“At today’s rate, by 2025, one in two children will be autistic.”

-Stephanie Seneff, PhD

            That’s right, you read correctly. In just 10 years, the rate of autism will increase from 1/150 children to 1/2…or so MIT senior research scientist Stephanie Seneff says. Seneff has concluded that Autism is directly related to the consumption of glyphosate. Glyphosate is a well known and commonly used herbicide used to kill weeds and other pest plants. Seneff claims that children with autism exhibit biomarkers that indicate the presence of excessive amounts of glyphosate, including “…zinc and iron deficiency, low serum sulfate, seizures, and mitochondrial disorder” (Seneff). The most recognized means of glyphosate consumption: GMO’s. GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism, and many every day foods are being genetically modified. So does the consumption of GMO’s directly result in an increased chance of autism? This blog will disprove that claim by maintaining that correlation does NOT equal causation and exploring the ever-changing standards for autism.

            Seneff claims in her original report that “the side effects of autism closely mimic those of glyphosate toxicity”. (Seneff) The two may very well mimic each other, but again this does not identify any direct causation between the two. The rise in glyphosate use does increase at a similar rate as the rise in autism. Both are steadily increasing. However, this does not mean that the two are related in any way. If Seneff is basing her claims on the correlation of graphs, she could also state that an increase in the amount of homelessness in New York City could be increasing autism, or that the steady rise in natural disasters is leading to the similar increase in the rate of autism.

 These are graphs analyzing the changes in homelessness, natural disasters, and autism. Look pretty similar?

            Again, we cannot assume two things correlate based on similar behavior. Showing their similarities does not exhibit enough proof to show a relation. Correlation does NOT equal causation.

            What constitutes the diagnosis for autism has been changing and expanding for decades. More and more forms of autism are being recognized and established. Tara Haelle reported in Forbes magazine that: “the diagnostic criteria for autism expanded in 1994 to include a spectrum of disorders with a broader list of symptoms, thereby widening the definition of autism” (Haelle). If you think about it, if the basis for what defines autism is increased, there will obviously be more cases of it. Say there were 10 kinds of autism in year X, and that resulted in 100 diagnoses’ of ranging types of autism. But then in year Y there are 20 types of autism identified, and that results in 200 diagnoses’. Obviously the chances of having autism increase by a large amount. Theoretically if what constituted autism remained the same within the timeframe that the consumption of GMO’s has been increasing, there would not be an argument that they correlate. If there were a clear and rigid standard for autism that did not change over time, the consumption of GMO’s would increase without the similar increase in autism, erasing the link between the two. The ever-increasing basis of classifying autism feeds directly into Seneff’s argument that this growth is associated with the rising consumption of GMO’s. But this is so only because hundreds of new disorders are falling under the broad category of autism, showing two similar patterns that are actually unrelated.

            If you are debating on whether to believe Dr. Seneff’s report, just remember that genetically modified organisms and autism correlates, but that certainly does not mean there is any causation between the two. Also, there is an ever-changing standard for what defines autism as time goes on, which is what is increasing the chances of autism, not GMO consumption. In summary, correlation does NOT equal causation in this case.

Link to original report: http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416/pdf

0
0
1
589
3363
Penn State University
28
7
3945
14.0

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
JA
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Fear is something that we have all experienced at some point in our lives. It is triggered by the expectance of pain or an unrecognizable event. Fear is an emotion, triggered by the amygdalae, the part of the brain that is responsible for emotional reactions. Throughout our lives, that part of our brain will react to different things. As an infant perhaps you were afraid of one of your relatives, as you grew older maybe you were afraid of the dark. As a college student maybe you are afraid of your exams. It feels like a natural reaction when we are scared of something, and it is, it is human nature for fear to be triggered by certain things. But can fear be taught? Can the power of a natural reaction be harnessed and exerted whenever presented with a specific situation? And lastly, is there an ethical way for us to find that out? Ethical or not, I introduce you to the Conditioning of Little Albert Experiment.

The “Little Albert Experiment” took place in the early 20^th century, performed by John B. Watson and a graduate student of his at Johns Hopkins, Rosalie Raynor. They hypothesized that following the procedure of classic conditioning, they could condition “little Albert” to fear things that normally go without fear from children.

“Around the age of nine months, Watson and Rayner exposed the child to a series of stimuli including a white rat, a rabbit, a monkey, masks and burning newspapers and observed the boy’s reactions. The boy initially showed no fear of any of the objects he was shown. The next time Albert was exposed the rat, Watson made a loud noise by hitting a metal pipe with a hammer. Naturally, the child began to cry after hearing the loud noise. After repeatedly pairing the white rat with the loud noise, Albert began to cry simply after seeing the rat.”(psychology.about.com)

Teaching an adult to fear something such as a white furry animal would prove much more difficult than an infant. For the most part, adults know how to rationalize, to decide whether a situation truly poses a threat to them or not. This is beyond an infant’s mental ability, which is why it was much easier to teach this fear to “little Albert”. I believe that the hypothesis that one can be conditioned to fear was definitely proven by this experiment. Although I think the hypothesis is very age specific. An important third variable for an experiment like this could definitely be age. As I mentioned before, an adult would have entirely different results than an infant, making age a very vital component in such an experiment.

Watson and Rayner also raised serious ethical concerns. First of all, they were unable to reverse the effects of their experiments on the baby. He moved away with his mother before they even had the chance. What was to become of “little Albert”? The effects could have had a strange and troubling effect on him later in life. As I said before, the experiment being done to an infant was vital, seeing as an adult would react completely different. But if the conditioning was so intense that it lingered with him it could have effects well into adulthood. Memories from being an infant are difficult to recall, some psychologists have even given the inability to remember early events a name; infantile amnesia. But recently, there has been increasing belief that emotional events can be recalled much easier: “…there has been increased awareness about the role of emotion in the modulation of memory, accompanied by the discovery that certain brain structures like the amygdala are specialized for emotional learning. Moreover, some researchers have found that high levels of stress may actually benefit recall. The links between emotion, stress, and memory have led scientists to wonder whether there might be less infantile amnesia associated with traumatic childhood events.”(brainconnection.brainhq.com) Testing on an adult “little Albert” would have been the best way to test this hypothesis, but would most likely prove to be just as unethical as it was when he was an infant. But regardless of ethics it would have been impossible to do so, seeing as he died at just age 6.

In conclusion, Watson and Rayner concluded that their hypothesis was correct, and they could condition “little Albert” to fear something irrational. Although their experiment was riddled with third variables such as age and mental ability. The experiment also is viewed widely as unethical, they taught an infant to be afraid of irrational things such as white fluffy animals, that he was previously unafraid of. Had the baby lived past 6 years old, the experiment could have proved life altering seeing as they did not attempt to reverse or reduce the effects of the emotional conditioning. Although the experiment is considered extremely controversial, almost 100 years later it is still discussed in most psychology courses across the United States. The memory of the Conditioning of Little Albert lives on.

Here is a link to Little Albert reacting to different animals and at the end a white mask worn by Watson, largely due to his manufactured fear of white or fluffy things.

The natural order of an ecosystem is a very fragile thing. If one element of an ecosystem is taken away, there is a very strong chance a domino effect will ensue and things will become unbalanced. Say an organism is removed from an ecosystem, what would happen to the organisms it preys on? What would happen to those that prey on it? There are multiple consequences that could ensue from such a drastic change. But is there a type of organism that we could get rid of without consequence? What would happen if an annoying pest of an animal was removed, one that spreads disease and causes death worldwide. An animal so annoying to us humans and animals alike that it could only be one thing…a mosquito. Would it be good or bad to get rid of them for good?

At first thought it seems that getting rid of an organism entirely seems like a bad idea, and there is some logical theory to that. On a very basic level, an ecosystem is made up of producers and consumers. Even animals that seem useless often serve an important purpose to other parts of the ecosystem. Especially something as numerous as mosquitos; “There are 3,500 named species of mosquito, of which only a couple of hundred bite or bother humans. They live on almost every continent and habitat, and serve important functions in numerous ecosystems.”(nature.com) As Earth and its ecosystems have evolved so have mosquitos, oftentimes playing a large role in some places. “Wiping out a species of mosquito could leave a predator without prey, or a plant without a pollinator.” (nature.com) Which brings us back to the producers (the plant) and consumers (the predator) being affected. After reading all this is seems that taking any organism out of an ecosystem completely would be a bad idea right? But speaking specifically about those annoying mosquitos, it may just be a good thing.

A solid argument that supports removing mosquitos from all ecosystems is that they do not necessarily fill a specific niche. If the population of mosquitos diminished there would be ample amounts of other insects to fill their places. Take for instance bats; mosquitoes are an easy source of food for these predators. But they could just as easily adapt to eating moths instead of mosquitos. “Most would ultimately adapt to other prey and life would go on — without mosquito-borne diseases.”(science.howstuffworks.com) With the mosquitos not filling a specific role for most other animals in the ecosystem, it would not be detrimental to see them vanish from the natural food chain. “Yet in many cases, scientists acknowledge that the ecological scar left by a missing mosquito would heal quickly as the niche was filled by other organisms. Life would continue as before — or even better.”(nature.com)

Another benefit of ridding the world of the mosquitos is the amount of death it would prevent. Mosquitos infect mass amounts of people per year with malaria. Up to 240 million people per year become sick from the sick, with 1 million dying as a result. I believe that perhaps a slight disturbance in the food chain is worth preventing illness in hundreds of millions of people and saving another million from death. Malaria is not nearly as much of a problem in the United States as it is in countries like Africa, but imagine if you were faced with the possibility of death with every bite from a single mosquito. I think your opinion may change on whether or not they should be rid from Earth.

Something that is brought into play often in science is ethics. Is it ethical for us to decide what species lives and dies? Are we at liberty to decide if an entire race of an organism should be eradicated or not? Again, when we look at the possibility in saving millions of lives, it does seem more practical and possibly even necessary.

So before you think that removing mosquitos would open a detrimental hole in many ecosystems, I encourage you to weigh the options. This hole quite possibly can be easily replaced with other insects and life could carry on without a hitch, and the world would be rid of a fatal disease. Or we can let malaria run rampant as more and more people contract the illness. Altering the ecosystem is no joke, but this time it may just be necessary.

All of us have experienced that moment of sheer panic when you wake up and you are positive that the dream you just had…yeah it actually happened. Your whole world is upside down and you can feel the fear sitting in your stomach like a rock. And then you look around; you are in your bed. You didn’t show up to work without any pants on, you didn’t miss your final exam, you’re not falling from the sky. You were dreaming, your brain was unknowingly creating a faux reality for you as you slept soundly in your bed. Dreaming seems to be an uncontrollable happening, when you fall asleep how are you to do anything about it? What a lot of us don’t know is that there is a concept behind manipulating your dreams to your liking.

The concept is called lucid dreaming; “Lucid dreaming is the ability to consciously observe and/or control your dreams. It transforms your inner dream world into a living alternate reality – where everything you see, hear, feel, taste and even smell is as authentic as real life.”(world-of-lucid-dreaming.com) Instead of awaiting a random dream while drifting off to sleep, there is a supposed method to enabling this type of controlled dreaming. Here are the steps on how one is to begin the process of lucid dreaming, per collective-evolution.com:

1. “As mentioned above, throughout the day, remember to look at your hands for about 10 seconds. This will help you notice any changes in your hands in the dream.”

2. “Before you go to sleep at night say to yourself: “I am going to remember my dream tonight and I am going to dream about ________.”

3. “Ask yourself repeatedly throughout the day, “Am I dreaming?”…”

4. “The good old fashioned “pinch test,” if you are unsure if you are dreaming, give yourself a pinch. If you are dreaming you won’t be able to feel this…”

5. “Keep a dream journal.”

6. “Set your alarm clock to wake you up about 5 ½ hours after you have fallen asleep, studies show that if you are woken up during a dream you are more likely to remember them.”

After practicing and maintaining these steps, one should have the ability to control their dream as they are happening, and be able to do so on a consistent basis. Dreams occur during the REM cycle of sleep (rapid eye movement). Typically the brain is aware we are dreaming, we cannot control it, but it is recorded within the brain, which is why we can recall dreams. A study discussed on science.howstuffoworks.com stated that after monitoring electroencephalogram (a test of electrical brain activity) that participants signaled with their eyelids that they were lucid dreaming while in confirmed REM sleep. This signaled to scientists that the subjects were indeed lucid dreaming and self-aware of it.

(An electroencephalogram (EEG) test)

After reading about this study I was very skeptical on how accurate the conclusions were as they were only based on the movement of the subjects eyes. The acronym REM (rapid eye movement) even states that while in this state of sleep the eyes are constantly moving. Couldn’t the movement of the eyes that signaled the scientists have been a random or sporadic movement? Was the eye movement in each person the same? I did not think it was a very sound experiment to “prove” that the people being analyzed were controlling their dream.

I am not disputing that being aware you are dreaming while in the dream occurs, this has been documented dating back before any experiments were done; “Tibetan Buddhists have been practicing something like lucid dreaming for a very long time: dream yoga. The objective of dream yoga is to probe your consciousness and bring you to a constant state of awareness.”(science.howstuffworks.com). I do question the accuracy of experiments when the sleeping person communicates with the awake person through movement in their eyes. As the brain projects false sounds, tastes, smells, and sights, how is one to distinguish what is dream and what is reality? That is why that experiment does not convince me of anything.

Again, peoples “proof” that they are able to control their dreams are largely based upon dream journals, where the content of the dream is written down to look at later. They simply recount what they believe happened. How accurate is that? We cannot site what you think you remember as a fact. Memory can be misconstrued

Lucid dreaming is steadily becoming more known in today’s culture. As it becomes more popular, I hope that some more extensive studies reveal to us if we are able to communicate with others and document a self-controlled lucid dream. But until then feel free to follow the steps above and try it out for yourself

There are many questions that go unanswered when it comes to space. Questions that may never be answered, but will always be there for us to ponder. Something that I have always wondered about is why oxygen and all of Earth’s other essential gases remain here on our planet, and don’t just recede into space. Why does the barrier that provides us our safe little haven amidst the unending depths of space remain here?

The gases on Earth are primarily made up of nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon dioxide, and water vapor. These gases envelope Earth and form the atmosphere that allow Earth to support forms of life.

Our atmosphere consists of 5 layers; troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, thermosphere, and exosphere. What intrigues me though is how these layers of gas stay close to Earth and not just dissipate into space. As I said before part of the answer lies within gravity, it is the same reason that people or animals or cars or house do not float away. Although gravity exerts a greater force when the object is larger due to its amount of matter, the same effect is present. Studies show that without air resistance, if dropped off of a building at the same time, a feather would reach the ground at the same time as an elephant would. When you think about it, it is difficult to make sense of in your head, wouldn’t the elephant reach the ground first? But it does not; each and every thing on Earth would reach the ground at the same time. I believe the study is an excellent representation  of a concept that is difficult to wrap your head around, and of the effect that gravity has within our atmosphere.

So what does that study show us about Earth maintaining its surrounding layer of gas? “All gases that make up the atmosphere… have mass, and therefore “fall” towards the Earth because of gravity.”(gk12.research.pdx.edu) All of those gases receive the same treatment from gravity as say the elephant or the feather do. There are simply an immense number of these gas molecules, enough to encircle Earth. Gravity just has to keep doing its’ thing and keep the molecules anchored up here in the atmosphere.

Another factor that contributes to the consistent atmosphere here on Earth is the location of the planet. Earth is conveniently located a perfect distance away from the sun, giving us optimum temperatures for sustaining life. As most of you probably already know, the hotter the temperature, the faster molecules will move (especially when in a gaseous state). If the location of the Earth was closer to the sun, the molecules within the atmosphere would be moving at a much higher speed, possibly causing them to escape the force of gravity applied to the planet.  Observing planets that are closer to the sun could be a possible observation that could be used to support this theory. If the atmospheres on these planets do not hold enough of the gaseous molecules necessary for life, a possible reason for that would be the increased temperature of the planet caused the molecules to escape gravity. Therefore leaving the planet with an insufficient atmosphere to sustain life. Lucky for us, due to the perfect location of Earth in the solar system, the gases cannot escape the atmosphere due to the temperature.

Both the universal effect of gravity on Earth and the perfect location of our planet play vital roles in maintaining the atmosphere that surrounds our planet. Gravity forces the gas molecules down onto earth where they remain, and the distance from the sun keeps the Earth cool enough that the gas molecules do not heat up to the point of escaping and disband from atmosphere. We should all be thankful for our ever present barrier that surrounds the planet we call home.

To understand why the ocean water appears blue you must first understand why we see color the way we do. “When light hits an object – say a banana – the object absorbs some of the light and reflects the rest of it. Which wavelengths are rejected and absorbed depend on the properties of the object.” (Stephanie Pappas, Live Science Contributor) So essentially whatever colors an object absorbs defines what color it is because you are left looking at the color it reflects. As for water, the colors that it reflects are blues and violets making it appear a blueish color. Specifically for ocean and lake water, an even more blue or green hue is added to it because of particles that are within the water itself. These particles reflect their own blue or green colors often adding to what our eyes are picking up.

Another reason that large bodies of water appear blue and not clear is the actual number of water molecules. “Just how blue the water is depends on how much there is to absorb the light. For instance, water in a glass is clear – there aren’t enough molecules to really absorb the light.”(lifescience.com) So the amount of water also has a say in what color we are picking up. The more water there is, the more wavelengths there are that can be absorbed and reflected

To summarize, there are multiple reasons why the ocean appears blue, and why your cup of water appears clear. The ocean oftentimes reflects the color of the sky, and when the sky is clear can increase how blue the water appears. There is oftentimes particles in the ocean that also reflect a blue or green light. And lastly, there is simply so much more water molecules in large bodies of water that the number of waves absorbed and reflected increases. Hopefully the next time you are drinking a bottle of water at the beach, you will now know why it is crystal clear and the water you are swimming in is blue!

A question that I have always found intriguing is; why do we stop growing? What commands our cells to stop multiplying and inform the rest of the body that puberty is complete? The answer is all in our genetics, our blueprints for how we physically grow and mature. “Ultimately, we stop growing because we are genetically programmed to do so. It is our genes, made of DNA, that determine how we grow and develop.” (Paige Williams, msnbc.com) Our genes are working hard from the moment we are conceived until we are the billions and billions of cells that make us what we are today.

The physical changes that we experience such as height and size of arms and legs and facial features and just about everything physical are a direct order taken from our parents own genetic blueprints. Although when you were conceived, their genetic makeups had already been finished and ready to pass down. Which is exactly the point, our bodies are programmed to stop new development of ourselves once we are ready to reproduce. “At the completion of puberty, the reproductive glands in both males and females increase the production of the hormone estrogen. It is the high concentration of estrogen in the blood that causes the growth plates of our bones to fuse. This fusion effectively closes the growth centers of long bones and renders them unable to respond to the hormones that initiate growth.”(Williams) Essentially, our body blocks any more growing by stopping growth in our bones. Most of us reach maximum growth in our late teens, the common age for puberty to end.

Strangely enough, there is no exact answer as to why our body stops us from growing any larger. We know that the genes control it, and we know that it stops at the end of puberty when our bodies are able to successfully reproduce. But there is no black and white answer. Only our genetic blueprints know the answer to that one.

A question that I have always found intriguing is; why do we stop growing? What commands our cells to stop multiplying and inform the rest of the body that puberty is complete? The answer is all in our genetics, our blueprints for how we physically grow and mature. “Ultimately, we stop growing because we are genetically programmed to do so. It is our genes, made of DNA, that determine how we grow and develop.” (Paige Williams, msnbc.com) Our genes are working hard from the moment we are conceived until we are the billions and billions of cells that make us what we are today.

The physical changes that we experience such as height and size of arms and legs and facial features and just about everything physical are a direct order taken from our parents own genetic blueprints. Although when you were conceived, their genetic makeups had already been finished and ready to pass down. Which is exactly the point, our bodies are programmed to stop new development of ourselves once we are ready to reproduce. “At the completion of puberty, the reproductive glands in both males and females increase the production of the hormone estrogen. It is the high concentration of estrogen in the blood that causes the growth plates of our bones to fuse. This fusion effectively closes the growth centers of long bones and renders them unable to respond to the hormones that initiate growth.”(Williams) Essentially, our body blocks any more growing by stopping growth in our bones. Most of us reach maximum growth in our late teens, the common age for puberty to end.

Strangely enough, there is no exact answer as to why our body stops us from growing any larger. We know that the genes control it, and we know that it stops at the end of puberty when our bodies are able to successfully reproduce. But there is no black and white answer. Only our genetic blueprints know the answer to that one.

Soap and shampoo is definitely a necessity in college, and really it’s a necessity anywhere. Keeping clean will benefit your hygiene and keep you smelling good, which does the people around you a favor. And although it is important to stay clean, there can be some not so desirable effects that come with all the shampoo we use.

Shampooing your hair is important, it keeps it clean, smelling good, and looking good. The common misconception is that you are cleaning your hair, which is not true. “The goal of shampooing is to cleanse the scalp and remove oil buildup on your hair.” (Paradi Mirmirani, MD, a staff dermatologist at the Permanente Medical Group in Vallejo, Calif) Shampoo contains detergents, which work as surfactants, an agent that lowers the surface tension of water. Essentially, these surfactants allow the detergent to bind with grime and an oil produced in the skin called sebum. Sebum is an extract from the sebaceous glands within the skin, and very much plays a large part of the healthiness of hair. The sebum reacts with the hair to lubricate and water proof it. When this sebum is swept away, the body compensates and produces even more, trying to make up for the loss. This produces an overload of oil in the hair and scalp. And nobody wants to walk around with oily, greasy hair.

The best way to avoid over shampooing and creating this greasy mess for yourself is to space out the amount of times you lather up the shampoo when showering. Although it may seems strange, washing your hair every 2-3 days is perfectly healthy. Keeping the natural oils in your hair will keep it healthier, and set you on the path for a long lasting and full head of hair. Just like this girl in this ad…

Tattoos can be a great way to express yourself. There are many reasons for delving into the world of tattoos; remembering a happy time, to stand out and be yourself, to commemorate something, or just add something you think looks good to your body! The art of tattooing ones skin has been around for thousands of years, “the earliest known examples were for a long time Egyptian and were present on several female mummies dated to c. 2000 B.C.”(Smithsonianmag.com) As children I’m willing to bet all of us wrote on ourselves at one point with a big fat magic marker or Sharpie. Both markers and tattoos use ink, but why does the tattoo stay forever? The answer is in your skin.

Seeing as your skin is constantly regenerating and shedding, why does the tattoo remain? The epidermis is the outermost layer of the skin, which is subjected to this shedding. But tattoos are done to the dermis, or the innermost layer of the skin. The dermis does not replace itself nearly as often as the epidermis, seeing as it is sheltered. If the dermis were to be harmed, by a cut or puncture of some kind, it would most likely leave a scar or other permanent damage. This is similar to why a tattoo remains visible in the dermis; it is a permanent scar only with ink applied to it. Seeing as the cells do not replenish themselves nearly as often, the tattoo remains underneath the epidermis.

The actual act of the tattoo is the puncturing or scarring of the dermis. Tattooing needles pulsate at about 50-150 times every second, repeatedly stabbing the skin. The ink is then deposited into the skin in drops in the desired area.

One way the tattoo can be lost or distorted is not taking care of it directly after receiving it. If placed in warm water, the ink will leak through the layers of the skin and out of the body. So be careful how you treat your tattoo soon after receiving it, or the body will do its best to dispose of it! The pen below is really a tattoo

Every day as I walk to my classes around University Park, I see my fellow students jogging all over campus. It’s encouraging to see so many of my peers out exercising and maintaining a healthy lifestyle. There are definitely many benefits to running, but what if I told you that too much running can lead to long term health defects and other serious complications? It is true that too much cardio can be detrimental to your health and put you at risk, and only supports the statement “too much of a good thing is a bad thing”.

A study published in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise revealed that after certain amounts of strenuous cardio, the body experiences damage that cannot be easily repaired; “However, the health benefits of exercise seemed to diminish among people who ran more than 20 miles a week, more than six days a week, or faster than eight miles an hour.” The damage begins with the body working hard to burn off sugars and fats for energy, and free radicals are produced that bind to cholesterol to make plaque. This plaque then finds its way into arteries and clogs them, primarily the heart. The plaque can also damage cells, which is known as oxidative stress; “But prolonged intense exercise causes excessive oxidative stress, which basically burns through the antioxidants in your system and predisposes you to problems.”(James O’Keefe, MD, Director of Preventative Cardiology at the Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City) Plaque buildup can result in a whole slew of problems, some can even be fatal. So although you may often reap the benefits of having an active lifestyle, it is important to always pace yourself!

Penn State is the fifth fittest school in the United States, and we should always strive to keep it that way. Monitoring the amount of running or cardio is very important. Now that you know the dangers of over exerting oneself while running, maybe running across the country like Forrest Gump isn’t such a good idea…

Hello everyone I am Anthony Martin and I am from Mullica Hill, New Jersey. Which is like 25 minutes from Philly over the bridge. Throughout high school I played basketball and I plan on doing so here but just IM nothing real serious. I took this course because although I find science interesting I take no specific liking to a certain field of it. When I saw that this course covered all sorts of topics I was actually really happy about that. Currently I am in DUS but I plan on switching into the business school and possibly majoring in finance. Finance appealed to me because there are a lot of job opportunities and variations, and I did not want to zero in on one thing because I am still unsure on what I want to exactly do. Saying that, I did know that science was not my calling, I just could not work up enough interest for it in high school, and I quickly disbanded it from my career options. So that is why I will not be majoring in any science related courses. My school in New Jersey was called Clearview Regional High School and our mascot was a pioneer, click Here to see our logo. Also another quick thing about me my favorite band is definitely Nirvana, so here is a picture of them: