New technologies are being invented every day, and now there is a technology that turns the vegetable oil used to fry food into a main ingredient for diesel fuel. Created by U.S. Department of Energy Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, this specific “biodiesel” is known to be a bit more eco-friendly than regular fuel as well!

Some main benefits of biodiesel:

• Better for the environment- biodiesel burns cleaner than petroleum diesel. Made out of a renewable resource, biodiesel has lower emissions and burns more completely as well, expelling less pollution because it does not contain sulfur or aromatics. By using biodiesel, there is a decrease of carbon monoxide , hydrocarbons, and particulate matter released.

There was a study done by the U.S. Department of Energy that showed that, “the production and use of biodiesel resulted in a 78.5% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions compared to petroleum diesel. Additionally, biodiesel has a positive energy balance. For every unit of energy needed to produce a gallon of biodiesel 4.5 units of energy are gained.”

Science daily also informs us that, “The domestic production of biodiesel generates another critical advantage over petroleum diesel by decreasing USA’s dependence on foreign oil and strengthening the American economy.”

• Better for our health- the less pollution released into the air, the better for the environment, but also your body, specifically your lungs
• Benefitting the economy-
Our domestic economy has benefitted greatly from biodiesel because this industry has been able to create about 51,893 jobs and is predicted to increase that to 78,000 jobs by 2012. The Gross Domestic product in the United States has also increased a whopping $4.287 billion,.
• Benefitting our Vehicles- the cetane number in a vehicle measures a fuel’s ignition delay, and the cetane number for biodiesel is greater than that of petroleum diesel fuel. This shows that biodiesel produces a “high level of combustion quality during compression ignition…In more than 50 million miles of in-field demonstrations, biodiesel showed similar fuel consumption, horsepower, torque, and haulage rates compared to conventional diesel fuel.” So, with all tis other benefits…why not just switch to biodiesel instead of petroleum?
• The fuel smells better:)

The idea circulating about this new product right now is to not to completely replace petroleum diesel. Instead, biodiesel is meant to help create a balance of energy, and serve as an alternative. Petroleum will continue to be used for certain things, but if biodiesel is able to be used and is a beneficial solution, then we should be able to have an opportunity for a healthier and eco-friendly solution. This relatively new biodiesel idea will help contribute to a more efficient community by keeping the money within our country, and also helping our environment a little bit at a time.

Thousands years ago, natural selection played a huge role in nature. Evolution was based on survival of the fittest, meaning only the animals who adapted best to their environment survived and those advantageous genes were passed down to the next generation. However, we now live in a society where there are much less natural selection pressures. The amount of hazards we face has reduced dramatically due to better food, shelter, and hygiene that is provided to us. So has evolution stopped because of our improved living conditions? Well studies have shown that some evolution has occurred over the last couple hundred years and more changes are still happening.

The first example of evolution in humans is the ability to digest lactose sugar in milk. In most parts of the world people are unable to drink milk, because they symptoms such as bloating, cramps, nausea, vomiting, etc. This is a result of a lactose intolerant person’s body shutting off the production of lactase, which is the enzyme they need to digest the lactose sugar.  However, “A 2006 study suggests this tolerance for lactose was still developing as early as 3,000 years ago in East Africa. That genetic mutation for digesting milk is now carried by more than 95 percent of Northern European descendants” (Hullinger). The reason that most Europeans carry a mutation containing the gene where lactase production is switched on when milk is consumed, is due to the change happening when milk-producing animals were domesticated thousands of years ago. During that time, milk was one of the safest drinks a person could have. So, if they were lactose intolerant it was likely they wouldn’t survive. The advantageous gene of being lactose tolerant was passed down to the next generations and now that variant is extremely common in Europeans.

Next is the change in the Caspase-12 gene. A study conducted by Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute suggested “The caspase-12 gene was gradually inactivated in the human population because the active gene can result in a poorer response to bacterial infection.” (YG) This adaption occurred because although the Caspase-12 gene responded to bacterial infections within our immune systems, individuals who had a functional version of this gene had a higher risk of death if bacteria entered the bloodstream than individuals with the inactive gene. So, the adaption is that the Caspase-12 gene is now inactive in everyone.

Another change is that we’re losing our wisdom teeth. “One estimate says 35 percent of the population is born without wisdom teeth, and some say they will disappear altogether” (YG). Centuries ago, the jaws of our ancestors were much larger than ours. Wisdom teeth were essentially an extra set of molars that made it easier for them to chew tough meat, roots, and nuts. In today’s society we do not need to tear apart food with our teeth. Since we have utensils, food is much easier to eat. For this reason, our jaws have become smaller and wisdom teeth are unnecessary.

Genetic studies have demonstrated that humans are still evolving even today. Researchers at the University of Sheffield in Finland found that within the population the percentage of children born in the late 1800’s who survived to adulthood had risen significantly by the mid 1900’s. However, Dr Bolund and others “found that between 4 and 18 per cent of the variations between individuals in lifespan, family size and ages of first and last childbirth were influenced by genes” (Connor). So this is just another example that in recent years, humans could still be responding to natural selection pressures, and therefore still be evolving.

A more recent study by the University of Chicago found genes evolving in two specific groups of people as a result of climate, diet, and habits. In the first study, “researchers found positive selection in four pigment genes important for lighter skin in Europeans that were not known before.” (Than) The color of their skin may be an adaption to less sunlight. The second study on East Asians “found strong evidence of positive selection in genes involved in the production of alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), a protein necessary for breaking down alcohol” (Than). This is different because they have been previously known to carry a mutation preventing them from producing ADH. These changes suggest evolution.

Overall, according to Dr Bolund, “As long as there is variation in the population in terms of reproduction, there will be a difference in reproductive success, which means there’s something for natural selection to work on” (Connor). We are always adapting to our environment around us, therefore, the advantageous genes are still are being passed down to the next generation and making them better off. Since it is clear that we still are and will continue evolving, maybe someday we will have resistant to terrible illnesses such as cancer, heart disease, etc. Future evolution could potentially allow us to live longer and better quality lives.

(Picture 1)

There have been a multitude of studies down on the affects of background music while studying, and how it affects introverts and extraverts differently. The affects of background music on task performance have been of interest to many scientists and psychologists concerned with whether or not productivity is increased by playing music while studying or working. Cognitive psychologists are primarily interested in how music affects attention and processing in various specific tasks, while personality theorists are more interested in how individual differences in arousal affect cognitive task performance while in the presence of musical distractions.

Many college students, in an attempt at isolating themselves in a loud library or from conversations in a study area, put in headphones and listen to music. Music has a powerful impact on our state of being, shifting everything from mood to heart rate. Studies have shown that the lyrics specifically are what cause the distractions and interferences. At the University of Toronto, Glenn Schellenberg is a professor in the psychology department who published a study indicating that fast, loud background music hinders reading comprehension and the ability to be attentive.

How does our fondness for a particular type of music affect performance? A new study from Applied Cognitive Psychology has shown that listening to music that one finds favorable while performing a serial recall task does not increase performance any more than listening to music that one dislikes and doesn’t listen to often. During a serial recall task, participants are presented with numerous items, often letters, in which they must remember in the correct order to test adult verbal short-term memory. During the study performed by the Applied Cognitive Psychology research team, participants were required to recall a list of 8 consonants in order within 5 different sound environments. Participants were tested in quiet settings, liked music, disliked music, changing-state, and steady state environments. The most accurate recall occurred within the quiet settings, and the poorest recall occurred while listening to music whether it was liked or disliked. In conclusion, they concurred that regardless of liking or disliking music, it impaired their ability to recall accurately proving that studying in quiet atmospheres creates the ability for people to better obtain information.

One exception of this is listening to classical music while studying. A number of academic studies recently stated that listening to classical music benefits the brain, sleep patterns, the immune system and stress levels- all of which are helpful when concurring important exams. A study done at a University in France found that students who listened to classical music in the background of a one-hour lecture scored significantly higher on quizzes and tests compared to a similar group of students who heard the lecture with no background music. The researchers believed that classical music put students into a heightened emotional state, causing them to become more receptive to information.

For students and employees wanting to maximize their work potential, listening to music is definitely not the best idea for executing excellent work and performances. Although music can have an extremely positive effect on our overall mental health, in creates a negative effect on our cognitive performances.

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adrian_Furnham2/publication/230286985_Music_while_you_work_the_differential_distraction_of_background_music_on_the_cognitive_test_performance_of_introverts_and_extraverts/links/0c9605302086208d79000000.pdf

https://news.usc.edu/71969/studying-for-finals-let-classical-music-help/

When we go to the supermarket, there is a decision we have to make between purchasing regular or organic fruits, vegetables, meats, and other produce. Although some people are unclear about what the difference between the two options are, the sales for organic produce has been increasing in recent years as people learn more about it. According to the executive director of Organic Trade Association, Katherine DiMatteo, “We’ve had a strong 20%-a-year growth rate since 1990” (WebMD). So why are people becoming more enticed to buy organic? Well, before there was a difference between regular and organic, the consumer couldn’t be sure about the quality of the product. Now the U.S. Department of Agriculture set national regulations for the way in which organic food is grown, handled, and processed. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture “To meet the set standards, organic crops must be produced without conventional pesticides (including herbicides), synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, bioengineering, or ionizing radiation. Organically raised animals must be given organic feed and kept free of growth hormones and antibiotics.” (WebMD) Due to the strict regulations it is believed by many people that organic foods taste better, are more nutritional, are safer to consume, and are better for the environment.

Advocates of organic food tend to believe that organic food tastes better. Although this claim may just be a matter of opinion, organic food is typically sold locally and is usually fresher than produce at stores that have been transported far distances. As a result, the organic produce may have more flavor. Another claim is that organic produce has more nutritional value in the levels of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants. One study shows that organic foods may contain at least higher levels of antioxidants. Research conducted by Newcastle University found that  “concentrations of antioxidants such as polyphenolics that were 18- to 69-percent higher in organic food. Eating organic fruit, vegetables and cereals provide consumers 20- to 40-percent more antioxidants, which would be equivalent to eating between one to two extra servings of fruit and vegetables a day”(Zuraw). In fact, multiple studies have been done on specific organic foods such as milk and tomatoes, which have both been proven to have more antioxidants, vitamins, and other beneficial nutrients. This makes these two products healthier when bought in the organic form. “This may be due to the fact that foreign chemicals are not negatively interacting with the different vitamins, minerals, and organic compounds that are so essential for the positive impact of fruits and vegetables” (Oranic Facts). So purchasing organic produce can be more nutritional in some cases.

Another benefit of organic produce is that people believe it is healthier to consume because of the way it is grown, handled, and processed. In the case of fruits and vegetables, conventional farmers use harsh pesticides in order to protect the crops from the environment. Organic farmers instead make sure the environment is safe by using insect traps or careful crop selection, so they don’t have to use many chemicals on their produce. According to the USDA,  “A large-scale study done by the Consumers Union. Researchers looked at data from more than 94,000 food samples and 20 different crops. They found that organically grown crops consistently had about one-third as many pesticide residues as the conventionally grown versions” (WebMD). Many people like the fact that organic has so little pesticide residue, because studies have shown that pesticides can have potentially harmful effects. A study by scientists at Harvard University found ”Pesticides have been linked to a wide range of human health hazards, ranging from short-term impacts such as headaches and nausea to chronic impacts like cancer, reproductive harm, and endocrine disruption” (TAC). This is because pesticides are composed of unnatural chemicals that don’t interact well with the human body, so when a person consumes or is exposed to them often it is not surprising that it could cause health issues.

When it comes to organic produce such as meats and dairy, “regulations ban or severely restrict the use of food additives, processing aids (substances used during processing, but not added directly to food) and fortifying agents commonly used in nonorganic foods, including preservatives, artificial sweeteners, colorings and flavorings, and monosodium glutamate”           (Mayo Clinic). With non-organic produce, the consumer doesn’t always know what is put into their food. According to a study “Organic meats like chicken and pork are less likely to harbor “superbugs”—that is, bacteria that are immune to several types of antibiotics, making it more difficult treat infections in both animals and people” (Radcliffe). This is why people might be more drawn to organic, since it seems to be a cleaner and more natural version of produce.

Lastly, organic produce also benefits the health of the environment. Since conventional farmers use harsh chemicals such as fertilizer or pesticide on their crops, it accumulates in the soil, air, and water systems. “Pesticide use can damage agricultural land by harming beneficial insect species, soil microorganisms, and worms which naturally limit pest populations and maintain soil health; Weakening plant root systems and immune systems; reducing concentrations of essential plant nutrients in the soil such nitrogen and phosphorouss” (TAC). These issues can have long term negative impacts on the environment and society. Since organic famers do not use the harsh chemicals on their produce, they are not contributing to the pollution that some non-organic farmers do.

Although one of the biggest concerns with buying organic produce is the high costs, it seems that there are a lot of benefits to buying it. It is a matter of opinion whether organic is worth paying more for, but the fact that organic food has been shown to be better tasting, more nutritious, safer to consumer, and better for the environment seems like it is worth the cost. So, next time you are in a dilemma whether or not to buy organic, remember that it is typically the safest, cleanest form of food you can get and maybe that will help you choose.

(Picture 1)

There are many car manufacturers that make electric cars. You may have been wondering about electric cars and why so many people are moving towards electricity as a fuel source for their cars. I certainly have. The concept of electric cars has been around as long as the car itself. In fact there were three ways of making your car go in the early days of automobiles. Steam, gasoline, and electricity. One of the first practical electric cars was called the Magnetic it was powered the same way that modern locomotives are. It had a gasoline engine powering a generator and an electric motor powering the wheels.

In recent years there has been a big push for “zero emissions” vehicles. The problem that people forget is that the electricity is generated somewhere. the fact of the matter is that the term “zero emissions” is not entirely true. The electricity used to charge the car likely comes from either coal-fired power plants or a nuclear power plant. As we have seen, nuclear power is generally clean but accidents happen. It is also not a very environmentally friendly process to make the batteries for electric cars. One the other hand, the infrastructure is much more efficient for electricity than for any other fuel source. I’m using it right now and if you are reading this, you are too.

In my opinion the best way to power a car would be a hydrogen fuel cell. It uses compressed hydrogen and turns it into water and in the process make electricity that powers an electric motor. In some models you can even power your home.  The only emission from this type of vehicle is pure water. The news gets even better! Hydrogen is the most abundant element in our atmosphere. You’re breathing it right now. The only problem is that you need to purify and compress the hydrogen and set up the infrastructure to sell it. On the environmental side of things, the hydrogen fuel cell car is as easy and clean to make as a gasoline car. So its economical to buy and environmentally friendly to run.

Are electric cars the future? As long as we can get a reliable and efficient compressed hydrogen infrastructure built, my answer is yes. I would hope that people understand the benefits ad downfalls of these different types of electric cars. I can also see that no matter what the future of personal transportation is bright.

  This is the Mercedes SLS AMG electron. it uses the massive torque of the electric motor and the flexible placement of the batteries to make it very fast and make it handle very well.

sources:    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicle

https://www.teslamotors.com/

https://www.teslamotors.com/

Did you know that the scientific term for the V-formation that birds fly in is called echelons? And although the majority of the time you look I the sky and see the birds migrating in a V structure, they also fly in a J like shape as well too. Actually, studies of several species have shown that a J formation is actually more common than a V formation. Why is this?

There are more than the standard reasons why this occurs, but a few reasons why are: to conserve energy-fluid dynamics, and the shapes help with communication between the birds- helping with their coordination.

For birds that are migrating a long distance without landing, conserving energy is essential. Energy is conserved between the birds because the wings of the birds in the front of the formations create upwash vortex fields. A blog on BU explains, “Conservation of energy occurs because instead of flying on the same relative plane, each bird is at a slightly lower altitude than the other. This difference allows the birds to take ‘advantage of the upwash vortex fields created by the wings of the birds in front.’” All of this construction results in lower air resistance on the birds and each bird behind the next feels a reduction of the drag of air resistance. As the bird in front becomes tired, it falls behind the others as a new bird takes on the leading position. These rotations of positions allows the entire flock of birds to comfortably and successfully fly longer distances without becoming to exhausted.

A man by the name of Henri Weimerskirch conducted an experiment in 2001 where he placed heart rate monitors on a group of pelicans. The flew as a flock in a V-formation and Weimerskirch “found that birds at the back of the V had slower heart rates than those in the front, and flapped less often.”

This formation also helps the birds to coordinate where their flock is going next. With each bird being behind the next, it reduces the chance of one bird becoming lost or crashing into another bird in his or her flock, while the bird ahead is the director. As all the birds watch the leading bird, they are able to successfully fly in one direction toward their destination.

Even humans have adopted this smart idea used by these animals. A group of researchers at Stanford have “devised a flight pattern for airliners that borrows from this same energy saving mechanism to increase fuel efficiency. The proposed arrangement is to have three airplanes, spaced about 4 miles behind each other, and would have an increase of fuel efficiency of about 12 percent.”

If you are an athlete or someone who likes to work out, I’m sure that many of you prefer to work out while listening to music. Is this because you like something to entertain yourself, because you want to listen to that new album you downloaded, or because you just like listening to music? Recent research has shown that the music you listen to while training or working out may actually have an effect on your athletic performance.

There was one study done by scientists from the UK on swimmer Ben Hooper, testing the effects on his performance in response to listening to various types of music while training. Researchers were able to compile a set of about one hundred songs of different paces, artists, genres, and moods to test on Hooper during practices. Based on Hooper’s reactions to different songs, the scientists were able to put together a list of “The top ten songs for optimal athletic performance” and also a list of the songs to avoid while training. It is not surprising to see three of Eminem’s songs in the top ten best songs, two of which are ranked as #1 and #2. 

The researchers found that when Hooper listened to Eminem‘s songs while training, his performance was boosted by 10%. The tracks were shown to significantly improve the swimmers endurance for long swims and increase his speed, leading to a better race time. Hooper also told the researchers that he felt less exhausted after his swims listening to Eminem’s music than he did while swimming to other artist’s music.

When researchers played Bob Marley’s “Three Little Birds” during Hooper’s swim training, there was no improvement in speed or performance whatsoever. He even appeared to be exhausting more effort into the same laps he swam in the other studies.

After analyzing the results of the study, the researchers debated over exactly what about Eminem’s music improved athletic performance. Some scientists believe that rhythm and a slightly faster-than-average pace is important to distract athletes and motivate them through the pain, while others believe that listening to fast paced music at a high volume is the most effective.

Although exactly what about Eminem’s tracks makes athletes preform better is unclear, the researchers agreed that slower paced and non-intense tracks causes a slightly negative effect, giving the athlete the impression that he strained himself more to achieve the same (and even slightly worse) results.

Certainly, correlation does not equal causation. Just because Hooper preformed better in his swimming practice while listening to Eminem and similar artists music, does not necessarily mean that the music is the cause. There may be confounding variables in this study. Something that should have been considered is what type of music Ben Hooper likes to listen to. If his favorite artist of all time is Eminem, that may be a reason why his performance was better while listening to his music. He also should have been asked by researchers whether or not he likes music by Bob Marley. If he hates Reggae music, that would explain why his performance was less than extraordinary while listening to those tracks.

Although I do think this study is worth looking at, I think the researchers would have benefitted from doing more extensive research. They could have also done a study about how athletes respond from listening to their favorite artist while working out. I think that is an important factor because if an athlete hates Eminem’s music, maybe their results would be completely different than what they found in this study.

When looking at Muscle & Fitness’s “25 Greatest Power Songs of all Time”
Eminem’s “Lose Yourself” is ranked #13 because “The bass line pulsates, the lyrics mesmerize and the message is Ali-esque: Don’t let anyone – even the doubting Thomas within – talk you out of grabbing exactly what you want.” It’s hard to argue with that statement.

Personally, I am not surprised that Eminem’s music relates to a better athletic performance. His songs have angry and motivating lyrics, fast paces, and loud choruses. Almost my entire playlist for when I run is composed of his music. For me, listening to loud and intense music detracts from how exhausted you are or how much pain you might be in, and motivates you to push forward. I am curious about what other

Adderall Abuse and College Students 

As students ourselves, we all know how stressful college life can be, especially when we have that little bit of extra work to do before tomorrow. So, as students, we obviously work to find the most efficient way to get our work done. For some, that means going straight to the library for a quiet solitude study session, for others it means heading right back to lock yourself in your dorm for what seems like the rest of time. Most of us see Adderall as a prescription drug that some people just need to function in today’s world; however,  a staggering number of students in college take this drug in random doses without prescription. In 2012, a K-State alcohol and drug education survey found that 12 percent of the students in the survey used this drug unprescribed. That number is up from just one percent six years earlier. This study can be found here.

Adderall is a highly addictive drug that could cause serious harm to the mental functions of the abuser, when prescribed however, it can actually be helpful to someone. After long hours of research on the topic, it is apparent that the problem of using adderall unprescribed is way bigger than I had even thought of. Out of the 31% of college students that take some form of ADHD medication, only 5.3% of them are actually prescribed. After seeing these results I wanted to find for myself just how accurate this study is, specifically for students at Penn State, so I interviewed 15 people, 10 males, and 5 females, out of those 3 of the females associated closely with each other, and 7 of the males do. I went out of my way to find random students to ask if they were prescribed vs. if they have used adderall this semester, or intend to use adderall for finals. These are my results:

Out of the 15 people I surveyed, only 2 were prescribed adderall (13%), 9 admitted to using some form of ADHD drug during the semester (60%), 11 admitted they had thought about, or had intentions to take a drug to help them study in the future (73.3%), and one person said maybe (6.7%). While these numbers did not totally match up with the larger survey mentioned above, these results were more surprising than just reading the survey. Conducting my own survey really hit home on the topic because most of those surveyed are people I know and wouldn’t have previously expected to take stimulants.

In my opinion, study drugs give the abuser an unfair advantage on the rest of us, and especially in a class graded on a curve, one could imagine how that really puts a damper on a non users grades. that brings up the idea of these drugs being included in academic dishonesty and more. What do you think? Is this a problem that needs to be dealt with more severely and more carefully, or should we just keep up how we are going and continue to let people abuse these drugs to gain that slight advantage? 

Most people prefer having a healthy, sun kissed color rather than looking pale for big occasions such as vacations, proms, and other important events. During the summer many people lay outside to get tan, whether it be next to the beach or in their backyard, but this method isn’t always available. Some people don’t live in areas where it’s sunny all year round and many people don’t have the time to waste hours laying out, so they turn to tanning beds. However, in recent years a lot of attention has been drawn to the fact that too much sun exposure and tanning bed’s UV rays can be a cause of health problems. According to the American Cancer Society, “Over 3.5 million people are diagnosed with non-melanoma skin cancer in the United States each year. This doesn’t include the 70,000 diagnosed cases of melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer” (Stoddard). Skin cancer is a serious issue that is most often a result of excessive exposure to UV Rays from either natural or artificial light. Although most people are aware of this problem, they still choose to expose themselves on a regular basis; but is one method of tanning better than the other?

The first method of getting a tan is by outdoor tanning where an individual is exposed to natural sun light. UVA and UVB are two forms of rays produced by the sun. UVB rays are produced year round, while UVA rays are typically present only during the summer. According to some researchers “UVA rays are regarded as “safer” and they cause the skin to age, while UVB rays cause the skin to burn.” (Brown) However, when exposed to them in large quantities, both UVA and UVB rays can be harmful. The more relevant problem with outdoor tanning is that the sun is stronger at certain hours of the day. If an individual goes out during the hours of 10 a.m. and 4p.m. or decides to not wear sunscreen, the effects of natural sunlight can be very dangerous, because they are at high risk for sunburn.

The other method of getting a tan is indoor tanning beds where an individual is exposed to artificial light. The bulbs in the tanning beds still emit both UVA and UVB rays, however there is much less UVB radiation compared tanning outside. However, according to Harvard Health Publications ”The UVA radiation is up to three times more intense than the UVA in natural sunlight” (Robb-Nicholson). It depends on the model and brand of the tanning bed, but in most cases the lamps expose people to stronger, very concentrated, and therefore more harmful amounts of UV radiation. In fact, a study conducted by the National Cancer Institute “Found that use of an indoor tanning device was associated with a 50% increase in the risk of basal cell carcinoma and a more than 100% increase in the risk of squamous cell carcinoma” (Robb-Nicholson). While another study by the International Journal of Cancer “reviewed 19 published studies on the association of tanning beds and skin cancers. They found use of the tanning beds before age 35 boosted the risk of melanoma by 75%” (Doheny). Proving that indoor tanning can be very dangerous.

The truth of the matter is that neither is safer than the other, because the most recent scientific evidence shows there is no healthy method of tanning since both have harmful consequences. UV rays, which are produced from both methods of tanning, cause an individual’s skin to darken, which is the body’s way of protecting itself. However, the darkening of the skin also means the DNA in a person’s skin cells is being damaged, which causes the skin to grow abnormally and can eventually lead to skin cancer. Also, exposing skin to UV rays for too long causes elastic fibers and collagen in an individual’s skin to break down as well, which leads to premature aging of the skin or wrinkles.

Overall, countless studies have shown that tanning, whether it be indoor or outdoor, often results in health issues such as skin cancer, wrinkles, and eye damage. So, neither method is better than the other, because they ultimately have the same consequences. The best thing a person can do is limit the amount of UV Rays they expose themselves to by taking preventative measures, because it will reduces the risk of getting skin damage.

(Picture 1) (Picture 2)

I’m sure everyone has heard about the coral reefs quickly getting close to extinction. To understand why this is such a horrible thing, it is important to know about why coral reefs are so important in the first place. This video by DNews explains just how important coral are. Basically, coral has been around for an insanely long time. Coral has adapted over that time to grow together, creating reefs. These reefs help keep the carbon dioxide in the water down, keep millions of marine species alive, and protect our shores against natural disasters, amongst many other things. Now in class we always say how correlation does not equal causation but in the case of coral, it does. Coral becoming extinct would cause our entire planet and way of life to drastically change. Without a coral reef home, many different types of marine life would most likely eventually become extinct which would have a drastic and disastrous ripple effect on life as we know it.

So what do we do?

Another video from DNews goes on to talk about how scientists have been experimenting with lab-grown super corals. Specifically, a scientist from The Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, Ruth Gates, has attempted to create coral that can tolerate the warm, acidic water that is predicted to be the future of the ocean. She has succeeded in making this coral on a small scale but the next challenge is to see how we can put this into a widespread solution.

Personally, I love snorkeling. The first time I snorkeled was when I was 5 years old. It was 2001 and I was learning to snorkel in Mexico. I remember seeing these beautiful colors of the reef and from then forward, always wanted to snorkel when I traveled somewhere tropical. However, my last tropical vacation was to Hawaii this past summer and I was utterly shocked to see how much the coral has changed in those 14 years since I first saw a reef. The only colors I saw was from the occasional parrot fish. I’ve been snorkeling roughly every other year since 2001 but this year was the most upsetting for me. Hawaii is supposed to have some of the most beautiful snorkleing in the ocean and all I saw were bleached, dead or nearly dead traces of a once beautiful reef.

BUT IT IS NOT TOO LATE! There are things that we can do here at home. Some major things are to save water; avoid pollution from cars by riding bikes or walking; plant a tree; use sunscreen like Badger Balm that is not harmful to coral reefs; be cautious not to touch any coral when snorkeling or swimming in the ocean. Also, Discovery Channel has the “Racing Extinction Challenge.” Start the challenge today and help save our oceans before its too late and we’re all (for lack of a better word) screwed.

http://coralreefs.wr.usgs.gov/risk.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0025326X87906497

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/habitats/coralreefs/ways-to-help-coral-reefs/index.htm

http://www.badgerbalm.com/s-35-coral-reef-safe-sunscreen.aspx

You’re sitting in Science, overly tired from your all-nighter spent studying for your exam and become abnormally hungry. You aren’t sure as to why that is considering you had breakfast only one hour ago. You’ve heard it over and over again but probably haven’t thought much of it; is lack of sleep related to increased levels in appetite?

In an experimental study published in the Wall Street Journal, there were two studies in which two groups examined over the course of five nights. One group was females and the other males, both in their mid 30’s. In the first study, both groups slept a total of four hours every night. In the second study, the participants slept a total of seven hours every night. Before both studies took place, blood tests were taken to look at specific hormones related to hunger. For both studies the food intake was controlled on the first four days. The study does not point out what their diets specifically consisted of, so personally I think the possible confounding variables are numerous, such as the change in diet in which they are used to, the amount of food being eaten, what types of foods (whether they be loaded with fiber making them fuller for longer vs less fulfilling meals)…etc. If I were to conduct this study I would have changed their diets a month before to what they would be fed in the experiment, allowing their body’s to adjust to the new diet, and their responses in hunger. Anyways, back to the set up of the experiment, the last two days they let the participants eat whatever they wanted. The two studies were spread out over the course of three weeks, making sure that the previous study in which sleep was lessened did not affect the results of the other study. The results showed that those who had less sleep consumed more calories (300+) than those who had more sleep. In my opinion, the study was very well conducted and proved an accurate representation of the affect loss of sleep has on the human body’s digestive system and response. The study was able to prove causation because of the controlled environment, limiting intake as well as sleep levels, and because of the absence of confounding variables. However, it is important to note that the forced sleep could have been miscalculated, as you cannot exactly force someone to sleep on command, ultimately affecting the outcome.

The overall outcome of the experiment showed levels of the hunger stimulating hormone: gherlin, were higher in men compared to the woman after participating in the 4-hour-sleep study. So, does that mean this hunger affect only impacts males? Not quite, considering levels of GLP-1, a hormone that curves hunger and appetite levels, was lower in females than in males after the shorter period of sleep. On the fifth day of the experiment, when food access was not limited, each participant consumed 300 more calories than what they had during the 7-hour sleep study. (Lukits). So, although the hormones that are affected may differ between males and females, overall the lower the amount of sleep one gets greatly affects their levels in hunger making them hungrier than usual.

Overall, I think this experiment was very well performed. However, although this experiment was controlled, avoiding possible confounding variables, I think it is definitely possible that the placebo effect may have influenced the participants’ appetite. While being tested, they knew why they were being tested and what they were supposed to feel (boosts in hunger). This could have affected their choices, knowing in the back of their mind that they should have felt hungrier. Another possible confounding variable is stress. Stress hormones, like cortisol, can greatly affect appetite and may be one reason why those who consumed more calories did. Stress may also have increased due to the lower levels in sleep, causing the participants to eat more. An ideal study that would have worked better in proving causation would be a similar setting, but allowing the participants to begin a month early on their new diets so that their body’s could adjust. Another factor they should include is the types of food and amount of which the participants were fed.

There are many possible reasons why those who ate more did, as appetite is not such a black and white feeling. Some also eat out of boredom, which can explain the rise in calories as well. Next time you find yourself starving after a two hour night sleep, try to think if you are actually hungry, stressed, or bored. Maybe the answer relies on the person and circumstance more than the scientific evidence that may prove otherwise!

I previously wrote a blog on the controversial topic of whether babies should be given a pacifier and if the pros outweigh the cons. That post got my thinking, what are some other controversial parenting topics out there and is there an obvious answer to what is better for the baby? Upon researching parenting styles I came across the Ferber Method.

Richard Ferber was a pediatrician and founder of the Center for Pediatric Sleep Disorders at the Children’s Hospital in Boston. He published the book, Solve Your Child’s Sleep Problems, which he encouraged parents to let their children “cry it out” to soothe themselves to sleep. He recommends starting around the age of 3 to 5 months, proceed with a bedtime routine, and then lay the child down to sleep. The child should not be removed from the bed or fed, even if they cry, because it will train them to go to bed on their own. The parents will check on their child and comfort them by rubbing their hand across their back periodically, but should leave the child in their crib alone. The child will learn that crying is not getting their parents’ attention anymore and eventually stop, training them to fall asleep on their own and without hassle.

Some parents, pediatricians, and scientists argue that the Ferber Method can be emotionally scaring to the child, leaving lasting effects, and is down right cruel while others believe the method is effective and trains the child to not be dependent on the parents.

Those against Ferber’s views argue that he is only a pediatrician with no psychological training or background in the field. The child’s brain is developing during that time and learning to trust, so any traumatic experiences may hinder their development. Other critics argue that adults who suffer from insomnia were trained to sleep through the Ferber method as infants.

Behaviorist John Watson declared in 1928 that too much motherly love on a child can turn them into a spoiled, whiney, dependent adult…and many mothers believed him and followed his advice to later find out that little affection can actually damage the child. Ferber’s Method is very similar. While not as extreme as Watson’s declaration, it still encourages mothers to not soothe their crying children in order to make them more independent. Darcia Narvaez, associate professor at  Notre Dame found that babies’ bodies release cortisol, a hormone that kills brain cells, when stressed. Studies have found that  when babies have brain cells killed, there is an increased chance the child will develop ADHD, struggle with academics, and not socialize as much.

An increased level of cortisol has also been linked to the inability to manage stress in the future and the constant anxious feeling. It is within the first few years of life that infants form an attachment to their caregivers and it the bond is jeopardized, the relationship may be negatively effected for the remainder of their time together. But not only does it affect the child and the caregiver relationship, but also the child’s outlooks on relationships in general as he ages.

Rats were tested to understood the human mind and the importance of nurturing mothers. Rats with low nurturing mothers in the first week following their birth experienced anxiety as they aged in contrast to the newborn rats with nurturing mothers that did not experience anxiety when faced with new situations. The same has been found with humans. If a child’s needs are met by the caregiver and they are not left in distress, they will be more confident in their choices and become more independent rather than the opposite.

The choice is up to the parents in the end. There are always exceptions to the method such as a child with medical needs, disabilities, or those who do not take to the method and continue to cry into the second week. Critics discuss gentler options to train a child to sleep on their own besides the Ferber Method. These include maintaining a bedtime routine every night and laying with your child until they fall asleep. Considering the possible negative effects of the Ferber Method and other, gentler alternatives to train a child without letting them “cry it out,” it seems as though parents should opt for something less potentially harmful, but again, parents know best for their children.

            College is known as a time in your life where you learn a lot, decide what you want to do with the rest of your life, and where you can party. Drinking (even underage drinking) is an issue among the majority of college campus’s, and it is important to know how to drink appropriately, but also to know how your body reacts to alcohol consumption. Alcohol can cause you body to dehydrate, but why?

Each individual person has a different tolerance of alcohol that depends on gender, age, and weight. For example, a person who drinks more tends to have a greater tolerance to a larger amount of alcohol as opposed to someone who infrequently drinks, and woman and men have different tolerances as well. With that in mind, as a person drinks their body changes. Your body is very smart and has detectors that tell your body the amount of water you have in your body at a period of time. These detectors can tell when you don’t have enough water in your body and signal to your posterior pituitary gland that you are dehydrated. Your posterior pituitary gland then begins to release anti-diuretic hormones (ADH), which makes you stop urinating. Gastrolyte explains, “Firstly, alcohol decreases the body’s production of anti-diuretic hormone, which is used by the body to reabsorb water. With less anti-diuretic hormone available, your body loses more fluid than normal through increased urination. Drinking excessive amounts of alcohol can also cause vomiting, which depletes the body of fluids and can causer further dehydration.”

A study was conducted in 1950 served 5 shots of bourbon and researchers examined the amount of urine released by the participants. They found that the alcohol caused participants to produce an additional 120 milliliters of urine per alcohol drink. Back then, they did not realize why this occurred, but form the information known today in the above paragraph, this experiment proves that an excessive amount of alcohol makes your body do the opposite of what it should do when it is dehydrated.

How do you avoid this dehydration?

1. Don’t drink as much.
2. Drink a large glass of water before you start drinking alcohol.
3. Drink a large glass of water before you go to bed.
4. Drink water with the alcohol. For every alcoholic beverage, drink a glass of water.
5. Keep in mind that electrolytes can substitute for a large glass of water, so drinking a beverage that has electrolytes is another idea.

Recently, I had porcelain veneers put over some of my dwarf teeth. The dentist assured me that the compound she used to cement the false teeth was strong enough to last my the rest of my life without any issues — only a couple months later did I realize that she was mistaken. I woke up one morning very confused because there was a small object lying on my tongue. As I rubbed away the eye discharge, I pulled out the unknown object in my mouth and I couldn’t believe my eyes as I was staring at my own tooth! I began to panic and thought, “how could this be? I thought these would last a lifetime…what on earth am I going to do?” Luckily, I found a dentist that re-cemented it back on for me and he later informed me that he saw visible evidence that I was grinding my teeth at night. That particular visit peaked my interest about the causes and dangers of grinding teeth so I did a little of research about it and the results were quite interesting.

The first question I had was: why do people grind their teeth? Teeth grinding, or its proper name Bruxism, is according to NHS.uk “the medical term for grinding the teeth and clenching the jaw.” While some naturally grind their teeth at night for no reason whatsoever, 70% of bruxism cases are a result of excessive amounts of stress and sleep anxiety. Grinding teeth doesn’t only happen subconsciously during sleep; sometimes during intense concentration or during a stressful moment, a person will clench their jaw tightly for an extended period of time. Other ways in which one will clench their jaw repeatedly, such as chewing gum, allows the jaw to become accustomed to clamping down on the teeth vigorously, promoting the grinding at night. A myriad of other possible third variables can cause grinding your teeth at night such as: alcohol consumption, smoking, and using recreational drugs such as ecstasy and cocaine.

If you find yourself a victim of bruxism and wish to rid yourself of this detrimental habit, there are many ways to have it treated; however, only a few methods have proven to successfully rid
it. Although some doctors recommend using a night guard for protection, Dr. Mark Burhenne contradicts the popular belief. According to him, “a mouth guard is put in place to protect the teeth from grinding, but since it can re-position the jaw, it can actually make the obstruction of the airway worse.” He instead recommends consulting to your dentist about getting a sleep study in order to receive a diagnosis for “sleep apnea” from a sleep specialist. On the other hand, if you’re living the life of a frat star and you find yourself drinking, smoking, and partying the majority of the nights of the week, it would be recommended to cut back in order to reduce your teeth grinding at night. Some long term consequences of bruxism include: prolonged migraines, excessive facial muscle tone, popping your jaw joint, and tooth wear or even loss.

Because I’m only 19, it is a little concerning that I have started this habit so early; however, Dr. Burhenne’s advice has given me hope. For anyone out there that is experiencing the same thing as I am, I hope this blog has been informative and can help you overcome the obstacle of bruxism.

Sources:

http://www.s4sdental.com/for-the-public/teeth-clenching-grinding/effects-of-bruxism/

http://www.webmd.com/oral-health/guide/teeth-grinding-bruxism

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/teeth-grinding/Pages/Introduction.aspx

http://askthedentist.com/why-you-grind-your-teeth/

http://askthedentist.com/why-you-grind-your-teeth/

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/sleepapnea

https://retailrobot.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/lebron-mouthguard-meme.jpg

All through High School, and especially in College, students frequently take unprescribed “study” drugs to focus. Whether it’s to make sure they pay attention during a long lecture, or cramming for an exam they have the next day, unprescribed Adderall and Vyvanse are no stranger to the average student. Usually the scramble for any drug available happens during finals week, anxiety sets in and students do not know how they will possibly cope with the stressful week ahead. However, can taking these pills a few times a school year actually be detrimental to a students health?

In order to attribute these types of drugs, one must go through several tests and be diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD. This is one of the most common disorders seen in children usually spanning from teenage years all the way to adulthood. Sufferers of this disorder generally face obstacles when trying to focus. Students believe that if Adderall or Vyvanse are used by prescribed students to help them study, that they also can misuse the drug to help them pay attention as well. “However, Adderall is also known for being a habit-forming drug. A study from the National Institute on Drug Abuse estimated that more than 1.6 million American teens and young adults misused ADHD drugs during a 12-month period, and 75,000 of them became addicted” (kstatcollege.com.) It is not certain that one will become immediately addicted to ADHD medication; however, these types of drugs are extremely addictive, and everyone reacts to medication differently.

When taking drugs that are not prescribed to them, students need to be especially careful. When ADHD medication is taken by someone is actually prescribed the drug, the medication works to neutralize the impaired levels of dopamine and increase them to the proper level necessary. When the dopamine is heightened the drug slows down the person taking the medication giving them time to actually slow down and focus, rather than having their brain race at rapid speeds. When ADHD medication is taken by someone who is not prescribed the drug, the medication acts very differently inside their body. As a result of not having a decreased amount of dopamine, because the person already is at the needed level to focus, the medication still increases the levels, meaning that there is then hyperactivity happening. The more hyperactive the person becomes, the harder crash they will have when the medication wears off.

When looking at if ADHD medication misuse is harmful, the answer is yes. Drugs should never be taken to someone who is unprescribed, everyone acts differently to every drug and one is not aware about what will happen to themselves. Besides, studying, people also misuse ADHD to gain a certain “high”, or use it as a party drug. The combination of alcohol and ADHD medication is extremely detrimental to the human body making them act uncontrollably. Overall, ADHD medication should not be taken if it is not prescribed, even if you are looking for a little study edge this finals season.

http://www.kstatecollegian.com/2013/12/13/unprescribed-adderall-use-potentially-harmful-unproductive-for-college-students/

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

http://stevetmoore.me/index.php/entry/ultimate-guide-to-adderall-use

From: http://www.pivotphysicaltherapy.com/blog/sitting-is-the-new-smoking/

Whether we are stuck in class, watching a movie, or driving, we are all glued to the bottom of our seats. I can attest to it. Sitting has been a quintessential and unavoidable part of my day. It is universal that anything in excess is bad for you. In a recent publication by Dr James Levine, who is the director of the Mayo Clinic at Arizona State University, he states that “Sitting is more dangerous than smoking, kills more people than HIV and is more treacherous than parachuting. We are sitting ourselves to death.” (James Levine) I decided to investigate further into the topic. How bad is excessive sitting?

From my the top searches off my research, there is little controversy that sitting has a negative effect on the body. An article I found that was particularly intriguing is listed here. In this article, the author stated that sitting can cause heath problems (heart disease, cancer, death) regardless if the individual was physically active. A study in which she lists that supports her point was conducted by Annals of Internal Medicine. In the study, the researchers used prior research from a database. This already rings a bell that this study could be a file drawer problem! No physical experiment was done! Despite my suspicions, the article goes on and concludes that “the health hazards seem to be greatest for people who sit 8 or 9 hours a day. The impact was even more pronounced in people who did not exercise regularly.” (CBS News) Despite the research’s strong conclusion that sitting correlates with health problems, I find it hard to believe whether the researchers excluded any results that disprove of their claim. Also, there was no numeric results in which can support their claim while eliminating confounding variables, including the amount of sitting and the subject’s health prior to being checked. Thus, I feel this article should be noted, but is flawed without doubt.

Another research I found that I found similar to the previous listed is published by the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The observational study included 43 studies in which they analyzed 68936 cancer cases, comparing the time spent sitting in relation cancer risks. (Daniela Schmid) Though it was not an actual experiment, rather, a observational study through cases, I do believe this study was well conducted. The results show “not all of those investigations found an apparent adverse effect of prolonged sitting time on cancer incidence.” (Daniela Schmid) Despite the fact that some cancers did not have an effect and rejected it’s null hypothesis, the study still published the results. This study definitely made me think about the dangers of sitting. There is definitely a correlation between sitting and health risks, but can reverse causality be considered? Perhaps sick and unhealthy people are sitting more! What if their disease impairs physical motivation through pain? I find credibility in reverse causality through personal observation: Obese people sit more due to the stress that their weight inflicts upon their knees. Certain people that are physically impaired cannot sit due to their condition. Another variable I find when people sit is snacking. Think about the food consumed during a sports event, Super Bowl, or plain studying. There is no loophole: overeating is bad. Can it be that the overeating of junk food is actually causing cancer?

How I would conduct my experiment: I noticed how I disagreed with both studies listed in their use of databases rather than conducting research. As I thought of a solution that is effective, I noticed how important it is to use randomized controlled trials, especially for this topic. However, it struck me as to how difficult and feasible it is. In a perfect world where no harm is inflicted, I would have human subjects while regulating how much sitting they are required to do within each day. I would also look at their diets, overall health, and sleeping time. After a certain time, I will see if there is any health problems that arose to the subjects that sat for the time assigned. However, my trial would will not reflect ethics. I am deliberately forcing my healthy subjects to get health problems, which is morally wrong.

Should I never sit again? Though it seems like every research is pointing towards the idea that sitting causes health problems, all the conclusions are not concrete. The research did not consider reverse causality. However, if the research does hold true, what can we do? A research conducted by scientists from Indiana University concluded that “by taking three slow, five-minute walks, we can actually reverse the damage to our arteries caused by three hours of sitting down.” (Science Alert) In this controlled observational study, they had 6 non-obese men sit normally for 3 hours. The other 6 men were assigned the same task, but had to get up and take slow-five minute walks for three times on a treadmill. Ultrasound was then used to see if there were any dilation in their arteries and changes in blood flow. To much surprise, the men who sat for three hours had a dilation of half compared to the start of the study. Also they experiences a drop in their blood flow. Those who took the walks did not experience any change in their artery dilation nor blood flow in comparison to the beginning of the experiment. Although the sample size hold problems, I think the results are something we should take note of.

Take home message: Every research seems to point that sitting correlates with health problems. Though I did not find a randomized control trial and the risks of reverse causality is present, we should all take notice in the noticeable physical damages prolong sitting causes. (Jeanne Dorin)

• Strained Neck
• Strained Back
• Poor circulation

All in all, everything should be done in moderation, and sitting is no different. To counter our daily activities that require us to sit (school, eating, movies) we should also find time to exercise and be physically active.

Works Cited

• http://www.livescience.com/11345-top-ten-unexplained-phenomena.html
• (Bonnie Berkowitz & Patterson Clark) https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/national/the-health-hazards-of-sitting/750/
• (Jeanne Dorin) http://www.nextavenue.org/health-hazards-sitting-too-much/
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-active-times/sitting-is-the-new-smokin_b_5890006.html
• http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-get-up-20140731-story.html
• http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2091327
• (Daniela Schmid) http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/106/7/dju098.full
• (Science Alert) http://www.sciencealert.com/news/20141109-26159.html
• (CBS News) http://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-much-sitting-raises-risk-of-death-even-if-you-exercise/
• https://www.acponline.org/newsroom/sedentary_time.htm

If you don’t have trust issues, you will soon. As millennials (thats you) push western society towards healthier, organic foods, many companies are starting to publish nutrition information online and in-store. For example, my favorite place to eat in State College, Chipotle, has a “nutrition calculator” on their website that contains nutrition information on their food. But have you ever gotten the feeling that the guy in Chipotle wasn’t giving you enough chicken? Maybe the girl next to him gives you far too much sour cream… gross. Either way, making a burrito for someone isn’t an exact science and the same applies to many food establishments and prepackaged goods across the country. The question I pose to you is, do you really think all nutrition facts are accurate? Are they even close?

Diagram of a Bomb-Calorimeter – Courtesy of Hope College

The National Institute for Diabetes conducted a study in which they used bomb calorimetry, a method of determining the exact caloric content of food, to evaluate 24 different snack foods purchased from different convenience stores owned by Safeway Inc., a Fortune 500 company. What they found was pretty alarming. They analyzed everything from ice cream to cereal bars to evaluate the accuracy their nutrition facts really are. To start, they weighed the samples and found that the middle 50% of the food weighed 1.4-4.3% more than what was stated on the label. Furthermore, after using a bomb-calorimeter, they found that carbohydrate content exceeded stated amounts by 7.7% and the overall caloric content of exceed the nutrition facts by 4.3-8%. Upon analyzing their results, the variation in carbohydrate content and serving size was determined to account for 95% of the excess calories.

In a society where 35.7% of adults are considered obese, larger than stated serving sizes and food that contains more carbohydrates than people are told is problematic. Even more alarming is that the FDA actually allows this to happen; caloric content of food in the United States is allowed to be within 20% of the value companies claim. This presents a possible loophole in an industry that affects individuals’ health. What is stopping Hershey from understating the content of t Reese’s by 15% to make it seem healthier than it is?

In an “Op-Doc” piece for the New York Times, YouTuber Casey Neistat and researchers at the New York Nutrition Obesity Center partnered to analyze foods that Neistat ate on a normal day in New York City, here’s the video.

Neistat and the researchers found that a sandwich claiming to be healthy, vegan and kosher on the label contained a whopping 548.4 calories versus the 228 calories posted in its nutrition information. Also analyzed was a chipotle burrito, a Starbucks frappuccino, a muffin and a small Subway sandwich. Again using a bomb-calorimeter, the team found that all but the Subway sandwich exceeded the caloric content that was claimed. In total, the amount of extra calories Neistat consumed that day added up to the equivalent of unknowingly eating a Big Mac from McDonalds…. better stick to the $5 Footlongs.

However, the blame should not be laid entirely on Chipotle or Starbuck’s. In large corporations where serving size is determined by food scientists and management that is far detached from the actual food preparation and point of sale, some margin of human-error is to be expected. But is that acceptable? Obesity has taken somewhat of a back seat to climate change and economic turmoil in the past few years but it still exists; the average American is 24lbs. heavier today than in 1960. Additionally, the FDA’s Food Labeling Guide was published back in 1994 with small revisions in 2008, 2009 and 2013 that mostly addressed what was labeled and not how things were determined. As more and more of these nutrition fact discrepancies come to light there will be more pressure on the FDA to become more stringent in their guidelines. Your calculus professor does not give you a 20% margin of error on your midterms and the same should go for the food industry.

In addition to stricter FDA guidelines, companies like Chipotle or Starbucks should implement better education programs for new hires that make portioning less variable. Going one step further, companies need to be more transparent about what goes into their food and publish ingredient information along with their nutrition calculators. Transparency would hold large corporations such as these more accountable for what they put in their food. 

Hand it over Mr. Krabs.

So as we approach finals week, there is a noticeable murmur ( at least I have heard it) about where to get drugs such as Adderall to help students study better. I found this interesting because this had never struck me as being an large issue until I came to college and found out just how many people tried using the drug when they were not prescribed it. I did some research on this topic, and also conducted my own poll with several of my peers around me to gain a little bit more information.

When I polled ten students who live within my dorm and asked a series of three questions,

1. Have you ever taken Adderall or another performance enhancing drug?
2. Was it for the purpose of studying if so?
3. Are you prescribed Adderall or another similar drug?

When asked these questions, six out of ten individuals answered yes to the first two questions, however, the same six individuals all answered no to the third. Not a single person out of six who had taken the drug was prescribed it!! This meant that they were receiving it from someone, and more than likely paying decent money for it. This also meant that the amount that they purchased was solely based on the supply that the dealer was willing to give out.

As I researched further to see if this was an extra high amount, I was shocked to see how low the actual amount was in comparison to my small poll. The study showed that of a cumulative amount of those polled in college, 61.8% had been offered a drug such as Adderall or Ritalin, and a cumulative amount of 31% had taken these drugs. Which in relation to my study was quite low, but still an astounding number considering that there is such a large quantity of college students within the trial, and only 5.3% of college students total in the United States are prescribed these drugs.

All in all, when looking at these numbers, there is a real issue and it is one that could really affect the lives of many if something were to go awry with the drugs or prescriptions.

We’ve all been there. After a holiday when we’ve eaten too much food, we swear we’re won’t eat any junk food for awhile in order to shed those pounds. This is the reason fad diets are so popular, because they claim fast and easy results. In reality, most of us only make it about a week if we’re lucky with these kind of diets. Going from indulging in hundreds of calories during a holiday party to barely any calories during the following days are a cycle many people get stuck in. But what is the impact on our body from this? Fad diets actually affect our body negatively in many ways.

One of the ways these fad diets effect our body is that they alter our metabolism. This is due to the fact that when an individual follows a diet consisting of food restrictions, it goes against the natural pattern of their body telling them when to eat and stop eating. According to ­­­­Nutriformance “When dieting consists of a drastic decrease in caloric intake, your body will compensate for this “starvation mode”, which will slow the rate of your metabolism.” (Giller) This is the opposite of what a person trying to lose weight wants, because a fast metabolism is what makes weight loss easier.

Another effect is that most people end up gaining the weight back. Fad diets usually help people lose a couple pounds in a short period of time. However, most of that lost weight is simply water weight.  Once an individual goes back to their normal eating habits, they will gain the weight right back. Often times, people deprive themselves of food for so long that they end up binge eating, which results in gaining more weight than they began with. Constantly trying fad diets also makes it harder to lose weight in the future. “After a quick-fix diet, you have lost mostly water weight and muscle, so when you do gain weight back, it is not muscle, it is fat.” (Giller) This a problem because that fat makes it harder for the individual to gain the muscle mass back, and muscle is what helps a person burn more calories.

The last problem with fad diets is that they cause nutritional deficiencies in people. Since these diets restrict people from eating certain types of foods, our body is being deprived of certain important nutrients. Many fad diets prohibit the consumption of carbs or fats. However, these nutrients are an essential source of energy for us. By not consuming them it can cause your body to function improperly, which could be harmful to your health. Some health issues could be hair and muscle loss. “Since your diet is very low in calories, your body will look for other ways to get energy. One of these ways is by digesting your muscles.” (Fit Day) People can even get diseases from lack of nutrients due to fad diets.

Overall, fad diets are usually too good to be true and can  even have negative effects on our body. Countless health experts are firm on the belief that the only effective method of losing weight is making it a lifestyle change of eating healthy, well-balanced meals, and staying active. So, people should stay away from fad diets for their own good.

(Picture 1) (Picture 2)

Thanks to the well-developed technology, the population is still growing and will grow in the future. However, food which is also a resource has a certain limit and we need to think about what are we going to eat in the future. Maybe this is not a problem that is close to us, but nobody knows about the future. Also, environmental issues are related to the production food. So, it will be great if we can find some better alternatives for our regular meal. There are many on-going studies about the new food. Also, there are some alternatives that we can choose. I’m going to introduce some of those options that we can choose in the future.

I prepared a short video about eating insects for food.  The insect can be an option for the future food because insects provide similar nutritional value with the real meat. Also, according to the researchers at Wageningen University in the Netherlands, they cost less to raise compare to the livestock and also a good source of the protein. Moreover, there are many kinds of insects which are edible for the human. Some of the world’s population already started to eat insects for their regular meal. Including African countries, Japan and Thailand. But kind of disgusting image of insects is a thing that we need to overcome.

The meat produced in the lab also can be an option. In 2012, Dutch scientists made the cultured meat (lab-grown meat) successfully. They grew muscle tissue of cow by using stem cells and resembled it with calamari. According to the study from Oxford University, they found that lab-grown meat can reduce greenhouse gases and also can save energy and water. Those are advantages that we can’t get if we keep growing livestock for the meat. Moreover, we can add healthy nutrients to lab-grown meat.

Many studies are still ongoing and there will be more studies about this topic. If we successfully replace our regular meal with those new alternatives, it will be great for all of us.

Images: www.theatlantic.com

Through television ads, magazine and the internet, we’ve all heard companies advertising for the “perfect” diet plan. The trust is, there is no perfect diet plan that will work for everyone. Sciencenews.com titled their article, “A good diet for you may be bad for me” and that is the newly exposed truth. Certain foods can increase a persons blood pressure differently than it does to another person. The glycemic index measures how food raises blood glucose. Researchers have recently discovered that a food glycemic index is dependent on the eater (the person consuming the food). For example, one person may eat a cookie and experience a sugar rush, while someone else eating the same cookie might not be affected.

http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(15)01481-6 

Eran Segal and Eran Elinav of the Weizmann Institute of Science, created a study to determine how different peoples bodies respond to eating the same food. The study put blood glucose monitors on 800 people. The researched supplied each person with a standard diet. The study found that although they all ate the same food, each persons blood sugar levels varied drastically. There are many factors that play into this; traits and behaviors such as body mass index, sleep, exercise, blood pressure and cholesterol levels all affect a persons response to food. Based on these findings, it’s not about what you eat but instead how your system processes the foods. 

You may not be sold completely just yet. After all, it’s not necessarily a strong argument if there is only one experiment done. Thankful, there were many more conducted that produced the same results. A team led by Elinav and Sega created a computer algorithm which used 137 personal measurements to predict a person’s blood sugar level after eating a certain food. This was then tested on a new group of 100 people, the algorithm correctly predicted the response 70% of the time. With more studies, the data was continually consistent proving there was no fluke. The team then focused on a smaller group; A group of 26 people were given personalized meals. The computer algorithm analyzed each person and narrowed the experiment down to 12 people. They worked with a nutritionist to create “good” and “bad” diet for each person. Good diets consisted of foods that minified blood sugar spikes after eating, while bad diet were those that increased blood sugar dramatically. All of the diets contained the same amount of calories (constant). Along with previous study, the study found that foods on one person “good” diet were sometimes on another person “bad” diet. For example, one woman’s blood sugar spiked when ate tomatoes but tomatoes were often on other people’s healthy list.

Is it a breakthrough?

Dr. James DiNicolantonio, a cardiovascular research scientist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute is skeptical of the results. He claims there is very little practical takeaway and questioned their decision to measure blood sugar levels after eating. In terms of diabetes, measuring insulin is the most established way to determine whether people are developing insulin resistance (leads to type 2 diabetes). 

Segal and Elinav understand this but for the sake of the study, blood sugar levels can be continually measured by an attached device. It would be highly unpleasant to prick a person for blood 2,000 times to measure their insulin levels. 

As we know criticism only makes science stronger. I think Segal and Elinav carried out accurate and successful experiment which resulted in a greater gain for understanding the affect food has on our body. Especially in todays society when we are persuaded by so many commercial brands saying “they have the ultimate weight loss cure”. These experiments may lead to further knowledge and research on what is causing the differences in blood sugars.

Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-one-size-fits-all-diet-plan_564d605de4b00b7997f94272 

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/good-diet-you-may-be-bad-me 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/11/20/the-diet-study-that-upends-everything-we-thought-we-knew-about-healthy-food/ 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/47979 

http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(15)01481-6 

http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/understanding-carbohydrates/glycemic-index-and-diabetes.html

A good old urban legend that I still remember to this day is that the soft drink Mountain Dew kills sperm and reduces their overall sperm count. This has been, at least for me, something I’ve heard since the playground days during grade school. And at the time it made sense, its the only green soft drink and its very acidic and sweet. It fit the profile and at 13 or so years old I wasn’t gonna question it. But now that I have explored science through this class it’s time for me to actually find the answer.

We first need to start out with how did this myth start or more or less what about mountain dew created this bizarre accusation but left Sprite, Pepsi, and Coke aside from this. Mountain dew has a great amount of ingredients but the two that stick out the most in this myth are caffeine and Yellow dye #5, also known as Tartrazine. If you break down this two ingredients we can see that something isn’t adding up. Mountain dew contains 54mg of caffeine in a 12 oz can.  That might seem like a lot since coke has 34mg per 12 ounces, Dr. Pepper has 41, and Pepsi has 38. If we had to count on caffeine to be the reason for the reduction of sperm then we need to look at other high caffeine drinks and see how they compare. The average cup of coffee has 217mg per 12 ounces, about 4 times more than the Mountain Dew! So for comparison’s sake, Mountain Dew doesn’t contain very much caffeine, compared to other things many commonly drink. With even more proof “The Chemical Health Hazard Assessment Division of the Canadian Bureau of Chemical Safety reviewed all the current studies on the subject and found that they showed that if a man drank one or two
cups of coffee per day, he would have an increase in his sperms motility and density.” So at this point caffeine if anything is doing the exact opposite and actually increase the quality of sperm.

But we aren’t done yet. We still have yellow dye #5 or Tartrazine. Tartrazine can be found in anything and everything ranging from ice cream to your favorite bag of chips to chewing gum. Tartrazine is very water soluble so most of Tartrazine you put in your body will run right through kidney and come out in your urine. Very little is actually metabolized by our bodies. The European Food Safety Authority re-evaluated the effects of Tartrazine in 2009.  “There ar
e no adverse effects on reproduction or development from consuming Tartazine.” They even tested people at a rate of 1225 mg/kg and still found no adverse effects. Sperm affects aside, the FDA does recommend that we should only ingest 5 milligrams per kilogram per day of Yellow dye #5. But all of this has to do strictly for allergenic reasons not reproductive reasons. But this is only due to the fact that there are only a very small percentage of people who are allergic to it. (1/1000) 

So there you have it. Myth busted! Mountain Dew’s long lasting accusation of reducing sperm count has been proved wrong. Caffeine and yellow dye #5 the main ingredients that fueled the myth actually have zero effect on reproduction of sperm and at the end of the day all men can rest easy now and sit back and enjoy Mountain Dew. 

As my meal plan seems to drop faster and faster by the day, my meal schedule keeps changing. This may also be due to my busy work load schedule with finals approaching. Sometimes I find myself eating a small breakfast and lunch, and then a large dinner. Other days I am just snacking throughout the day in attempt to spend as little as I can. In contrast, at the beginning of the semester I found myself eating whatever I wanted, whenever I wanted because my meal plan seemed like it would never run out… but that does not seem to be the case.

My endless struggle with meals got me thinking, how many meals should I be having and how large should they be in order to have optimum health?

Over the years there have been various statements of how many meals to have a day. Traditionally, it has always been said to have 3 meals: breakfast, lunch and dinner. But, I have also heard that it is healthier to have 5 small meals each day, evenly spread out throughout the day. Webmd states the claim that eating small meals throughout the day boosts the metabolism, maintains blood sugar, and forces one to eat less then they would if they had 3 meals a day. This belief is in fact a myth. According to the University of Ottawa, it was discovered that weight loss is not affected whether one eats 6 or 3 meals a day. It was also found that eating 6 meals a day actually caused people to increase their food intake.

A meta-analysis study that tested this debate discovered that there is no correlation between how many meals you eat throughout the day and what is healthier. They stated that the optimum health of meals is determined more by what types of food you intake rather than at what time you eat it.

It was found that meal frequency, with the same amount of caloric intake, had “no difference in metabolic rate and there are no changes in weight loss” after testing two groups. Weight gain and health is primarily determined based on caloric intake.

Despite these facts, there may be positive factors to having more than 3 meals a day. Often, if you wait too long to eat when your body is trying to tell you that you are hungrier, this can lead you to increase your caloric intake. Dietitian, Amy Jamieson-Petonic states that “after about 3 hours without food, blood sugar begins to fall. And after 4 hours, your body has already digested whatever you sent down there. Once you’ve crossed the 5-hour mark, your blood sugar begins to plummet, and you grab whatever you can to refuel.” Based on this statement, it would be a good idea to eat something every 3-4 hours.

The issue of how many meals should be eaten per day is very debatable. In the end, the best way to be healthy and maintain weight is to focus on what you are putting into your body. It’s important to focus on the amount of calories you intake as well as the types of foods. These factors determine a healthy individual. In conclusion, the amount of meals a person has depends on their needs, personal life and schedule. Everyone has a different metabolism so it is important to focus on yourself and what works best for you.

Do you ever find yourself pointlessly scrolling through facebook on your phone when you should be doing something else, or getting lost in an endless world of clickbait articles, kitten videos and other mindless nonsense which the modern day has to offer? If your answer is no then you’re probably not human, and I don’t know how you’re reading this post. As countless journalists, comedians, cartoonists and that ranting drunk guy that was next to you at the bar last night have pointed out, we’re all hopelessly addicted to technology. But why is this, and can this really be considered an “addiction”?

how many of your friends are constantly looking at this?

The answer is that the intense compulsion to pick up your phone when you hear it buzz is driven by the neurotransmitter dopamine, the very same target of Ritalin, cocaine and a slew of other drugs. So yes, this addiction is does not only exist in our minds, but also very much so on a chemical level. As this article explains, dopamine is what drives the “wanting” part of our psyche. It is the thing that is released when our brain wants to tell us we have achieved our goal. In premodern times, this was a beneficial drive for survival. If killing a rabbit for dinner triggers a release of dopamine, then in the future you will go out of your way to do so in the future and get that natural high that signifies an accomplishment. However, when what we perceive as important (texts, facebook comments and that outfit Yeezy rocked at the VMA’s last night) become both ever less significant to what we actually need and increasingly easier to come by because of the internet, we find ourselves in a nasty predicament. Instead of putting our time into something worthwhile like a Neanderthal killing a rabbit, we flood ourselves with hit after hit of dopamine through meaningless banter which can be obtained with a mere click.

So, next time you’re about to click on the latest buzzfeed poll, stop and ask yourself if you really deserve the sense of fulfillment you’re about to gain; or if you’re just pushing yourself further into a lazy stupor with mind numbing instant gratification in much the same way as the neighborhood junkie. It is only once you realize that you’re tricking your body into thinking you achieved something significant with the click of a button that you can put your smartphone down and start working for your dopamine high and doing something worthwhile.

The Telegraph explains how this problem isn’t simply kids.  A poll of families finds that 70% of children believe that their parents spend too much time on electronics, as well.  Hypocrisy, as we all know, deters listening.  So in order to help discourage technological addiction, our generation must examine it’s elders doing so as well.  This extends to other countries as well.  The Telegraph reassuringly writes “One in five British teenagers believe that technology distracts their parents during conversation”(Bingham 1).  Clearly, technology is becoming an international problem.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-wise/201209/why-were-all-addicted-texts-twitter-and-google

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10981242/Screen-addict-parents-accused-of-hypocrisy-by-their-children.html

When I was in middle school, I remember asking a teacher for a Mento to chew on during a test. After giving me the Mento, he proceeded to tell me that chewing it during my class would actually enhance my memory. As a result of being the immature, naive sixth grader I was, I believed this myth and started bringing gum to every test. However, does gum actually make you smarter? Does it facilitate the flow of memory? Or is it just completely ineffective? After pondering this question for many years I decided to do some research and was stunned by what I had found.

In a study published on The Scientific American, researchers decided to take this schooling myth into question. Researches randomly assigned two groups of twenty people each. One group was assigned to chew gum and the other was not. After members were assigned each group, they then listened to a recording which consisted of a sequence of different numbers. As a matter of fact, the group that chewed gum during the recording had faster reaction times, higher accuracy rates, and finally, were able to keep their attention focused longer than the opposing group. Even though this study did prove beneficial side effects one group experienced while chewing gum, this cannot be the only source that one bases their opinion off of. Opposing this study was one conducted by the British Journal of Psychology in 2012. Instead of proving that chewing gum facilitates brain power, this study showed that, as a matter of fact, short-term memory was decreased. However, this study, similar to the study mentioned in The Scientific American, does not prove that chewing gum is detrimental to learning either. To fully understand this topic, multiple studies must be conducted in order to finalize any sort of conclusion.

So does gum really help brain capacity? Amy Kraft, of The Scientific American, states that researchers declare gum in fact boosts the movement of oxygen that flows to the attention centers of the brain. “More oxygen can keep people alert and improve their reflexes” (scientificamerican.com.) Similar to the original study mentioned, other groups of researchers decided to test this myth as well. According to CNN, “Researchers at the Baylor College of Medicine took 108 eighth-grade math students from a Houston, Texas, charter school and divided them into two groups, following them for 14 weeks.” This study also consisted of two groups, one which was instructed to chew gum, and the other did not while they did their homework. The results concluded that the group that chewed gum received a three percent increase in their standardized math scores compared to the group that did not chew gum. Secondly, the students who did not chew gum suffered from lower final test grades versus the gum chewers.

In conclusion, it seems that chewing gum really does influence brain power and the increase of memory. Even though it has not officially been scientifically proven, it has been tested positive in a fair share of studies. As for now, I am definitely going to start chewing gum when I study and see if my grades actually do increase!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/gum-chewing-may-improve-concentrati-13-03-26/

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/22/chewing.gum.benefits/