Look at this picture:

Did you yawn at all? (Let me know in the comments section!)

Why does it seem like we yawn after we witness other people yawning? Is it because seeing other people yawn triggers responses in the brain to make us a yawn? Is there a sort of mechanism for the contagious yawning phenomenon? Let us explore.

This study published by the Duke Center for Human Genome Variation from Duke University attempted to figure out the causes of contagious yawning through the use of measurable variables such as empathy, emotional contagion, circadian energy rhythms, and sleepiness to name a few. 328 volunteers participated in this study. First, they were required to fill out questionnaires that measured 15 different variables such as how susceptible they are to falling asleep in certain situations, how empathetic they feel towards others, and even their age. They were then required to watch a 3 minute yawning video to try to trigger their yawning. The number of yawns were recorded for each participant. The results showed that 266 out of the 328 subjects yawned at least once. Researchers concluded from the results that contagious yawning is “not strongly related to variables like empathy, tiredness and energy levels (Duke Medicine).” In other words, the researchers are not saying that yawning cannot be caused by empathy, tiredness, and energy levels. Simply, there is not enough compelling evidence found in the results to rule that those factors do have an impact in contagious yawning. Remember, the absence of evidence does not mean that there is evidence of absence.

However, there was one variable that did stand out in the results. They found in some small instances that the amount of yawning decreased with age. However, age only accounted for 8% of the variation in the results which means that the rest of the variation could be correlated with any of the variables they tested for. There was not enough evidence to prove that age had a factor in contagious yawning.

So the study by Duke concluded that the reasons for contagious yawning are unclear. The study showed that a large majority of people (266 out of 328, or 81%) did yawn after seeing the video (Bartholomew). However, there are some flaws to this study. Before the video was shown, the participants were told a brief description about contagious yawning. This could have influenced the participants to act a certain way, such as trying not to yawn or yawn as much as they can. Even though yawning is a non voluntary action. The researchers can’t possibly determine if subjects’ yawns were real or fake.

Even though some may find this phenomenon to be cool, there are others out there that are wondering why we should be wasting our time with this? Similar to the problem with wrinkly fingers we discussed in class, why should we spend the time/resources to figure out why yawning is contagious? Well we learned that fingers tend to wrinkle up in shorter amounts of time for people with cystic fibrosis and that further research can explore that connection and possibly find out more about cystic fibrosis. For people with autism or schizophrenia, they are less susceptible to yawning when others yawn. So further research can shed light on these types of illnesses and how they affect the human body (Duke Medicine).

The Duke study emphasizes that there are not enough studies done to show which factors have an impact on contagious yawning. Most studies that were done to try to explain the causes of contagious yawning were either observational or just based on theory. I think there is not enough evidence to conclude anything at this point. But I do believe that the Duke study is very credible due to its experimental design. One way that I think they could have improved on the study is by focusing on hard end points such as physical activity/physiological changes in the brain. A replication of studies should be done to validate if there are factors that affect contagious yawning or validate if there isn’t enough evidence.

Picture source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201403/why-is-yawning-so-contagious

I did one of my blog posts on the same topic, but I decided to revisit the topic and add my own thoughts/new material. Basketball is my favorite sport and I am a huge fan of the NBA. I often wonder why the tallest players, such as Greg Oden, Yao Ming, Bill Walton, and Joel Embiid, get injured all the time. Could their immense height play a factor in their injuries? Like I said before, athletes in all sports get injured all the time. I want to know if the tallest players in the NBA are simply more prone to injury.

This article points out that taller players have missed more games than shorter players. The author of the article states, “Since 2000, 97 players 6’9” and taller have been drafted by teams with lottery selections… These players missed 17.9 percent of their potential NBA games (regular season and postseason, where appropriate) to injury over the course of their careers, while the 95 players 6’8” or shorter missed just 13.5 percent (Stotts).” He even goes specifically into 7 footers who “have missed 24 percent of their games (Stotts).” The article shows that there is a recent trending correlation between height and games missed since 2000.  Meanwhile, this article looked at injury histories/records of over 1000 players during a 17 year period. The review “found no correlation between injury rate and player demographics, including age, weight, NBA experience, and most importantly, height (McCarthy)”.

Even though the studies above show contradicting results, can we accept the legitimacy of these results? Both studies were observational. There was no control of variables, so confounding variables could have easily impacted their injuries. There are so many to list such as: number of minutes played, poor training regimen, previous injuries sustained in college or high school, style of play. These results showed correlations, but we cannot just assume that these correlations prove tall players are more likely to get injured.

If I were to conduct an experiment to test this hypothesis, I would track down tall people who are at least 6 feet and who all fall within a small range of ages (18-25). Each person would be assigned to a group based on their height (6’0” group, 6’1” group… 7’0” group). In each group, the subjects would then be randomly assigned to a control group where they are required to not partake in any sport, or a treatment group where they are required to play recreational basketball games. The treatment groups in each height category would have to play against each other 3-4 times a week for a long period of time (possibly a year or two). Injury records from the treatment groups are then compared with each other and compared with the control groups. The subjects that are playing basketball in the treatment groups cannot be told the true nature/intent of the experiment because then some of them would try to play conservatively to avoid an injury. Who wants to get an injury? Of course, my proposed experiment isn’t flawless. There is no way I could recreate an actual professional NBA game as the subjects I use are most likely not going to be skilled or physical enough.

So far, all we have for this topic are observational studies. However, a mechanism was possibly hinted from this article. There is evidence that shows that having a high stride frequency “can reduce stress on the body and prevent injuries (Davis)”. (By the way, stride frequency is the number of steps you take over a period of time.) But can we assume that tall people have a lesser stride frequency? One can assume that tall people will have longer strides with their tall legs and therefore, less stride frequency. But is this true in all cases? Three Boston researchers recorded the heights, weights, leg length, and stride frequencies of 10 runners. The design of the study (observational or experimental) was not mentioned. The results were not strong and found no relationship between leg length and stride frequency. I believe that a sample size of 10 is just too little, and that more studies should be done to prove if taller people have small stride frequencies. Also, one can argue the case that stride frequency is just a soft end point and that we should be looking for actual structural damage of their bodies/injuries (hard end points). But stride frequency could possibly be linked as a mechanism. If evidence from numerous studies can support that, then we could possibly link a mechanism to how tall players in the NBA get injured so frequently. There is plenty of running and cutting in the NBA so how could stride frequency not apply to NBA players?

Another possible theory that can affect injuries for tall people is listed in this article. According to the article, taller people are more likely to slouch and overstretch back ligaments (Chughtai). If taller people are more likely to get back pain, then having back pain could potentially lead to a wide variety of injuries if it continues to be aggravated. However, studies were not mentioned and this assumption was from one doctor.

According to the evidence that I researched, there is nothing strong or credible that could explain why or even if taller people are more likely to get injured playing basketball. Everyone runs through the risk of injury when they play a sport, regardless of height. Besides, based on all the observational studies listed, there are just too many confounding variables that could affect an injury. Just from the evidence I found, I am going to have to conclude that height doesn’t have much of an impact in giving tall people injuries. I could be dead wrong. What do you guys think?

Picture source: http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/hawks_nba/tags/joel-embiid/

You are probably thinking, how can toothpaste be bad? It helps to clean our teeth and fights germs. Without it, our teeth would rot and fall off out of our mouths. We should be thanking the invention of toothpaste instead of criticizing it. Well, after doing some research, I found that there is an ingredient in toothpastes that can have potentially negative effects for your health. This ingredient is called triclosan.

This article explains how the company Colgate-Palmolive removed triclosan from its soap products due to a change in “consumer preferences (Jennings).” Yet, the potentially harmful chemical still remains in their toothpaste products. Some blame was placed on the FDA for approving these products that include triclosan because the FDA used research funded by the actual toothpaste companies that showed that their products were safe. Results from this “research” shouldn’t be relied upon since these companies have to seek the FDA’s approval to sell their products in the first place. So, how exactly is triclosan bad for your health?

Although long term studies with humans have not been done, this study concerning mice showed that large concentrations of triclosan led to increased cancer risk (Jennings). In the study, mice, which were roughly 6 weeks old, were placed in a controlled semi-specific pathogen free room under a constant temperature, 12 hour light and dark cycle, and frequent ventilation before the experiment began (Lee). It is important to keep all these variables constant because if not, then they could possibly have an impact on the results of this study as confounding variables. All the mice (sample size was unspecified) were transplanted with human breast cancer cells (MCF-7) and were randomly assigned to either a control group or a treatment group. The mice in the treatment group were injected with triclosan while the mice in the control group were injected with corn oil. Each group received injections 3 times a week while being observed for 8 weeks. The researchers found that the rats who received triclosan developed much more breast tumors than the ones that received corn oil. Also, the treatment mice had larger and denser tumors. The treatment mice’s tumor tissue was then examined and the researchers found high levels of cyclin D1 expression, which is responsible for cell proliferation. Before the actual experiment on the mice, the researchers isolated the MCF-7 human breast cancer cells in a cell culture and showed that their expression of cyclin D1 increased when they were treated with triclosan. However, levels of p21 expression, which is also responsible for cell proliferation, decreased when treated with triclosan. (I know there is a ton of jargon, but bear with me.)

Even though this was a well designed experiment, I still do not understand why they injected all the mice with human cancer cells in the first place. That kind of defeats the purpose of determining if triclosan causes cancer. I guess that the researchers were trying to prove if breast cancer can get worse under triclosan, instead of proving if triclosan forms cancer in the first place. Nevertheless, triclosan has some sort of connection with cancer. Even though the studies were done with mice, the results show that the topic of triclosan-cancer connection should be stressed much more. The study was well designed. It was not a victim of the file drawer problem because they published evidence that supported the null hypothesis, which was the decreased levels of p21 expression. They could have chose to leave that information out to bolster their case, but they didn’t and rightfully so.

Is there evidence that triclosan, a key ingredient in toothpastes, can be good for you? Of course, we shouldn’t use research that was funded by toothpaste companies to determine if triclosan is safe. This meta-analysis conducted by independent researchers assessed triclosan’s ability to reduce plaque, gingival inflammation, bleeding, etc. The studies consisted of randomized control trials. The meta-analysis consisted of 30 studies and 14,835 people (Riley). In all the studies, there was a treatment group of people who used triclosan included toothpastes and a control group of people who used toothpaste without triclosan. Results were observed for six-seven months. The results showed moderate levels of reduction in the dependent variables listed above but the meta-analysis ultimately concluded that “these reductions may or may not be clinically important (Riley).” In other words, I believe the evidence is not compelling or drastically strong enough to show that triclosan’s benefits outweigh its harmful effects.

Conclusion: In the end, I feel that I should be careful when going toothpaste shopping. 99% of the time, I don’t even think twice about the ingredients listed on my toothpaste. There are a wide variety of toothpastes out there without triclosan that I can use. You can check this out to see which toothpastes I’m talking about. Toothpaste is still beneficial to having clean and healthy teeth; you should just be careful of what’s actually in your toothpaste.

Picture source: http://www.carolinasdentist.com/do-whitening-toothpastes-really-work/

I have been lifting weights for the past year and I was interested to know if it would stunt my growth. I would love to keep growing in height since I stand at an average of 5’9”. My friend back home told me that he typically tries to avoid heavy weight lifting because his older brother tried it when he was young and has not grown ever since. Of course, this is just one case or one anecdote, which implies a weak inference when determining if lifting weights stunts growth. I decided to investigate because getting stronger and getting taller are some of my goals. I also want to find out if it was okay for me to start lifting at an earlier age since I do have some regrets starting just the past year. So does lifting weights actually stunt growth?

This meta-analysis explains the results of 60 years worth of studies of children and weightlifting. All the subjects from these studies were within the ages of 6-18. The scientists that conducted the meta analysis study pondered if weight training would stunt the growth of children while they were already in the stages of growing through puberty. While evaluating all 118 of these studies, the scientists chose studies that fit their criteria best suitable for the meta analysis. Only 42 out of the 118 fit their criteria. One of the criterion that I thought was most important was that “the study design had to include a resistance-training intervention (Behringer).” This meant that the putative causal variable (“x” variable) had to be manipulated in the study in order to be included into the meta analysis. In this case, the x variable is the amount of weight training. Observational studies were not used in the meta-analysis, which is good because you can have a lot less uncertainty in figuring out if weight training stunts growth when you use well conducted experiments. The manipulated training programs that the children went through in all 42 studies ranged from 4 to 60 weeks with a mean average of 9.9 weeks, a mean of 2.7 sessions per week, and a mean of 41.1 minutes in each session. A vast majority of the studies (83.3%) reported that they used free weights and resistance machines. The scientists found an overall weighted effect size of 1.12, which explains that “the ability to gain muscular strength seems to increase with age and maturational status. Furthermore, study duration and the number of performed sets were found to have a positive impact on the outcome (Behringer).” In other words, they found as the older you get and the more you put into your weight training, the more muscular gains you received.

The conclusions were based off the results of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials. For the randomized trials, researchers randomly assigned the children to a treatment group where they went through some sort of weight training, or a control group where they went through no training. They integrated the results from both types of study designs into one conclusion. We know that randomization is used in controlled experiments to reduce the impact of confounding variables and give subjects an equal chance of either being assigned to the control group or the experimental group. Can results vary greatly whether they came from randomized or non-randomized trials? And by how much? I believe there should be some sort of consistency when evaluating studies in a meta analysis and that researchers should use studies with the same designs. A possible confounding variable could be that the children who were chosen for the study may have had prior experience with weightlifting before the experiment. The experiment would show clearer, and unbiased results if they used subjects with little to no experience with weight training to better see the effects. 79.4% of the studies did not even report training status or experience with training of their subjects. So could this meta-analysis be guilty of the Texas sharpshooter problem? They found the positive results to their liking, but most of the studies failed to mention if their subjects were affected by a pretty important confounding variable that I explained above. There could be a chance that the scientists made a false positive decision in concluding that weight training helped with the overall growth of children. Also, the scientists stressed that only one of the 42 studies actually focused on how exactly the hormones of puberty were affected by weight training, and that more studies would have to be done to figure out the physiological mechanism in response to strength stimuli (Behringer).

Well can’t one argue that when you lift weights, you have a higher chance of injuring yourself if something were to go wrong? You could end up breaking a bone or two if you’re not careful around heavy weights. According to this article, a study by the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) was mentioned which showed that after observing children over a one year period, fewer than 1% of injuries occurred from weight resistance training (Fell). Even though this was observational, I believe that in this case the observational study is the best way to go about finding out if children are more likely to get injured from lifting weights without running into a bunch of ethics. Of course, adult supervision should be required when children are near weights. I believe that there is an extreme minimal chance of getting injured if there are professionals who supervise and guide children in performing lifts with good form. Although it was not mentioned in the article, it is safe to assume that the children that were lifting weights in the study were supervised. We shouldn’t be testing to see if children are more likely to get injured on their own without supervision.

Even though I mentioned some flaws of this meta analysis, I still have confidence in the overall results. The fact that there was a meta analysis instead of a single study helps too. I concluded from the observational study that children will be less likely to get injured as long as they are supervised. Overall, I’m not going to stop lifting heavy weights because I still want to get stronger and gain mass. The meta analysis didn’t directly mention height, and there weren’t many studies I could find that only concentrated on height. If I were to conduct an experiment, I would look for height as the dependent variable. Of course, I would have to replicate the studies and get some nasty mean peer review. What do you guys think?

Picture source: http://www.muscleandfitness.com/workouts/legs-exercises/deadlift-step-step-optimal-results

I have recently started to bulk up in order to build my physique and get stronger. As I read countless amounts of bodybuilding articles, I read that one of the most important things to do in order to get stronger is to consume protein. Lots of it. In fact, this article recommends that 0.8-1.5 grams of protein per pound of body weight should be consumed each day. However, my friend recently told me that eating too much protein led to cancer. Normally I would take his remarks with a grain of salt since he usually says idiotic things. But I decided to divulge in this topic as it directly relates to my diet.

This article definitely caught my attention because the author proposed that eating lots of protein raised the risk of cancer (Gholipour). A study was done where middle aged men ages 50 and older had their eating habits observed over a period of 18 years. The results showed that those who ate large amounts of animal proteins were “more than four times more likely to die of cancer than those who ate a low protein diet (Gholipour)”. The correlation was definitely there, but one cannot assume that this correlation is causation. This was an observational study and conclusions from these types of studies are not as strong as conclusions from actual experiments. Also, one has to consider the possibility of reverse causality. Could it be that cancer is causing these middle aged men to eat more protein? In order to acquire stronger results, I would have manipulated variables such as the protein given to the subjects. There would also be a control group that would receive placebo “food” with average amounts of protein. Also both the researchers and subjects must not know which treatment is given to which group. But then of course, the whole story of ethics come into play. If a diet rich in protein does in fact cause cancer, then I would be giving these subjects cancers without them even knowing.

Another experimental study was done back in 1968 that used rats as their subjects. All the rats that were fed an increased amount of casein protein (30 rats out of 30), got tumors on their livers, while all the rats in the control group that were fed less casein protein (0 rats out of 12) developed no tumors at all (Cooney). The study also tried to increase protein intake within the rats that had cancer. They found that tumor rate increased while being fed more protein. However, the researchers then decreased the amount of protein for a period time and found that the tumor growth stopped (Cooney). Could this just be a fluke? Even though this was an actual controlled experiment, can we really say that rats are similar to humans? Note: randomization and double blind procedures were not even mentioned in their actual paper. More studies should be done in order to legitimize these results.

Dr. T. Colin Campbell, who wrote the book The China Study, spent many years trying to prove that diet and cancer is directly related. Dr. Campbell provided a mechanism and was able to show that “higher protein diets decreased NK cell activity, increased cell replication, increased oxygen radicals, increased IGF-2 (Cooney)”. All of these factors are significant in cancer growth. Based on Dr. Campbell’s chemical findings and from the rat studies, we start to see some sort of credibility in the protein-cancer connection. Dr. Campbell could be correct in his conclusion, or he could be making a false positive. But again, more studies should be done to support the notion that a higher protein diet can cause cancer. One must also take in the fact that there so many variables that have been linked to cancer, including smoking, sun exposure, hazardous environments, family history, aging, being overweight, or lack of physical activity (Cunha). For the observational study I listed above about the middle aged men, any of those confounding variables could have an impact on why some were more likely to get cancer than others. They only sampled middle aged men, anything could have happened in those 50 years other than extreme protein diet! Another contradicting aspect I found is that protein actually helps with weight loss (Le). So how would protein be a factor in causing cancer if one of the risk factors of cancer is being overweight? Of course, that is only just one risk factor.

So is eating too much protein bad for me (and maybe you)? Protein definitely is essential to our diets. We can’t just NOT eat any protein. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), “most adults in the United States get more than enough protein to meet their needs. It’s rare for someone who is healthy and eating a varied diet to not get enough protein.” We eat more than enough protein as long as we are eating a balanced diet. Also, I referred back to a blog post of mine that focused on meat potentially causing cancer. Brian Rigby, who is a performance nutrition specialist and current Master’s Candidate in Nutrition, stresses that eating meat (lots of protein) is good for you and that you are more likely to develop a life threatening disease with low levels of IGF-1 than high levels (Rigby). IGF-1 stands for insulin-like growth factor 1 which has been noted to be linked with cancer. Eating meat increases IGF-1 levels.

There are both sides to the story, pros and cons of whether to consume more protein. I think I might cut back on the protein slightly. But I’m not going to abandon protein, especially meat. As long as I have protein with a balanced diet from everything in the food pyramid, I should be fine. At the end of the day, being physically active and getting stronger is a lot more important to me. As long as we eat balanced diets, be physically active, and make healthy choices, we should reduce the chances of getting cancer greatly.

Picture source: http://www.optimumnutrition.co.za/489/100%25%20whey%20gold%20standard%203.3lbs..aspx

Everyone has wondered if there is a life after death. If you are Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, the idea of an afterlife is deeply rooted in the concepts of your religion. But if you’re like me, who isn’t very religious and just can’t find the time for it, surely the idea of an afterlife puzzles you. Where the heck do we go after we die? Is there truly a heaven or a hell? Or do we actually reincarnate into another human being with no recollection of our previous lives? How could we even test the existence of an afterlife????

Well, that’s not to say that scientists don’t even try to prove if there is an afterlife. Of course they do. This study conducted by Dr. Steven Laureys focuses on near death experiences from patients. Dr. Laureys is from the Coma Science Group located in Liege, Belgium. In his study, Dr. Laureys used patients who experienced near death experiences, such as those who had heart attacks or went through comas, as his subjects. He had them answer memory questionnaires to find out how “real and Intense” their memories from the afterlife were. Dr. Laurey had many patients who would recollect being outside their physical bodies or seeing the distant light at the end of the tunnel. He also compared these near death memories with subjects’ memories of actual events that happened over the course of their lives and with dreams/thoughts (Brumfield). They also compared memories with control groups of patients who didn’t have near death experiences.

Dr. Laurey found that the NDEs were considered much more intense and real than any other event or dream from the majority of his subjects. Many claimed that there NDEs were real and actually happened. However, Dr. Laurey explained that the topic on hand needed much more research and replication to conclude anything. His team has not been able to use brain scans on these patients to find physiological changes which could hint at a mechanism. Personally, I think self-reporting can be influenced by bias and isn’t always reliable. For example, a patient who is extremely religious can credit his survival and having a NDE to God or some supernatural being they believe in. Can his/her recollection be considered reliable? Science cannot be explained by supernatural explanations.

Of course, there is always a sense of ethics when dealing with life or death situations. It is unethical to just test or “run brain scans on someone who was possibly facing the moment of death (Brumfield)”. That’s why Dr. Laureys and his team decided to give the questionnaires to patients after their recovery. Also, one cannot just assume that there is a state of spiritual being after you die. These results were merely from an observational study. No variables were manipulated in this case. Nothing can actually be proven, especially through the use of supernatural causes. Remember that supernatural explanations are not part of science. Dr. Laureys reiterated in his study that his results were in no way biased by religion.

Multiple studies have been done concerning the same topic including Dr. Sam Parnia’s from the State Univeristy of New York. This study basically shows similar results as the first one mentioned above. Dr. Parnia used a sample size of 2,060 patients from 15 hospitals in the UK, US and Austria, About half of them (46%) mentioned some sort of mental recollection from their near death memories (Withnall). But again, this study was observational. These were recollections of patients who survived and their accounts could have been biased. Scientists would never know for sure if these patients actually experienced a spiritual world unless they experienced it themselves. And even if they did, can they prove the hypothesis right with their own anecdotes? Anecdotes are not good inferences and could not possibly explain the presence of an afterlife. This article goes on to question the legitimacy of near death experiences, by stressing that the brain cannot process memories if it is nonfunctional. Therefore, the author claims that patients that claim they saw heaven or the afterlife were not really dead, and that there is a reason they are called NEAR death experiences (Shermer).

There seems to be a sort of consistency with people having memories from their near death experiences. But can we actually confirm that they were in a spiritual world? The legitimacy of a near death experience or recollection can be highly susceptible to bias or even just pretentiousness. Either way, we would have no way to prove the legitimacy of their recollections because it was only experienced by them.

What do you guys think? I believe that NDE’s aren’t very reliable to use, but it is the only way scientists use to explain the presence of an afterlife. How else would scientists would go about this hypothesis without breaking numerous codes of ethics or morality?

Picture source: http://www.inquisitr.com/1911883/what-happens-when-you-die-out-of-body-and-near-death-experiences-are-real-claims-heart-attack-study/

Have you ever heard of the term: a magician never reveals his/her secrets? Well, magic tricks are hard, in fact, pretty hard to explain. Are they real or just illusions set by the magician? Is David Blaine actually not a human being?? (Click on this to see what I mean.) I was first introduced to magic tricks when I discovered Criss Angel. He had his own TV show and performed crazy tricks, like walking on water and coming out of a wood chipper unharmed and untouched. I thought that some of the tricks/stunts have to be real since he got surgery on his shoulder after he attempted to catch a fired bullet (Leach). How do these magicians do it?

This study tries to explain that magicians are only illusionists and attempt to deceive the human brain (Choi). A magic trick, called the “vanishing ball”, was conducted. The trick is performed by faking a throw while keeping the actual ball hidden in your hand the entire time. The result is that people will see a ball vanishing in mid air. Researcher Gustav Kuhn of the University of Durham in England recorded a “pro-illusion” version of the throw, and an “anti-illusion” version. In the “pro-illusion”, Kuhn faked the throw straight upward, and he appeared to be gazing at an imaginary ball going up. During the “anti-illusion” version, Kuhn faked the throw, but was looking at his hand that was hiding the ball the whole time. The results showed that two thirds of volunteers that participated in this study, saw the illusion of a ball disappearing during the pro-illusion version, and only one third of the volunteers claimed they saw the illusion in the anti-illusion. Kuhn was able to examine the volunteers’ eye movements during both versions. While most of the volunteers claimed they were looking at the ball the whole time,  Kuhn found that they looked at his face to help them track the ball’s location. He concluded that, “Even though the ball never left the hand, the reason people saw it leave is because they expected the ball to leave the hand. It’s the beliefs about what should happen that override the actual visual input (Choi).”

This article goes into detail the methods magicians use when using magic tricks with poker cards. Magicians use different types of forcing to find out their victim’s card. For example, “spreading a deck of cards in a certain way can make spectators more likely to choose a card in the middle rather than in other positions (Olson)”. All this forcing and manipulation can make a card more salient, or more noticeable, and can therefore be guessed by the magician with ease. The bottom line is: magicians have so much tricks up their sleeves and try to manipulate you all the time!!! I don’t know how all the famous magicians get to cut people in half with those large saws and put them back together, but some manipulation has to be suspected.

Picture source: http://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-4954814-stock-footage-magic-card-tricks-gambling-casino-poker-concept-man-showing-trick-with-playing-cards.html

Youtube source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZTZkoU_jnA

I actually took part in my friend’s study for his statistics fair project back in high school. It wasn’t the most well conducted study but I had to help my friend out. He wanted to know if wearing a shooting sleeve helped with shooting. So he made me shoot some free throws with a sleeve and without one. I bricked almost every free throw without the sleeve. But when I put one on, I saw improved results. It felt comfortable and snug on my arm. This raises the question: Do shooting sleeves actually help to make you a better shooter?

According to this article, shooting sleeves help to regulate temperature in the arm, improve flexibility, add compression to increase circulation which results in reducing soreness, and improve shooting form. Shooting sleeves help to keep the elbow straight while shooting.

Some speculate that the shooting sleeve has psychological benefits (Levy). The shooting sleeve was first worn and popularized by Allen Iverson on January 21, 2001. Iverson wore it because he had bursitis on his elbow, and then proceeded to score 51 points that night. He never took it off and took his team to the Finals that year. He kept on wearing it well after his surgery on the bursitis to prevent future injuries. Carmelo Anthony continues to wear shooting sleeves well after his surgery. Stephen Kotler of Psychology Today, proposed the question: “Could sleeves be functioning in the same way as placebos in medicine? (Kotler)”.

Another article explains that two studies were done in regards to compression sleeves. A 1987 study in the American Journal of Medicine found that “compression garments lowered blood-lactate levels and blood pooling. Both blood lactates and blood pooling can cause swelling and reduce performance (Albagdadi)”. A 2007 study in the Journal of Sports Science had males wear compression garments during a 10k and the results showed significantly reduced muscle soreness (Albagdadi).

To be able to become a good shooter, one must put in the time and practice instead of relying on a sleeve to do the work. Maybe the benefits that come along with wearing a sleeve (reduced swelling, flexibility, reduced risk of injury) help to improve one’s ability to shoot. But I can’t see sleeves helping people that just cannot shoot to save their lives, including me. Maybe it is superstitious and people use sleeves whenever they play because they had one good game with it or they suffered an injury without it. What do you guys think?

Picture source:

Do It For The Culture

When I first thought of this question, I couldn’t help but think of many NBA players whose careers did not pan out well because of injury. Yao Ming is 7’6”, but numerous foot injuries forced him to retire in 2011. Joel Embiid,who is 7 feet tall, has yet to play a game for the Philadelphia 76ers due to a broken foot. There are other tall players who experienced numerous injuries like Greg Oden and Bill Walton. Even Derrick Rose, who is only 6’3” but is still taller than the average male, has had multiple knee surgeries. Obviously, athletes in all sports get injured all the time. But in the NBA, 7 foot giants are more common. I want to know if you are more prone to getting injured if you are really tall.

This article points out that taller players have missed more games than shorter players. The author of the article states, “Since 2000, 97 players 6’9” and taller have been drafted by teams with lottery selections… These players missed 17.9 percent of their potential NBA games (regular season and postseason, where appropriate) to injury over the course of their careers, while the 95 players 6’8” or shorter missed just 13.5 percent (Stotts).” He even goes specifically into 7 footers who “have missed 24 percent of their games (Stotts).” The article shows that there is a recent trending correlation between height and games missed since 2000. Meanwhile, this article looked at injury histories/records of over 1000 players during a 17 year period. The review “found no correlation between injury rate and player demographics, including age, weight, NBA experience, and most importantly, height (McCarthy)”. Two articles with conflicting results. This doesn’t help to answer the question at all.

However, I found an article that might. There is evidence that shows that having a high stride frequency “can reduce stress on the body and prevent injuries (Davis)”. It is easy to assume that tall people will have longer strides with their tall legs and therefore, less stride frequency. By the way, stride frequency is the number of steps you take over a period of time.) This might explain why tall players are more prone to injury. However, the observational study in the article was able to show that there was no relationship between leg length and stride frequency. Three Boston researchers reported the height and stride frequencies of the 10 runners they used. That is a very small sample size, but it is a study nonetheless! The article goes on to conclude that a taller height doesn’t always mean low stride frequencies, and that tall people can work on improving their stride frequencies too. It is not just some curse that they are stuck with.

My conclusion to this question is that it is not likely that height has a factor in giving tall people injuries, although I have not presented the strongest evidence to support my conclusion. I guess it is percieved that tall NBA players get injured all the time because we hear it on the news often. Joel Embiid’s two foot surgeries were front page news on ESPN. What do you guys think?

Picture source:

http://www.businessinsider.com/76ers-tweet-about-joel-embiid-reaction-2014-6

If you have seen the movie Interstellar, you know that the crew of the Endurance travels through a wormhole at the speed of light in order to get to planets far far away. If you have played the video game Mass Effect, you know that there are Mass Relays that have the capability of catapulting ships to distant places across the galaxy in mere minutes. Even though both scenarios are pretty unrealistic, it does make one ponder whether we should start thinking about deep space. Should we try to find other planets that are suitable for human life? Should we send astronauts out towards distant places?

There are skeptics that argue why we should be spending the time and resources for space exploration. What is the point? Well, according to this article, putting an emphasis on space exploration will create more jobs and educational opportunities. There are endless secrets in the galaxy waiting to be discovered by us. The Earth has been dealing with overpopulation for a while now. Stephen Hawking believes that humans have less than 1000 years to live on the Earth. He stresses that space exploration should be emphasized more in order to find suitable conditions for the survival of the human race (Cross). Even though 1000 years seems like a long time, it doesn’t hurt to start making advances into the field of exploration. However, it does come at a price. According to this article, a bill was recently passed that would cut $300 million of funding in the field of Earth science while $200 million would be given to NASA for space exploration projects (Ross). Budget cuts in earth science would hinder the studies of climate change, which is a serious issue right now.

Money is obviously tight, and funding must go to the right things. Climate change is an urgent issue. According to this article, there are many negative consequences that come along with climate change including the melting of polar ice caps, rising seas which cause flooding and erosion, droughts and heat waves. These issues are obviously more urgent, which raises the question: How far off are we in terms of developing the necessary technology to explore outer space? This article explains that “there is not even enough mass in the entire Universe to propel even a single being up to half the speed of light (Jenet)”. That is the problem. The speed of light, in case you didn’t know, is unimaginably fast. Scientists have been toying with the idea of thermonuclear propulsion which in theory would use nuclear explosions to catapult ships across miles of space (Tackett).

So the issue with financing space exploration is that we are no where near ready to actually send people to distant places. Also, there are many issues back home which require more attention. What do you think? I believe that 1000 years is far off, so we definitely have plenty of time to fix current issues we have on Earth.

Picture source: http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2014/11/12/15-unbelievable-story-beats-interstellar-got-away-with/

Unless you are vegetarian, chances are that you like meat. Meat is tasty. Meat is essential in the American lifestyle. Without meat, there are no cookouts and BBQs at tailgates and parties. Without meat, the biggest and strongest athletes of our society would not be so big and strong. I cannot even fathom to imagine a life without meat.

Meat is healthy in many ways. According to this article, beef is high in protein, zinc, phosphorus, iron, and vitamin B12. Protein, which is important for building lean muscle, is a huge component in many bodybuilders and athletes. However, studies have shown that eating a diet heavy with meat may have negative consequences. In this article, cancer researchers observed in many studies in England and Germany that vegetarians were much less likely to develop cancer than those who ate meat. You may be thinking that there are many other confounding variables that can cause cancer. That is true, as tobacco and alcohol have all been linked to cancer.

An interesting article tries to explain the mechanism of how red meat can form cancer. Scientists at the University of California were able to find out that a certain sugar in red meat called Neu5Gc causes a negative response from human immune systems, Human immune systems label this sugar as foreign and therefore elicits a response that causes inflammation. When inflammation grows, it can lead to cancer. Neu5Gc is naturally produced in other animals, but not in humans. The scientists performed experiments on mice which were genetically engineered to not produce the sugar and found that the mice developed tumors when they were given the sugar.

In contrast this article by Brian Rigby, who is a performance nutrition specialist and current Master’s Candidate in Nutrition, goes on to explain how eating meat doesn’t necessarily cause cancer. Eating meat increases IGF-1 which stands for insulin-like growth factor 1. Rigby stresses that “IGF-1 does not cause cancer, but could promote the increase of already existing cancerous cells (Rigby)”. Overall, he recommends that eating meat is good for you and that you are more likely to develop a life threatening disease with low levels of IGF-1 than high levels (Rigby).

With many contrasting studies on whether meat causes cancer or not, my take is that there are so many other confounding variables that lead to cancer. One cannot say for certain that meat is the sole reason that people develop cancer and that everyone should stop eating meat.

Picture source:

http://blog.wineguppy.com/food-wine-pairings/pairing-wine-with-steak/

Hello class and Andrew. My name is Eric Choi. I am from a small town called Horsham, Pennsylvania. It is about an hour away from Philadelphia. I am doing this course for gen ed credits. As soon as I saw the description of the course (for non-scientific students), I was persuaded to add this class onto my schedule. I am not planning to be a science major because science does not interest me at all. I made the horrible mistake of taking AP Biology in high school and I can say with confidence that I did not have much fun. The concepts taught there were like a foreign language to me and that’s when I decided science is not going to be my major. I am in the Smeal College of Business and I am pretty content with what I have going there right now.

During my free time, I like to play basketball, lacrosse, and the piano. One of my favorite artists who also plays the piano is John Legend. I went to Hatboro-Horsham High School. Here is a picture of some of my closest friends; two of them live in my hall.