Any pet owner can agree that domestic dogs obtain incredible social skills which allow for interpreting and acting upon human acts like pointing and gazing. One belief is that this developed through domestication and dogs’ abilities to evolve. The evidence behind that hypothesis is that, based on natural evolutionary relationships, wolves cannot interpret human cues in the way a dog can. Even Great Apes cannot match the canine performance of intelligence and understanding. Also, regarding the origination and development and an organism, cues can be understood (using that term loosely) even as a puppy. Their understanding is commonly thought to not rely on high human exposure or an extent of training.

It is a very difficult hypothesis to test, however. It almost fully relies on visual cues and an observation of the dogs’ performance. There is really no way to get inside of a dog’s head and understand the motive, reasoning, or thinking. Additionally, studies have little restrictions or controls for alternate explanations of dog performances and it is difficult to be consistent between studies regarding how we observe, the dog’s awareness or feeling of the environment, and the human cues, gestures and reinforcements. The study, however, decides to use an auditory cue in place of a visual cue. More specifically, voice direction. The dogs were tested by whether or not they chose the correct bin of food over the empty bin. The results show that when using the voice direction to find hidden food, the dogs were successful in all trials. One added note was that “some dogs may not have comprehended the adult’s vocalization referentially, but those who did, comprehended it correctly from the first trial over three quarters of the time.” A second study was then conducted with no voice. Without the voice direction, dogs could not find the hidden food. There were 12 occasions of choosing correctly and 17 occasions of choosing incorrectly. The study confidently concluded that adult dogs could rely on voice direction, and thus continued the study with puppies. The results showed little to no difference from the performance of an adult dog. Their results can be explained by a development in dogs from domestication and human exposure.

(The above image shows the difference of correct choices between puppies that are often exposed to human interaction and puppies that are less exposed.)

The article is somewhat vague and brief about the dogs used for testing and the process and thinking behind the study. The size is somewhat small, but it can be understandable as to how it would be difficult to perform the study on a larger scale since it is interactive and not just observational. Overall, the article opens the door for more studies to be conducted and to change the way we think about dog relationships and performances as a result of human actions.

Also, hope everyone has a happy next two weeks and remembers that dogs are always the best cure for stress!

I’ve become particularly interested in artificial sweeteners such as Equal, Sweet’N Low and Splenda packets that you may find to add to your morning coffee. While I always listened to my dad warning me that the artificial sweeteners “caused cancer” and were so much worse for my health than tale sugar (mostly to avoid any pointless disagreement), I began to think it was something worth looking into. These products are available on the shelves of almost any general store, so why would the FDA allow that if they were really so bad as to cause cancer?

So I first began digging into studies and the correlation of artificial sweeteners and cancer. But there wasn’t a correlation. In this study, 3 Italian hospitals accumulated a total of 230 patients with stomach cancer and 547 corresponding cases, 326 cases of pancreatic cancer and 652 controls, and 454 endometrial cancer and 908 corresponding cases for a large sample size of 3,117. This will allow for an assumed randomized control trial. The cases and controls were interviewed and given the same questionnaires regarding lifestyle habits and diet. The study used odds ratio and a corresponding 95% confidence interval to classify data. The results can be seen on a table in the link provided above, and it is instantly clear that this is a case of the Texas Sharp Shooter problem. The article also describes on page 2 how “analyses across strata of selected covariates (i.e., sex, age, education, BMI, total energy intake, history of diabetes, smoking status, and hot beverages) were also conducted.” With that many factors to measure, there is an increased chance to find a correlation which may not actually be a correlation. However, the results do not provide much correlation at all. After adjusting for confounding variables, the data seems to have no conclusive evidence to support a risk of gastric, pancreatic or endometrial cancer for users or nonusers. This conclusion is actually consistent with numerous other studies and researches by other scientists. This is simply one of numerous examples of scientists challenging and searching to prove or disprove other scientific work, whether it is accepted knowledge or not.

However, another study provides data to help disprove this conclusion. It is thought in this specific study that certain factors “disrupt or degrade” the ability humans and animals possess to predict consequences of caloric intake, ultimately leading to an imprecise intake and add to weight gain. The article outlines possible degrading factors to be tested as sweet substances that are calorie free and low-viscosity foods and beverages, often high in calories. This hypothesis is also consistent with a societal increase in consumed sweet substances and low-viscosity beverages as well as the obvious weight gain throughout the country.

Two separate studies were conducted on rats, the first study including two groups of  rats per group. Overnight, the rats were given access to ml of a cherry or grape flavored solution with lab chow. One of these groups, categorized as “Group Consistent,” was assigned one solution 10% sucrose sweetened and one solution 10% glucose sweetened. The other group, categorized as “Group Inconsistent,” had sweetened and flavored solutions of noncaloric 0.3% saccharin and 10% glucose. This process ensured that only Group Consistent had sweet taste as a factor of calories. Rats of both groups were then given one day with only lab chow before testing. The next day, after a food deprived night, a pre-meal was offered containing 4 grams of a sweet and high-calorie chocolate flavor. After the pre-meal, the rats were given the lab chow for the next hour. As expected, the mean pre-meal intake (open bars) did not differ between groups, but Group Consistent ate an average of significantly less lab chow (striped bars), as shown below and on the left. This is consistent with the hypothesis that “Group Consistent was better able than Group Inconsistent  to anticipate the caloric consequences of eating the sweet pre-meal and thus was better able to compensate for the calories contained in that meal by reducing subsequent intake of lab chow.”

The second study included two groups of 8 rats each. The rats were given 15 grams of a relatively low calorie supplement along with lab chow daily. One of the groups was categorized as “Group Low” and had 3% water added to lower the viscosity, creating more of a milk fluidity. The second group, known as “Group High,” included 3% nonmetabolizable guar for a viscosity with the thickness of pudding. Over 30 days, the above right graph displays how Group Low gained significantly more weight than Group High as time continued, a little over 5 grams. According to the article, this data suggests there may be evidence of sweet tastes and viscosity influencing weight gain, though there is much more research to be conducted.

And so with all of this information in mind, it is time to ask yourself whether you believe a study with less than 40 rats should affect your health decisions? There is an obvious relation…. in rats. My personal belief is that while this is definitely an interesting study that may deserve more follow up studies (preferably with humans), and there is definitely a relation between high calorie beverages and sweet substances and weight gain, this information does not directly affect me and my lifestyle at the time since I don’t indulge in many substances that would fall under the tested categories. Besides the previous complaints, I thought the study was very well thought out and executed and should be further researched.

With society becoming very health conscious as well as more technological and scientifically advanced, it is encouraged now more than ever to be fully aware of what is being put in our bodies. One highly discussed and studied example of this is artificial sweeteners that is used daily, especially for avid coffee drinkers like myself.

One study tested subjects after an intragastric infusion of either sucrose dissolved in water, sucralose in saline (two separate solutions of different amounts of sucralose), or simply normal saline. The study went on to analyze blood glucose, plasma levels of insulin, gastric emptying, plasma levels of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, and plasma levels of glucagon-like peptide 1.

If you are anything like me, that’s probably a lot of crazy words with no meaning to you. Let me try to clarify, with credits to much smarter people. Glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP for short) and glucagon-like peptide 1 (often referred to as GLP-1) are both incretin hormones that are significant in the process of glucose homeostasis. Previous studies have shown that sucralose will stimulate a release in GLP-1 on certain cells in mice. GIP is released from the small intestine and enhances release of insulin after the intake of food. The hormone is also responsible for stimulating the release of insulin from cells in the pancreas to sustain low blood sugar levels after consumption. An increased level of GIP has been linked to obesity and type 2 diabetes, but it is unclear as to whether a higher level is a cause or consequence.

GLP-1 is actually the product of a molecule called pre-proglucagon that splits into hormones. This hormone is also found in cells in the small intestine and encourages the pancreas to release insulin. It is responsible for increasing the “feeling of fullness during and between meals by acting on appetite centres in the brain and by slowing the emptying of the stomach.” It is also thought that not enough of this hormone may increase the likelihood if not worsen obesity.

With all of that wonderful information in mind, back to the study!

The results can be seen in the chart above. While a more detailed analysis can be found in the article, the main point is, for the most part, sucralose and saline did not differ with the exception of plasma GLP-1. Sucrose, or table sugar, seemed to peak very early and very high before returning to approximately normal levels. While it was almost expected for the molecules sucrose, sucralose and saccharin to set off a response in receptors of sweetness, the study has no sturdy result that can support that sucralose would stimulate GIP or GLP-1 release. The study then claims that with this information, it may be possible that artificial sweeteners only benefit in that they are a carbohydrate substitute and do not help with diet.

In my opinion, this study is interesting but definitely has areas to be improved upon. For example, the study tested only 7 humans. This is a significantly low sample size and makes it impossible to assume it is a randomized trial. The study was also over a very brief period of time. It may be interesting and possibly beneficial to continue the study in a long term format and analyze how repeated exposure to sucralose at different levels would affect the hormones and their stimulation. While I don’t quite believe third variables can be ruled out, the study has definitely ruled out reverse causation, since the idea of hormones affecting the sucralose or sucrose infused in the body is illogical.

So what does this all mean to you? Well, this study shows that sweeteners are no more harmful than they are helpful to your pancreatic hormones. In another post to come, however, a study will challenge sweeteners and their affect on caloric intake.

We have all been aware since we were young how important blood is for the body. I’ve recently been trying to keep up with donating once ever 56 days, as recommended, because it can give me a short break out of my busy day and make me feel good about helping someone. Studies are now showing that this hour process to give blood can not only save other lives but also help to improve your own. American Red Cross reports that over 41,000 blood donations are needed daily. Of the 1.6 million individuals diagnosed with cancer last year, many will likely need to be given blood during chemotherapy. Another 70,000 affected by sickle-cell disease will frequently need blood transfusions. Of the estimated 38% eligible Americans, less than 10% donate each year.

One of many significant benefits in donating blood is that each donor is required to partake in a brief checkup before donating. This process will often include taking your temperature, pulse, blood pressure, blood-iron level and hemoglobin level. A sample of every donor’s blood is also sent for testing for infectious diseases like HIV, syphilis and Hepatitis B before it is able to be used in a hospital. The process is also confidential, so only you will be notified if you are in fact sick without even knowing.

An interesting study also resurfaced the idea that an excessive amount of iron can create a risk to one’s health, more specifically regarding acute myocardial infarction and coronary disease. Donating blood is often connected to balancing iron levels and allowing better blood flow. Individuals studied a previous experiment of 2,682 men in Europe who had all recorded any acute myocardial infarctions (classified as insufficient data, no AMI, prolonged chest pain, possible AMI, or definite AMI) between January of 1993 and December of 1995. Information was retrieved from Red Cross about who had donated blood in the previous 24 months. Various risk factors were checked, including smoke exposure, cholesterol, family history of coronary disease, etc.

Their results showed that 153 of 2,682 men had donated blood at least once in the preceding 24 months. Of the 153 men, only one male was confronted with an AMI, which is a mere 0.7% of donors. Of the 2,529 other males, 316 experienced an AMI, which is 12.5% of non-donors. This data is extremely strong and somewhat surprising. While the sample size of donors was significantly less than the sample size of non-donors, the evidence cannot be ignored. While one may argue that those who donate blood are often more health conscious and in the hospital less, this study provides numerous tables showing their results after attempting to take into consideration confounding factors so as to avoid any doubted correlation. The confounding factors considered range from biological factors like age and oxygen uptake to behavioral risk factors like cigarette exposure and arsenic intake and even to psychological factors like depression, social isolation and cynical hostility.

While I knew donating blood was healthy, I was oblivious to just how much I may be benefitting my body. Not only does one donation save 3 lives, but donating may lower my risk of AMI over 80%!

(photo credit.)

With drug science and administration improving constantly, children and adolescents have become exposed and increasingly administered antidepressants. As a doctor and a parent, we allow children to take these antidepressants because it is what we believe to be best for our kids and what will benefit their health and stability. Except it is now being reevaluated across the world just how beneficial these antidepressants are for adolescents and youth.

According to this source, a study was conducted in 2000 regarding use of antidepressant treatment in individuals between 0 and 19. Data was recovered from files from the state-Children’s Health Insurance Program (s-CHIP) in the United States to measure a total of 125,383 youth, the pharmacy files under the inter action database that holds information of 72,570 youth in the Netherlands, German health insurance company Gmuender ErsatzKasse which covers approximately 480,680 citizens and the Odense University Pharmacoepidemiologic Database (OPED) contributing information on 111,452 Danish individuals under 20. For an adolescent to be considered administered, he or she must have been dispensed one or more prescriptions classified as an antidepressant. The results showed that the United States has the highest percentage of 1.63% of youth prescribed antidepressants. 0.54% of Dutch under 20 were prescribed an antidepressant, 0.11% of German youth, and the Danish had a mere 0.18%.

So what does this information tell us? The observational study had a very large sample size and the results are somewhat staggering, but there is no definite conclusion that can be drawn. The United States may be more careless in how they prescribe youth with intense drugs, or the United States may have better doctors and resources available while other countries cannot provide the drugs needed for a struggling adolescent. What ever you may believe the conclusion to be, it is evident that with a significantly higher percentage of our youth exposed to antidepressants, more research and studies should be conducted on the risks and benefits.

In 2004, the FDA acknowledged and included a warning that the antidepressant increased the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in those with major depressive and other psychiatric disorders. More recently, the FDA suggested antidepressants to update the warnings about an increase in risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in adults 18-24 during the first two months of starting the trial. Should this arise more concern and skepticism in antidepressant use in adolescents?

Another study performs a meta-analysis of a combination of six different trials found that while antidepressant use decreased overall depression, there are significant other effects. Of 93 individuals using a paroxetine treatment, 11 “had serious adverse events” compared to only 2 of the placebo group of 87. Furthermore, seven of the treatment group were admitted to a hospital, however the reasons were not stated in the article. 17 of 189 individuals treated with sertraline withdrew from the trial due to adverse events. Only 5 of 184 withdrew from the placebo group. It is also mentioned that the trials analyzed might not have studied the full influence of adverse effects. An example described how children and adolescents with OCD tend to “exhibit a variety of treatment emergent effects of fluoxetine including an ‘activation syndrome’ affecting up to half of young patients; self injurious ideation or behavior was seen in 6/42 patients.” A majority of the analyzed trials were, interestingly enough, funded by pharmaceutical companies. This raises concern that the conclusions and analysis may be bias when claiming that all treatments proved to be extremely safe and effective.

I think the previous meta-analysis shows the importance of checking other scientific work and promoting integrity behind scientific work because it will obviously affect a large number of people in society. Also, I think that there needs to be more trials conducted in which effects besides just suicidal thoughts and behavior are tested in adolescents and youth taking antidepressants. We don’t know how much small side effects in a person’s youth could affect his actions and health over a longer period of time. But even as we do uncover more truth behind adolescent use of antidepressants, it is important to weigh out the benefits and risks. It may be the case that the effects in youth is actually miniscule compared to the potential outcome if the individual is not prescribed antidepressants, with the worst case scenario being suicide. As previously stated, however, we will not know for sure until more extensive and in depth studies are conducted.

Everyone has heard the myth that cracking your knuckles can be bad for your health and cause joint problems such as osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. But is there really any other dangers that people should be worried about?

(Left: Within the synovial fluid, represented by the dark green, is visible gas bubbles.)

First, we need to know the background knowledge of cracking joints. Surrounding our joints is a liquid called synovial liquid. This liquid is full of gas bubbles, and when we go to crack our knuckles, the obnoxious and somewhat nauseating pop that we hear is actually these air bubbles popping. Also, the reason that joints can’t crack back to back is due to these gases and air bubbles having to fill the synovial liquid again, according to this helpful article.

A study of 300 people, all of which were known habitual knuckle crackers, was conducted to analyze any correlation between cracking joints and joint diseases. This particular study showed that there was no definite correlation between cracking one’s knuckles and any increased risk in osteoarthritis. The study did find, interestingly, that these people were more likely to have swelling in their hands as well as a weaker grip. However, it is stated that due to how the study was performed and controlled, it is unclear if swelling and a weaker grip is caused by cracking knuckles or if reverse causation could explain the finding.

A similar study also agrees with the one above, where 74 of 200 adults were habitual knuckle crackers and showed no relationship with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. However, these knuckle crackers were observed to have a higher risk of swelling and reduced grip.

I find this topic to be very interesting and relatable to this course  because previously, a majority of professionals and ordinary citizens put cracking one’s knuckles and arthritis-type diseases hand in hand simply because it made sense. It wasn’t until trials were performed that the theory was disproved. While we now know that cracking joints is not harmful, it is shown that it’s still not particularly beneficial, either.

For a percentage of freshmen who have yet to visit Penn State’s arboretum, I would highly recommend it. I have gone often in my time here, whether it was simply as a spot to sit on a bench and hang out or to get away from college stress and take a breath of fresh air. The arboretum is overflowing with a wide variety of shrubs, bushes, flowers and trees, all beautifully arranged with paths zigzagging through. Recently, when I went to the arboretum, I got to thinking (after slightly shrieking and jumping out of a bee’s path) about the hype about the decrease in honeybee populations and if any cause has been pinpointed?

(Photo by student Nathan Raver)

Before even analyzing the decline in honeybee population, I thought it would be beneficial to briefly review why honeybees are so significant for humans and the agricultural process. If I could guess, I would say that I don’t think people really understand how much of an impact honeybees have- I know I had no idea before I started researching.

Obviously, honeybees are an absolute key component for the production of honey and wax. In 2014, the U.S Department of Agriculture documented a total of about 2,740,000 honey producing colonies, an increase of 4% from 2013. The average yield of honey from one colony, according to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, was 65.1 pounds, and the total production was 782,000 pounds in 2014, a drastic increase of 19% from 2013. An equally staggering statistic uncovered is that in 2014, honey production had a value of approximately $385,241,000. This is all money made thanks to honeybees just existing in nature as intended.

As if producing honey isn’t enough of a gift from honeybees, we can also thank them for pollination, which 52 of 115 leading global food commodities depend on, according to this source. If all pollinators were lost, agricultural production would actually decrease by 8%. Though many crops do not fully depend on pollination by honeybees, it can still play a factor in growth and quality, as well as impact world food security.

Now that we are aware of honeybees’ significance, we can take a look at the data of their decline in the United States. For example, in 1947, the U.S. hit a high of 5.9 million managed colonies after steady and steep growth for multiple years. The number of colonies can be seen to decrease drastically for the following year, and hit a low of 2.3 million in 2008, a 61% decline within 61 years. (All of this data is shown below, feel free to visit the site for further information.)

So what could possibly be causing such a huge decline in colony amount and population?

Some of the more dominant theories discussed and clarified by Dennis vanEngelsdorp and Marina Doris Meixner include diseases, parasites and predators, chemical substances, Genetically Modified Crops, genetics, bee forage, weather and climate. In earlier decades, the decline was often associated with a known mite called Varroa destructor that primarily feed on adult bees. More recently, however, the drastic decline has become more of an unknown phenomenon, and is referred to as Colony Collapse Disorder(CCD) due to its unknown cause. CCD is particularly interesting because it is literally the disappearance of bees, as explained in this article; despite a decline in the adult honey bee population, no dead bees could be discovered, whether in the hive or near it.

Even currently, scientists and researchers do not agree fully on what could cause such a rapid decline in honeybee population. I think this scenario can be very relatable to this course because it demonstrates how correlation does not equal causation and there is always the possibility of a third factor that has not even been considered or known yet. While it is never agreeable on the cause on the species, it is undoubtedly a very serious issue that humans should be paying attention to.

Sleep is so important for the general well-being and functioning of the body, this is common knowledge. However, many students suffer from insomnia and lack the appropriate amount of sleep. I’ll admit that I, too, have been guilty throughout high school and college of not sleeping enough, and insomnia has always been a point of interest for me. Furthermore, I wanted to investigate specific statistics of affected college students, the effects on daytime and life functionality from insomnia, and its connections with mental illnesses and physical risks.

In one preliminary study that gave a questionnaire with three levels of choices to 191 undergraduate students regarding their sleeping quality, the results showed that approximately 11% of students were considered to have a good sleep pattern, approximately 73% had occasional difficulty, and approximately 15% suffered from poor sleeping quality. Also, women were found to be more inclined to sleep troubles and disturbances. While I was not surprised to find that this study supported my hypothesis that a majority of students do not sleep enough, I was very intrigued with the data, as it was much more than I anticipated.

The study went on to analyze sleep difficulties and it’s relation with academic performance. The study explains that most students that suffer insomnia will lost the last two hours of REM (rapid eye movement) sleep. Not only do these last two hours show to be the most significant for being able to process, understand, and retain new information, but it leads to a better performance on an exam. This explains how students with insomnia can be directly affected regarding academic performances. Additionally, students with insomnia symptoms are more likely to suffer from other mental illnesses, as shown in the chart below from a study of 373 students.

(The green bar represents students with insomnia symptoms and the black represents students without insomnia symptoms.)

 There are also numerous other physical risks that come with insomnia and a lack of sleep. One physical risk affects not just you, but can also endanger everyone else around you. Driving while tired is estimated to cause 1,550 deaths and 71,000 injuries a year on top of there being approximately 100,000 police reported car incidents, according to this source. I can personally attest to how dangerous it is to drive while tired. In September of last year, I fell asleep while driving home and crossed lanes on Route 30, which connects York to Gettysburg (if anyone knows where that is in Pennsylvania). Thankfully, no other cars were involved and I only hit a wooden pole on the side of the road. I was extremely lucky and suffered only minor injuries, but my car was totaled and it was a wake up call- literally- that I need to be more aware of my health and take care of myself.

A lack of sleep from insomnia is not only harmful to one’s own body but can also be dangerous to surrounding citizens. It is a serious issue in college students, and is only getting worse. Universities and colleges should recognize the poor sleep habits and their effect on students’ academic and athletic performances. If some kind of educational workshop or session helps one person, then it can still be considered successful. I also think it is a subject that be touched upon more in high school, as that can be when poor sleeping habits begin.

Hi everyone!

My name is Jensen Sneeringer and I’m currently a freshman in DUS. I’m from Hanover, Pennsylvania, which is a very small town near Gettysburg in lower PA. In high school, I enjoyed being involved in things such as National Honor Society, Student Council, etc. I also played basketball for 15 years, a starting captain for the school’s varsity team since my sophomore year. This past year, we traveled to Disney for a tournament over winter break (I’m the top row on the very left). 

I know I want to go into Smeal College of Business, specifically interested in accounting. In school, math and logically thinking has always been a strength, so it was no surprise that science classes, while tolerable, were never my favorite. I enrolled in SC200 because the I knew I needed a science credit, and the description was by far the most interesting.

I have absolutely no intention on being a Science major, and it would be the last thing I would expect myself to major in for a number of reasons. First, there is no way I could survive the multiple hour labs in chemistry or biology or anything like that. I cringe for anyone who has to go through that because it honestly sounds terrible. Also, it was always my worst subject throughout high school. Another reason that is irrelevant here but still affects my thinking on the subject is that my high school teachers for science were always awful and included material on tests that were nothing close to what was talked about in class. I like to think this was more of the reason as to why science was my worst grades rather than my lack of understanding the subject.

Anyway, feel free to say hi in class, and make sure to watch this to get excited for the upcoming month!