After seeing an older post on why people choke under pressure, I wondered about the other side of that coin. In my experience, I believe I work well under pressure. I’m cranking out a good chunk of my blog posts in one week (or one night… nuances) and I somehow kept up in high school as a procrastination-prone perfectionist.

According to one source, the concept that people can work well under pressure is a myth. Pressure stresses out the human brain, prompting failure to execute tasks as well as the brain could in a relaxed environment. One study utilized two experiments to support this idea that success under pressure is a myth: “In experiment 1 chronic procrastinators completed fewer items (slow speed) and made more errors (less accuracy) than non-procrastinators under high but not low cognitive load conditions when the time span was limited and brief. In experiment 2 chronic procrastinators performed slower than non-procrastinators under a 2 second, but not under no limit, 1 second, or 4 second time limit conditions.”

Other information contradicts the conclusion of the studies above (and thus more studies need to be conducted before we can make a concrete decision on this matter). The body, when under stress, experiences physiological symptoms (“sweaty palms, muscle tension, dry mouth, nausea, and an increased heart rate” source). Your body’s “mental approach” determines white state you enter – the challenge state or the threat state. The challenge state is more positive in its thinking, while the threat state is negative. In the former state, the physiological symptoms listed above pump blood to the brain more quickly, resulting in efficiency and success when dealing with pressure. On the other hand, the physiological symptoms work against the body in the threat state, as blood vessels constrict rather than pump to the brain efficiently (source).

One study suggests that phrases like “don’t choke” increase the likelihood that someone will mess up (my hypothesis is that the expectation to do poorly conveyed by this phrase puts someone in the same pessimistic mindset). Professor Daniel M. Wegner supported this concept by telling a group of people to “not to think about white bears” (source), prompting people to think about white bears as a result. Try the experiment on yourself, odds are you can’t NOT think about white bears.

From the information and statistics we have so far, your ability to work under pressure is based on your mindset. The concept sounds too relative and subjective and too few studies exist to give us a definitive explanation as to why people can or cannot handle the pressure of deadlines or immediate decisions.

vyanks.blogspot.com

I remember hearing as a kid that goldfish have a memory capable of remembering only a few seconds. Scientists have debunked that myth, proving that goldfish are much smarter than we think.

spudcomics.com

A study conducted by researchers at the Technion Institute of Technology in Israel has proved Dory to not be as forgetful as we think her to be. These researchers became fish masters as they trained fish to “associate a sound played through a loudspeaker with feeding time” (article). After using this feeding routine for a month, the fish were placed into the wild. A few months later (without the aforementioned feeding routine, of course), the fish returned when they heard the sound, proving that their memories are much more capable than we give them credit for.

A similar study at Plymouth University suggests that goldfish can pack three months of memory into their little minds. Using food as a reward, the fish in this study learned to press a lever that would release food – but only at certain times. Eventually, the fish made the connection between timing and food distribution and picked up on what time lunch could be expected.

I wouldn’t have thought anything of this discovery, but that’s why I’m not the one doing the research. The researchers responsible for this myth-busting noted how this could affect fish farming. Instead of forcing fish to grow in cages and wreak havoc on the environment, fish farmers could utilize a fish’s memory to train it, let it grow naturally in open water, and recall it using sound when the fish has fully matured.

For an interesting example of young minds at work, read this article about a boy who used similar sound-food association to figure this whole thing out – potentially before researchers caught on and led their own studies.

I can’t think of any time where I liked and desired milk. I’m not lactose intolerant or anything, I just think it’s one of the nastiest beverages available. Sorry. As society continues to remind me how important milk is for your bones, I always get concerned that I’m missing out and should be taking calcium supplements to give my bones enough calcium so my spine doesn’t snap in half. I can (maybe) rest easy though, because some studies contradict the idea that milk is the king of all beverages.

Researchers in New Zealand (Andrew?) conducted both randomized control trials and observational studies to test the “benefits” of increased calcium intake in an attempt to reject the null hypothesis that increasing calcium intake will improve bone health. Bias remained limited by considering “study design and quality” – but little real information about the natures of these two studies is given. All that’s explained is the results. The first study suggested that “increasing calcium intake from dietary sources or by taking supplements produces small (1-2%) increases in bone mineral density” and the second study led researchers to decide that “dietary calcium intake is not associated with risk of fracture” (study).

Even this article states that few randomized trials on the effects of milk (and the multiple types of milk) exist, so accepting or rejecting any hypotheses is difficult. For more numbers on the topic, I turned to studies on different age groups and milk’s effect on the body.

Preschoolers: Researchers conducted an observational study on a randomized group of preschoolers (preventing racial, ethnic, and socio-economic status from interfering with results). Most of the children involved drank 2% or whole milk – and those who drank 1% milk had higher BMI scores than other groups (p<0.0001). The p-value of this study suggests little room for a third variable that causes this correlation.

Adolescents: This study tracked “12,829 US children, aged 9 to 14 years in 1996, who returned questionnaires by mail through 1999” and also completed food frequency questionnaires. Similar to the preschoolers study, this study showed that “children who drank more than 3 servings a day of milk gained more in BMI.” Supposedly, the researchers’ calculations in the data-collecting process accounted for fluctuating weight gain common in children as they age and progress (especially as puberty sets in during this age range). Accounting for these factors would be challenging to say the least, and the p-value was higher than that of the preschoolers study – but the p-value remained at a 0.4.

A Meta-Analysis: Analysis of other studies (English and non-English) suggests that there is no correlation between milk intake and hip fractures for men/women. The conclusion of this study says that the data collected for women was sufficient but similar studies on a potential correlation in men need to be conducted.

Moderation is key, as we’ve learned repeatedly through food studies. The studies on preschoolers and adolescents are pretty convincing, but more experimental studies need to be conducted to see if milk is as beneficial to bone strength as we’ve always been told.

If you dislike milk like me, check out this list of facts that prove we’re not really missing out on anything by not drinking milk.

It’s been said that humans only use a fraction of their allotted brain space and brain power. Check out this article for background info on the theory that a human uses only 10% of his or her brain space. Nobel Prize winning neurophysiologist Sir John Eccles said, “The human brain has infinite potential – so how can you calculate a percentage of infinity?” With that in mind, how active are our brains, and are they fully functioning?

The problem with this question is the overwhelming presence of speculation and absence of adequately-tested scientific studies. One article suggests that “memory depends on forming new neural connections, and the brain has a finite number of neurones and a limited space in which to add more connections between them.” However, the few studies that have been conducted suggest the opposite. Discovery Channel’s Mythbusters challenged the myth described above by sending one of their own to complete brain exercises while monitored by a magnetoencephalogram (which measures magnetic fields created by the brain’s electrical currents). The subject “exercised four different neurological regions with memory drills, math calculations, word associations and image comparisons” (article). The magnetoencephalogram recorded activity in 35% of the subject’s brain. And thus, the myth is busted.

Few sources I found on this topic during research cited actual scientific studies – most articles referred to a not-so-convincing statement from someone who might have some credibility. As always, more studies like the Mythbusters’ activity need to be conducted. Accurate imaging devices are vital to these potential studies, however, as explained by Joe LeDoux (neuroscience/ psychology professor at NYU). Results from fMRI machines could be misleading by displaying activity in parts of the brain – leaving the rest of the brain to appear inactive by comparison. This puts the Mythbusters-style studies in jeopardy then, so we also need more refined equipment/studies to provide more concrete knowledge.

Point is, don’t buy into the 10% theory. As far as science can tell us, you are capable of using your entire brain, so don’t limit yourself or your thinking. According to this Wired.com article, “your brain’s ability to knit together new patterns is limitless, so theoretically the number of memories stored in those patterns is limitless as well.” Watch the video below and tell me what you think of the power of the human brain.

In other news, researchers at Cambridge have apparently claimed that the human brain will grow smaller in regression to the minds of Neanderthals due to the brain’s high energy consumption, but the lack of evidence along with this summary leads me to reject that idea. Potential blog topic, maybe?

In the spirit of the upcoming spooky season, Burger King debuted a Halloween Whopper that features a black bun with A.1. sauce cooked into it in addition to the standard Whopper elements.

Pretty patty jokes aside, the burger has some… colorful… consequences. Consumers of the Halloween Whopper reported green-colored waste. Other oddly-dyed foods can have a similar effect and it’s not a big deal. Right?

Wrong. Previous studies utilized single-blind and double-blind trials similar to “drug continuation studies” that placed people on restricted diets and added foods to the diet one by one until the food responsible for effects was isolated (study). Whether or not these studies revealed effects in child activity due to food additives is not clear based on the study text, prompting studies conducted by Southampton University in 2007. Funded by the United Kingdom’s Food Standards Agency, this study specifically looked for changes in hyperactivity following the consumption of colored foods in three different samples. Two of the three samples involved kids in preschool, and the third sample involved kids between 8-9 years old.

The first sample’s subjects were assessed for hyperactivity using a rating scale and a skin prick test, while the two other samples’ subjects were only assessed for hyperactivity using the rating scale. Hyperactivity is a more controversial term and only using a rating scale to assess the condition compromises the accuracy of these samples. The rating scale, however, was based on the 18 symptoms of ADHD as listed in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Subjects of all samples were given mixed fruit juices that contained different amounts of Artificial Food Coloring (sunset yellow, tartrazine, carmoisine, ponceau 4R, quinoline yellow, and/or allura red AC).

Results were gathered based on feedback from parents and psychologists. More often than not, parents said that hyperactivity increased, even in cases where ADHD was not a factor. All three studies collectively suggested that AFCs result in hyperactivity in children.

Should you steer clear of anything with artificial colors? Based on the study above, no. Hyperactivity, especially in children, is a very relative term. What might seem like a child with a behavioral disorder might just be an energetic child. Other studies, like one conducted by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, suggest that food dyes like Citrus Red 2 and Red 3 cause cancerous tumors. However, the studies conducted by CSPI used mice and rats as their subjects, so there’s little evidence provided here for how that translates to effects on humans. On top of that, test results are worded oddly: “No tumors in the only good study,” “Dosage was likely too low; possible brain and bladder tumors,” “Only mouse study was too brief, used too few mice, and began with 6-week-old mice” (study results). These results are not nearly concrete enough for a nationwide ban on use of these food dyes. Comments on the article that shared this study include anecdotes from people who say that consumption of these food dyes has painful consequences (article). I myself have not had these problems, but more specific trials definitely need to be conducted before the scientific community can reach a verdict on this.

You feel it, and – even worse – you hear it. Skipping breakfast and jumping into your four consecutive classes on an empty stomach was by far your biggest mistake of the day (and probably your most frequently made mistake if you can’t break the habit of going breakfastless). As your stomach’s growling grows louder and classmates start giving you weird looks, you know you’ll turn into the Hulk and eat the desk in front of you if you don’t get food as soon as possible.

The word mash-up “hangry” joined the pop culture dictionary about a decade ago (I must have been living under a rock, because I didn’t know about this concept until maybe two years ago) to describe your hunger-induced irritability that prompts slight grumpiness at best and unbridled rage at worst. There’s a science to this, of course. A study conducted last year revealed that low glucose levels in your system result in aggression. Four studies, including both experimental and observational tests, indicate this connection:

Study 1 observed the aggression levels in 62 college students who participated in the experiment in order to prove the causality of the correlation between glucose and irritability. All participants (having fasted for 3 hours leading up to the experiment) received lemonade, but the drinks randomly contained either sugar (glucose) or a sugar substitute (for placebo effect). After allowing the drinks to take their course in the body, participants had “their reaction-times tested in a computerized task against an opponent.” If and when study subjects failed to complete these computer tasks properly, they heard a sound bite similar to radio static (the intensity of which was determined by a fellow study subject). As predicted, subjects who consumed the lemonade with a sugar substitute exhibited more signs of aggression while subjects who consumed glucose in their lemonade were less irritable.

Study 2 served to produce results similar to Study 1. The background information here is that glucose is a substance that increases self-control. Scientists leading the study suggested that “individuals with diabetic symptoms (e.g. difficulty metabolizing glucose) would have difficulty exercising self-control” (study). The study measured the diabetic status, self-control, and aggressiveness of 112 subjects. Final observations upheld the hypothesis, suggesting the correlation between a diabetic’s difficulty with metabolizing glucose and a lack of self-control. This lack of self-control leads to aggression.

Study 3 takes this overall experiment’s concept a surprising route by testing for a correlation between diabetic rates and crime rates in each state of the United States. Based on the FBI’s classification of murder, assault, rape, and robbery as violent crimes, the scientists involved took these crimes into consideration when analyzing crime rates and diabetic rates of 2001. Observations once again lined up with the concept that a lack of glucose leads to aggression as each state’s records established a correlation between the two problems.

Study 4 utilized the findings of the Study 3 by testing if glucose deficiencies across the world could indicate future violent crimes. Scientists gathered data from the World Health Organization to measure the accuracy of the correlation in question in 122 countries and compared their findings with records of violent killings in 2002 taken from Associated Newspapers. Observations of these data remains consistent with the previous studies that indicate a correlation between glucose levels and aggression as countries with high glucose deficiencies also maintained high crime rates.

These four studies argue strongly in favor of the correlation between glucose deficiencies and aggression. The use of both observational and experimental systems solidifies the likelihood for causality. Study 3, however, does not address whether or not the people with glucose deficiencies contributed to the higher crime rates. Without specifying this concept, the theory that causality exists is weakened. This study took a surprising twist by connecting glucose deficiencies to violent killings, but the connection proved to be effective as the scientists’ hypotheses were consistently supported. While I can’t say I’ve wanted to kill someone because of a growling stomach, “hangry” is definitely a real thing. Other sources (Huffington Post, Diabetes, CNN) either cited the same study above or suggested similar mechanisms through other studies.

And now you know. You aren’t just frustrated that your stomach won’t shut up, there’s a biological explanation for your aggression. While it’s suggested that you scarf down some nutrient-rich food, at least keep a granola bar with you at all times lest you snap on the first person brave enough to talk to you while your body runs out of fuel.

Hey y’all! My name is Courtney Taylor. I’m a freshman and a journalism major. I was born in Texas and I’ve been an Army brat all my life. I’ve called three countries and 6 states home, so I don’t have a hometown. After graduating from high school in Korea in June, I spent this summer moving to California with my family. Penn State has always been a big part of my life because my mother graduated from here a little over two decades ago. I realized my love for Penn State as a freshman attending Carlisle High School in PA after going to my first Penn State football game and coming across THON canners in one year. Excited to be in Happy Valley!

Like 99.9% of the class, science has never been my forte. I’ve always enjoyed biology more than other science classes – not that I took many in high school since I took Biology, Chemistry, and AP Biology to get my three required science credits, ran out of the science department, and never returned. English and history have always come more naturally to me than math and science, so I’m not pursuing a science-related major. I stumbled across SC200 while arranging my schedule at orientation a week and a half ago. Credit requirements aside, I appreciated the amusing course description and felt that I certainly fit into the category of “non-scientists” (and my adviser recommended the course). So here I am! I’m excited for the unique discussions we’ll have that will actually keep me interested in the world of science.

All of the things that are important to me in one picture: my family, traveling (picture taken in the Philippines), and Penn State (not-so-subtle product placement on my dad’s shirt)!