Growing up I remember my mom complaining that we went through feminine products way to fast because we had the same cycle. I was always just a few days behind my mom and my friends that I spent a lot of time with were always within a few days of me as well. Last week I was talking to my friend who was complaining that her cycle started a full week late and her roommates came a full week early and started a day apart. Her big dilemma was that both girls are on birth control pills so their cycles should not be effected. I went into my research looking for how syncing can happen and then was planning on branching into how that worked with individuals on birth control. As I started my research I was surprised to find the controversy around whether cycles sync at all.

McClintock in Nature in 1998 published her findings that women’s cycles do sync. She did a study on rats and odors and found that the phases of the rats reproductive cycle varied based on the smells. She conducted many studies which are now being challenged. On the other hand, in 1992 Clyde Wilson re-analyzed McClintock’s experiment and found that there was an inflated difference between period startdate between the period start dates at the start of McClintock’s study.

The father-son duo of Leonard and Aron Weller at Bar-Ilan University in Israel conducted a mass study on roommates, athletes, lesbian couples,mothers, sisters, friends and even colleagues throughout the 1990’s and found that their data sometimes corresponded with that of McClintock and they found synchrony, but other times it did not. In another study in the workplace it was found that women that worked in close quarters for over a year synched up menstrual cycles. This study defines ‘synchrony’ as anywhere under 9 days distance in the start time of the cycle. A different study found the exact opposite through a study of women living in dorms. They found that the women did not sync up and through meta-analysis of other similar studies came to the conclusion that that the findings of synchrony are at the level of chance.

In regards to the synchrony of women’s menstrual cycles, through years of research not much has been found supporting it. The leading idea in forms of a mechanism for the potential synchrony is Pheromones, which like Andrew mentioned in class are the signals animals produce when they are fertile and attracting a member of the opposite sex. It is not known for sure whether human pheromones even exist, although the idea is plausible. Scientists Yang and Schank, and Ziomkewicz in 2006 reviewed 8 studies that had reported that pheromones effect menstrual cycles. They found that women’s cycles do not sync, the apparent synchrony is due to cycle variability. This study concluded that it seemed reasonable to conclude that there is no hard evidence that mammals cycles can sync.

I set out looking for why they sync up, and came out to realize there is no hard evidence either way on this matter. Scientists have been unable to reject the null hypothesis that nothing is going on, but there are studies that are finding contradictory results. As science progresses it may be able to explain if cycles really do sync up, for example if we are able to find a mechanism that is experimentally withstanding, but until then we rest on the null hypothesis. Women living in close proximity do not sync their periods, there is nothing going on but cycle variability. So next time it’s your roommates time of the month no need to fret.

The issue of Global warming has been  contemplated by scientists, utilized by politicians and pushed for by many advocates. In its simplest terms we think of global warming as the gradual change in the Earths temperature that is believed to be perm
anent and is killing the polar bears. We have all seen the commercials about doing our part to save the polar bears, but by doing our part we think of less gas consumption, not our personal gas emissions.

I came across an article about how kangaroo farts caused global warming. Obviously this article spiked my interest due to how random it is! As I began reading I discovered that animal farts and burps contain methane and carbon dioxide. Both are greenhouse gases that are known to contribute to global warming. Kangaroos in specific are known to have a low rate of methane omissions, but it has been discovered that it’s higher than was previously thought. Adam Munn, a wildlife biologist in Australia led a study on kangaroo methane emissions and discovered that they can produce nearly 1,000 liters of methane per year. To conduct this study Munn and his team studies the western gray kangaroo, and the red kangaroo. They fed them all the same diets of alfalfa hay for 12 days and then restricted their diet. This study showcased that on a restricted diet kangaroos methane omissions increased from when they ate normally. The proposed mechanism for this change is the mix of microbe species in the digestive tract move the food along faster when there is more of it.

From this study, which mentioned cow emissions, I went and found more information on cow emissions. It is estimated that cows release between 250 and 500 liters of methane per day. But much of these omissions are not from farts, but rather from burps. Due to the complexity of breaking down grass, cows have a complex four-chamber stomach. Due to this they digest through two stomachs, regurgitate and do it again before fully digesting the grass. This regurgitation leads to the large emission of methane gas. 

The question now stands at whether or not human farts and burps are large contributions to global warming. According to a study investigating the normal flatus production in healthy volunteers, the chemical composition of their farts on a high fiber diet is larger than that of individuals on a low fiber diet. This study only examined 10 individuals, so it is a stretch to transfer these results onto the population as a whole, but if one were to do so it would be estimated that collectively the world population as a whole releases about 73 metric tons of methane and 1000 metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by farting daily. This is equivalent to roughly 1000 people flying from New York to Los Angeles, daily.

Obviously this is only one study, and it is not like we can change how our body reacts to what we eat, but we can alter what we eat and what we feed livestock. Due to the minimal evidence, it is apparent that more research needs to be done in order to determine whether or not we are actually hurting the environment just by our biological existence. That being said, there is information leaning towards this hypothesis. If one is an environmental advocate then the risk in indulging in a lower fiber diet is low and it could potentially help the environment. Otherwise there is no need to change ones ways until more comprehensive research has been done.

I have heard time and time again that antibiotics decrease the effectiveness of Birth Control pills. Birth Control pills taken under perfect conditions are 99% effective and taken under normal circumstances are 92% effective. There is always a chance that even if you take the pill under perfect conditions that you could have an unwanted pregnancy, that being said it is better to be safe and use a second form of protection. But I wanted to find out if Antibiotics actually had an impact.

Studies are very mixed in their findings. One study has found that there are two ways that Antibiotics can potentially reduce the effectiveness of Birth Control pills. One of these ways centers around the fact that Birth Control contain estrogen and certain antibiotics cause enzymes in the liver to break down estrogen which lowers the levels in the body and therefore could effect how well the Birth Control works. Another one of the ways this study found was that antibiotics reduce the re-circulation of estrogens in the body.

Another study found that the only drug that has been proven to make Birth Control less effective is Rafampin. Rafampin lowers the effects of Birth Control by decreasing the hormone levels in the women. It has also been shown to lower the effects of the Birth Control Patch. Some antifungal medicine like griseofulvin has been said to potentially lower levels of Birth Control hormones and in turn reduce the effectiveness of Birth Control pills. There are also some HIV medications that have been said to affect the effectiveness.

Other drugs however, have shown no decline in the effectiveness of Birth Control. In 2002 a study by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology found that ampicillin, ciprofloxacin, doxycycline and several other drugs had no effect in lowering the levels of hormones in the body. An observational trial looked at the records of three different dermatology practices and surveyed 356 patients with a history of taking antibiotics and oral contraceptives. This study has 162 patients as “control” data by not taking any antibiotics through the trial, and the remaining 263 provided control data when they were not on antibiotics. The results of this trial were that five pregnancies occurred in the 311 women with both antibiotic and oral contraceptives (1.6%). This statistic is not deemed significant because naturally Birth Control has a 1% chance of failing. All the data covered had failure rates below 3% which is typical for the US. This study suggests that antibiotics do not increase the risk of pregnancy.

So all in all it is always better to play it safe and use a second form of protection, but just because you are on antibiotics does not mean your Birth Control will work any worse. Medical companies put out the warning to cover themselves from potential lawsuits and problems but there is not enough evidence to say that Antibiotics decrease the effectiveness of Birth Control pills, so do what you want at your own risk.

We all have that friend that does crazy, illegal and dangerous things. My one friend keeps going on about how she wants to try Molly/ Ecstasy because it seems like “fun time.” Over and over again I tell her the bad side effects I have heard about ecstasy and she does the whole “I’ll only do it once” speech. I have always wondered how people can ignore such harsh statements and take the drug. It is a common “fact” that taking Molly will melt your brain. I started my research for this post with that concept in mind, and lo-and-behold there is no data on it. I then started looking at what it was that the drug could actually do.

Ecstasy, also known as Molly, is a synthetic, psychoactive drug that is both a stimulant and a hallucinogen. The main component of ecstasy is MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine). Since MDMA has both stimulant and hallucinogenic qualities it is no surprise that it is linked to brain disfunction later on.

Studies are limited in observing the effects of ecstasy on individuals due to the small sample sizes and the inability to conduct an experimental study. One study, through the use of PET scans on 7 users and 7 nonusers, found that the metabolic uptake of the ecstasy users was altered within various parts of the brain. This study holds with the current hypothesis that ecstasy can have a lasting effect on central neuronal activity. The problem with this study is it is could very well be the product of the Texas sharpshooter problem. It is possible that all they were looking for was the metabolic uptake, but more likely the researchers were looking for any significant brain variations in the two groups.

Another study, also through the use of a PET scan studied 117 subjects. Of this group 30 were current MDMA users, 29 were former users, 29 were non-users, and 29 were users of other drugs. This study found that in current users there was a reduced serotonin transporter availability in the thalamus, hippocampus and many other critical parts of the brain. This study also found no large difference between non-users, former users or users of other drugs. This finding holds with the idea that MDMA alters brain function, but found that it only does so if one is currently on the drug as well as the fact that the effects may be reversible.

Doing a crazy drug one time does not automatically mean someone is going to get addicted. Unlike many other drugs, MDMA is not known for being addictive, but individuals are prone to try it again. Besides the brain malfunction and other associated effects of MDMA, there are some dangers in increased use. Like many other drugs, MDMA is strongest in its first dose, after that it takes more to get that same high. Users are also more likely to start and abuse other drugs to cope with the “come down.”

Professionals have struggled to study MDMA due to the “small sample size, lack of tracer selectivity, and unreliable assessment of MDMA doses.” It is unethical to do any sort of experimental trial, so science is limited to the observational studies used to develop these findings. Science at this point is indicating that doing MDMA, or Molly once won’t have a lasting neurological effect, but this could very well be a false negative. Whether or not the findings are accurate, one needs to weigh the risk. Hopefully the risk of permanent neurological damage or worse is enough to hold people back from drugs, and if you have done it before it is enough of a reason to stop. To anyone who has used or is using MDMA, studies suggests that there is a way to restore brain function, stop using.

In Psychology we just learned about the idea of implanting memories. In the context it was used, implanting is the idea that you can spawn a false memory in someones mind. This goes hand in hand with the misinformation effect.

The misinformation effect is the idea that people who are exposed to new or misleading information about a memory incorporate that information into their recollection of the event. One of the most famous cases was one where participants were shown a slideshow of an automobile accident with a stop sign. One group was asked about a yield sign. Those who had been asked about the yield sign remembered it and claimed they had seen a yield sign. This is one of the most common and simplistic ways to implant a memory.

The easiest memories to manipulate are childhood memories, this is mainly in part to the large gap of time between the event and the recall. To study this claim, psychologists have conducted numerous experiments involving the use of several real childhood memories and one that never happened. Individuals the first time they heard the made up memory said they had no recollection of it, but when brought back in at a later date many of them added details and elaborated on the false memory. Much of this is due to our lousy intuition. Studies like these have undergone thorough meta-analysis, so it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that we can implant memories especially those pertaining to ones childhood.

Over the years many psychiatrists have been sued for the implementation of false memories. One of the most famous of these cases was Nadean Cool, who in 1986 sought therapy to help her cope with a traumatic event her daughter had experienced. Through hypnosis and other “suggestive techniques,” Cool uncovered alleged memories of “having been in a satanic cult, of eating babies, of being raped, of having sex with animals and of being forced to watch the murder of her eight-year-old friend.” These false memories were brought on due to malpractice, and patients such as Cool had a lot of trouble differentiating the real ones from the false ones. Studies have begin to show that under the right circumstances false memories can  be planted fairly easily.

Knowing that memories actually can be implanted into ones mind, I started wondering how accurate the science of t
he movie Inception is. In the movie Leonardo DiCaprio invades individuals dreams to plant an idea. The movie talks about how you have to plant the simplest form of the idea in order for it to take, and that they have to feel like it is their own. In general the movies science is very sound in the ideologies it bases itself off of, apart from the concept of actually entering into on
es brain of course. Dreams and reality are tied closely and it is very challenging to differentiate which is which at times, this helps the concept of “Inception.” But is it actually possible to implant an idea through a dream?

Studies of dreams in general focus on aspects of the sleep and REM cycle. It is well known that vivid dreaming occurs within the REM cycle in humans, but this cycle is hard to track and there is no way to tell whether an individual is dreaming or just asleep; that is of course assuming they don’t talk or thrash in their sleep. We also have not discovered exactly why we dream. Studies have on the other hand discovered a way to increase the likelihood of dreaming about a certain topic. By telling individuals NOT to think about an elephant, they then try and suppress the idea of an elephant which in turn leads to them thinking about that elephant.This is referred to as a rebound effect. The same idea goes for dreaming, if you are told not to think about something before bed you are more likely to dream about it.

Another study shows that the brain appears to “‘play back’ patterns of activity that occurred during the day.” Matt Wilson and his colleagues found that the brain lights up in a breadcrumb-like path corresponding to the paths that individual took during the day. It is known that the hippocampus is responsible for all new memories and the idea has stemmed that through dreaming the hippocampus trains other parts of the brain to store information long term.

Even with the growing ideas of why we dream and how we dream there are still many gaps that science has yet to figure out. There is still no mechanism as to why parts of our dreams are playback and others are crazy and out there. With this discrepancy science has no way of knowing exactly how dreams work and are unable to rule out the null hypothesis that we can not implant an idea into the mind while dreaming. So it is possible that we will discover that we can in fact implant an idea into someones mind as they sleep, maybe inception is the science of the future!

I was sitting in my room and all of a sudden I got really happy, I was dancing around and jamming out to whatever music I had playing and I started thinking about why I was happy. In general it’s pretty easy to read someone’s emotion based off of their facial expressions, whether it’s a smile when they are happy or the eyebrow raise when they are ticked. As humans we are usually really good at reading into these expressions and knowing exactly what is going on, but that got me to wondering why exactly we smile when we are happy? Why do we make the facial expressions we do in response to our emotions?

As I started my research, I came a cross Paul Ekman and his studies. Ekman is a scientist who has written several books about his findings. In his book “Unmasking the Face: A Guide to Recognizing Emotions from Facial Clues,” Ekman shows well researched data on several aspects of emotion. In a study he conducted he showed people pictures of emotions and then had them either pick the word that corresponds to the image or come up with their own word for the picture. His study found that across the board the emotions happy, sad, surprise, fear, anger and disgust were constant amongst the population. In another study Ekman conducted he showed stress inducing videos to American and Japanese college students once by themselves and then again with someone in the room asking questions. This study was constructed to see if the emotions were constant across culture. To avoid the confounding variable of “learned recognition” and response to popular media, Ekman conducted this study in New Guinea, where individuals had no connection with the outside world. The tests had to be modified slightly due to the language barrier and varying social norms, but this test also held with Ekman’s hypothesis that Emotions are constant among all humans. Due to Ekman’s thorough investigation, attention to potential third variables, and large sample size he was able to show that facial expressions are constant across humanity.

Facial expressions as we know can be both voluntary and involuntary. Humans can vary their expressions to a point, but through the findings of Ekman they still follow the idea that facial expressions are constant. But I still hadn’t found why. I came across an article that was not a science journal and was not as credible as Ekman and his book but in it I started to get answers. Lauri Nummenmaa, a psychologist at Aalto University stated “Our emotional system in the brain sends signals to the body so we can deal with our situation.” This is known through psychology with the autonomic and somatic nervous systems. Just as it is animal reaction to run when something scares it and our body naturally calms itself down once it is safe, it is a rush of signals that causes emotions.

The emotions are caused by these signals in conjunction with chemicals in the brain. When someone is depressed there is some sort of imbalance of the chemicals in the brain, which is why certain drugs are used to correct the imbalance. The brain is very complex and different studies differ on exactly which chemicals are part of happiness, some having more components than others. The neurochemicals that are agreed upon across the sources I referenced are Dopamine, Oxytocin, Serotonin and Endorphins. Each is responsible for a different aspect of happiness. Dopamine is considered the “reward molecule,” this chemical is released anytime someone has that feeling of accomplishment. Oxytocin is known as the “bonding molecule,” this is the chemical is released when someone is with a loved one and is experiencing physical contact. Serotonin is the “confidence molecule,” which is associated with self worth. Endorphins are linked with physical activity of both innocent and sexual natures and make them a pleasurable part of human life. These chemicals, potentially combined with many others, are the components of happiness. 

So to date it has been established that humans are constant in their expressions and they have the same chemicals coursing through their bodies, which are the associated cause of emotion, so it seems that chemicals cause facial expressions. This is a correlational conclusion, but it is widely accepted. Dr. Nakia Gordon on the other hand states that smiling can actually cause ones mood to increase, opening up the possibility of reverse causation.  Charles Darwin  had suggested that facial expressions were an indication for animals to communicate, an animal would bear its teeth as warning, and that humans re-established the idea of bearing teeth as a form of greeting. Darwin’s ideology may be correct but it also may not, it is unclear whether human expressions are only based off the chemical responses, or if there is a third confounding variable that influences why we make certain expressions in conjunction with certain emotions. Either way, the study of why we smile is one that has puzzled many scientists!

Today in Psychology we were learning about the brain and the hemispheres, my professor started talking about the corpus callosum. This is the part of the brain that connects the two hemispheres. In cases of severe epilepsy there is a procedure that can be done that separates the two hemispheres of the brain entirely. This is to minimize the connections the brain is able to make, which in turn helps stop seizures. Through these patients a lot was discovered about the functions of the brain.

Due to the total isolation of the two hemispheres, scientists were able to closely study what functions each side of the brain does. The brain utilizes contralateral processing, which means that the right hemisphere of the brain controls the left side of the body and vise versa. Through this discovery and the studies on the split brain patients scientists were able to discover the functions of both sides of the brain. The right hemisphere is responsible for visual and spatial recognition, whereas the left hemisphere is responsible for language and logic.

In class my professor showed us a video of Joe who had undergone this surgery. when flashed one image on his left and one on his right he was able to articulate the one on the right but not the one on the left. He could however draw with his left hand the image he saw on the right side. Here is a link to the video of Joe.  This study really interested me because it made me wonder if a person could function with only half a brain.

A study was conducted on 58 children at John Hopkins over the course of 30 years who had hemispherectomies, or a procedure where half of the brain is removed or disabled. The purpose of these operations, much like the split brain procedure, was to stop neurological diseases and epileptic tendencies. Of the children tested 27 operations were done for Rasmussen’s syndrome, 24 operations for cortical dysplasias/hemimegalencephalies, and 7 for Sturge-Weber syndrome or other congenital vascular problems. This operation is very dangerous, out of the 58 children 4 died in the phases of surgery, of the surviving 54 only 54% were subsequently seizure free. The operations were considered successful in decreasing the “burden of the illness.”

Stress is exposed as the “inability of an animal to cope with its environment.” Stress likewise is responsible for many things including subfertility. It has been recognized that there is a link between reproductive function and stressors has been known since the late 1930’s. The stress hormones released are secreted in response to the stressor and they elicit the “fight or flight response.” The rush of adrenaline accompanied with the sympathetic system could be a mechanism for why stressors inhibit reproduction.

In a study of agricultural animals it was discovered that stressors do in fact inhibit reproduction. Dairy cows show that certain stressors such as milk fever and heat sickness increase the length of conception by intervals of 13-14 days. This is due to increased chemical releases of chemicals effecting the hypothalamus. Such stressors are also known to interfere with the precise timings of reproductive hormone releases.  The exact way stress influences reproduction is not clearly understood but it “may involve a number of endocrine, paracrine and neural systems.”

In humans things are a little different. Although many infertile couples blame stress for their infertility, studies are proclaiming that as reverse causation. In the majority of cases stress is not the cause of infertility. There is however, a biological interaction between stress and infertility due to the stress hormones increased levels in the brain. These especially effect the hypothalamus-pituitary and on the female reproductive organs. Stress hormones interact with the hormones that are responsible for normal ovulatory cycles, thus having the ability to influence fertility at the organ level.

Although female hormones and sex organs can be effected by stress, it does not cause infertility the way it does in farm animals such as dairy cows. The testing and studies done on the animals does not lead it to be a factor in humans, but like lab studies on other animals it could always provide information that could be studied more directly with humans. The correlation does remain that technically stress could be a factor in infertility and reproduction, but there is most likely a confounding variable. That being said the stresses of college WILL NOT make it so you will not get pregnant, so be safe.

As I was beginning to tackle my 13 comments for the semester I came across a blog about nightmares and why we remember them and not happy dreams. As I was composing my response I started thinking about the science of remembering traumatic events versus happy ones.

As I began researching I found numerous books of studies of traumatic behavior linked to memory. I quickly came across a study on 25 children that suffered a serious injury leading to hospitalization. The researchers talked to the patients and the parents of the children. They used both free recall and cued recall where they asked both free response and yes or no type questions. A small child named KB swallowed a fishbone and was sent to the emergency room. Her parents rated her stress level at the top of the scale. 7 months later, when she was 25 months old she was not able to verbally communicate what happened but she was able to accurately pick out her doctor out of a line of pictures and still refuses to eat fish and is afraid of tongue depressors.

Sigmund Freud, a famous philosopher, believed that because infantile memories are weak there is an increase in that memory if the situation is traumatic. This sort of study is often linked to child abuse and those memories after such experiences take place. These memories are sometimes considered “flashbulb memories,” which are said to be nearly photographic. There is however, controversy on the validity of this type of memory.

In another study on infants it was discovered that emotional trauma actually had a negative impact on the development of the brain as a whole. The traumatic patters of a caregiver to an infant impaired the growth of the orbitofrontal cortex which is linked to stress disorders. Such experiences lead to more insecure attachment and can trigger an alteration in the emotion processing limbic system. The limbic system is linked to ones ability to adapt to the environment and to organize thoughts especially in the first two years of life. Early trauma alters the development of the right brain, which is the hemisphere which processes socioemotional information. Such processing can alter what one is able to remember due to how the information is processed. 

The studies out there are numerous in the linking of trauma and development of the brain as well as memory. It is known that trauma and stress make someone more likely to remember certain aspects of that experience. The why is still in question. Through my research I could not find a definitive answer as to why traumatic experiences are easier to remember than other situations. It is highly linked to the increased awareness of the surroundings but nothing is set in stone. I guess since science has no definitive answers the question of specifically why shall remain unanswered!

In high school I suffered two concussions, one was minor and due to a head to head collision and then the second was very serious and it just seemed to happen. I suffered a minor blackout from the first and was cleared to go back to sports a month later. Just over a year later I spontaneously got symptoms such as double vision, headaches and nausea. The doctors thought it was possibly a brain tumor or some other serious disease due to the fact that I never hit my head. After a ton of testing they concluded I had a concussion. Ever since I am overly cautious about things near my head because I fear going through the whole deal again. Thinking about concussions made me wonder if I am more susceptible to brain related diseases later in life such as Alzheimer’s Disease.

One of the factors linked closely with concussions is the multitude of concussions one has received. In a study investigating the long term effects of athletes with a history of multiple concussions it was discovered that athletes with two or more concussions took on average 28 months longer for their N2pc and P3 components to return to normal.  Generally speaking the N2pc component refers to the part of the brain used to selective attention, by studying this it is possible to gage the general attention functions of the brain. Individuals with more concussions tend to take longer to return to normal speed functioning of the brain.

Another factor closely associated with the severity of the long term effects is whether or not one blacks out. Every year more than 1.5 million Americans get a minor concussion, an equal number sustain injuries resulting in a blackout. Blackouts are a sign of high impact concussions and thus are linked with the most severe of symptoms. These individuals are more prone to post-traumatic stress disorder and studies even have stated that if consciousness is lost for more than 30 minutes the patients risk of Alzheimer’s disease later in life increases. The link is due to the altered proteostasis, or protein homeostasis of the brain due to proteopathy which has to do with the abnormalities of the functions of the cells in the brain. This same study shows that  20-30 percent of patients with Alzheimer’s or Parkinsonism have a history of at least one traumatic brain injury. Such injuries lead to increased levels of various chemicals in the brain which have been closely correlated with Alzheimer’s disease. It is believed that trauma to the brain is responsible for neurodegenerative changes, causing Chronic traumatic encephalopathy as well as Alzheimer’s. Studies have found more than 50 confirmed cases of CTE occurring in individuals who played contact sports or were on military detail. Through CTE research new diagnostic measures are being formulated in order to diagnose and hopefully prevent Alzheimer’s disease.

In a case study in 2002, a 55 year old woman started experiencing forgetfulness and trouble doing her daily activities. One and a half years prior she had sustained a concussion and blacked out briefly. In her examination there was no abnormalities, except with her memory. Upon examining her brain they found inflammation and the presence of chemicals associated with Alzheimer’s disease. All of the factors pointed to the process of “Alzheimerisation” of the brain.

It is hard to say whether serious traumatic head injuries are directly linked to Alzheimer’s disease. The correlation between the two is strong, but only in saying that one could be more likely to suffer from Alzheimer’s later in life. It is known that concussions mess with the brain and plenty of studies show the long term effects in regards to the severity, multitude and whether or not one blacks out. More studies of Alzheimer patients needs to be done in a more controlled setting to determine more definitely whether or not concussions can be considered a cause of Alzheimer’s.

Due to the fact that I blacked out momentarily and that I have suffered multiple serious concussions I hope that concussions causing Alzheimer’s disease is only a correlation.

Halloween is fast approaching, and candy is on every child’s mind. I was babysitting my cousins over the weekend and every chance they could they would sneak into the candy jar and take a handful of candy. Kids eat candy like addicts do drugs, and that got me thinking can candy kill you? At first thought I assumed that yes, just like everything that exists in the world it is possible for it to kill you but often not as the only cause. I started to do some research and was shocked at some of the studies I found.

One study showed that sugar consumption has been linked to a rise in non-communicable diseases such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes. Worldwide there are 35 million deaths annually from such noncommunicable diseases, additionally certain countries such as Denmark chose to tax foods that are high in saturated fat in an attempt to hinder sugars effect on the body. This same study showcased that sugars effect on the body can be similar to alcohol, it claims that high fructose corn syrup has similar effects on the liver as that of alcohol . This is most likely due to the fact that at it’s base alcohol is fermented sugar.

Sugar messes with the chemicals in the brain which thereby make you remain hungry after you consume it. This causation links eating access sugar to increased body weight and subsequently certain noncommunicable diseases. It has been documented that the last time sugar consumption rose dramatically in the United States, it was associated with a diabetes epidemic. Overweight people are more likely to have a heart attack or become diabetic than someone that is thin.

Robert Lustig, in 2009 gave a lecture called “Sugar: The Bitter Truth,” throughout it he refers to sugar as a “toxin” and as a “poison.” The basis of his argument is that “sugar,” meaning both sucrose and high fructose corn syrup, is toxic. A study branching off of this argument found that High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)  is primarily metabolized by the liver, whereas other sugars are metabolized by the whole body. Consuming natural sugar means a lot less work and abuse on the liver than consumption of HFCS. In a lab study on rats it’s “clear that if the fructose hits the liver in sufficient quantity and with sufficient speed, the liver will convert much of it to fat.” This has been called a fundamental problem with obesity which links it back to the noncommunicable diseases mentioned before. It is unknown whether humans have the same effect to sugar as lab rats, but it is well known that sugar is not good for you due to its lack of nutritious value and that it has often been linked to noncommunicable diseases that cause millions of deaths annually. Does the consumption of sugar kill people, no it does not. But the consumption of large amounts of sugar can be a factor in acquiring diseases later on in life, and that it can make you fat.

–Above is a diagram of what sugar does to the liver.

Like the majority of this class I selected Science 200 because I was told it was the ideal science class for non-science majors. Throughout school I was always fairly decent at science, but that was only because I was okay at math. The problem is I hate math. Coming into Penn State I wanted to avoid math at all costs, and that made this class even more appealing! After todays class I am really looking forward to looking at science in a totally new light!

From everything I grew up learning through my science classes, science was never even an option for my major. I loved science in middle school, where it was general and exploratory; but once I got to high school Biology, Chemistry, and Physics ruined science for me. Schooling made me believe that all science was black and white and there was one way to do it and no other. I consider myself a creative person and I tend to see things in shades, not just in black and white. I always questioned the things put in front of me so science was never something I wanted to pursue.

and here is a random science video!