After discussing sugary drinks in class, I wanted to focus a post on diet versus regular. Most people are under the impression that diet soda is better than regular. They simply read the label rather than consider what differences are in each can. I have a friend who drinks diet soda nearly every single day, and she believes that it is OK because it is diet. They believe that the zero calories and zero sugars labels make them healthier. I became interested in whether or not diet soda really is “better” for you. I for one do not drink soda at all. My mother was quick to inform me of all of the negative health benefits of soda. It is one of the worst beverages to consume due to its high levels of fructose corn syrup and sugars. We also discussed in class that sugary drinks are more likely to lead to weight gain so it is better to avoid them altogether.

Many people seek a diet soda rather than a regular one because they want to maintain a healthier diet. However, diet soda still has many negative consequences and has not yet proven to be better. It is considered to be diet because of the altered ingredients. Rather than added sugars, diet contains artificial sweeteners. Weight gain has been associated with diet soda because the body starts to crave the real sugars that are in regular soda. People eat and drink more fattening foods to fulfill these cravings. A study published online by Nature showed that artificial sweeteners tend to cause glucose intolerance, as well. They cause an exaggerated elevation in blood glucose levels which people try to prevent by consuming these sweeteners.

Furthermore, researchers at the University of Miami found that there was a positive correlation between a person’s consumption of diet soda and possibility of having a heart attack or stroke. 2,465 people were followed for nine years and asked to document what beverages they were consuming. Those that drank diet soda were 48% more likely to have a heart attack or stroke than those who drank regular soda. There are many other confounding variables that need to be taken into consideration when looking into this study. The medical history for example of each individual. Some may have strokes or heart attacks run in their families which would make them more susceptible to having one. Gender may also affect the study; one may already have a higher chance. The study cannot conclude that diet is worse, but it supports the claim that it is not a better alternative like we may have thought.

To conclude, we cannot state with full certainty whether or not diet soda is better or worse than regular. Studies have shown that the artificial flavoring results in an increased desire to consume fattening foods which leads to weight gain. Severe health problems such as stroke and heart attack have also been associated with these beverages. There are pros and cons to consuming one over the other. However, it can be stated that they do not have much health benefit, and therefore it would be best not to consume soda at all or in slim moderation.

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Anorexia is an extremely well known disease in today’s society. From top models to teenage girls anorexia does no discriminate its victims. Anorexia or its full name Anorexia Nervosa is, according to dictionary.com an eating disorder characterized by pathological fear of becoming fat, distorted body image, excessive dieting, and emaciation. The ability to restrain oneself from eating on the level of anorexia is attributed to willpower. However Anorexia is truly a mental disorder and I wonder if it is choice to pass up food or a deeply rooted habit.

A study on nature.com asked the question, “why do people persistently make choices that are bad for them, even though they seem to know better?” This question is at the root of anorexia because people with the eating disorder know what they are doing is not beneficial for their health and instead they focus on the superficial benefits. In the study the mechanisms behind the continuous maladaptive choices are analyzed. The findings from the study provide information that the same brain circuits that are involved with habitual behavior, like biting one’s nails, are part of disorders in which people make self-destructive choices no matter what the consequences are. The Dorsal Striatum is part of the brains award system that is stimulated during habitual behavior. Dr. Walsh, a professor of psychiatry at the Psychiatric Institute at Columbia predicts that the longer someone is implementing anorexic behaviors the more of a habit it becomes and more of the Dorsal Striatum is involved. Anorexia is similar to addiction diseases like alcoholism or obsessive compulsive disorder. All this new information on how anorexia affects those that have the disorder can help evolve the course treatment.

Whether anorexia is considered a choice of willpower or a habitual behavior, different treatments are considered to be the most affective. Current treatments include medical nutrition therapy, art therapy, dance movement therapy etc. A statistic I found in a nytimes.com article says, “50 percent or more of hospitalized anorexic patients who are discharged at a normal weight will relapse within a year.” Clearly the treatments being used currently are only affective in the short-run and it is possible that a better treatment could be used with a more substantial result. Dr. Walsh said, “Habits have to be replaced with another behavior.” If the bad habit of starvation is replaced with a healthier habit in theory it is possible that anorexia can be cured.

Understanding anorexia and the mechanisms that are prevalent in the disease is very important to doctors and psychologists because anorexia has the highest mortality rates of any other mental illness. Anorexia spans culture, race, gender and age so it is important to have a cure that is truly effective.

As I sat in my dorm room avoiding writing another blog post / waiting for great inspiration with regards to a topic to hit me, I turned to Netflix (shocking– I know). As I scrolled through the many movie choices, the wonderful Jennifer Aniston’s name caught my eye and I clicked “watch now” without even worrying about the flick’s description, assuming it would be a fabulous choice per usual. Little did I know that I was about to embark on a journey in which I was subjected to my favorite actress being alone and tired of waiting for a man to start a family, thus deciding to partake in artificial insemination. This movie, entitled “The Switch” is one of the many recent blockbusters that revolves around a character experimenting with this and the results that come from using this fertility option. I went to a private catholic high school where I learned a lot about the moral aspects of this scientific achievement which is gaining popularity as a logical choice for those who, like Jennifer, want a child without a relationship, or face problems with infertility. I never questioned how children are both emotionally and physically effected by this, if at all. This is a question that scientist try to uncover the answer to.

For those of you who do not know, Web MD defines artificial insemination as “a technique that can help treat certain kinds of infertility in both men and women. In this procedure, sperm are inserted directly into a woman’s cervix, fallopian tubes, or uterus. This makes the trip shorter for the sperm and bypasses any possible obstructions. Ideally, it makes pregnancy possible where it wasn’t before.” A website entitled “Slate” has an article on the psychological well-being of children conceived through artificial insemination. “Each year an estimated 30,000-60,000 children are born in this country via artificial insemination, but the number is only an educated guess. Neither the fertility industry nor any other entity is required to report on these statistics”. Because of this, there is a severe lack of research on the effects brought upon by mothers who become pregnant through these means. The website describes an experiment done on 18 to 45 year olds, 485 of which were conceived via sperm donation, 562 adopted as infants, and 563 raised by their biological parents.Results show that nearly half of sperm donor conceived children are “disturbed” at the idea that money was involved in their conception. Additionally, when they see someone that looks like them, they question whether that person could be their biological parent. To me, this does not seem healthy. Results also showed that “Regardless of socioeconomic status, donor offspring are twice as likely as those raised by biological parents to report problems with the law before age 25. They are more than twice as likely to report having struggled with substance abuse. And they are about 1.5 times as likely to report depression or other mental health problems”. I am only questioning the psychological effect of children conceived through sperm donators and am therefore ignoring the effects of artificial insemination done by two people who love each other yet can not have a child due to infertility. Here is a link to Jennifer Aniston’s character describing her reasoning for deciding to be artificially inseminated.

LIVE STRONG has an article some of the negative physical effects artificial insemination can have on the mother. Women may develop a disease known as ovarian hyperactivity syndrome in which their ovaries become swollen and painful. Also, artificial insemination increases a woman’s chances of becoming impregnated with multiple children at the same time, increasing the risk of birth complications. Other than that, artificial insemination does not specifically seem to lead to birth defects or diseases later in life for the child.

Finally, their is a lot of controversy over the psychological effects sperm donation has on the men involved. The Witherspoon Institute Public Discourse states that, “Commercialized sperm “donation” degrades and objectifies men”. Men may suffer later in life knowing that they are the biological father’s of a certain number of children whom they will never have the opportunity to support or love. A movie featuring Vince Vaughn entitled, “Delivery Man” pokes fun at this serious emotional problem which is becoming apart of our society. The man character finds out that he “fathered 533 children through anonymous donations to a fertility clinic 20 years ago”. 142 of them file a lawsuit to reveal his identity which creates multitudes of issues.

To conclude, medicinal and scientific advances generally have insanely powerful benefits. If you ask a couple who was desperate to have children and, as a result of artificial insemination, received an answer to their prayers, they would most likely advocate the procedure. Speak with Vince Vaughn’s character on the other hand, you may receive a different response. Is are society becoming corrupted in it’s attempts to play God? I’ll leave that question up to you.

The idea of completing schoolwork while listening to music is simply second nature to me. Whether I’m getting ready to study for an exam or write a paper the first thing I do is throw on my headphones and find something to listen to. However, this has led me to ask the question as to whether or not this method of working is effective. As a student, I am always seeking the most efficient and effective way to complete my work and for me, music has helped me at times but hurt me at others. I have had experiences where I have put some music on and completed my work in a few hours. However, in contrast, there have also been times when I have struggled for hours to simply begin a paper. This raises the question of whether or not music improves academic performance. A question I decided was well worth looking into as the results will directly benefit any student who also enjoys to listen to music while completing schoolwork.

A study  was conducted at the University of Wales which sought to determine how background music affects students ability to complete tests of recollection. This study can be very similar to a student studying for an exam with background music. In this study, students were given a recollection test in five different scenarios. The first was a quiet environment the second was a “steady rate” speech which meant a single word was playing the entire duration of the test. The third was “changing rate” speech where the numbers one through nine were repeated throughout. While the fourth was with music that the student liked and the fifth was with disliked music. In this particular study none of the students liked metal so that was played during the fifth test. The results of the study was that there was no significant difference in test scores with the liked music, disliked music, and changing state speech. However, the test scores were significantly higher when the students worked in a quiet environment as well as during the “steady rate” speech. This means that students will work most effectively in a quiet environment in contrast with working with music. This experiment also resulted in a rejection of the original null hypothesis which was that “changing rate” speech would yield the lowest test results. Although this study provides a strong reason to take out your headphones when it comes to academic work, another study was conducted that found another interested result.

This study conducted a similar experiment on students attention and focus with music as a background noise. However, these results were slightly different. Although the students with music playing in the background did result in lower test scores, their scores were all varied! This means that although music generally yields lower academic performance, it various from person to person. I believe that this means that more research must now be conducted in order to study factors such as genre or whether or not the student is accustomed to completing work with music. Another factor that was not accounted for in these two studies was the fact that the music had lyrics. Through my experience, I have found that working with music without lyrics has made me much more productive.

A study conducted at the University of Dayton found that students performed much better with music playing that did not have lyrics. This study was conducted with 56 male and female students from the University by having them complete a standardized test while fast-tempo music without lyrics played in the background. The results of the study suggest that background music without vocals can have positive effects on cognitive performance.

So in conclusion, listening to music while completing academic work really varies based upon the person. There are a number of confounding variables that come into play when it comes to measured academic activity with background music. Variables such as tempo, genre, volume, length, and whether or not the person is accustomed to listening to music all play a role in determining how well the student performs. One factor, however, that remained consistent was that working in a quiet environment resulted in the best results. Therefore it can be said with confidence that the best way to complete school work is without any background noises. However, there are still much more studies that need to be conducted in order to fully understand whether or not music assists students while completing academic work.

When I was young, I played with my little cousin, who was a girl liked to cry a lot. Once I took her doll to make her chase me, she fell down from upper stairs. She cried so loud that made me panic because who wanted to be blamed by adults? Suddenly, I came up with something. I gave her a candy, and told her it was a magic pill that could cure her pain. After she swallowed, she told me her body was not painful any more. According to official definition on Medicinenet, Placebo Effect is a phenomenon that a fake treatment, an inactive substance like sugar, distilled water can sometimes improve a patient’s condition simply because the person has the expectation that it will be helpful.

Recently, scientists from McGill University stated a finding that Americans are becoming more likely to to report they have feelings of effect after taking fake painkillers. Only in America, the placebo effect has affected people strongly since 1990s. They collect data of  84 drug trials of painkillers tests based on patients’ self-report of feeling the pain after taking either the actual medicine or the placebo. The result founds that, according to Melissa Dahl who writes an article about this topic, “in 1996, medications were rated as being 27 percent more effective painkillers, on average, as compared to placebos. By 2013, however, that difference had shrunk to just 9 percent.” The practical implication has frustrated many companies, which make painkillers. In the last decade, more than 90 percent pills have failed to show a significant affect by comparing taking placebos in the final stages of drug trials. The researchers conclude one potential explanations. The first one is, US is one of the only two countries that medicine companies can advertise their products directly to consumers. Advertisements may increase consumer’s expectation of the potential efficiency toward the pills.

However, are people truly feel better from the bottom of their hearts? Is there some possibilities for patients who report they feel better merely because other patients who took the pill and all said it worked? Or because they do not want to let the one makes the drug disappointed? In other words, can this be a file drawer problem? (explanation of its phenomenon can be found here). This can be a social behavior problem rather than a medical one. People are more dependable and see themselves more through other’s eyes than before.  “Do I suppose to fake a big smile after he passes the pill to me?”  There are too much potential variables that can affect a patients’ reception of pain and their thoughts to express the pain. How to reduce the challenge brought by placebos? It is a worthy discussion that scientists should work on.

I watch a show on Netflix called Lie To Me. It’s about a man who studies facial expressions, body language and how they say things to help law enforcement tell when someone is lying. Here is the intro played before each episode. It shows that, the smallest movements could be an indicator that the person is trying to hide something. We are all guilty of lying, whether it is a white lie, a lie of omission or a lie of commission. A lie of omission is where you leave leave out important information and a lie of commission is a statement that is completely false. I want to find out how to catch a liar?  And Who is best at catching a liar?

This article on the different non-verbal signals people make when they are lying and it gives the biological explanation as to why they do it which is extremely interesting. A liar may blink more than the average person. Or they may touch their neck, that is a common psychological response for a person to do when they feel threatened. “Men tend to grasp the front of the neck and in the process stimulate the nerves such as vagus nerves and the carotid sinus. Sometimes they use a few fingers to rub the sides or the back. The gesture stimulates the area and has a calming effect. It can even reduce the heart rate.  “Women tend to cover the suprasternal notch in front of their neck. They may touch the side of the neck lightly. Sometimes this gesture is shown by touching, twisting or playing with a necklace” (Rand 1).

Some other indicators include:

• hiding the hands
• lifting hair off shoulders or pulling the shirt collar off your chest
• tight lips
• raised shoulders
• touching the mouth
• touching the nose
• avoiding eye contact, unless they are a pathological liar, then they will look you straight in the eye and lie to you
• use of word fillers: “um”
• long pauses
• sweating

I would assume that the best lie detectors would be the people who do it as their profession such as police, detectives and even some psychologists. However, a meta-analysis study conducted by Michael Aamondt and Heather Custer shows different results. They looked at 108 studies that had 16,537 subjects. The study looked at gender, age, experience and education. They concluded that “professional lie catchers” such as police officers, detectives, judges, and psychologists were no more accurate at detecting deception than were students and other citizens” (Aamondt, Custer 1). Lie detectors’ accuracy rate is 55.51% while students’ accuracy rate is  54.22%. What I take away from this is that lie detection is a skill that has to be studied and trained, and even after that it takes a special person to be able to read complete strangers. Since this study is looking at averages of types of people, it is saying that no groups of people are better at detecting lies than another group of people; but a specific policeman might be better at catching liars than a specific mom. Also, the theoretical situations they used when testing could not allow the subjects to identify deception.

The meta-analysis did find that people who have have the personality trait of self-monitoring are best at catching liars because they are very aware of their environment and are able to easily read others body and verbal language. Many criminals have this personality characteristic as the article stated that one study verified that criminals have more “insight than students and prison personnel regarding the cues that are the best to use when detecting deception” (Aamondt, Custer 1). This goes with the cliche saying, “it takes one to know one.”

To conclude, there are many ways to detect a liar. But you need to be careful that you aren’t accusing the man who is rubbing his nose of lying, when he actually just has allergies. It takes a special person to be able to detect a liar. If it were easy the government wouldn’t have to hire people to only question people or stare them down until they crack.

Its obvious that we all use our cell phones in class. With every thing going on in social media, we can’t help but take a glance every once in a while. But this is not the case in some schools. There are now schools that completely ban having cell phones. While cell phones can be used to help with class room discussions, just like our comment wall in class, are they doing more good than bad? These schools that ban cell phones believe that they do more bad than good, and research has found that.

The use of smart phones in the classroom have a negative impact on grades, performance, and test scores. A study was conducted by the London School of Economics that showed that not allowing students to carry their cell phones made an improvement on their test scores. The study “looked at how phone policies at 91 schools in England have changed since 2001, and compared that data with results achieved in national exams taken at the age of 16. The study covered 130,000 students”.

The results found from this study found that a ban on phone use in school increased the school’s average test scores by 6.4%. This difference was just for regular students, and an even more significant increase in test score average was found in underachieving students, at 14%.

This specific study has been talked about in many articles and I have had some trouble finding more studies on the issue. We do get a good understanding however on the negative impacts from the use of cellphones from this study. By not having cell phones in school, students are performing better, they are getting higher test score averages. While I agree with their findings, it is hard to decide whether cell phones should be banned entirely, because they can have benefits…

According to an article from the Boston Globe, “88 percent of American teens ages 13 to 17 have or have access to a mobile phone, and a majority of teens (73 percent) have smartphones” and from this percentage, “ninety-two percent of teens report going online daily, with more than half saying they’re online several times a day. Twenty-four percent say they do so ‘almost constantly.'”

I for one use my cell phone pretty much all day long but not just for social media (shocking right?) but for educational purposes. There are many educational apps that smart phones have where you can do research and complete assignments.

The decision to ban or allow cell phones in school is very controversial and is important to discuss, especially for us because we are students and this is impacting us first hand. My opinion on the issue is that cell phones should not be banned entirely, but shouldn’t be allowed unless the teacher is instructing you to use them. Cell phones can be a HUGE distraction (not going to lie, it is a distraction for me in this class), but they can be a great aspect to our learning.

There’s a very popular myth amongst pop-psychology communities of understanding that there are types of people who use different sides of their brain more often and in a more apt capacity than the other side. This understanding of the human brain is a fundamental misconception of developments in psychology and neuroscience, and is little more than an over-simplified construction that has turned into not much more than a gimmick on Facebook. The concept of being someone who is more accustomed to “creative” forms of thinking as opposed to “objective” ones has little basis in the scientific method, especially as Studies support the idea of all areas of the brain working in coordination to achieve a task regardless of what the task asked of the human brain. Though different areas of the brain may show higher or more intense activity with different areas of thinking, the idea of having a dominant side of the brain like a dominant hand is not exactly a no-brainer.

The idea of this dominance stems from the theory of lateralization of brain-function, with the left side of the brain predisposed to objective analysis, language, and more “solid-state” information that is adaptable, whereas the right-brain is more conceptually based for comprehension and spatial information. Scientist and Nobel laureate Roger W. Sperry discovered more about the conjunction of the brain’s hemispheres by attempting to eliminate seizures in patients. The corpus callosum is the segment of the brain that joins the two hemispheres, and that cutting this section would eliminate these seizures. However, the misunderstanding occurred from the observation that Sperry wrongly associated his patients’ lack of ability to name objects as the “severed connection” of information between the hemispheres. In a study consisting of 60 right-handed males of varying age from 14-20, they asked the subjects to complete a variety of tasks that challenged left-and-right visual comprehension, which showed that the “mathematically gifted” students had completed the laterally-concerned tests slower than the “average” students, yet when the tasks became more comprehensive and “asked” both sides of the brain, comprehension was much quicker. However, I believe this study suffers from generalization, as exclusively males were picked from the premise that males are more adept at math based on findings from other studies, which leaves variables unaccounted for in gender, age and level of ability. One thing is clear, however, that the idea of the brain being exclusively dichotomous is rather unfounded.

So, in short, the brain works together to accomplish all tasks it is presented with. Though studies can attempt to evaluate and confirm biases about how the brain is assumed to work, varying levels of activity can be seen depending on the task, and understandably so. However, the face-value assessment of how well a math student can solve problems based on SAT scores is only an incomplete concept of how brain activity works in conjunction with both objective and creative areas of processing information and learning.

 

http://rense.com/general2/rb.htm

http://www.livescience.com/39373-left-brain-right-brain-myth.html

Click to access neu-182371.pdf

http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/a/left-brain-right-brain.htm

http://healthcare.utah.edu/publicaffairs/news/current/08-14-2013_brain_personality_traits.php

According to PBS, one in three teens send more than 100 texts a day.  I am definitely one of those teens.  My phone is glued to my hand or pocket all day, and I answer each text within 30 seconds of recieving it. My phone is my life, and without it I would be lost.  One major time I use it is before bed.  At midnight, I’ll lay under my blankets, staring at the tiny lit screen, reading tweets that I might have missed throughout the day.  When I’m finally tired enough, I lock it and turn over to try to fall asleep.  According to recent studies, though, I’m doing exactly what I shouldn’t be doing before bed.

A study from 2008, when cell phones were less popular than they are now, showed that cell phone use before bed causes people to not be in a deep sleep as long throughout the night.  “Sleep Texting” is even an increasing issue among teens, which involves replying to a text while you are sleeping (I am also guilty of doing this).  If you are texting in your sleep, you are clearly not actually in a deep sleep, which means you may not be getting the necessary hours needed to function properly the next day.

A study from  Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston conducted a well done study of the effects of light on sleep. The study was a randomized control study, but was not double-blind, which could affect the conclusion slightly. Twelve subjects read on an iPad before bed, and twelve read on printed books.  The subjects that read on the iPad had less melatonin, and “experienced shorter restorative REM cycles, delayed circadian rhythms, and felt sleepier the next morning despite getting eight hours of sleep.” Because there was a control group, I feel that the conclusion of this study, that light affects sleep, is an accurate and safe conclusion.

A few days ago, I wrote a blog about my struggles with sleep talking. After doing my research on phone use before bed, I am starting to wonder if my phone use has something to do with my sleep talking. It seems plausible that my cell phone use is causing me to not be in a deep sleep, which then may cause me to sleep talk.  It would be interesting to do an experiment where one group uses their phones before bed and one group doesn’t, and then track their sleep throughout the night.  We could easily see who sleep talks more and if there is a correlation between the two.

My research has opened my eyes to see that I need to be careful with how much I use my phone.  As a college student, any sleep I can get is vital to my success, so jeopardizing that sleep with my phone use hasn’t been a smart move.

When I was home over the weekend, my friend and I were driving back to State College and picked a playlist from Spotify to play. It ended up being a compilation of a lot of melancholy and rather sad songs, but we kept it on because we were enjoying the music. Then my friend said in the midst of our singing, “sometimes I like listening to sad songs just to be sad for a little while.” Now before you think that the comment is strange, think about it. If you’re having a day where things aren’t going too well and you just feel like allowing yourself to have a bad day, you’ll probably not be found listening to upbeat pop or positive music. Instead, you’ll probably listen to something more subdued and relatable to your mournful attitude. Speaking from experience, music is usually a tool that aids us in wallowing in our sorrows, and providing words that relate to our misery. Could there really be a problem with wanting to engage in something that allows us to be sad just a little longer, like my friend does? The answer is yes! Because believe it or not, music is, in some cases, linked to depression!

According to a study of 106 patients that was conducted at the University of Pittsburg School of Medicine, music does actually cause an increased chance of teenagers developing depression. How much more likely of developing it? 8.3 times more likely as opposed to teenagers who spend their time reading, which were one-tenth more likely to develop it (Fox News).

With this study and many others, researchers have still not been able to find out whether the actual act of listening to the music is what leads teenagers into depression, or if they become depressed, then listen to sad music, causing them to fall deeper into a depressed state. But Pediatrician Brian Primack is saying, at this point, that “it’s more likely that depressed teenagers are turning to music for solace, rather than music being the cause of the mental illness” (Primack).

Basically, the researchers weren’t completely concerned with cause and effect as this point, but they did want to know if music could be a third variable in the cause of depression in teenagers, considering depression affects 1 in every 12 teens.

The study measured depression in teenagers who mainly watched TV, read a book, spent time on social media, or listened to music. Perhaps one of the biggest surprises in this study is that it showed that “there wasn’t a big correlation with depression and TV. Instead, it was music that matched with depression” (npr). This really surprised me because TV definitely provides its viewers with some shows that can be very saddening, but music, even though it’s not visual, appears to have an even worse affect.

I think that to know for sure if these results are true, more studies will have to be done to prove it. And it would, of course, be interesting to see the cause and effect of this problem. But in the mean time, if you feel yourself becoming depressed or upset, maybe you should take a break from the music and distract yourself with a book or a walk!

I recently heard that farting on someones pillow has the potential of giving them pink eye. When I first heard this, I didn’t believe it. Later I realized that this would be a perfect blog post. I asked all of my friends and they all said that they knew of this myth and they believed it. My research has proven to me that this is just a myth and I am here to tell you why.

First, what is pink eye? It is also called conjunctivitis and it is the “redness and swelling of the conjunctiva,” which is the clear lining of the eye. When irritation of infection happy, the lining becomes “red and swollen.” This is such a common condition that it disappears in 7-10 days without medical interference. It is usually caused by infections, dry eyes, chemicals or fumes, and allergies. It is also highly contagious. Symptoms include red eyes, eyelid swelling, itchy eyelids, excessive tearing, and thick, “whitish drainage.”

Now that we know what pink eye is, can it actually be cause by farting on a pillow? Not really. This idea is an urban legend. Some people question whether or not gas from the body when someone farts can cause pink eye. However, most of the gas the is excreted from the body is methane, “and methane alone cannot cause pink eye.” The likelihood of getting pink eye from farting is very very slim. The conditions would have to be exactly as follows:

1. Someone farts on a pillow “without anything between themselves and the pillowcase.”
2. Enough bacteria would need to land on the pillow case to do any type of damage.
3. Someone would then have to “lie down on the pillow immediately in order to get the bacteria on your skin.” However, this is highly unlikely because bacteria can not survive very in long in open air.

While this “‘perfect storm’ of flatulence” can occur, it is very unlikely. Therefore, farting on a pillow will not, in majority of the cases, cause pink eye.

Now that this myth is busted, I want to explore the world of flatulence a little more. Can farting cause some other type of infection, sickness, or disease? “The average human passes wind approximately 15 times a day” so I feel like the likelihood of such a common act causing a medical tragedy is quite low. Let’s just say that the internet has come pretty interesting stuff. I stumble on an article title “Study: Smelling farts may be good for your health.” Folks at the University of Exeter in England claim that “exposure to hydrogen sulfide– a.k.a. what your body produces as bacteria breaks down food, causing gas– could prevent mitochondria damage.” In other words, they are suggesting that “smelling farts could prevent disease and even cancer.” The study is being conducted in “several models of disease” with potentially promising results. However, Professor Matt Whiteman and Dr. Mark Wood, the leaders of the study, are now “advancing the research to a stage where it can be tested in humans.” The mechanism for this phenomenon is not known. I do think that that this research is beginning to have a snow ball affect. The research “experiment was limited to cell exposure in a lab.” This alone is not enough to conclude that AP39, the stinky fart, can actually do something.

People are so quick to make assumptions in the early stages of research. I am fascinated by this question and this research but it is only preliminary. That is one of my criticisms of science. Or perhaps, how the media reports science. On Google, there were thousands of hits all on this “flatulence” topic. But the funny thing is that nearly all of the articles talked about the singular study conducted at the University of Exeter. One tiny, preliminary study alone cannot hold enough evidence to make an educated conclusion. Shoutout to Andrew for making me notice this.

So does farting cause pink eye? Nope. Can farting cure cancer? Eh, there is always the potential that it might be the cure but as of right now, it is way to early to tell and unlikely.

Believe it or not, I got my first nose bleed this weekend when I was home. 18 years old and I didn’t know what to do when blood started dripping from my nose. My mother and I got into an argument while trying to resolve the issue when we couldn’t agree on which way to tilt my head. My natural instinct was to tilt my head forward so that the blood didn’t get on me, but she wanted me to pinch my nose and tilt my head back. So which is it? Forward or backward?

I, first, want to look at how and why we get nose bleeds because it often times makes me wonder why our noses can just start to bleed. Well, it turns out that there are two types of
nosebleeds, anterior (front of nose) and posterior (back of nose). According to WebMd, anterior nose bleeds are more common and less dangerous. The blood in anterior bleeds comes from blood vessels which are easier to stop the bleeding versus the bleeding from an artery in the back of the nose, which comes with posterior nose bleeds. Posterior nosebleeds are not common but happen the most in elderly people and require medical help to stop the bleeding.

So what causes the nose bleeds?

Nose bleeds are caused by numerous variables. According to this cite, nosebleeds can be caused by nose trauma, exposure to dry air, nasal and sinus infections, vigorous nose blowing, nasal surgery, and even cocaine use. Nose trauma would be any outside force colliding with the nose. For example, sports injuries, accidental bumps, piercings, and even picking your nose. Vigorous nose blowing goes hand in hand with having a sinus infection and dry air. If your nose is dry or you are constantly blowing your nose, it is more likely for you to get a bloody nose that way because you can pop blood vessels by constantly and viciously blowing your nose.

Now that we know the science behind nose bleeds, we can look into which way you are supposed to tilt your head and why.

After looking at many sites, they all seemed to give me the same answer. According to Dr. Diane Heatley, you are supposed to tilt your head forward when you have a nose bleed. This is to prevent the blood from going down your throat and putting you at risk for choking. While your head is tilted forward she advises that you add pressure to the nose to induce normal blood clotting to occur. When it comes to adding ice into the equation she says “A cold cloth or small ice pack on the bridge of the nose will also slow blood flow by constricting blood vessels.”

So there you have it, you are supposed to tilt your head forward and not back.

I am an avid dog lover. I currently have three dogs that I love more than anything. Particularly, the youngest of the three which I am lucky enough to call mine. Sometimes my parents swear that, since I’ve been away at college, I miss my dogs more than I miss them, which may or may not be true considering how happy I get when I finally get to go home and see them. My emotions toward my dogs got me thinking, do they really know how I’m feeling? I know any time I’ve been sad, happy, angry, nervous, excited and every emotion in between, my dog seems to have a “sixth sense” about it. She knows how to react and approach me according to my mood, but does she truly know what that mood is? Can dogs read emotions? And if so, how?

As it turns out, many researchers believe dogs do understand how their human counterpart is feeling, the tricky part is determining how and to what extent.

According to one of the more recent, bigger, and advanced studies ever done on dogs, there is an emotion detector in the dog’s brain which is activated through voice. Published in the journal Current Biology, a team of researchers at E​ötvös Loránd University in Hungary conducted an fMRI scan on 11 dogs. While the dogs were in the scanner, they wore headphones that played over 200 different sounds that ranged from human voices to dog noises to sounds of the environment as well as silence. Just like a human, the dogs’ brains reacted more to vocalized noises which showed emotion–whether it was from a human or dog–than to non-vocalized noises. Although there is no way to determine what exactly was going on in the dogs’ brains to make them react, it is safe to conclude that dogs can tell the difference between a sad noise, a happy noise, and so on and so forth.

Meanwhile, two separate studies conducted by the University of Tokyo (published in the journal PLOS ONE) and the University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna alongside Ludwig Huber (published in the journal Current Biology) found that dogs were able to recognize human emotion by watching their faces. The first study made the connection between dogs and yawning. By ruling out stress (because the dogs’ heartbeats did not speed up when they yawned), researchers concluded that the dogs were empathizing with their owners, especially since they were more likely to yawn when it was genuine and done by their owner and not a stranger. In the second study, where the dogs were trained to pick out the pictures of humans with happy and angry faces, dogs approached the happy faces faster and hesitated before approaching the angry faces, which caused researchers to conclude that “dogs were able to decipher between happy and angry faces because of their memories from other human relationships.” In other words, they were able to understand one emotion from the other.

A final study done by the University of London met all of the previously mentioned studies in the middle and concluded that it was a bit of both vocal and visual. The dogs in the study were more likely to go toward and submit to a person who was sad and crying than a person who was humming to spark their curiosity. By going toward the crying people, researchers decided that dogs were capable of differentiating between genuine emotion and lack thereof.

In my opinion, I think the study done by the University of London is on the right path. If studies are using different methods in order to test the same hypothesis but both methods are finding the same result, it is more than likely a combination of both visual and vocal cues which allow a dog to relate to human emotions. However, there are a countless number of problems that could occur during such tests. For one, researchers may not be able to examine both theories at the same time. They also may never find a mechanism, working with dogs and not humans, it is unlikely that we will be able to know the driving force behind why dogs do what they do because we can never truly know how or what they’re thinking about. Inadequate sample sizes as well as confounding variables come into play, too. Despite this, all of the studies continue to state that dogs can recognize human emotion, it’s the ‘how they do it’ that will remain inconclusive, but no matter what, all of the conclusions have one thing in common: they will either be correct or a false positive.

Have you ever experienced a situation where you caught a whiff of a familiar scent, and it suddenly brought you back to a specific memory, perhaps one from childhood? Most people have experienced this type of a situation, and it is often accompanied by lots of sentiment and emotion as you recall a memory that you had long forgotten. The reason that this happens is due to one of our most intriguing senses, olfaction, more commonly known as “smell.” I decided to explore the connection between scents and memory, to try to find a scientific explanation for that feeling of nostalgia that a specific smell can sometimes give us.

A controlled study was done on right-handed females, in which researchers used an fMRI to evaluate the brain’s response to odor-evoked memories. Researchers tested several different cues, including visual, olfactory, and even control cues, and found “significantly greater activation” in the memory regions of the brain “during recall to the personally significant odor than any other cue.” These results are consistent with the hypothesis that smell is a stronger trigger of memory than other cues. However, as usual, there are things we must be wary of. This study could possibly suffer from the Texas Sharpshooter problem, in that the researcher tested so many types of cues that one of them was bound to cause an emotional response in the participants. On a different note, it is interesting to recognize that this study, which only used right-handed females, controlled for possible differences between people who are “left-brained” and people who are “right-brained,” (as they are said to think and behave differently), further validating it as a well-executed, controlled study.

Another randomized study sought to explore the same connection. This study, which tested “three cue conditions (odor only, name only, or odor name),” found that memories evoked by scents involved a more potent emotional response than those evoked by verbal cues. Similar to the first study, the conclusions of this study are consistent with the notion that there is a strong emotional response to memories triggered by olfaction. Again, though, we must be wary because it is possible that the file drawer problem is at play here. It is plausible that only studies with affirmative results were published, and that several studies that found no such connection were not published, thus affecting our conclusions.

Keeping in mind the discrepancies I have mentioned, we can evaluate the implications of these two studies. Knowing this information, companies that manufacture fragranced products, such as Febreze or Yankee Candle, might want to consider selling products that have familiar scents to consumers, as this could potentially influence consumers to buy these products. We must also consider the negative implications of this line of research. Just as familiar odors can bring back pleasant memories, they can also evoke negative memories, such as in the case of PTSD patients, as documented in this study. Overall, the takeaway is that there is scientific evidence to support the idea of scent as a strong trigger of emotional memories. So, next time you smell something that takes you back to a specific time and place, you have some idea of why.

“Money doesn’t buy happiness” is a commonly used statement.  How correct is it, though? Money can buy a lot of things: clothes, vacations, jewelry, movie tickets, college tuition, food. Most of those things cause people to feel some sort of happiness, right? Happiness is defined as “good fortune; pleasure; contentment; joy.” From personal experience, I would say that there are many things I have bought that have caused me to feel some kind of pleasure or joy. I’ve also learned in my Economics class that people spend their money on objects that give them some sort of benefit, or “utility.”

The Wall Street Journal has a long article titled “Can Money Buy Happiness?,” and it looks at all different aspects of consumers.  The author talks about several different studies, but never talks about the validity of the studies and how they were conducted.  The author concludes that money can buy happiness if it doesn’t lead to debt later in life.  While his conclusion seems plausible, I struggle to fully trust him because he never explains he studies he analyzed to make sure there weren’t confounding variables or biases.  He simply assumed that the studies were correct without doing any research into each one.  Although, he did look at several different studies, instead of just one, so overall his conclusion could be accurate.

The next article I looked at was from PBS.  They’re conclusion was that money can buy happiness if the money is spent on experiences rather than physical objects.  I found that this article was more trust worthy because the author actually took the time to explain the study.  The study was a survey, so because it was not a double-blind randomized control trial, there could be other variables causing the findings. Along with it being a survey, there were only 632 respondents, so that may not be a large enough sample to make a conclusion on.  The study found a correlation between higher income and joy from giving money to charity.  Correlation does not mean causation, but if you think about both PBS and Wall Street Journal, there seems to be a common theme that money can buy happiness.

Overall, I haven’t been able to find a study accurate enough to make a solid conclusion about money and happiness, but it does seem like there could be a correlation between the two.  People who use money to buy experiences seem to be more likely to be happier than people who use money to by objects.

 

Every college student I have ever talked to has advised me to not take an 8 am. As I scheduled my 8 am math course I reassure myself that it wouldn’t be that bad. My high school classes started at 7:30, so an 8:00 class would give me an extra half hour. As we are approaching the halfway mark through the semester, I can assure you, It’s THAT bad. This leads me to wonder how class time affects student productivity and what time of day is the most beneficial for learning.

The KBM journal of Science education published a study conducted by Stella K. Kantartzi1, Sherrice Allen, Khalid Lodhi, Robert L. Grier IV and My Abdelmajid Kassem to determine how study factors affect student’s performance in the different biology classes. They analyzed class time, gender, semester, absences and class difficulty.
The results they found about class time varied. In the biology 150 class, students who attended afternoon classes recieved better grades than those who took morning ones. In the BOTN 210 class, class time had no affect on preformance, and in BIOL 330, students who took morning classes received higher grades. The results of this study suffer from the texas sharp shooter fallacy. They are looking at too many variables, making it hard to find one reason why morning or afternoon classes are better. They also talk about class difficulty and how more students might be absent for morning classes, which will obviously affect their grades. Then they go on to talk about how gender and semester affect absences. There is too much going on to draw an accurate conclusion from this study. A more accurate study would be conducted by looking at grades from morning and afternoon classes from classes of the same subject and difficulty.

A study conducted by psychologists, Serge Onyper and Pamela Thacher at St. Lawrence found some statistical data proving a correlation between class time and preformance. She concluded that “for every hour of class that you have later, you get about a .02 difference, so three hours of difference between class start times will result in a .06 diffference in grades” (Reimold 1).

The article also reviewed findings from Diamondback at the UNiversity of Maryland. They brought up an interesting point about students’ sleep schedule and alcohol consumption. Their study showed that students who have later classes, might not always get more sleep. They also have the tendency to drink more since they don’t have to wake up early. But, the drinking disrupts their sleep so are the really benefiting? Students with morning classes tend to stay in on weeknights and maintain a daily routine.

That all being said, I don’t know one fully rested, non- sleep deprived college student. Although statistics prove that morning classes equate to better grades, every student is different. Some people love mornings while others simply can’t function academically at 8 am even with 8 hours of sleep. When scheduling classes, think about whats best for you academically, not socially. There is plenty of time to drink on the weekend!

When I decide to come to Penn State University several months ago, I started to find my roommate online. One of the most important source that allows me to know my future roommate better was Facebook– The most popular social media website world widely. According to Jo Hemmings, a behavioral psychologist, three quarters of people judge their peers based on their Facebook profile. In other words, fictitious network plays a more and more important part in actual world, because it affects our opinion toward things and people around us more and more heavily. A survey conducted by HTC, a smartphone maker, found that in oder to make their Facebook seem to be more exciting, six percent of users had borrowed items to show off on their homepage and state them as their owns. Most surveyed people said those posted images are merely intend to cause jealousy among friends and family. There is a common desire to show off how rich people are through network, to prove themselves as successful people. Thus, those “fake posts” may as expectedly contain stuff such as houses, cars and luxuries. I always cannot understand this kind of people. When their followers are deceived that they appear to be rich, what is the next? They can bring you nothing except “wow!” or “cool!” Though they may admire you, can they bring you money?   No. Can they come to you and try to build a deeper friendship with you? Maybe, but are you going to welcome those people who decide to come closer to you only after knowing you are rich? You know what you are, why we have to live like some actors?

Nowadays people live in a world that filled with instant communication, and obviously more rely on each other than decades ago. Through social media, we can know what our friends are wearing, what cars they are driving immediately. Online peer-to-peer recommendation influence 76 percent of surveyed people to buy things. This can absolutely have great advantages among lives. For example, before  I  buy a body lotion, I can search “body lotions” on Instagram first,  to see how many “likes” below each type and what those comments talk about. Technologies make life convenient. However, on the other side, technologies make people more dependable at the same time. Undeniably, beings are social animals that have to depend on each other, but it does not mean that they have to share the same viewpoints on most things. If I wear one my favorite shoes and post it on my Instagram,  but most my friends comment that this pair is old-fashioned, do I need to feel bad for my taste and delete this post immediately? Do I need to care that much about others’ opinion?

Many people where I live have turned towards becoming vegan, organic, vegetarian, or gluten free. All those people have very strong views on why they decided to change their diet, and tend to be very opinionated about the reasonings of why this is the case, all for different reasons.  I never really understood how or why someone would want to be a vegan, but all those I talk to about this topic say it is a much healthier diet and more humane.  Where are these people getting all their nutrients from that others get from consuming meat?  With this question in mind I decided to take a closer look on all things vegan.

Percent of Vegans and Vegetarians in the U.S. in 2013

Protein is the main nutrient coming from meat and the main food that vegans give up when deciding to change their eating life style.  There are other foods, though, that vegans can get these nutrients from such as beans, quinoa, tofu, peanut butter ect.  Individuals, though, do not need large quantities of protein as a part of their diet; only 1 in every 10 calories need to contain a protein base.  “For example, a vegan male weighing 174 pounds could have a calorie requirement of 2,600 calories and only need 284 calories from protein.” B-12, coming from animal protein, is the most lacking nutrient, though, that vegans loose on a daily basis.  Even if vegans are able to get protein from other foods is this a fully safe change in diet?

In 1999 Meta-Analysis study compared vegan death rates to non-vegans.

Alternative hypothesis:  death rate is higher in non-vegan eaters than vegan eaters

Null hypothesis: death rate is equal of those non-vegans and vegans

This study was conducted with 753 individuals varying from living in North America and Europe.  What was discovered was vegans had a heart disease rate of .74 and a mortality rate of 1.00 ; only 68 vegan deaths.  Non-vegans had a heart disease and death rate of 1.00, nearly the same as vegan eaters, showing no significant difference between the two death rates.  Although this study found no substancial difference between the two this experiment could have been conducted differently to find more accurate results.  Two groups could have been formed with one as a control group and the other as the experimental.  Both groups starting as people who have a regular diet to start and then half of these individuals change to a vegan diet for a year while the other group keeps a regular diet.  These individuals would be tested prior and post the experiment on different diseases, heart rate, blood pressure levels ect.  So this experiment, I believe is not fully reliable without further experimentation and still unknown if being a vegan is a safe, healthy alternative to a typical diet.

“People are very sensitive about their diets, especially when you challenge what they have always believed,” dietitian Julieanna Hever, RD.  This is a big reason why there are not too many studies conducted about this topic.  More research would have to occur and society would have to become more accepting about the fact that people have different ideas and values when regarding their diets.  This is the same for vegan eaters, they cannot push their values about veganism onto others, because this can cause others to be less accepting about what vegans believe in.

In my last post, I talked about the possibility of getting mouth cancer from alcohol based mouthwash. Upon reading the comments about it; it was a pretty bad post. I couldn’t keep focused, and I must admit I had a bit of a Texas Sharpshooter issue when I went out to look for studies. At the conclusion of my study, I made a comment about alcohol and smoking, which didn’t relate to mouthwash at all, but will relate to this post.

We’ve all seen it; you’re at a party and all the guys head outside for a cigarette. You know from your sc200 class that smoking is bad for you, and can lead to shortened life and cancer. The question I’m going to address is why people like smoking so much more when they’re intoxicated. Doctors at Men’s Health suggest a chemical reaction in the brain. “Alcohol and nicotine stimulate the reward part of the brain” the article suggests. This leads to a mechanism by which we could create an association between drinking and smoking. As described in the article, “Drinking is like priming the pump, then you remember how nice the last time you smoked a cigarette was”. Both drinking and smoking can generate rewarding feelings, so one leads to the other. Another study to support our claim is this one; which describes the relationship correlation between smoking and drinking. Unlisted studies claim that a decrease in smoking leads to a decrease in drinking. As more bars go to no smoking rules, people are forced to step outside for their smoke. This directly leads to less drinking, because when you’re outside you can’t have a drink with you. Thinking the reverse affect, the more you smoke, the thirstier you get; so the more you drink.

So the next time you’re out drinking, think about whether or not you’re really unhappy without that cigarette. Also glance at this article which suggests a correlation between smoking cigarettes and having a bad hangover.

I have always wondered why exactly thrill seekers think how they do? Why do some people get s thrill from bungee jumping while for others this idea could make them throw up? Also are there reasons for thrill seeking or are people just born into this way of life?

This is mostly based on biological behavior and what type of personality one has. Type T personality, for example, is a personality type that takes risks. They are extroverts, but while some use their personality for good, like through business deals, others use it in the wrong way.  For example, some turn out to be sociopaths and find their thrill that way. Frank Farley explains Type T personalities deeper. This personality is based off of biological forces, like how much dopamine or testosterone one has. Dopamine and testosterone both affect how much of a thrill seeker one can be and if they live on the dangerous side or not. On the other hand it is also psychological and how the person acts and takes on challenges. These people are creative and take matters into their own hands, and as I said, extroverts.

Thrill seeking can also be based off of previous experiences we have had, like being in the Army for example. Yes, people going into the Army I feel have Type T personalities in the first place but I am talking about how they are affected after coming back from war. However, others may be going into war for external reasons, such as simply wanting to help fight for our country or maybe because veterans are in their family history. But, when these brave men and women are coming back from the thrills and scariness that come along with fighting for our country, they think it is boring at home. This leads them to take frightening risks in other ways to make up for the adrenaline loss they have.  Colonel Shahbaz wants to look further into this. He wants to measure if a predisposition to risk taking is involved in enlisting in combat and if risk takers are more likely to commit suicide or die in accidents.

In 2010 a five year study (in the link above) began to find out more about this correlation. The Army and National Institute of Mental Health looked at 90,000 soldiers already at war and 80,000-120,000 recruitments per year. They distributed a study that involved questions like if they had owned a motorcycle or if they would be interested in bungee jumping. Their family background and genetics were also looked at. 79 percent of soldiers that had committed suicide had one or none deployment. To blame war itself is not logical, because their could be so many other things involved. Chance, previous psychological issues, or problems that had to do with family, for example, could play a factor. Now, I do not know how accurate this could be given it is a quantitative experiment. There are so many participants and I am sure it was taken seriously, however so many third variables could be involved. If they had taken a smaller number of participants and looked at each separately this may have been more beneficial. The Army and others involved in the set up of this experiment, claim they need to pin point the most common actions of adrenaline and let everyone know of safer things to do and how to handle their adrenaline loss.

Thrill seekers find pleasure and a sense of calmness when risk taking. Chris Carr, a sport psychologist, studied skiers that went racing down a hill at 70 mph and divers that were diving from 32 feet above water. The athletes did not mention the thrill or risk behaviors they were taking, but more the sense of calmness they felt when taking the risk.

While these studies could be convincing, I believe there needs to be more of a meta-analysis of smaller studies done. It could possibly involve how the brain is working while these people are taking risks. Or comparing how thrill seekers feel when riding a roller coaster, to people that do not enjoy risk behaviors.

Growing up, I often noticed how my friends’ parents had different parenting styles than my parents. Some would hit their children, reward them with extravagant gifts, or just sometimes flat-out ignore them. With education and intelligence being a large factor in everyday life, I am lead to wonder: do parenting styles influence the cognitive ability of children? I think the answer is yes.

Psychologist Diana Baumrind studied different parenting styles, the main three being: authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative. Authoritarian parents enforce strict, rigid rules and demand strict obedience to authority. Permissive parents tend to give little and inconsistent guidance, give children excessive freedom, and lack good communication. Authoritative parents give firm and consistent guidance, communicate effectively, have reasonable expectations, and are caring and responsive.

 

A study, which you can review here, was conducted examining my question. It consisted of surveys distributed to parents, and interviews conducted with children. The participants were taken from families with children in first and third grade from a medium-sized southern town in America. The families were offered $25 to participate in the study. The final sample size yielded 267 mother-child pairs and 127 father-child pairs. Variables regarding the parent’s such as income, past schooling, marital status and race were evaluated and controlled throughout the study.

The results showed a strong correlation between the mother’s socioeconomic-demographic characteristics and the cognitive ability of the children stating, “These findings indicate that children with White married mothers with higher levels of education and from families with higher levels of income have higher cognitive ability scores.” Furthermore, the mother’s parenting styles correlated with cognitive ability stating, “Both authoritarian and permissive parenting styles were negatively related to children’s cognitive ability indicating that children with mothers who report higher levels of authoritarian and permissive parenting practices have lower cognitive ability scores.”

The father’s socioeconomic-demographic characteristics yielded the same results as the mother’s. Children of White married fathers who completed a higher form of education and come from higher socio-economic classes had higher cognitive ability scores. However, the father’s responses yielded that only one of the parenting styles, permissive, was negatively related to the child’s cognitive performance.

This particular study showed that the control variables (socio-economic demographic characteristics) were more correlated with a child’s cognitive ability than parenting styles. I believe this study could have yielded better results if it used different techniques. Primarily, surveys give the participant the liberty to record anything they want. Also, because they were given an incentive to participate in the study, the parents could have filled out random answers in the survey just to get it over with and collect their money, instead of accurately filling it out. Additionally, the participants studied were from the same area. The sample size should have been composed of people from different parts of the country, from different races, and from different socioeconomic backgrounds. This would have provided a more accurate representation of the population of our country, thus making the results more inclusive. Once chosen, scientists should monitor the parenting styles and children’s cognitive ability from the time the children are infants, to the time they reach college. This longitudinal study approach would allow the observers to follow their subjects as their cognitive ability develops, and then they could see from there how parenting styles may correlate with cognitive ability. Observing families in this fashion would help narrow the study to strictly how parenting styles influence cognitive ability.

Growing up, I was forced to wear a bike helmet by my parents and the law. In Pennsylvania, kids under the age of twelve must wear helmets. The reasoning behind wearing a helmet is to reduce risk of head injury in the event of an accident, but like many people, however, I have a distaste for helmets because it ruins my hair. I rarely ride my bike around campus
, and I probably will not commute via
bike to my future job, but I do see the increasing trend in metropolitan areas. Because of this trend, I wonder if regulators will implement mandatory helmet laws and if those laws would improve or reduce safety.

Last year a leading neurosurgeon, Dr. Henry Marsh, made controversial comments with regard to bicycle helmets. He stated that people using helmets are wasting their time, and that the helmets are “too flimsy” to do any help. Dr. Marsh uses anecdotal evidence to back his claim by referring to patients of his whose helmets did not protect them. He goes on to mention the fact that he has been riding for about 40 years and never has only been knocked off his bike once and without major injury.

Dr. Marsh’s comments are anecdotal observations and do not have any observational or experimental studies in support of his observations. However, because of his medical prestige, his opinion is valued more by the public and newspaper publications. This is all too common in the media. A report is made about an opinion of a doctor or a scholar, and the general public reads it at face value and believes it.

Although Dr. Marsh’s were not convincing to me, there was a study conducted by Ian Walker, a professor at the University of Bath, which found that bicyclists wearing helmets encountered riskier automotive maneuvers in their vicinity than non-helmet wearing bicyclists. Walker mounted several ultrasonic sensors on himself and his bike while he was riding. Over the course of two months, Walker rode his bike with and without his helmet. During that time span, 2,355 vehicles overtook him, and he found that on average, vehicles passed him about 3.5 inches closer when he was wearing a helmet. Walker hypothesizes that drivers are more cautious around people not wearing helmets. Walker’s study seems well down. It has a large sample size. He does, however,  ride on multiple different street types (one-way, two way, those with bike lanes, etc.) which might interfere with testing the alternative hypothesis that wearing bike helmets alone cause cars to pass closer. Walker also measured curb distance he was riding, the type of car passing (i.e. truck, bus, car, etc.), the color of the car, the time of day, etc. All these measurements may lead to a Texas sharpshooter problem. A correlation is bound to arise with all of these measurements.

Upon re-analysis of this study however, Professor Jake Olivier, a statistician, disputes Walker’s findings. Olivier first points out that the average passing of a vehicle was over a
meter in length. Therefore, Olivier re-analyzed the data according to “the recommended one metre rule into close (less than 1 m) and far (greater than or equal to 1 m) [passing] distances.” After crunching the numbers Olivier found that there is no significant difference to passing buffer distance given to Walker when he was or was not wearing a helmet. This re-analyses gives important insight to this theory. It shows that the deviation between average passing space by c
ars when Walker was and was not wearing a helmet is not significantly different.

Furthermore, a meta-analysis of bike injuries published in Accident Analysis and Prevention found that helmets significantly reduce risk of injury if an accident occurs. The analysis found risk “reduction estimates of at least 45% for head injury, 33% for brain injury, 27% for facial injury and 29% for fatal injury.” The meta-analysis was conducted the best it could be. There is now experimentally designed studies with regard to injury, and many of the studies included evaluated children’s injuries while my main inquiry was with regard to adults. A file drawer problem is suggested because most of the studies found helmets had a positive effect of reducing risk of injury. However, of the 63 studies, 7 did not find a positive effe
ct, which suggest that a file drawer problem is not present because 9% of the studies failed to reject the null hypothesis.

Overall however, I am concerned about the data in the individual studies. Is it possible that risk taking is a confounding variable? People who take risks do not wear helmets and also take risks while riding. Or, do people who wear helmets have more confidence, herefore, take more risks. As of now, the evidence on the topic is not very convincing either way. I would be hard to conduct any blind experiment because the cyclist and other auto traffic know if he/she is wearing a helmet. I guess the best study would be observational of bike crashes, measuring many third variables and limiting the study to only adult riders in metropolitan areas.

Caffeinated drinks are consumed by millions of Americans every day, but what many do not realize are the effects some of them may have on the body. Caffeine works very similar to many drugs because of its addictive traits including the usage of the same brain pathway as heroin, amphetamines, and cocaine. 90% of Americans consume a caffeinated drink on a daily basis. One of the most popular caffeinated drinks amongst the teenage generation because of its high spike in energy and cool reputation is energy drinks. They are consumed by nearly 31% of percent of 12-17 year olds and 34% of all 18-24 years olds(3). Soft drinks such as Pepsi and coke have caffeine limitations set by the FDA set at 71 mg, but there are energy drinks on the market that have caffeine as high as 357mg, over five times the limit set on soda. (1)

The journal of pediatrics study on caffeine overdose led to the following statement, “Energy drinks have no therapeutic benefit, and many ingredients are understudied and not regulated. The known and unknown pharmacology of agents included in such drinks, combined with reports of toxicity, raises concern for potentially serious adverse effects in association with energy drink use.” The consumption of energy drinks has shown to increase risk of cardiac issues especially amongst teens (2). Many feel that educating teens is the best way to prevent the heart issues, but some feel there should be legal action taken because just one drink can have negative effect on a teen, but especially if they are young children. A relatively common occurrence today of high school and college students is mixing alcohol with energy drinks. By doing so the depressant side effect of alcohol consumption is magnified. Studies have shown that those who consume energy drinks while drinking alcohol are three times more likely to binge drink than those who do not.  It also has shown to double the like hood of being taken advantage of sexually. In 2010 the popular drink Four Loko’s were forced to change the contents of the drink. Before the change, the 23.5 ounce drink contained 12 percent alcohol content and as much caffeine as a cup of coffee. Doctors believe the caffeine in the drink intensifies the alcohol effect making them unsafe to consume. (4)

It would not be safe to a conduct double blind test of giving users to alcohol and energy drinks because of its possible unsafe side affects when mixed. The only way to observe whether this is the case is through statistics, but due to the tremendous amounts of variability (amount of alcohol and energy drink consumed, weight, and other outside variables), it would be extremely difficult to have an accurate experiment. If one could determine safe levels to conduct a double blind experiment, each group would need to be random to take out the variables listed above, and each person would need to receive the same amount of energy drink and alcohol.

Without the completion of this experiment it would be difficult to fail to reject the null hypothesis that energy drinks kill people and not chance.

 

https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa15/wp-content/uploads/sites/29639/2015/09/energy.jpg (Image 1)

(1)  http://www.cspinet.org/new/cafchart.htm

(2)  http://www.caffeineinformer.com/is-energy-drink-overdose-in-teens-really-a-problem

(3)  http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/caffeine-and-alcohol.htm

(4)  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/us/17drink.html?_r=0

 

Since I am from Southern California, I am used to 90 degree summers and 65 degree winters. It is usually always sunny outside and rarely rains, even to the point that California is currently in a severe drought. As I have been told and have experienced over the last few weeks at Penn State, Pennslyvania’s weather is very different from that of my hometown. I have also been told that this means not only an adjustment for my wardrobe, but also possibly my level of happiness during the colder months. Is Winter Depression a real thing? If it is, is it something I should be worried about?

According to the Mayo Clinic, seasonal depression is in fact a real thing. Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a form of depression and a mood disorder that is related to the changes in seasons and the shortening of daylight hours. People with SAD show symptoms that typically start in the fall and continue throughout the winter, as this disorder follows a regular pattern. During these seasons with reduced sunlight, your body’s circadium rhythm, which is a 24 hour- internal clock that responds to light and darkness, can be affected. One theory is that the reduced sunlight during the fall and the winter consequently reduces serotonin levels. Without normal serotonin levels regulating a person’s mood, the result can be feelings of depression and ultimately start symptoms of seasonal affective disorder or “Winter Depression”.

Many people with SAD report feeling depressed for most of the day and for multiple days in a row. They also report having low energy, sleeping problems, and difficulty concentrating. Many also experience changes in their appetite and have thoughts of suicide. People with SAD specifically during the Winter report oversleeping, being more irritable, and gaining a lot of weight due to craving foods high in carbohydrates.

Most doctors will recommend that people suffering with Seasonal Affective Disorder need to get outside early in the morning to get natural light. Treatment options include antidepressants such as Bupropian (Wellbutrin)  or light therapy. Light therapy usually improves symptoms within just a couple days of sessions. However, researchers have continued to question whether or not the placebo effect plays a key role in light therapy. In one experiment done by Charmane Eastman, PhD, 96 participants who had SAD were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatments for 4 weeks to test the placebo effect on light therapy. The treatments exposed participants to 1.5 hours of either morning light (light boxes), evening light (light boxes), or a morning light placebo (from generators not light boxes). The results of the study showed that there were no difference between the real light and placebo after the 4 weeks of treatment. The study also showed that the bright light therapy had a specific antidepressant effect after 3 weeks.

So now that I know “Winter Depression” is a real thing, should I be worried about it affecting me? According to data from WebMD, I should be a little worried about this disorder because data shows that this disorder is more common for people living in northern latitudes. Women are also more likely than men to suffer. However, this may be due to hormonal factors being a third variable because SAD is less common in women after menopause. I can help avoid seasonal affective disorder by spending some time outside every day and continuing to stay involved with friends and social activities. It is also important to eat a well balanced diet for energy and to exercise for at least 30 minutes a day five times a week. Although being a female living in northern latitudes increases my chances of being affected, I should not be too worried because SAD only affects 3% of the US population.

Sources:

https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/issue/Jan2013/feature1

http://www.webmd.com/depression/features/seasonal-affective-disorder?page=3

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/seasonal-affective-disorder/basics/definition/con-20021047

http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=204290&resultclick=1

http://psychcentral.com/lib/10-things-you-dont-know-about-seasonal-affective-disorder/2/

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/26/health/winter-depression/

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/121106092312-seasonal-disorder-sad-winter-woman-story-top.jpg