protein that causes allergic reactions could cause an immune response in humans. It is not known if any allergic reactions have resulted from GMO’s, but it certainly a concern, causing certain companies to stop producing these genetically modified organisms. Anything could be caused by a third variable, such as an unknown allergen by the consumer or a bad reaction to something in the environment around the consumer. While this is true, there is a correlation between food allergens and GMO’s.

• Toxicity Rising 

While most plants are considered to toxic to humans, it is rare that enough of these toxins are consumed to show any signs of a reaction. When GMO’s are put into food, humans end up consuming higher levels of the toxins from those plants. Many things could result from this. A metabolic pathway is defined as “a series of chemical reactions occurring within a cell. In a pathway, the initial chemical (metabolite) is modified by a sequence of chemical reactions. These reactions are catalyzed by enzymes, where the product of one enzyme acts as the substrate for the next.” This process could be disrupted by GMO’s, which would cause plant’s to make more toxins due to stress, which is extremely dangerous for human beings consuming this food.

• Lack of Nutrition and Antibiotic Resistance 
  

Because certain GMO’s aren’t digestible for people, it is very possible that they could take away the nutritional value of many of the foods consumed by humans. Not only that, but it adds to the increasing epidemic with antibiotic resistance in the world. Throughout the last few years, antibiotics are no longer about to kill a lot of bacteria. This may not sound like a big deal, but it could mean that something as simple as strep throat could not be cured. The process of antibiotic resistance occurs by natural mutation. To test this theory, scientists have used these genes and injected them into plants. If the plant does not die from this injection, the plant is considered to be antibiotic resistant. This is scary, considering humans and the animals humans eat will possibility consume this plant, increasing their level of antibiotic resistance. We don’t exactly know what the risk of this is yet. Unfortunately, scientists have yet to watch bacteria with   antibiotic resistance in labs yet. The FDA has made several statements issuing this as a huge problem and “encourages biotechnologists to phase out the practice of using antibiotic resistance genes.”

• Ignored by the government 

As I stated before, the government has not paid much attention to this problems and the safety regulations that are necessary when it comes to GMO’s. The FDA doesn’t require that labels include whether or not there are GMO’s in foods and most companies prefer not to market them. In my opinion, if a company wants to hide the fact that they are using genetically modified foods in their produces, that is enough to say it most likely is not the healthiest thing for humans. The government claims that they “do not have information showing genetically modified foods were substantially different,” according to http://responsibletechnology.org/. Although they claim this, the FDA was made aware by scientists that the health effects of GMO’s were complicated and very hard to predict. Secret memos actually filed a lawsuit to stress how strongly the scientists felt about the fact that GMO’s should not be used. As GMO’s are a fairly new concept, they long term effects of them are unknown, but are hopefully going to be studied over time. In class, we talked about how smoking caused lung cancer, but was not proven for a long time due to the numerous third variables. It is very possible that genetically modified food while cause the same sort of epidemic around the world. Unfortunately, only time can tell the real effects of GMO’s. Sadly, the man in charge of the FDA at the White house, Michael Taylor, instructed for the FDA to continue with creating genetically modified foods.

As the use of genetically modified foods increases throughout the world, it will cause more and more problems. The lack of attention this problem receives by the government is rather alarming. Antibiotic resistance, allergens, and toxicity levels in the body are only a few dangerous effects from GMO’s. Only 5% of shoppers are non-GMO focused consumers. With the proper attention, the world could be a safer and healthier place for consumers.

I don’t know about everyone else, but as it starts to get colder, I find myself becoming increasingly lazy and tired. The thought of going out on a Friday night is no longer as appealing as laying in my bed and binge watching a season of Grey’s Anatomy. Now obviously most people do not prefer to spend their time walking a few miles to their destination in the freezing cold, but I’m wondering, does the change in seasons actually effect your mood? 

Let’s take a look.

According to World of Psychology, weather does effect people’s mood. This is not due to positive mood effects, but rather due to an effect in a person’s negative mood. That With that being said, wind can actually make a depressed person feel even worse, while warm weather can improve someone feeling down in the dumps. Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a depressive disorder where a persons depression is connected to a specific season.

Sun

The exact reason why someone suffers from SAD is unknown, but there is a correlation between the amount of light a person receives and their mood. Light can trigger reactions in our brains, which will automatically make us happier and more aware of our surroundings. With that being said, it’s not always the cold that makes a person depression, but rather the lack of sunlight that is seen in the winter time. Believe it or not, fertility problems, cancers, bad health, and depression have all been linked to lack of sun. People have been reported to experience sadness, fatigue, and hopelessness all from not getting enough sunlight.

Heat/excessive rain 

According to a study, correlation between human aggression and heat was found in 2013. In an observational study done, researchers found that 14% more problems and 4% more of interpersonal violence occurred between the group of people being tested when the temperature rose. Rain also caused similar behavior. Aggression grew in people in areas where it rained more. While this does show a correlation, as I stated it before, it does not mean that rain causes the higher aggression levels, but it sure is an interesting theory. While testing students in three different temperature rooms, it was found that students did a lot better in a room that was average temperature instead of hot. Based off of Marie Connolly’s interviews with women on days hot and rainy days, it was reported that “with more rain and higher temperatures statistically and substantively decreasing life satisfaction, consistent with the affect results.” But when it was the temperature decreased and it wasn’t raining, the same people said there life was better.

Suicides in spring/summer

A lot of people like the spring time for many reasons. With sunny skies and increasing temperatures, some people have a more hopeful, positive mood. For others, the exact opposite happens. Researchers found that a lot of outdoor employers committed suicide in the spring rather than the winter time, while indoor workers commit the highest number of suicides in the summer. “Studies from both the Norther and Southern hemisphere report a seasonal pattern for suicides. Thus, it seems that seasonality is observed with an increase in suicides for spring and early summer and an analogous decrease during autumn and winter months, that is a constant, if not a universal behavior that affects both the Norther and Southern hemisphere.” This was finding of a meta-analysis studying the link between seasons and suicide in 2012. In another study in Sweden, from 1992-2003 the same pattern was discovered. A peak for suicides was found in the spring and summer months.

Connections to personality and weather

A study was done with a group 415 adults. Of those 415, half were said to not have been impacted by the change in weather. The rest of the participants concluded this according to psychcentral.com:

• “Love Summer (17%) – “Happier, less fearful, and less angry on days with more sunshine and higher temperatures. More hours of precipitation was associated with less happiness and more anxiety and anger.”
• Hate summer (27%) – “Less happy and more fearful and angry when the temperature and the percentage of sunshine were higher. With more hours of precipitation they tended to be happier and less fearful and angry.”
• Hate rain (9%) – “Angrier and less happy on days with more precipitation. By comparison, they were more happy and fearful, but less angry, on days with more sunshine and higher temperatures.”
• Unaffected by weather (48 percent) – Largely unimpacted by changes in the weather.”

To critique this study, it seems to me that those who have a more positive attitude in general (ie. “love summer” are automatically happier, while those who “hate” seasons seemed to be naturally angrier people. This study was conducted on teenagers as well, which means the results could vary on other age groups. While there is a correlation between weather and mood, the results of the study could change based on the person’s own personal preferences. Just because one person hates the rain, does not mean everyone has to.

Don’t let the weather effect your mood!

In a study done on just men, the response to a change in weather is a change in plans. If the plain was to go on a boat ride but it started raining, they decide to watch a movie or hang in the house for the day. When looking at women, they did not change their plans. Instead they dealt with the weather, therefore, their mood worsened. It seems like weather can have the ability to effects peoples’ mood, but varies throughout personality types and genders. So next time you are planing on going on a day trip to the beach and wake up to thunderstorms, maybe try changing your plans to something else like a trip to the museum. You may end up having an unexpected great day!

Its that time of year again….the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show.  The moment girls wait for all year.  The skinny, “perfect” models strut down the runway.  It is nothing but glamorous.  But for the women watching, how does this make them feel about themselves?  Some love it and it makes them feel like models themselves.  But some, on the other hand, go down a different route…

As of now, there is no scientifically proven cause of eating disorders.  They’re seen as superficial to many people and are not taken as seriously as the diseases actually are. But that does not mean the media does not have a huge part in it, because it definitely does.  Percentages of women who have an eating disorder have increased immensely over the past few years.  “More than 5 million American suffer from eating disorders.  Five percent of females have anorexia, bulimia or binge eating.” (ADA).  These numbers have only gone up since then!  Anorexia and bulimia are two of the most common and known eating disorders.

What does this have to do with the media?  Well, the media is obsessed with what the best look is and will do anything to make money off an insecurity.  It is almost impossible to go anywhere without seeing an airbrushed model on a magazine or the newest diet that could “make you drop forty pounds in ten days!!”  There are unrealistic.  If these diets were truthful, then one would have dominated the industry already.  (ADA)

“Mass media provides a significantly influential context for people to learn about body ideals and the value placed on being attractive. (NEDA).  Also known as, the media puts the idea in people’s heads that being attractive goes hand in hand with being thin.  Over 80% of Americans watch television at least three hours a day, daily.  Teenagers, however are always on their phones and come across some form of media approximately 7 hours a day.  Teenagers are constantly exposed to these hot models and magazine covers telling them how to get “hot”.

Some scientists believe that the media has nothing to do with the development of eating disorders, but how can that be true?  With the desire to be thin in every direction and now at almost every age, it is almost like if you aren’t thin, you are an outcast.  From shows like “The Biggest Loser”, anyone who watches them can be influenced.  Even children can watch these shows and question their body.

So does the media actually cause eating disorders?  Yes, it can.  Teenagers can be influenced by these celebrities and nice bodies and feel so insecure about themselves that they starve themselves to “look like that”.  Although it is extremely wrong, it is happening in society today.  Companies like Aerie  are starting new campaigns where they do not edit their model’s pictures.  Maybe this could finally put a stop to this horrible influence on teens.

Works Cited:

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21802573

2. http://www.anad.org/get-information/about-eating-disorders/eating-disorders-statistics/

3. https://www.adolescenthealth.org/SAHM_Main/media/Topics-in-Adolescent-Health/ADA_Position_Paper_Nutrition_Intervention.pdf

4. https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/factors-may-contribute-eating-disorders

5. http://www.ulifeline.org/articles/400-eating-disorders-why-do-they-happen

6. http://www.cnbc.com

7. http://womenonthefence.com

8. http://totuscontrol.pl

9. http://feed-eating-disorders

10. http://www.thelingerieaddict.com

I have always been completely and totally fascinated by the universe. There is something that is not only extremely intriguing, but also terrifying about all that lies in space. It is baffling to me that there can be a region in space where the pulling force of gravity is so strong that light is not able to escape. This is defined as a black hole. There are so many questions about black holes that I decided to take a closer look into.

What exactly is a black hole?  

With all that being said, black holes are not a cool portal to another secret universe. They are extremely fierce gravitational pulls with that has the power to engulf anything that comes within it’s reach. So given the opportunity, I would not suggest jumping into a black hole unless you want to become apart of it.

During Thanksgiving, I stayed with my friends in New York City. We ate a lot and ate at late night, slept late every night and did not go to gym at all. We were all saying that we gained weight a lot during these nine days. So for one night, I asked them whether they go to gym in college quite often. They told me that if they have a friend who will go with them, it increases the chance for them to go to gym. If there isn’t any friend who is going with them, then they don’t have the incentive to go to the gym because going alone is boring. And people always get lazy sometimes. For me, I go to gym by myself usually and I have time that I feel lazy as well. After listening to what they said, I wonder what really motivates people to go to the gym. Can people be more active if provided fancy gym? Is it because people feel lonely and they want somebody to go with them? Is gym a perfect place to kill time with? Or are they not motivated enough to build better muscle or lose weight? Do they really want to go to gym for themselves or is it because everyone goes to gym and they feel like they should as well? With all of these questions, I find a project which is related to motivation methods to promote physical activity.

The Newcastle exercise project conducted a randomized controlled trial that 523 adults aged from 40-64 who were distributed to four intervention groups: a brief (1 interview) or intensive (6 interviews) with or without financial incentives (vouchers), and a control group. It designed four phrases which were baseline assessment, post-intervention, 12 weeks after baseline, and repeat one year after baseline. Within this study, the null hypothesis is that “changes in self-reported physical activity at follow up would be the same in the intervention and control groups” (BMJ). As the results come out, four interventions combined group improved significantly compared to the control group. But within intervention groups, there is no significant effect between vouchers or bigger than (>1) interview. More participants who had increased physical activity scores were given both multiple interviews and vouchers. The data showed that it was 39% higher than in the control group. So does this result suggest that people will have more incentives to go to the gym if they are awarded? Vigorous activity had much bigger improvements than the four intervention groups combined. On the one year base, “Increases in physical activity reported at 12 weeks by participants in the intervention groups were not maintained at one year, regardless of the intensity of intervention, only the increase in vigorous activity in the intervention groups was close to statistical significance. The data were consistent with small positive or negative effects of intervention groups compared with controls” (BMJ). Since the data were consistent, it indicates that there is a relationship between intervention and physical activities. But I still wonder what specifically motivates people to do physical activity?

The second research conducted several studies. The first study is about a simple sign increasing the number of people walking up instead of using an escalator, though the number declined after sign was removed, which indicates of using very low cost intervention shows that very low cost intervention can increase physical activity in a specific behavior setting. The second study is more complicated that creating better environmental improvements “The changes appeared to improve the fitness of personnel on the intervention base, but limitations in the design and measurement strategy limit confidence in the conclusions” (Sciencedirect). The third case study took place in Finland which is a program that encourages people to walk to work. Given showers and changing rooms with government support, changes occur slowly during intervention but only 7% reported that their increase their physical activity. The fourth study happened in Belfast, United Kingdom, that within 7 years, Belfast becomes one of the best-served cities for sports and activity centers. Most participation comes from young adults, some from aged people. And this study shows that environmental interventions do affect people’s participation for physical activity. (Picture is about a model proposed for implementing environmental interventions).

From the second studies above, I come up with several questions. These studies were done within certain countries, so I wonder if different countries will have different effect to the result. The third case study happened in Finland, and the fourth one happened in United Kingdom. What if the places changed? Will the result remains the same or be different? More effective intervention or it totally not works? In the fourth study that took place in United Kingdom, what is the percentage of men and women’s participation for physical activity? Does sex play a role in determining increasing physical activity? Could it exist third variables that influence the result? The first study use very low cost and creates improvements, while the later three studies provide more complicated and modern gyms or infrastructures show effects as well. But after all, implementing environmental interventions still has challenges. Model design still needs evidence to prove the effectiveness.

It is common for competitive athletes to train at high altitudes because of the decreased amount of oxygen in the air. They believe that it will provide an advantage when returning to sea level. This is why the US Olympic Team has their main training center in Colorado Springs, CO, which has one of the highest altitudes of any major US city. Several different machines have been developed to try to mimic the training in Colorado Springs, but they are unaffordable for most athletes. A newer company, Training Mask, has developed their own product for athletes that is much more affordable (they usually sell for around $100).

In the last few years, these altitude-training masks have become more and more popular. On their website, Training Mask says that, along with making your workout more efficient, it will “increase your stamina and ability to go harder at your sport.” At first glance, it makes sense, but I’ve done some digging and found out that maybe it’s not worth the money.

An observational study from Texas Tech University analyzed the Training Mask in seven NCAA runners. These subjects took performance tests before and after four-weeks of training using this mask. They essentially failed to reject the null hypothesis that the masks help with stamina and endurance. The subjects had greater respiratory muscle strength, but this only means that they could breathe “harder.” It did not change the maximum amount of oxygen absorbed during running, which is what is actually important when exercising and what increases muscular endurance. The major limitation of this study is the fact that there wasn’t any sort of control group. Researchers at Arizona State fixed the second problem, studying nine cyclists and having a control group. Their results were very similar. A limitation shared by the two studies is small sample size, but I think we can ignore this because the results were so significant and similar. Another possible reason for no increase in endurance during their respective sports is the time frame. Both studies only gave the subjects 3-4 weeks with the masks. What would have happened if they had 10-15 weeks? It would be interesting to see if the results would differ.

I had a hard time finding many credible trials regarding Training Masks. This could be largely due to the file drawer problem. Training Mask’s website shows a few studies supporting their product, but it’s hard to know their credibility due to bias.

Many people misunderstand these altitude-training masks. Yes, they are good for strengthening your respiratory muscles (i.e. how hard you can breathe). This, however, shouldn’t lead to an increase in performance. According to runnersconnect.net, “the main problem isn’t usually getting air into your lungs anyways—it’s getting oxygen from the air into your blood, and then putting that oxygen towards a useful purpose in your leg muscles.” Athletes train at altitude because the air has less oxygen, but these masks do not actually limit the amount of oxygen in the air you inhale. Instead, they just make it harder to breathe. This forces you to “suck” in the air, potentially running the risk of poor breathing habits due to the mask.

Overall, there is no major evidence that supports the use of the training mask for sports; however, there is no evidence showing that it is “bad” to use. Of course, some will train harder because they feel like Bane when wearing it, but for most, it doesn’t seem like it’s worth the money.

Everyone knows the classic pink, yellow and blue sugar packets. Whenever I have coffee in the morning, and then another 3 more times throughout the day, my mom always yelled at me for putting in artificial sweeteners. She claims they cause cancer. Although it seems to me at this point everything causes cancers and it’s completely inevitable to prevent, it led me to wonder: do artificial sweeteners cause cancer? I decided to look into further research in order to try and find an official answer.

Artificial sweeteners, otherwise known as sugar substitutes are used to replace traditional sugar in order to sweeten foods and beverages. Any foods that are labeled as “sugar free” or “diet” tend to have artificial sweeteners in them. Mostly artificial sweeteners are sweeter than traditional sugar by about 200 times and therefore less is needed for the consumer. Many people are using these products with the conception that it is healthier than traditional sugar. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates these artificial sweeteners since it is not to be known as an assumed “safe” food (Mercola 2011).
So what is even in artificial sweeteners thats so bad? Most artificial sweeteners use a chemical called Aspartame. Aspartame was discovered in 1965 it is made out mostly out of aspartic acid (about 40%.) Aspartame doesn’t break down once digested. According to Lendon Smith, M.D. some side affects from Aspartame include decrease in eye vision, ringing or buzzing sounds in ears, headaches, memory loss, sleepiness and even depression” (Janet Starr Hull 2002).
Several studies have been conducted to reveal a link between artificial sweeteners and cancer. Research has been conducted in a lab where animals are fed aspartame, often in high doses of about 4,000 mg/day. So far there have not been any direct links between these animals getting cancer and getting fed aspartame. Although this seems promising, those who are getting tested aren’t humans, therefore it’s difficult to test whether or not the same reaction to aspartame will be for humans. Italian researchers published two studies that stated very high doses of aspartame could increase the risk of some blood related cancers such as leukemias and lymphomas in rats (FDA 2007). Once again these studies do not promise whether or not humans would react the same way as rats. Even the FDA has called these studies into question wondering whether or not there is enough data to back up this hypothesis (American Cancer Society 2015).

Although tests are always easier to perform on animals, there have been several studies conducted on people. One study suggested that the increase of brain tumors in the US during the 1980’s was related to aspartame. However, the American Cancer Society proceeded to fight against the study stating that “the increase in brain tumor rates actually began back in the early 1970’s, well before aspartame was in use.” Another study from researchers from the National Cancer Institute looked at cancer rates in more than 500,000 adults. This study found that those who drank aspartame contained beverages compared to those who didn’t did not have an increase risk of lymphomas, leukemias, or any brain cancers (NCI 2015). This research according to the National Cancer Institute completely contradicts the previous research. Since 500,000 people is a large portion of people for a study, most likely aspartame doesn’t cause brain tumors. On the other hand, there was a recent study which over 125,000 people participated in. This study found a link between consumption of aspartame sweetened soda and the risk of leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma both only in men (American Cancer Society 2015). As a result, most researchers have concluded that this link is due to chance. Both the FDA and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have found aspartame to be safe enough to be consumed, although research regarding a potential link between aspartame and cancer is still occurring. Since aspartame is a major ingredient within artificial sweeteners it remains unknown whether or not they are bad for you. Ultimately traditional sugar is probably the safer option regardless since facts about that are more known.

Works Cited:

Artificial Sweeteners and Cancer (2015 ). In National Cancer Institute . Retrieved from http://
www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/artificial-sweeteners-fact-sheet

Aspartame: By Far the Most Dangerous Substance Added to Most Foods Today (2011). In
Mercola . Retrieved from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/06/
aspartame-most-dangerous-substance-added-to-food.aspx

Aspartame Side Effects (2002). In Janet Starr Hull . Retrieved from http://
www.sweetpoison.com/aspartame-side-effects.html

FDA Statement on European Aspartame Study (2007). In Food and Drug Administration.
Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/
FoodAdditivesIngredients/ucm208580.htm

Things happen nearly everyday. We wake up. We breathe. We eat. We walk. We learn. We make friends. We talk. And everyday, science continues to advance our understanding of these daily human occurrences further and further. We know why we wake up. We know why we breathe. We know why we eat, why we walk, why we learn, and why we make friends. But almost everyday, one thing happens that few of us understand, that few of us even bother to actually question… Our headphones tangle in our pockets. But why? What’s the scientific reasoning for why our headphones tangle despite no serious movement or handling? Why does this happen nearly every…single…time they’re stored in our pockets?

Bill Murray is reported to have summed up this issue best for readers. “What’s the best way to tie the strongest knot ever?” he asked, then answered, “Put headphones in your pocket and wait a minute.”

According to James Vincent, scientists have been curious to find out the reasoning as well. Promptly, as scientists do, they moved to experiment- the individuals placed all different pieces of wire, like headphones, into a cardboard box and shook them…3,415 times. The result? Tangled wire. But more than that, the scientists discovered that there are two important factors involved in the formation of these difficult-to-untangle knots: “critical string length” and “agitation time”. The chart from the study can be seen below.

It was also discovered that the probability of your headphones getting tangled (if they’re approximately 139 centimeters in length) is very close to…1 in 2. 50%. This experiment, and many others similar, are monumentally more complex (and were certainly difficult for me, as a nonscientist, to easily wrap my head around). More details can be found within the hyperlinks. But some may still be wondering why exactly headphones tangle?

Put simply for further explanation, logic speaks plenty regarding the all-to-common tangling of wires. “There is one way for a cable to be straight, but a massive number of ways it can get tangled”. The two involved scientists, Dorion Raymer and Douglas Smith, also mentioned that the shape of the headphones, with the split into two separate wires, adds to the likelihood of entanglement greatly. In addition, it’s been discovered that even the slightest bit of movement and slightest variation in temperature can lead to these wires shifting and reshuffling in your pocket, or backpack.

However, the most important question to the reader is perhaps, “Can I stop my ear buds from getting tangled?” To which, sadly, the answer is that there’s no proven, easy, definite fix. If you’re up for a “gamble” or more complex solutions though, these scientists have a few methods to offer (of course).

A loop can be formed with the wire. Scientific experiments have tested the loop method in nearly 12,000 trials. The result? Less tangling and less knots…by nearly 10x.

The other simpler, less tested strategies are to keep the individual earphone and wires separated, make the chord thicker, or simply…prevent movement at all (good luck with that obvious, but difficult strategy).

Despite the amount of research and studies done, it seems that this issue may just be one for humans to remain tangled in handling. The only 100% effective method of keeping these headphones unknotted seems to leave us with two choices:

1.) We can use our headphones, and they’ll tangle. Or 2.) We can’t use our headphones, and they won’t tangle.

Sad song

In a previous post, I discussed how scientists have started using stem cells to reduce the symptoms and hopefully cure Multiple Sclerosis. I have previously read about the use of stem cell in disease treatment, however after my research for the post I found a lot more I felt could be shared in an additional post.

Stem cells are one of the new “in” innovations in the field of science and disease study, however they have been studied for over a hundred years. They were first termed in 1868, in a research piece published by biologist Ernst Haeckel. He described these cells as single-celled organisms that acted as the ancestor cell to all living things in history. In 1981, Martin Evans from the University of Cambridge and Gail Martin from University of California San Francisco conducted separate studies [that] derive[d] pluripotent stem cells from the embryos of mice. This was the first time these cells had ever been isolated. And more recently, President George W. Bush sign[ed] an order that called for federal funds to b given to research of human embryonic stem cell lines. Since then, stem cells have been at the forefront of scientific study on cancer, transplant medicine, and the many ways to heal numerous human ailments.

Now, the newest research on stem cells has scientists generating contracting muscles from these miracle cells. A group of researchers led by Dr. Paolo Macchiarini, professor of regenerative medicine at Korlinska Institute, have succeed[ed] in recreating sections of the diaphragm. (The diaphragm is a sheet of muscle used in the process of inhalation. It sits at the base of the chest cavity and separates the abdominal cavity from the thoracic cavity. It is essential for breathing.)

Dr. Macchiarini has been at the forefront of the study and manipulation of stem cells. In 2008 he took a woman’s stem cells and created a new windpipe to replace her diseased one. However, creating the diaphragm is a significant step as it is a much more complex muscle. Although this feat was accomplished using rat stem cells, the doctor and his team of researchers believe they are capable of recreating a human diaphragm from human stem cells. Over 2,500 babies are born each year with dysfunctional diaphragms, so this is an urgent and necessary study.

The great things achieved through manipulating stem cells aren’t without controversy though. One of these issues is over the ethicality of using embryonic stem cells. Many people believe that abortion (the means of which most of the embryonic stem cells are gathered) is an unethical and immoral act. These people believe that an embryo is a human life, thus abortion is the illegal ending of a human life.

Another issue that has arisen is the financial aspect of stem cell research and use. According to analysts at Frost & Sullivan, a Texas consulting firm that does market research and analysis, the global market is value at $16.4 billion and is expected to grow to $67.5 billion in the next 5 years. With so much money on the line, the important thing is to remember the scientific importance as well as the importance of helping as many people as possible. If the scientific community is able to focus on the medical needs and put financial gains in the back burner, the positive impact of studying and implementing stem cell techniques is unparalleled.

Personally, I think the use of stem cells is an amazing and useful scientific study. Any advancement in science that has such a beneficial impact on people should be utilizing to the greatest extent possible. Because if not, aren’t we just keeping people from being in the best medical condition possible?

Sources:

http://time.com/4131443/stem-cells-trachea-muscle/

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/how-regenerative-medicine-and-the-use-of-stem-cells-is-becoming-big-business-2015-12

http://stemcell.childrenshospital.org/about-stem-cells/history/

http://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/diaphragm

http://www.eurostemcell.org/factsheet/embyronic-stem-cell-research-ethical-dilemma

Wake up, eat, class, weights, eat, class, practice, eat, study, and sleep. That is a typical day for a student athlete at Penn State. I am an athlete myself, so I know the pains of the incredibly busy schedule. For athletes, what you eat is very important, but finding the time to eat enough is the hardest part. It is vital to consume the right amounts of every food group, and it is hard to do that on a busy schedule. Looking at most factors including portions, calories, and food groups, I think that Chipotle is perfect for student-athletes.

There are five main food groups for a balanced diet: carbs, protein, milk/dairy, fruits/veggies, and good fats/sugars. A chipotle burrito or burrito bowl makes it possible to get most, if not all of these in one meal. Rice covers the carbs; beans and meat provide a lot of good quality protein; cheese is a good source of dairy; corn, peppers, and lettuce cover the veggies; avocado is an excellent source of good fats. All of these ingredients are needed for the body, especially when it needs to recover from a tough workout. Unlike most Americanized Mexican fast food restaurants, Chipotle uses local, fresh ingredients. Many people make the argument that chipotle is bad because of the high amount of calories (a burrito typically has around 900-1000+ calories), but with the amount of training that athletes do, they need a lot of calories in their diet, and chipotle provides them with good quality calories.

An observational study published in The Training and Conditioning Journal looked at the eating habits of 345 male and female athletes from different division one schools. The researchers took gender and eating disorders into account when processing the data. Looking at body composition, eating frequency, and calories consumed, they found that 70% of female athletes and 73% of male athletes were consuming too few calories to meet their energy needs. This study showed that many student-athletes had an inadequate amount of calories to support their athletic energy, let alone the energy they need to process information in class. There are several limitations to this study. Athletes are constantly trying to vary their body weights. Since it is an observational study, it is very susceptible to third variables. For example, a football player might be trying to put on 10 pounds in the offseason while a soccer player might be trying to lose 5. That could mess with the data. Another aspect we need to look at is the subjects lying or exaggerating. For example, self-image has become a major factor in today’s world, especially for women. I think that we can ignore this because the study was both voluntary and anonymous. The workload for athletes can also differ from school to school and sport to sport. Can the findings from this study be applied to most college athletes? I think yes. The sample size is quite large and is varied throughout many athletic programs, and the data is quite significant.

It is clear that many student-athletes are not consuming enough calories. This is probably due to their busy schedules and often having to eat quickly and on the run. Some universities, including Cal Berkley, even have an express line for their athletes at the local Chipotle. Looking at the high quality ingredients and the amount of calories that Chipotle provides, it seems like a perfect, one-stop-shop meal for a college athlete.

Have you ever felt your melting brain dribble out of your ears after watching a few hours of TV? Didn’t think so. If you said yes, definitely get off your computer and go see a doctor. For the rest of you without liquified brains. I’m sure you’ve heard about some of the negative aspects of watching TV. I know, the Big Bang Theory is super funny but you should really go outside. Humans are not meant to spend most of their time sedentary, that means you! It has long been known that the advent of television has contributed to obesity related diseases. But does it make you dumb? There is some evidence out there that suggests just that! Before you call your mom and tell her that your bad mid term grade was Modern Family’s fault, lets check it out.

A study done by researchers at the University of Cambridge looking into this question was published in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. They started with 845 adolescents between the ages and 14-15 and monitored their screen time, physical activity and study time leading up to when they took the GCSE, a pseudo-equivalent to a high school diploma in the United Kingdom. They adjusted for BMI z-score, deprivation, sex, season and school before analyzing the results. After they got the exam scores back and analyzed the results they uncovered some fairly predictable trends. Those who spent an extra hour everyday watching TV or playing video game scored an average 9.3 less points. For a test that is only out of 58 points, that is the difference between and A and B. The kids who spent an extra hour every day studying scored a whopping 23.1 more points on average and the kids who spent an extra hour exercising scored an average 6.9 more points more.

Based on these results, it is clear that studying makes you do better in school (duh). We’re interested in the difference in scores between screen time and physical activity. These results do suggest that screen time is a significant factor in worse test scores. However, I don’t feel that this study did a great job controlling for confounding variables. Kids between 14 and 15 in the UK have never taken the GSCE before and based on the researchers’ methods they are getting these variances by comparing test scores across the 845 subjects. It is possible that IQ is the main determinant of GSCE score and that more or less physical activity/screen time is a non factor. It is also a possibility that if one of the subjects is inherently smarter he/she will be more inclined to spend less time playing video games and prefer to spend their time reading or playing outside. This was an observational study because the independent variables, physical activity and so, were not manipulated by the researchers in any way. Therefore, their results can only suggest a correlation at best but have means of establishing a causal relationship.

This doesn’t mean that I’m suggesting that watching copious amounts of TV is okay! In fact I urge you to do the exact opposite. Children in this country spend an average of 1,620 minutes a week watching television. That’s an incredible 27 hours or 16% percent of the hours in a week. If we assume that a child gets around 9 hours of sleep per night, that means they spend 25.7% of their waking hours watching TV. Even if the Cambridge study is only correlational, there is a definite possibility that screen time inhibits learning. For the rational person, unless you value hours spent watching TV more than higher grades in school, it is safe to say that spending more time not watching TV is worth it. Maybe it’ll keep your brain from melting too.

Have you ever wondered if you would be a different person if you had a different name? Would you be more successful? Would people like you more? It sounds a little strange, that your name can dictate your success and future, so I investigated more to see if it’s true.

Having a “white-sounding” name more beneficial?

Researchers have found that having a “white-sounding” name is worth as much as eight years of work experience, and you are 50% more likely to get a call back when sending out a resume.

Many experiments have been done to justify this theory. A study was done in 2003 that was called “Are Emily And Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal?” In this study researches sent 5,000 CV’s to job advertisements in Boston and Chicago newspapers. All the CV’s were the same, but half were given names like Emily Walsh or Greg Baker, and the other half were given names like Lakisha Washington or Jamal Jones. The results were astounding, as the call back rates were 50% higher on the “white names” then the “black names.” In 2004, “20/20” ran an experiment with a group of young black professionals who doubted the “black-sounding” names on their resumes made a difference. In this experiment they sent out 22 identical resumes, with the only difference being the names. You would think that since the resumes are identical they would have the same results, but results showed that the white-sounding names were downloaded 17% more often by recruiters than the resumes that had the black-sounding names on them. Employers in both studies were using people’s first names to unfairly discriminate perhaps on an unconscious level. These experiments show however having a certain name can cause a barrier when looking for a job. An observational study done by Dave Figlio (http://www.nber.org/papers/w11195) showed more discrimination between having a “black” name. He analyzed the scores of 55,000 children in a school district in Florida, and created sliding scales once for example went from Drew to Dwayne to Damarcus to Da’Quan. He found the further he went on his scale the worst the test scores were. He believes that “the fault lies with the expectations of school teachers and administrators.”

Although it is greatly unfair, people stereotype based on what name you have. If someone has more or a “black-sounding” name, you may have a disadvantage simple because people assume you come from a poor background. In a article by CNN, “people can make educated guesses about you gender, possibly your race or religion, maybe the era in which you were born and in some cases those educated guesses can lead to judgments being made about you, sight-unseen.”

The Position of your surname on the alphabet

Its crazy to think even where your last name lies on the alphabet can dictate how successful you are. A study by the Economics of Education studied ninety thousand Czech students’ last names and their admission chances at competitive schools. The results showed that students with lasts names that were low in the alphabet had higher test scores overall, those students with last names close to the top of the alphabet were still more likely to be admitted. The theory is that people with surnames at the top of the alphabet have gotten used to being first whether it was for school register or a job interview. Wiseman tested this theory also when he invited telegraph readers to rate how successful they thought they were in aspects of their lives. Over fifteen thousand people responded to this study providing information like their surname, and the results were that if your surname was lower in the alphabet it was less likely that you were successful. This correlation in the study was stronger in older age groups, which Wiseman suspected it was because older generations were likely to have been ordered alphabetically in the classroom. That means people with surnames higher on the alphabet were closer to the front of the classroom, which means more attention from the teacher and behaved better resulting in higher grades.

Is it true?

However, although people test this theory that your name can affect your success in a bad way, there are studies that have contradicted this. In “Freakonomics” they claim there is no evidence that your name determines your success. They backed up their conclusion with a true story of two brothers from New York, whose names were Winner and Loser. People would assume having those names, Winner would be more successful than his brother, but in the end it was the opposite. Loser went on to having a better life and Winner ended up being a criminal.

After gathering up this information, I do see where there is a correlation between your name and your success. However, I do not think having a name like Elizabeth will automatically make you successful, and I do not think having the name Shaniqua means you will never be able to have a high rank job. Yes, maybe having a certain name will make certain aspects or life easier or harder, but having a certain name will not define you life.

“Parents should give their children whatever name they want, but they need to recognize that names have consequences,” says Figlio. “Is a name 
a guaranteed ladder to success? Of course not. But can a name make your life a little bit easier? For sure.”

Rock, paper, scissors, shoot! The simple, yet timeless game dates all the way back to the Han Dynasty and is known by many as a method of combining chance and luck in order to determine who gets the last slice of cake, the home side in FIFA, or any other random situation. Although you might think of it as childish, RPS (rock, paper, scissors abbreviated) is actually a mind game comprised of strategy, anticipation, intelligence, and observational skill. Some in fact take it so seriously that they created the USARPS World Championships; before it became extinct, the finals would air on ESPN yearly. It raised so much awareness that Chinese researchers assembled together to crack the science behind RPS.

If you like your odds of guessing at random (33.33%), then statistics reveal that each “weapon” choice will have the same probability in future and previous rounds of the game; this is referred to as a Nash Equilibrium. Curiousity about whether the odds of the game could be manipulated led Chinese scientist Zhijian Wang from Zhejiang University to conduct an experiment of his own. After experimenting and tinkering around with the data, he “discovered that gameplay typically consists of predictable patterns.”

The observational experiment began with 360 subjects divided into 60 groups of 6. They played 300 rounds of RPS where each and every move, win, and loss was recorded by the Chinese scientist. Ironically enough, the generated results confirmed that the subjects played rock 100 times, paper 100 times, and scissors 100 times…the Nash Equilibrium! It was also discovered that players that lost tended to rotate from rock to paper to scissors while the consistent winners would stick with one main strategy instead of switching it around. “This game exhibits collective cyclic motions which cannot be understood by the Nash Equilibrium concept but are successfully explained by the empirical data-inspired conditional response mechanism,” he said. Other data collected from flowingdata.com uncovered that “males have a tendency to throw rock on their first try, inexperienced RPS players will subconsciously deliver the item that won previously, and paper is thrown least often, so use it as a surprise.”

While we might think of it as a game, the concept of RPS lies within nature, as well. The common side-blotched lizard “exhibits a rock-paper-scissors pattern in its mating strategies.” There are three color types: orange, blue, and yellow. Scientists have observed the behavior of these reptiles and it has been confirmed that an orange will defeat a blue, a blue will defeat a yellow, and a yellow will beat an orange in a competition for a mate. That’s not all, however. Some bacteria also use a RPS strategy during antibiotic production. Doctors Benjamin Kerr and Brendan Bohannan of Stanford University discovered the pattern during a computer simulation in a laboratory. Biologist Benjamin C. Kirkup, Jr. “demonstrated that these antibiotics, “bacterioicins”, were active as Escherichia coli compete with each other in the intestines of mice, and that the rock-paper-scissors dynamics allowed for the continued competition among strains: antibiotic-producers defeat antibiotic-sensitives; antibiotic-resisters multiply and withstand and out-compete the antibiotic-producers, letting antibiotic-sensitives multiply and out-compete others; until antibiotic-producers multiply again.”

I find it extremely intriguing how a game thought of as “elementary” or “basic” is reflected in elements of nature throughout the world. Next time you find yourself in a RPS duel, keep in mind these strategies that will help you to succeed.

Sources:

How to win Rock-paper-scissors every time

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2617808/The-science-Rock-Paper-Scissors-Mathematicians-reveal-hidden-pattern-game-guarantee-win.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-paper-scissors#Instances_of_use_in_real-life_scenarios

http://psychology.about.com/od/cindex/g/condresp.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_side-blotched_lizard

Pictures:

http://cdn.bgr.com/2015/09/rock-paper-scisscors.jpg

http://i0.wp.com/flowingdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/rock-paper-scissors.gif?zoom=1.5&resize=620%2C1412

I come from a town where everyone always wants to try the latest juice cleanse. Personally, I have never seen the point in only drinking juice for 4-5 days. Even though juice cleanses are popular all across the world, I want to know if they are actually safe. Are people actually hurting their health when they go on a cleanse?

https://cbsnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/urban-remedy.jpg

Before I can begin to describe the dangers of a juice cleanse, I must first describe what it is. Actually, it is exactly what it sounds like. Lasting for a few days or several weeks, cleansers limit their diets to fresh veggies, fruit juices, and water. Everything in this fast focuses on freshly made, unpasteurized juice. While there are many juice cleanse product manufacturers, some people prefer to make their juices at home.

The reality is that some of the truths about juice cleanses are not that pretty. Here is a list of all the reasons why one should take precaution before undergoing a juice cleanse:

1. Dangerous for some people
   • The juices actually contain more sugar than regularly prepared foods. People undergoing chemotherapy, diabetics, and people with nutritional deficiencies can run the risk of skyrocketed blood-sugar levels. These can then lead to fatigue, rapid weight loss, blurry vision, and slow healing of infections and wounds. Also, excessive juice consumption can encourage potassium build up in the blood.
2. Juicing removes nutrients from whole fruits and vegetables
   • Dietician Jennifer K. Nelson says that their is no scientific evidence that makes extracted juices healthier than the juice found in a whole fruit or vegetable. In fact, while the final liquid of juicing contains most of the vitamins and minerals found in the whole fruit, it lacks the healthy fiber that is in whole fruits and vegetables. This removal of nutrients can also affect blood-sugar levels.
3. Not as filling as whole fruits and veggies
   • Studies show that eating and chewing food satisfies the stomach better than just drinking it. Also, the loss of fiber as mentioned above rises the rate of consumption in the stomach. If the fiber wasn’t lost, then the fiber would have helped slow consumption.
4. Not an effective way to lose weight and keep it off
   • The chances of you losing weight on a juice cleanse is high, but the chance of you maintaining that weight is low. Dr. James Dillard from the Columbia University College of Physicians claims that the wight lost in a juice cleanse is just water weight. Water weight is very easy to gain back.
   • New York Times writer Judith Newman recently went on a juice cleanse. She observed that juices cleanses actually lower ones metabolism. If juice cleanses are done enough, metabolism can actually be permanently lowered.
5. There is nothing in the body that needs to be detoxed
   • Our bodies already have natural detectors! These are our livers, kidneys, and intestines! There is no need in putting our bodies through a strenuous diet when our bodies are already working tirelessly to filter out unwanted things. Chemical scientist Dr. John Emsley said our bodies are “very good at eliminating all the nasties.”

Even though juice cleanses are a big fad right now, people should still be careful. Is it really worth putting the body through such a limited diet? Before taking on a juice cleanse, one should weigh the risks to see if it is really worth it.