People who have always been blind or have gone blind when they were a child are called “early blind” people, and their ability to make up for their lifelong obstacle is incredible. It’s always been known that blindness causes people to be able to hear more clearly, but there are numerous tests to prove that “early blind” people have more ability with almost every task than people with “late blindness” and especially those that are sighted but blindfolded. It makes sense that those who go blind so early in life have a lot more time to learn to make up for their lack of sight, and therefore are more skilled than those who have not learned or have had less time to learn. But how much more skilled are they with using their remaining four senses?

Scientists conducted a hearing experiment  which involved 3 groups of people: “early blind”, “late blind”, and sighted. The task, easier said than done, was to decipher which of  two tones played out loud was in higher pitch. As we can imagine, the “early” blind” people were able to outperform both of the other two groups. But interestingly, there was no significant difference in the performance of “late blind” and sighted people. This proved to Dr. Belin that the brain’s centers for sight and hearing and other senses are all connected in a way that if one dies, the others can make up for it. Therefore, the “early blind” has had more time for those other senses to step up to make up for the loss of sight. I think that instead of only having early and late blind people as volunteers to the experiment, it would be much more beneficial to our level of knowledge on the subject if there was a more varied selection of people’s experience with blindness. For example, having a “5 year blind” and a “10 year blind” to teach us about just how long the process of making of for lost senses takes.

Another experiment involved the same types of 3 groups, but this time tested the volunteers’ ability with their sense of touch. They were timed how fast each group could match 10 shapes with corresponding cut-out holes in a wooden board. This time, the two blind groups performed with similar performance, as the sighted volunteers struggled, yet improved a lot throughout the experiment. Just as in the other mentioned experiment involving 3 very different groups, I would have found it helpful to our understanding if there were more that 3 groups with people of less varied experience with blindness.

All of this evidence points to the fact that it is all about practice when it comes to improving everyday skills with the tall obstacle of living with blindness. Those that have been blind for longer have, in a way, an unfair advantage to the “late blind” because their connections of the sight, hearing, and touch centers of the brain have had much more time and adjust and make up for the devastating loss.

All star running back for the Seattle Seahawks Marshawn Lynch loves Skittles. The very few times we hear Marshawn talk on T.V., its often about his obsession with Skittles and how it started with his mother when he was a child. He habitually eats his Skittles on the sidelines during a game after a big drive in order to keep his energy levels up. But is Lynch right to eat such candy in the middle of a high energy NFL game? How do sugary candies such as Skittles effect our short-term energy?

We’ve all heard that sweets such as candy and soda make us “hyper”, especially children. But Dr. Aaron E. Carroll sternly rejects this “myth” and suggests that candy does not raise the children’s energy levels. Rather, parents are to blame for over-exaggerating their childrens’ behavior. He sites an experiment where an entire group of children were given a sugary-free drink, and half of the parents were lied to and told that there was sugar in the beverage. The results were that that those parents rated their children as being more hyperactive than the other group, “confirming that this myth is entirely in the parent’s heads.” But the thing that I find wrong with this experiment is the principle that once a children is drinking a soda which he assumes has sugar in it, he or she will be inclined to “act” as if they are under the spell of sugar. For example, I read about a study where someone brought a keg of unalcoholic beer to a party, and everyone drinking it acted as if they were drunk even though they were not. I believe the same principle applies to this expiriment in that the children trick themselves into hyperactivity.

Another study that was conducted my Dr. Tamborlane from Yale took a closer look at the physical effects of children that have been given sugar against children that have not. The results were that the kids that were given sugar had higher levels of adrenaline, which is consistent with Marshawn’s reasoning for consuming such junk-food. But what also was found was an increase in insulin with the children who consumed the sugar which is linked to ADHD and loss of focus, a sign that Lynch should rethink his decision. I believe that this simple experiment was conducted well in that scientists were able to effectively witness changes in the children who were given sugar that were not present in the control group. If the trial weren’t randomized, perhaps one could argue that reverse causation could be possible in that children with more adrenaline could desire candy more, but that is not the case here.

In an intense NFL football game, playing on a high energy team such as the Seahawks, I believe it is helpful for a star player such as Marshawn Lynch to consume sugar on the sideline. For the soul reason of the increase in adrenaline, which is so important in a high impact sport such as football, Lynch benefits from the Skittles; and everyone can see that on the field.