In this blog, I explored the connection between stress and acne, and in this blog, I investigated the link between diet and acne. Now, I want to take a look at another factor that could potentially affect acne: smoking.

The first study I came across used a questionnaire to determine if there was a correlation between smoking and acne. Researchers controlled for gender differences, and came to the conclusion that there was no association between acne and smoking cigarettes. Thus, the evidence presented in this study is consistent with the null hypothesis that there is no relationship between these two factors. We know that the results of this study must be either correct or a false negative.

However, in continuing to investigate, I found a study that contradicted the evidence presented in the first study. This study found a “significant linear relationship between acne prevalence and number of cigarettes smoked daily.” Thus, the conclusions made were that “smoking is a clinically important contributory factor to acne prevalence and severity.” This study was a cross-sectional study, so the evidence presented here is neither more nor less convincing than that of the original study. In addition, it is true that a confounding variable could be causing the association found in this study. Such a variable might be proneness to stress, which could be causing someone to both smoke cigarettes and suffer from worsened acne. Even so, the evidence found in this study is consistent with the alternative hypothesis that there is a relationship between smoking and acne. Thus, the results of this study must be either correct or a false positive.

A third study resulted in evidence in support of a completely different hypothesis altogether. The conclusions of this cross-sectional study suggest that overall, “acne sufferers were less likely to smoke.” When it came to gender differences, researchers found that “daily cigarette consumption” was likely to hinder acne development in girls, while there were no such associations found when it came to boys. Thus, researchers involved in this study are arguing that, in fact, smoking lessens the prevalence of acne in girls. We must also keep in mind that a confounding variable could be behind this association. Such a variable might be, for example, high socioeconomic status, since someone with this privilege has sufficient money to spend on both cigarettes and skincare products (which would account for tendency to both smoke and have less acne).

When comparing all of these studies, it is clear that they present conflicting evidence. Unfortunately, based on the evidence from these three studies alone, we cannot conclude anything about the relationship between smoking and acne. Perhaps a meta-analysis of several studies done exploring this relationship might reveal which side of the argument has more evidence supporting it. Until that is done, however, we cannot be sure which of the arguments to agree with. But, one thing we know for sure (as Andrew has reviewed this in class) is that smoking has negative health benefits. Therefore, I suggest that we leave the cigarettes alone, because, in any case, they will certainly do more harm than good.

(As a side note, this blog is part of a three-part series in which I explore possible factors affecting of acne. You can find Part 1 here and Part 2 here).

In this blog, I explored the association between stress and acne. It got me thinking about if other supposed causes of acne have any scientific validity. It has been proposed before that eating unhealthy foods can cause an increase in the presence of acne. Therefore, I decided to investigate the link between someone’s diet and severity of acne.

In researching this topic, I came across this article, which details a meta-analysis of several studies exploring the relationship between diet and acne. Overall, the conclusions set forth in this article state that “compelling evidence exists that high glycemic-load diets may exacerbate acne,” and that “dairy ingestion appears to be weakly associated with acne.” However, nothing can be concluded about the link between acne and diets rich (or lacking) in nutrients such as omega-3 fatty acids, antioxidants, zinc, vitamin A, and dietary fiber. The article does mention a lack of randomized controlled experiments in the studies it reviewed, so therefore, we cannot define a causal link between the putative causal variable (diet) and the putative response variable (acne). In addition, it is possible that this meta-analysis fell victim to the file-drawer problem, in that it reviewed studies that found a link between high-glycemic diets and acne, but that there are several unpublished studies that found no such link, thereby causing researchers to overestimate the prevalence of this link.

More investigation led me to this study (PDF link here), which further explored the link between levels of glycemic-load in diets and acne. This controlled experiment involved an experimental group that received a low glycemic-load diet, while a control group received a diet high in “carbohydrate-dense foods.” To measure levels of acne, researchers recorded the number of acne lesions that participants had before and after the study. Overall, it was found that “total lesion counts had decreased more in the low-glycemic-load group than in the control group,” thus providing evidence consistent with the hypothesis that diets rich in glycemic foods might lead to increased acne. Being that this study was a controlled experiment, it provides us with stronger evidence than an observational study can. However, we must be wary of confounding variables, such as stress levels, weight, and ethnicity of participants, which could potentially be affecting these results.

Overall, we cannot definitively conclude that there is a link between someone’s diet and the prevalence of acne. However, there is evidence to suggest an association specifically between diets rich high glycemic-load foods (that being, foods that contain a lot of glucose, such as bread, pasta, and cereal: link here) and increased acne. Further studies must be done in order to identify what, if any, other types of foods might be causing acne. Generally, what all this means for us as a society is that we should aim for a diet low in foods containing lots of glucose, as it may help to reduce acne. Even if it doesn’t, there are lots of other health benefits that eating a diet like this can provide.

I have been told many times that stress is a leading cause of acne. Up until now, I have blindly accepted this as truth, since it has been printed in several magazines and I have been told this by many people whose opinions I respect. However, as an enlightened SC 200 student who has learned to be more critical of so-called “fact,” I decided to investigate the correlation between stress and acne to see if there is any valid scientific evidence to support the claim that stress causes acne.

I came across this study, which involved 22 college students, and found that “increased acne severity was significantly associated with increased stress levels.” The study appears to be well-designed, as it controlled for some confounding variables such as “changes in sleep hours, sleep quality, diet quality, and number of meals per day.” However, there are still other confounding variables that could be affecting the results, such as genetic factors. And, it is possible that this correlation is due to reverse causation. It is quite plausible that an increase in the severity of a student’s acne causes them to become more stressed. In addition, since this was merely an observational study, and not a randomized experiment, we cannot say that it proves that stress causes acne, because as we know, correlation does not equal causation. Even so, this study provides evidence that is consistent with the notion that there is a correlation between stress and acne.

Further research led me to this study, which explored a possible biological mechanism that could explain the link between stress and increased acne in adolescents. Specifically, researchers wanted to know whether increased sebum production could explain this association. To do this, they studied 94 students with a mean age of around 15 years old, and tested whether “stress is associated with increased acne severity independent of, or in conjunction with, increased sebum production.” What researchers found was a “significant association between stress and severity of acne,” however, they did not discover a link between increased acne and increased sebum production. Again, this was an observational study, and relied on self-reports by participants, which are not always trustworthy since we know that human intuition is lousy. However, the results can still serve to support a correlation between acne and stress, even though they do not provide a biological mechanism to explain this link.

What I am able to conclude from my research is that there is evidence to suggest a correlation between increased stress levels and increased acne. However, a randomized controlled experiment will have to be performed to provide evidence that stress causes acne. Unfortunately, such a study might be unethical because it could be considered inhumane to purposefully expose participants to stress. For now, we can conclude that, since stress may be a factor of increased acne, we should try to avoid it as much as possible. In any case, avoiding stress can only be beneficial, not harmful.

(As a side note, this blog is part of a three-part series in which I explore factors affecting acne. You can find Part 2 here and Part 3 here).

A few years ago, a study was published by researchers at Connecticut College which made headlines in mainstream society. The study claimed that Oreos were “as addicting as cocaine,” so it is no surprise that to the general, Oreo-eating population, this came as a shock. Suddenly, everyone was going around repeating this slightly unbelievable claim. Since we have learned to look at scientific studies with a critical eye before blindly accepting them as the truth, I decided to investigate whether the results of this study were a fluke, or if there actually is some valid scientific basis to this claim.

First, I decided to evaluate the study. The controlled experiment was performed on rats. They were placed in a maze where on one side, they were fed Oreo cookies, and on the other side, they were fed rice cakes, as a control. They compared the results of this test to results of a different test where the rats were injected with cocaine or morphine on one side of the maze, while on the other side, they were injected with saline, as a control. The results found that the rats stayed on the “oreo” side of the maze as much as they stayed on the “cocaine/morphine” side of the maze. This, and the fact that Oreos were found to “activate significantly more neurons than cocaine or morphine” in the rats’ brains, led researchers to conclude that America’s Favorite Cookie is as addicting as cocaine. To me, this study seems fairly well-designed due to the use of controls. However, it is possible that the results of this study are due to a third (confounding) variable. In this case, it makes sense that the rats stayed on the “drug side” of the maze for longer than the control side because it is natural to be attracted to what tastes, or feels, better. In addition, since a different group of rats was placed in the cocaine maze as was placed in the Oreo maze, the study does not account for differences in the rats, which could be producing these results. Also, one of my biggest issues with this study is that the researchers made a conclusion comparing cocaine to Oreos, when those two factors were not even compared in the study. In the experiment, one group of rats were given the option between Oreos and rice cakes, while a different group of rats was given the option between cocaine and saline. Thus, the researchers have no basis to make a conjecture about Oreos and cocaine, because the rats were not given a choice between these two factors. Another study in which the rats were given the option between these two things would have to be done to make such a conclusion. And, above all, this study was performed on rats, not humans, so we cannot definitively conclude anything about humans based on these results alone.

However, other research has been published that supports the notion that addiction to food is a valid disorder in humans. This study, based on reports by “self-identified food addicts,” concluded that “overeating can be described as an addiction to refined foods that conforms to the DSM-IV criteria for substance use disorders.” We should be wary of these results because they are based on self-reports, rather than on a randomized control experiment, and as we know, human intuition is lousy. However, these results are in accordance with the alternative hypothesis that food can be “addicting” in the scientific definition of the term.

The next logical question that arises is, ‘is there a biological mechanism for such an addiction?’ As it turns out, there just may be. This study, in which fMRIs were used to study 48 young women of different weights, concluded that “similar patterns of neural activation are implicated in addictive-like eating behavior and substance dependence.” It is possible that this situation suffers from the file drawer problem, in that several unpublished studies have been carried out in which no such similar patterns were found, and this could affect our results. Even so, the results of this study are consistent with the idea that addiction to food has a biological basis as a valid disorder.

Overall, what we can conclude is this: although it may take further studies to prove that Oreos specifically are as addictive as cocaine or morphine, there is sufficient evidence to support the theory of food addiction as a valid substance abuse disorder. However, this type of addiction is probably not as dangerous as one to cocaine. So, what does this mean for us as a high-fat, high-sugar, Oreo-loving society? We now have yet another reason to lay off the junk food and instead opt for healthier foods. However, if you like to enjoy a few Oreos every once in awhile, you probably won’t end up in rehab.

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

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

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

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

All people, at least once in their life, have gone through the tense, stressful experience of rushing to finish something at the last minute. Procrastination: why do we do it when our better judgement tells us it’s a bad idea? The tendency to procrastinate seems to be an unavoidable part of human behavior, so I explored this topic in order to find out why we procrastinate and how we can avoid it.

Procrastination is often synonymous with “undesirable” traits such as laziness and lack of motivation. However, as a procrastinator myself, who is also very motivated and sometimes even anxious when it comes to schoolwork, I wondered why someone like me has the tendency to procrastinate. In a study involving 342 college students, it was found that the factors Fearness of Failure and Aversiveness to the Task accounted for much of the students’ procrastination habits. This makes sense when you consider the fact that students prone to anxiety over schoolwork may become so nervous over their performance on a certain assignment that they keep putting it off so as to relieve themselves of that stress temporarily. In short, as this study suggests, procrastination is often used as a coping mechanism for anxiety over an assignment. Another study exploring “perfectionist” tendencies in humans also found a correlation between perfectionism and procrastination. Again, logically this makes sense because someone who puts a great deal of pressure on herself to maintain an exemplary level of performance on a task would worry more about the outcome of the assignment than someone who does not care as much, and therefore, she would put it off to overcome this pressure.

In contrast, this analysis of the possible causes and effects of procrastination found there to be a weak correlation between procrastination and neuroticism. Meanwhile, it found there to be strong correlations between procrastination and task delay, self-efficacy, and impulsiveness, which is more in line with society’s stereotypes regarding procrastination. Thus, considering the results of this analysis along with the studies I previously mentioned, I believe we can conclude that the evidence suggests that both types of people (lazy and perfectionist) can fall victim to the habit of procrastination. Therefore, how to cope with procrastination depends on which category of people one falls into, since each person must resolve whatever is holding them back from doing his or her work. Another interesting point to think about is that procrastination might not be such a detrimental habit, depending on what type of a person you are. Research regarding the facets of procrastination states that active procrastination, or the deliberate act of procrastinating out of belief that one works better under time pressure, actually does work for some people. Interestingly enough, this study also found that, in terms of several factors like time management habits and academic performance, active procrastinators are actually more similar to non-procrastinators than to passive procrastinators (who fail to complete work on time due to indecision).

In conclusion, procrastination is very prevalent in our society, especially among college students (70% of college students procrastinate, according to this study). Therefore, the tendency to procrastinate is a trait shared by many different people with different qualities. Research has shown that lazy, unmotivated people are likely to procrastinate, as are neurotic perfectionists. In order for one to understand his own procrastination, he must understand what qualities he possesses that cause him to procrastinate, and try to overcome them. We may never fully eliminate the tendency to procrastinate, but perhaps we can better understand why we engage in this habit, and what we can do to overcome it.

For decades, tattoos and body piercings have long been viewed by society as the markings of rebellious young people. However, in more recent years, body modifications such as these have become much more integrated into mainstream society. Nowadays, it is not uncommon for your teacher, your mom, or your doctor to have a tattoo or body piercing. What I want to know is this: is there actually any substantial evidence of a correlation between the acquisition of a tattoo or body piercing to a rebellious and nonconforming attitude? Or is this association simply a figment of the long-existing social prejudices against people who opt to undergo body modifications?

According to national survey of a randomized group consisting of 253 women and 247 men, 24% reported that they had a tattoos while 14% had body piercings. In recent years, as this article says, we have seen body alterations such as these become more mainstream (a fact that is corroborated by this journal).  Several studies have been done that explore the answer to the very question I am asking. For example, in this study, adolescents were given a survey that asked them about their eating habits, drug abuse history, and sexual behavior, as well as questions about tattoos and body piercings. The results found a correlation between having body alterations and having a tendency to engage in risky behavior. However, my problem with this study is that, because it is not a randomized controlled experiment, there could be a third (confounding) variable at play here that causes teens to alter their bodies and to engage in other risky behaviors. Such a variable could be, for instance, peer pressure from other adolescents, which could cause a teen to both get a tattoo or body piercing and engage in other risk-taking behaviors.

Another study looked more closely at the link between adolescent body modification and a tendency to abuse alcohol and drugs. The results found a correlation between having body modifications and a tendency to engage in substance abuse. However, like the last study, it is possible that there could be a third variable that is causing this correlation. For example, the participants of this study were patients at an urban adolescent health care clinic. The fact that these adolescents live in an urban area, and thus have more exposure to tattoo and piercing parlors, as well as to drugs and alcohol, could explain the correlation. Furthermore, this correlation might also be explained by reverse causation. For example, it is plausible that perhaps while someone is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, they decide to get a tattoo or body piercing. It is for these reasons that we cannot definitively say that having body modifications necessarily causes one to engage in risk-taking behaviors.

In summary, though several studies have found a link between mainstream body modification (such as tattoos and body piercings), we cannot prove that getting a body piercing or tattoo causes someone to engage in risk-taking behaviors. There might be a third variable at play, or reverse causation could be creating this correlation. For now, I propose, we should follow the advice of the saying, “do not judge a book by its cover.” Let’s give our tattooed and pierced friends the benefit of the doubt and not make assumptions about them simply because of the choices they make with their own bodies.

It is a well-known stereotype that college students are generally a sleep-deprived group. From my own experiences, I can say that I have seen countless students walking to class looking like zombies due to late nights, and I admit that I have been one of those students myself. Therefore, I wanted to know just how sleep-deprived modern college students are, and how this lack of sleep is having an effect on their academic performance.

According to this observational study, in which participants from a midwestern university completed an online survey regarding their sleeping habits, it was found that 60% of these students qualified as poor sleepers according to the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Many of them also reported using over-the-counter or prescription medication, or recreational drugs in order to alter their sleeping patterns, using these drugs both to help them fall asleep and help them wake up. Not surprisingly, students attributed their abnormal sleeping patterns to stress and anxiety. Analyses of their PSQI scores supported this claim, and also revealed, somewhat shockingly, that factors such as exercise, alcohol and caffeine consumption, and consistency of sleep schedule did not have much of an influence on quality of sleep. The findings in this study also support the claim that college students may not be getting enough sleep, stating that many college students reported having “short night” in which they get less than 4 hours of sleep, and about 15% of participants said they suffered from chronic insomnia.

So, the stereotype that college students are sleep-deprived clearly has some valid scientific hooks. However, what does this actually mean for college students in terms of their health and academic performance? In this study involving college students living in on-campus dorms at a large university, researchers looked at several health-related variables, including exercise, eating habits, sleeping patterns, hours spent working per week, to name a few. It was found that the variable of sleeping patterns was the variable that most affected students’ grade point averages. Specifically, those students who tended to wake up later seemed to have lower grade point averages. This correlation between amount of sleep and grade point average was also found in this study. A possible mechanism for why sleep deprivation might result in a lower grade point average is that sleep deprivation negatively affects cognitive performance and ability to concentrate. In a study of 44 college students, participants had to complete a series of cognitive tasks after either being sleep-deprived for 24 hours, or having had slept 8 hours. They also had to rate how well they thought they performed on these tasks. The results showed that the sleep-deprived participants performed significantly worse than those who had slept, and they also overestimated how well they had performed. This might show that sleep deprivation can also affect judgement as well as cognitive ability.

So, what does all this mean for the average college student? The takeaway from this is that, yes, sleep deprivation is as negative as we think it is. There is evidence that is consistent with the hypothesis that college students tend to be sleep deprived, and that this sleep deprivation can negatively impact cognitive performance and thus a student’s grade point average. All in all, most college students (myself included) can benefit from sleeping the recommended amount. Perhaps then we will see a lot less sleepless zombies walking around campus.

Starting college brings a lot of new things to one’s life; new friends, new surroundings, a sense of independence, and of course, new classes, which are accompanied by loads of work to complete for each of them. Thinking about all the work that a college student must complete for his or her classes made me wonder: why do I sometimes feel ferociously motivated to burn through through boatloads of homework, and other times feel like doing nothing but laying in bed and watching Netflix?

The study of motivation is largely a concern of the field of psychology, as it involves biological processes in the brain which cause humans to think and act the way they do. However, a new biological mechanism for motivation was only recently proposed. Previously, the neurotransmitter dopamine had been thought to be related to pleasure in the brain. However, research by John Salamone of the University of Connecticut proposes that dopamine may actually be related to human motivation instead. In his studies, Salamone would artificially manipulate levels of dopamine in animals’ brains, then provide them with a choice between two different rewards of two different values, which could be obtained by different levels of effort. Most often, the animals with lower levels of dopamine would opt for the lower-value, easier-to-obtain reward, while animals with higher levels of dopamine would choose to exert the extra effort in order to obtain the higher-value reward. The findings in Salamone’s research are corroborated by further research conducted by scientists at the Universitat Jaume I of Castellón, which also found dopamine to be linked to motivation. Unfortunately, because these studies were conducted on animals, the discoveries made cannot be applied to humans, although they do provide some interesting insights into the science behind motivation.

However, a study conducted by Vanderbilt scientists explored the link between dopamine levels and motivation in humans. The study involved 25 volunteers (52% of whom were female), aged 18-29, who were asked to perform a button-pushing task in order to gauge their effort in achieving a monetary reward. They first selected either an easy or a hard task, where easy tasks earned $1 and hard tasks earned a maximum of $4. After selecting, they were then told what level of probability (high, medium, or low) they had of receiving a reward. Tasks lasted for 30 seconds each and the participants completed tasks consecutively for 20 minutes. Using positron emission tomography (PET scans), researchers found that participants willing to exert more effort in order to obtain rewards had higher levels of dopamine in the striatum and ventromedial prefrontal cortex of the brain, whereas those less motivated to obtain the reward had higher levels of dopamine in the anterior insula of the brain. These findings surprised researchers because they meant that dopamine can have opposing effects on human motivation depending on where in the brain it is released.

So, what can we do to keep ourselves motivated? Since there is little that one can do in the way of biologically manipulating their own levels of dopamine (without taking drugs, of course), how can one maintain their drive to achieve? According to an article by the Scientific American, three crucial factors behind motivation are autonomy, value, and competence. To summarize, people will find themselves motivated when they feel in control, when they are engaged in what they are doing, and when they feel good about the work they are doing.

All in all, while dopamine can be responsible for your level of motivation on a biological level, you can not chalk up all of your laziness to biology. Motivation also involves getting yourself in the right mindset to accomplish tasks. So, next time you find yourself in bed watching Netflix when you should be studying, remind yourself of your long-term goals, create short-term goals, and exert passion into whatever you do.

As many of you probably know, Dunkin Donuts gives out free coffee on the Monday after a Penn State football victory. So, while I was sipping my free medium hazelnut coffee this morning, and that familiar anxious feeling started to come upon me, I began to wonder: why exactly does caffeine give some people the jitters? And why only some people, and not others?

Caffeine is the most widely-used psychoactive drug in the world, and it is no wonder why. Caffeine exists in more than 60 plant species throughout the world. Many people feel as though they could not get by without the boost of energy that caffeine, whether in the form of coffee, soda, or energy drinks, provides them. The science behind caffeine’s “pick-me-up” effect lies in its effect on the brain. According to this article, caffeine blocks adenosine receptors in the brain, stimulating the central nervous system, specifically, the hippocampus, cerebral cortex, cerebellar cortex, and the thalamus. Blockade of these receptors also allows for the release of adrenaline which results in stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system. This can cause a person to feel more alert and focused, and less fatigued. However, caffeine does not just affect the brain. Consuming caffeine also stimulates cardiac muscle, and at high doses, can cause tachycardia of the heart. All of these effects culminate in what is known as “caffeinism,” the anxiousness, restlessness, and agitation that one feels when they drink high doses of caffeine.

However, the line between a moderate and a high dosage of caffeine is hard to define for different people. One’s sensitivity to the effects of caffeine is influenced by his/her gender, weight, caffeine consumption habits, and proneness to anxiety, according to this article. Focusing for a moment on “proneness to anxiety,” we can see that the results of this study are consistent with the hypothesis that patients with anxiety disorders are more likely to experience caffeine-induced anxiety than are medical inpatients. In other words, people who are more prone to anxiety are also more prone to the anxiety-inducing effects of caffeine than others are. In summary, all these factors affect how someone’s body will react to caffeine, which might be the reason why I, an 18-year-old female who seldom drinks coffee and who has a tendency to be anxious, am more sensitive to the effects of caffeine than say, someone who drinks coffee everyday and rarely gets anxious.

All in all, people often forget that caffeine is a drug because it is such a prevalent part of our everyday routine as a society. It is perfectly mainstream to drink a cup of coffee every morning to start your day. However, it is important that people know what effect caffeine has on their body and why so that they can limit their consumption. The goal is to find a cup of coffee that produces the desired “energy boost” without reaching the point of caffeinism, which puts stress on the brain and the heart. Due to a variety of factors, the size of this cup will be different for everybody. For me, I think I’ll just stick to my free cup every victorious Monday.

Hi guys!

My name is Emma Kilyk and I am from a small town in central New Jersey called Cream Ridge, which is about a four hour drive from Penn State. I am a freshman and am planning to major in either Finance or Marketing. I am so happy with my decision to come to Penn State and am really looking forward to football season!

I am not planning on being a Science major because, in all honesty, science overwhelms me. I found the material in my high school science classes to be abstract and difficult to grasp, so I chose not to major in Science because I believe that the subject of science is the beyond the realm of my understanding and capabilities. However, I have a lot of respect for people who do choose to major in this field of study. I chose to take this class in the hopes that it would help me to think more like a scientist! I liked the fact that it did not seem like a conventional science class, and that it was made for people like me who are not particularly science-minded. Hopefully, this class will help me to improve my critical thinking abilities.

Since summer is almost over and I miss the beach at home, here is a picture of one of my favorite places on the Jersey Shore, Long Beach Island. You can find out more about LBI by visiting here.

Long Beach Island, NJ