Scrolling through my usual Facebook feed this afternoon, I came across an interesting shared post that mentioned how one woman who suffered from daily headaches and migraines felt cured after getting her daith pierced. Personally, I have never experienced a migraine (I do get headaches from time to time) but I have heard many horror stories about them. After reading this woman’s post, I began to wonder if a simple piercing on the inner ear could replace all of the medication that is often prescribed to treat the condition.

I think it is important to mention right off the bat that this is not yet scientifically proven to be true as it is a fairly new finding. But, the daith is part of the inner cartilage of the ear that is considered a pressure point. When pierced, people say it is like acupuncture.

Tammi Bergman, NP, of ERiver Neurology specializes in headache relief. She often directs her p
atients to follow routes that would not necessarily mean medications. She says she has not had any patients try it yet, but she believes that the blogs are where breakthroughs like these are found.

Dr. Thomas Cohn is an interventional pain doctor and recently published some information about daith piercings on his own blog, saying, “Some people who have received a daith piercing have coincidentally found improvement with their migraine headaches. The correlation is based on the success for some people with acupuncture in the same region of the daith piercing.”

Owners of tattoo and piercing shops say that they have a lot of people coming in looking for migraine relief and the daith piercing pressure point serves as acupuncture. They recommend the person gets the piercing on the ear that corresponds with the side of his or her head that experiences the majority of the pain.

Acupuncture for migraines has been used for many years. The acupuncturist would insert needles into different pressure points on the side of the body that suffered the most and this would dilate the blood vessels around the body and increase blood flow, relieving pressure. The piercing would be more of a one-time thing, solving the problem immediately if it happens to work on that particular person.

Daith piercings are fairly inexpensive and for those who do not mind getting piercings but suffer from intense migraines this is definitely something to look into. The care for a fresh daith piercing would be very similar to any other ear piercing. However, because it is such a new discovery there isn’t any science backing this information. Studies on this would certainly be beneficial in helping people find proven ways to alleviate their migraine pain without having to resort to medication with side effects. Possible ways to conduct a study would include having willing participants who suffer be split between getting the piercing and not getting it, and see how that affects his or her migraines. Also, researchers would have to be cautious of third variables such as age, gender, and overall health that could alter the findings.

Overall, this is an interesting way to heal this sort of pain and should definitely be the focus of scientific studies in the near future to shine some light on its effects.

We’ve all experienced it: we eat a delicious meal that fills us up and quickly sends us to sleep. In fact, many of us have probably experienced it most recently after our delicious – and carb-filled – meals on Thanksgiving. But what is really causing this to happen?

For starters, food comas come about when we eat too much, the stomach expands, and we begin to feel extremely full, bloated, and gassy. In order to digest all of this food, a lot of energy is needed, leading us to feel tired and groggy. In addition, the “elevated blood sugar and successive hormonal response” from eating the food occurs.

Food comas are an actual medical condition referred to as postprandial somnolence. They are physiological responses to being overstuffed with food. Foods such as turkey, chicken, meat, cheese, yogurt, fish, and eggs contain L-tryptophan that impacts serotonin levels, which can cause us to become drowsy. But, overeating and alcohol consumption are more likely to send us into food comas.

Researchers looked into the link between food and sleepiness but from the perspective of sleep patterns and the cause of weight gain that leads to diseases such as diabetes and atherosclerosis. Scientists in Germany found that meals high in carbs have high glycemic index and cause an increase in insulin. In addition to absorbing and using glucose, insulin also allows the entry of the tryptophan into the brain. But like I said before, scientists still do not believe that the tryptophan is causing the sleepiness.

A 1997 study looked at sleep and the contents of a meal to decide if that had any effect. The researchers looked at ten healthy males and fed them different meal components. They first took a baseline nap before the meal and then were fed. There was no difference between the subjects during their sleep patterns in the first nap, but in the ones after the meal, the researchers found that those who consumed a solid meal showed a significant decrease in postprandial in sleep latency compared to those who had an equivalent amount of water. They concluded that the content of a meal does not have an effect on the food coma.

The study seems to be well-conducted; however it only looked at a few males. Perhaps females would have a different result and third variables such as age or overall health. Following these finds, we often convince ourselves to take that post-Thanksgiving meal nap because it is such an accepted idea. We tell our bodies to do it because we think that is what is supposed to come after such a big meal. Just some food for thought (pun intended).

Many of us will probably agree that listening to music on the way to class is an effective way to keep you moving. Just today my usual Spotify playlist wasn’t loading so I started off my trek to Sparks a little slower than usual. But as soon as it got going, so did I. We do the same thing when we exercise. As much as I love to listen to “Hello” by Adele, it definitely doesn’t motivate me at the gym, so in usual fashion, I pick happy and upbeat songs to enhance my performance. But exactly why does this have any effect on us?

An early study conducted in 2003 by Atkinson, Wilson, and Eubank observed how 16 active subjects reacted to listening to fast, electronic dance music while they rode on a simulated 10km cycling time trial on a stationary bike. Another group did the same with no music as the control. They found that those who listened to the music cycled much faster than those who did not in the overall difference. However, they noticed that the majority of the difference could be found in the first and last few kilometers. Those who listened to music also believed that they were riding harder throughout the trial.

Another study in 2006 at the University of Plymouth looked at the effects of music tempo and loudness. The variables for this study were music tempo and volume, and the conductors looked at 30 “physically active” participants in five different conditions within the variables: loud/fast, loud/slow, quiet/fast, quiet/slow, and no music. The participants were able to choose their pace for 10 minutes on the treadmill. This study found that the louder and faster music boosted speeds and heart rates as well as the participants choosing a faster treadmill pace.

From a more psychological standpoint, people are wired to synchronize their movements with the beat of music, so fast songs with strong, intense beats are more stimulating. A recent study of 184 college students found that the most popular types of exercise music were hip-hop, rock, and pop. Also, different types of exercises call for different tempos. For example, your basic walk usually looks for 120 beats per minute (bpm) while running on a treadmill usually favors 160 bpm. One study found, however, that the ceiling effect occurs at around 145 bpm and higher tempos will not necessarily make you work harder.

These studies looked at the important links between music and exercising harder. While it is a generally accepted idea that listening to more intense and faster music will cause a person to exercise at a much more accelerated rate, bigger studies may make the ideas more concrete. Many people choose not to listen to music and still have intense and effective workouts. Correlation between the fast music and a better workout is not necessarily causation, while it may be in some cases. Other factors such as health and physical fitness may be confounding variables in these situations. So, while it is an overall accepted idea, more and deeper research should look into the connection between music and a good workout.

Sense of humor varies from person to person, something we all know pretty well. But a very recent study has discovered that those who have a “warped” sense of humor may cause a person to develop dementia at an early age. A warped sense of humor is one that sees things that others may view as strange or frightening, funny.

The University College of London studied 48 patients suffering from frontotemporal dementia, also known as FTD (affects the region behind the forehead) and Alzheimer’s. Through questionnaires they interviewed family members of the participants and asked what type of comedy the participant preferred: slapstick such as Mr. Bean, satirical such as Yes Minister, or absurd such as Mighty Python. The researchers then compared these results with those of 21 healthy people in the same age range.

It was discovered, and published in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, that dementia patients enjoyed slapstick comedy the most out of the three options.

A behavioral variant of FTD, called bvFTD seemed to affect people who had a highly altered sense of humor. Those affected found things such as a badly parked car or a barking dog funny while those who suffered from just FTD found things such as tragic events funny. The people in that category were asked to look back at the past 15 years and describe any behavior changes. Many said they shifted into “darker humor” explaining why they found tragedy funny.

One wife, whose husband laughed when she was scalded, noted that, “early on, [my husband] laughed very loudly at things that were only mildly funny, flippant or over the top; now [he will] laugh all the time at things that are not particularly funny and will say ‘I’m laughing and I’m not sure why I’m laughing.’”

Dr. Camilla Clark, leading researcher, said, “As sense of humor defines us and is used to build relationships with those around us, changes in what we find funny has impacts far beyond picking a new favorite TV show. As well as providing clues to underlying brain changes, subtle differences in what we find funny could help differentiate between the different diseases that cause dementia. Humor could be a particularly sensitive way of detecting dementia because it puts demands on so many different aspects of brain function, such as puzzle solving, emotion and social awareness.”

It is important to keep in mind that this study looked at CHANGES in a sense of humor that progressed toward a more warped look at things, so people who have always had a warped sense of humor should not worry. But this observational study definitely looks more at a correlation not causation. There are certainly third variables that can cause this link and, because it is such a recent study, more should definitely be conducted to create more concrete ideas about this link between dementia and sense of humor. But, it is certainly an important development in diagnosing dementia early on.

I think I speak for many of us when I say that naps are becoming a key portion to college survival. Personally, I have always been bad at naps because they always kept me up all night, leaving me to regret the decision later. But I will say that I tend to nap more frequently now that I’m in college. It’s not much but it’s more than usual. I was researching why I am so bad at napping, when I came across a Smithsonian article about naps hiding some underlying medical problems, which got me reading.

I’ll start off by saying that it isn’t the naps that are bad for our health. In fact, many studies have shown that naps are good for our bodies and give us that extra boost of energy during the day. But it’s the health concerns that cause us to nap that are the problem. People may choose to nap on a daily basis thinking nothing of it, just that they are tired or stressed and a nap will ease the pain. But, there could be problems causing fatigue and leading them to nap.

Cambridge University found that those who take naps during the day that last an hour or longer may die at younger ages than those who skip naps. They add that smaller naps of about 30 minutes or so were not associated with any health problems and did indeed add that extra energy boost.

The researchers chose an observational study route by following 16,000 British men and women ages 40-79 over 13 years. During this time, researchers questioned napping habits and put them into three different groups: people who napped for less than an hour a day; people who napped for more than an hour a day, and people who did not nap at all. Controlled factors included gender, socioeconomic status, alcohol intake, and mental illness.

Through the study they found that those who napped for an hour or longer were 32% more likely to have died than those who didn’t nap at all. Death causes varied but included heart disease, cancer, and respiratory illness. Essentially, researchers couldn’t find an exact link between long naps and death risk, but they concluded that extended daytime fatigue could be because of hidden heath issues.

And if you’re struggling to decide whether or not to take a nap, Time looked a little bit deeper into the issue. Dr. Sara Mednick said to ask yourself if you really NEED the nap and why you are taking it. One of the researchers on the Cambridge study agrees, saying that this might help combat any of those underlying issues.

The Cambridge study was very large indeed. It looked at a wide variety of people and overall, was well conducted. However, because this was a British study, there could be differences when it comes to Americans and nap patterns. In addition, since they have not been able to put their finger on a definite link between the two, there isn’t sufficient evidence to keep people from napping. And because we are not in the age range studied (40-79) I think naps will be just fine for us, for now.

Binge-watching Netflix shows. I don’t think I can think of a better way to spend a rainy or lazy day. In fact, I just did this yesterday with The CW’s show Jane the Virgin (seriously ask my friends it was all I was talking about). I think most of us can say at least once in our lives we sat down to watch one episode and before we know it we’re ten episodes deep, and why would we stop there? But some recent studies have linked binge-watching to depression.

I’ll start out by saying this is a correlation not causation. Science.Mic distinctly points this out, making sure it is well-addressed that binging on your favorite show isn’t necessarily going to make you depressed. But UT-Austin researchers said that “the more lonely and depressed the study participants were, the more likely they were to binge-watch TV.”

Yoon Hi Sung, Eun Yeon Kang, and Wei-Na Lee chose to look at the subject because the word “binge” generally is referred to in negative senses, such as with eating or drinking. The trio polled 316 people between ages 18 and 29 on how of often they watched TV, how much of that was binging (which in this study was defined as two or more episodes of any length) and how regularly they experienced feelings of “loneliness, depression, and self-regulation deficiency.”
They found that depression and binge-watching were correlated. The more lonely and depressed participants felt, the more likely they were to binge. They even found that participants usually binged TV to avoid these negative feelings, similarly to binge-eaters and drinkers. The researchers did not going into looking at causation at all, just finding an association, as they told Today
.

Lee said that this is just one of many new experiments on the technology behavior front, citing this particular study as just “exploratory research.”

Psychologist Frank Farley said that only 10% of the time people binged because of these lonely or depressed feelings. The study didn’t look into why we binge the other 90% of the time or what the difference is between binging The Walking Dead and Friends, for example.

Binge-watching is a very grey area because there isn’t necessarily set standards as to what constitutes binging, making it sort of difficult to have a universally accepted definition. Nolan Feeney looked into the time aspect and came up with:
“binge-watch: (v) to watch at least four episodes of a television program, typically a drama, in      one sitting (bathroom breaks and quick kitchen snack runs excepted) through an on-demand      service or DVDs, often at the expense of other perceived responsibilities in a way that can            cause guilt.”

Science.Mic says that the last portion is key. This isn’t a national epidemic – yet – but it will be of interest to watch these behaviors as time goes on.

This observational and survey-based study does find a significant correlation. But as we learned, correlation is not causation. While binging may not be our best choice when it comes to TV watching, there isn’t really sufficient evidence at this point to cause an overwhelming amount of concern. So, as much as I don’t want to keep binging, I probably will…whoops.

It’s time for honesty hour: I love reality TV. I spend so much time watching shows like Keeping Up With the Kardashians, The Real Housewives (of any state or county), and basically anything Bravo or E! or MTV will give me. But why are we so drawn in by these shows, and more importantly is it healthy?

First of all, we love reality TV because we love to fantasize about the possibility of becoming famous in an instant. Reality TV serves us a cast of “regular” people who seem to have similar experiences as we do. If these people can become famous, maybe, if we play our cards right, we can too. On more of a psychology note, Leon Festinger may use his social comparison theory saying, “We watch because it makes us feel better about ourselves.” This serves as a valid hypothesis to this quandary. The null would say that watching reality TV does nothing to us or for us where the alternative would say that watching reality TV does something to us or for us.

There is not a sufficient number of studies conducted on the subject to bring us to a solid conclusion, but they’re on the right track. A 2006 study looked at reality shows that had a medical or health basis. They found that it did stir up healthier behavior among viewers but some viewers more emphasis was placed on superficiality. Over time, that may affect a viewer’s body image and self-esteem.

Dr. Brad Gorham, chair of the Comm Department at the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University says, “All TV shows, not just reality shows, help construct scenarios that demonstrate how some behaviors will be rewarded or punished. The concern is that frequent viewers of these shows will learn these behaviors, see them as desirable and then model them in the actual real world.” He adds that reality shows sell, so networks keep them on the air regardless of their effect on viewers.

Sherri Williams, an instructor at Syracuse University, believes that casting for reality shows is based on stereotypes. She also says that the actions of those on the show are portrayed, but the consequences happen behind the scenes, where viewers are left in the dark, not teaching them how the behavior shown in the programs leads to bad outcomes. Williams says that there are several programs on stations such as BET and OWN that squash stereotypes and teach more positive behavior, a step in the right direction.

Jamie Riccio, a Syracuse grad student preformed her own little experiment looking into the effect reality TV has on America’s youth. She began conducting focus groups with interviews and surveys in 2010. She has found that reality television shows create more dramatic behaviors in young adults. Riccio says that it was an interesting thing to look at and she believes it will have to be studied in depth in the future.

NPR  sat down with Michigan psychology student Brain Gibson to talk about what he found. He studied how aggressive people became after watching shows like Jersey Shore and Real Housewives. His control group included shows with more positive messages such as Little People Big World and some crime dramas. After watching the shows they played a game against another person in the study and the winner was able to blast the loser with noise. Gibson and his partners looked at different variables such as how long the winner wanted to blast the loser. Those who watched shows such as Jersey Shore wanted to blast the loser with louder and longer blasts than those who watched the crime dramas.

While there isn’t sufficient evidence at this point as to how exactly these shows are affecting us, there are definitely some common figures all centered on behavior. I would think that there are more variables in this situation such as age, gender, and interest in the show they are watching that can also play a part in this situation. Based on the findings of the studies, I would say that the correlation that aggressive shows cause bad behaviors is stronger than bad behaviors cause one to watch aggressive shows, but that cannot be ruled out. These studies have certainly found some startling things, but personally I don’t think I will ever shake my love for reality TV.

I’m the type of person that needs at least eight hours of sleep to even think about functioning (more is preferred). I was always the first one out at sleepovers, telling my friends I needed “my nine hours.” I’m a pretty deep sleeper so once I’m out, I’m out until my body wakes me up. Perhaps this is because my grandfather always ingrained into our heads that, “the best hours of sleep are the ones before midnight,” and I still adhere to that policy. My roommate on the other hand, can stay up into the wee hours of the morning and still get up and make it to class on time. So, why do some people require more sleep than others?

Turns out, one reason is related to a gene mutation called BHLHE41 and a variant called p.Tyr362His. Scientists worked with 100 pair of twins to discover this and found that those with the variant slept for only five hours each night on average. The twin without the mutation slept on average for an hour and five minutes longer than those with the mutation.

The twin that required more sleep also had a hard time performing when going without sleep for 36 hours. After the sleep deprivation ended, the twin without the mutation slept for nine-and-a-half hours while the twin with the mutation only needed eight to get back on track.

According to Reneta Pellegrino, PhD, a research associate in the Center for Applied Genomics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, “This work provides an important second gene variant associated with sleep deprivation and for the first time shows the role of BHLHE41 in resistance to sleep deprivation in humans… The mutation was associated with resistance to the neurobehavioral effects of sleep deprivation.”

The twins studied were the same gender, and 59 pairs were identical while the other 41 were dizygotic (from separate zygotes). They used healthy subjects and the sleep patterns were studied over the course of eight nights.

But according to Psychology Today, personality might also have something to do with it. Psychiatrist C.G. Jung says the most introverted activity is sleep because it is a way to escape the outside world. While we sleep, we are unable to interact with other people. Therefore, extroverts have a hard time sleeping/do not require as much because they would rather be awake and socializing. Extroverts may see sleeping as a waste of time while introverts see sleep as a way to take a break from their daily social activities.

Personally I think that the study was well conducted with the twins. Obviously, it is either correct or there is a false positive that it is a gene mutation, however based on the evidence there is a strong chance that that is the case. The extrovert/introvert aspects are more psychologically related to the sleep, but I also find that to be sort of iffy. I consider myself to be more of an extrovert in that, while I do enjoy my alone time, I like to surround myself with other people. My roommate on the other hand is more shy and quiet but yet is able to thrive on less sleep whereas I am in bed for as long as I possibly can be. Perhaps the personality portion in determining sleep patterns varies slightly more than the gene.

I was always surprised when people, especially my age, chose to take their coffee black. Any time I tried it, it was just way too bitter for my tastes. But a recent study found that people who prefer bitter food and drink (black coffee, dark chocolate, gin and tonic) were found to have darker, almost psycho personalities.

Innsbruck University in Austria found a correlation between a taste for bitter foods and personalities with antisocial tendencies. Traits such as Machiavellian, sadistic, and narcissistic are even on the path to psychopathic.

The experimental portion was conducted by showing 500 men and women a long list of foods that included equal numbers of sweet, salty, sour, and bitter food. They were each asked to rate the foods on how strongly they liked them on a scale of 1-6. Then they were led to the observational portion.

This observational portion was conducted through interviews with the 500 people who ranged from students to prisoners. They were asked about their taste preferences and then given a psych evaluation that asked where they would rate themselves on a series of statements such as “I tend to manipulate others to get my way” and “I tend to be callous or insensitive.” The questions were all related to the five major positive personality traits (extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability). The last part of the test was the Comprehensive Assessment of Sadistic Tendencies.

The researchers say of their experiment that it gave the “first empirical evidence that bitter taste preferences are linked to malevolent personality traits.”

I think that this experiment was well thought out and conducted. While correlation does not equal causation, I believe that this study could go either way. It is possible that enjoying these bitter foods would cause someone to have a dark personality. However, reverse causation cannot be ruled out in this situation. It could be that people who have dark personalities are drawn to bitter foods because they feel that they “speak to them” in a sense.

(if you are interested in the full study, it can be found here)

My last blog, which you can find here, discussed imaginary friends and different psychological studies conducted that supported their creation. A comment was made on my blog questioning whether or not imaginary friends were still as prominent for today’s children because technology could essentially replace it. This was a question that really spiked my interest so I decided to dig deeper.

We already know that today’s children are just as glued to technology as we are. Honestly, who can blame them? But it turns out; this technological connection creates a disconnection from the creativity children create in imaginary play. Technology indeed aids in “training the imagination” but Psycology Today believes that true creativity can only be created through experiences within the five senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste). For example, baking and decorating a cake via an app will not have the same effect as actually baking and decorating the cake with mom or dad.

One mom took matters into her own hands and conducted her own little experiment with her daughter. Her daughter Lucy created Kiya, an imaginary friend from China who taught Lucy immensely about her culture. Both Lucy and her mother worked together to create a personality for Kiya by using Lucy’s imagination. She even cites that one day while walking through Chinatown in Chicago, Lucy decided to buy a folding hand-fan after discussing it with Kiya, bringing the imaginary and real worlds together. Lucy’s mom took matters into her own hands and fostered the idea of Kiya, encouraging creativity.

A simple Google search of “imaginary friends and technology” brought me to a page that starts with “Gone are the days of imaginary friends and climbing trees.” It turns out, a startup company called ToyTalk launched an app last September called SpeakaLegend. This app allows children to have actual conversations with mythical creatures. The app eliminates that need for creativity because it allows children to customize the looks of these characters without needing to think about it.

The same can be said for adults. In a study  called “Social Surrogacy Hypothesis,” the authors created a theory saying that loneliness makes individuals want to create relationships even if they aren’t real. Through observational and interview-based studies, they found that participants were more likely to watch a favorite TV show when they are feeling lonely and reported being less lonely while they watched. Instead of creating real relationships with people, even those who exceed what is considered an acceptable age to have imaginary friends resort to television to fill any voids.

So, yes, technology is making a big difference in the world of creative and imaginary play. But if you ask me, nothing can beat an imaginary friend that you cook up with your own innocent mind.

I think I speak for many of us when I say that imaginary friends were a big part of our childhoods. It gave us someone to talk to and argue with before we made “real” friends. But what were these friends really like? And why did we choose to make them?

A study conducted by Marjorie Taylor at the University of Oregon found that 37% of children take “imaginative play” further by age seven and create invisible friends. Boys tend to keep their friends as males while girls invent either male or female friends.

Taylor found that children who create these relationships with an object (such as a doll or stuffed animal) have more of a parental relationship with the object. Children whose relationships are with “invisible friends” have more friend-like connections and treat their friend as an equal. She and her colleagues also found that 1/3 of children have argued/been angry with their imaginary friends for many reasons from not coming when called to “putting yogurt in my hair.”

The Taylor group interviewed 86 children. 77% of these children called their friend “pretend” and 40% randomly said at some point in their interviews that they were talking about a pretend friend.

Another study found that these friends do not disappear with childhood. The conductors of this study looked at the diaries of adolescents combined with questionnaires and concluded that teens who were “socially competent and creative” were more likely to invent imaginary friends that could replace relationships with real people.

In the early 1960s, Jean Piaget published her theories on imaginary friends saying that imaginary friends, “reflect immature thinking and should vanish by the time a child starts school.” Dr. Spock also reprimanded imaginary friends, citing them to be a trigger for social problems and a way to deal with loneliness, stress, or conflict.

These ideas have since been dismissed. Researchers such as Taylor have found that imaginary friends help a child distinguish between reality and fantasy. A study from La Trobe University in Melbourne discovered that three to six year olds that created imaginary friends ended up being more creative and socially advanced. It found that kids who had their own playmates were able to practice using both sides of conversation.

The Taylor study – conducted through observations and interviews – was an effective way to get the answers straight from the children themselves. By asking questions about their imaginary friends, Taylor was able to squash any of the bad raps imaginary friends had originally held. This eliminated concerns parents had about their children’s social development and allowed more imaginative play for the children.

Monday was a particularly dreary day complete with the need for some coffee. So I fired up the Keurig and warmed myself up in a mug of caramel vanilla goodness. But then I remembered it was free coffee Monday at Dunkin so I hopped on the Blue Loop and indulged in an iced coffee. That night my body wasn’t thanking me for my caffeine overload. So I questioned it – what is the best time to drink coffee?

It turns out that the most popular time – the morning – is actually the worst time to get the caffeine boost. Our bodies have high levels of cortisol in the morning, which causes two problems.

1.) Cortisol is a hormone that is released “in response to stress and low blood glucose.” The caffeine interferes with that and less cortisol is produced, meaning the caffeine must make up for the lack of cortisol.
2.) A person’s caffeine tolerance is increased as it is replacing that cortisol boost.

These levels are high at three different times during the day. And while it makes sense to gulp down that cup of Joe when you wake up to make you more awake, the opposite occurs when those cortisol levels are high.

When you drink coffee or other caffeinated beverages, it passes through body membranes in the bloodstream via the lining of your mouth, throat, and stomach. Within 45 minutes 99% of the caffeine is absorbed through the membranes. The half-life for caffeine is 4-6 hours, meaning the effects from the coffee lasts 4-6 hours.

In relation to the cortisol levels, the best time to drink coffee is between 10am and 12pm and 2pm and 5pm. When it comes to making sure the caffeine leaves the body in enough time to give you a good night’s sleep, use the 4-6 hour rule as reference.

Instagram has quickly become one of our favorite ways to waste time and connect ourselves to the world. Not only does scrolling through our feeds pass immense amounts of time but choosing a picture to filter and post also is a great way to procrastinate. In a world that correlates number of likes with how much you are liked in real life, we can spend an embarrassing amount of time trying to pick the perfect filter that will get our picture more traffic. But which filter actually succeeds in doing that? Turns out scientists were wondering the same thing.

Researchers at Yahoo Labs and Georgia Tech worked together in the analysis of 7.6 million photos from Flickr and Instagram to solve the big question.

To start things off, they found that filtered photos definitely catch more eyes than raw ones. Filters that focus on warmth, exposure, and contrast engage viewers the most. Filters with tones of red and yellow create feelings of arousal and happiness while filters with increased saturation (such as Lo-Fi and X-Pro II) and “old-timey” effects do not increase photo traffic.

Yahoo Labs/Georgia Institute of Technology

Filters like Mayfair, Rose, Valencia, Hefe, Nashville, Lark, Slumber, and Aden have a warm yellow and pink undertones increase views, likes, and comments.

Through interviews with Flickr users, the researchers found that people would rather look at a photo when it was filtered. Professional photographers said that their use for filters was more focused around fixing photo flaws, to enhance, or to emphasize certain colors. Nonprofessionals said that they use the filters more for fun than anything else.

An audience is 21% more likely to look at a picture if it is filtered and 45% more likely to comment on it.

And what about the timing? Neil Patel says that the best day to post is on a Monday, where engagement is its highest (lowest is on Sunday). He also recommends posting off-work hours when more people are likely to check. During work hours, only 22.5/1000 people “interacted” with Instagram where 33.4/1000 did so when they were off the clock.

I have always had weird dreams. I’d wake up in the morning and wonder what caused such odd thoughts to happen overnight. When I got to college, my dreams got even weirder and I wondered if location affects our dreams. But when I started researching it, I found that there are many factors that impact dreams.

1.) Stomach sleepers
Studies have found that people who sleep on their stomachs are more likely to have erotic dreams because they have a tendency to have shortness of breath at night. These dreams often involve famous celebrities and being “tied” or “locked up.”

2.) Genes
Scientists have found that twins are likely to experience nightmares on “almost the same frequency.” One study that observed about 2700 identical twins and 4200 non-identical twins found that those who were identical are “twice as likely to have the trait of having frequent nightmares as fraternal twins.”

3.) Magnetic Field
Psychologist Darren Lipnicki had recorded his dreams for over eight years and concluded that “low geomagnetic activity” created weirder dream patterns and when the activity was high the dreams became more normal.

4.) Television
The tale is true: black and white TV does cause you to have black and white dreams. A 2008 study concluded that the type of television you were exposed to as a child had a significant effect on your dreams. One portion of the study found that participants 55 years and older experienced colorless dreams 20% of the time.

5.) Cheese
The amino acid tryptophan is found in cheese and helps normalize sleep and reduce stress levels. A 2005 study found that those who ate cheddar cheese had more dreams that related to celebrities; bleu cheese consumers had bizarre dreams; Cheshire gave the best night’s sleep but left the night dreamless; Red Lancashire produced dreams related to nostalgia, friends, and childhood; Blue Lancashire caused people to dream about work.

6.) Sounds
In our sleep, our minds take the sounds occurring in the outside world and incorporate them into our dreams. One study found that when music is present in the atmosphere it is more likely to play a role in dreams.

7.) Smells
Much like sounds, smells from the outside atmosphere can play an important part in our dreams. Pleasant scents gave people good dreams and gross smells gave people weird dreams.

Other more obvious factors such as scary movies before bed or going to bed hungry can also affect how your dreams will transpire in the night.

Have you ever been scrolling through Instagram or Twitter and a picture of the most delicious looking pizza pops up and suddenly you are so hungry? I’m guilty. But in reality, is it possible that a picture (that we know is so doctored up I mean c’mon who has ever had a Big Mac like they look on TV?!) can create these hunger induced urges?

A study was conducted on healthy young men and found that “the amount of neurosecretory protein hormone ghrelin in the blood creases as a result of visual stimulation through images of food.” That hormone is a main regulator and it controls eating behaviors and breaks down food. The study concluded that not only are there psychological factors that affect energy in the body but environmental factors as well.

Scientist Petra Schüssler of the Max Planck Institute says of the study, “The findings of our study demonstrate, for the first time, that the release of ghrelin into the blood for the regulation of food consumption is also controlled by external factors. Our brain thereby processes these visual stimuli, and the physical processes that control our perception of appetite are triggered involuntarily. This mechanism could prompt us to eat a piece of cake just two hours after breakfast.”

On the other hand, another study found that looking at these pictures on social media takes the fun out of eating the food yourself and can actually make you tired of the taste without ever eating it. Two researchers from Brigham Young University say, “Over-exposure to food imagery increases people’s satiation, effectively filling up your brain instead of your stomach.”

In a study conducted, half of the participants viewed and rated 60 pictures of sweet food and the other half did the same with 60 pictures of salty food. After rating the pictures, participants were given salty peanuts and the salty food consumers enjoyed the peanuts less, as they got their fill from looking at the pictures.

However, in order for you to actually get this effect from the pictures, you must view a significant number of them according to Ryan Elder, one of the researchers.

And to put those two theories together, some research has found that if the photo is done well – that is taken with expert-like photography skills – it can indeed make you hungry. Photos that have flaws can actually deter and curb your hunger. Food photographers say that spraying the item with oil and water makes it look more appealing to the eye and that is a frequent technique used in the industry.

So, it all depends on the way you look at it and the way it looks at you to determine if it will make your stomach growl uncontrollably or make you never want to look at food again.

I’m the type of person that becomes so enthralled and intrigued by television shows and movies that I actually feel connected to the characters. Grey’s Anatomy – for example – saw a plethora of my tears when I watched the series. What got me thinking, however, was the plane crash episode that was replaying on TV. I remembered that first time watching and how much it ruined me (any fans of the show will back me up on this). So what causes these unbreakable bonds we form with fictional characters?

First, we reference our own life experiences and put ourselves in the characters’ positions. Then, we look at the situation presented as outsiders. Kevin Sauter, a professor at the University of St. Thomas teaches a television criticism class. He says that a viewer invests vast amounts of time in watching a show and they become invested in the lives of characters and see them as family. Sauter also says that the unexpectedness of killing off a character impacts viewers significantly.

One of the biggest questions, however, is why do we form these bonds with characters if we know they are fictional? Howard Sklar of the University of Helsinki says it comes from our ability to connect with other people and have sympathy for their situations. Sympathy and empathy play key roles in our daily lives and we invest those emotions in our television lives as well. We think of these fictional characters as real people in real situations with real life problems.
Sklar says that we tend to fill the holes in a character’s life to help explain a situation in their role. This creates even closer bonds as viewers become more connected to the character.

Sklar uses the scene from Forrest Gump when Jenny introduces Forrest to his son and he finds out the son has not inherited Forrest’s disability, overwhelming Forrest with happy emotions. “It’s such a powerful moment for me—his realizing—it conveys to me all of the things he has suffered in his life as a result of that disability.” He adds, “That scene allows us to see him in his full humanity and all the difficulty he has faced because of the way others have treated him. In those moments, it’s very powerful filmmaking.”

The thought is that as humans, we crave companionship as we sit and watch TV, and form that with the characters we watch on the screen.

So the next time your friend or family pokes fun at your emotional bonds, remind them that science and psychology are to blame.

I love to bake. At home, I spend countless hours in my kitchen concocting creations from Pinterest or my mom and grandmother’s recipes. I sat here looking for blog inspiration while eating a cupcake and looking into the science it took to get here only seems appropriate.

Any variation in a recipe – from too much flour to not enough vanilla – can make the “experiment” (also known as cupcakes) go horribly wrong. Yael Vodovotz, a food science professor at Ohio State (this pains me to reference) says that each ingredient plays a special part that only it can do. “Flour provides the structure; baking powder and baking soda give the cake its airiness; eggs bind the ingredients; butter and oil tenderize; sugar sweetens; and milk or water provides moisture.”

Combining wet and dry ingredients activates these jobs, but Vodovotz says that it is crucial that dry ingredients are mixed in the right order, otherwise they have to compete for water and the recipe becomes clumpy.

You also have to make sure that you do not over mix the batter because as the ingredients combine, they create alignments between gluten proteins and strands and over mixing makes the batter runny. And once the mix hits the oven, the ingredients change yet again as the mix creates a stable structure to hold itself up.

While the cake cools, the sugars and fats play a crucial role in keeping the cake moist and preventing it from becoming stale.

Diné of Bake Love Not War found in her cake researching that three things must occur in order to make a successful and delicious cake. In her words:
“1. The sugar must be equal to or less than the flour (in weight, that is).
2. The eggs and liquids (milk) must equal the flour.
3. The fat must equal the eggs.”

So she conducted her own experiment following these three steps and measured out the ingredients in grams to make sure everything was even. She played around with temperatures and consistencies and found these steps to be very true. In doing this, Diné was able to create those bakery style cupcakes we crave.

Who would have thought that so much research and preparation would have had to go into making a simple cupcake? It is quite amazing to think about these inanimate food stuffs coming together in such harmony and working as a power team. I guess this will teach us to appreciate them even more – if that is even possible.

Have you ever been in a deep sleep but were suddenly jerked awake by a dream that makes you think you’re falling? Two of my biggest fears are heights and falling from those heights, so dreams like this terrify me.

In my English 15 class, we did a speed meeting activity and one girl and I were discussing dreams. I mentioned this specific variety and she said she had done some research on them but forgot what she found. This got me thinking about them a little bit more.

Falling dreams are extremely common and usually occur in the first stage of sleep. Any dream that occurs in this stage is usually accompanied by myclonic jerks: spasms of the arms, legs, or body in general. Falling dreams commonly involve a full-body jerk that causes a person to wake him or herself up. These jerks are caused by an arousal mechanism that allows a person to wake up quickly in case of threats in the environment.

There are many theories as to why these dreams come into fruition. One says that they occur when you have lost control of a situation in your life – whether that is school, work, or life related. They can also be linked to feelings of failure or insecurity and as if you do not have a firm grip on life. These dreams are messages from your subconscious providing warnings about yourself to yourself as you sleep. There are explanations for the various types of falls you may experience in a dream.

Other theories are much simpler and not linked to a loss of control. They simply say that you are literally “falling asleep” and that process is reflected in your dreams. When we sleep, the astral body and the physical body are not properly aligned, making that sudden jerk more possible as we slip into a deep sleep.

Myths that surround this phenomenon such as not waking up before the subconscious fall will result in death in “real life” have been squashed.

These dreams are not necessarily reasons to be alarmed but take them as messages from your body. Experts say that the more you can remember from your dream, the better and easier it is to pinpoint what exactly triggered it. When you are able to find and fix what has you so off balance, you are less likely to experience these nightmares.

Hey everyone! My name is Katie Farnan and I am a freshman majoring in broadcast journalism. I’m from Pen Argyl, PA, which is a small town about an hour outside of Allentown. Penn State has been my dream since before elementary school, so I am very happy to finally be here!

One of the things that stuck out the most to me when I was scheduling my courses in the College of Communications at orientation was the understanding that communications majors are not always the biggest fans of science and math. That explains me so well. I am your English person. I can bang out a well-written essay in a few hours and not think twice about it, but sometimes I struggle with those technical terms that math and science present me with, and I’m sure many of you feel the same way.

This is a hard thing to deal with in high school because so many required classes focus on these subjects that can be hard to grasp, yet we have to pass. Classes like SC 200 and the flexibility in college are great because they don’t force topics on us, yet they explain them without overwhelming us with information that honestly, I’ll never use.

As I was scrolling through the suggested science courses, I was trying to find one that would peak my interest. One of the advisers asked me what variety of science interested me, to which I replied none. She pointed me toward Science 200, and here I am today.

Like many of the people that have blogged before me, I understand the significance science has on society, but I just am not a science person. New scientific discoveries are uncovered every day and that is something that I think people like me take for granted. I never necessarily struggled with science, but I did struggle with math. And as soon as those two combined, I knew that any science-related major was out of the question for me.

I will say though, as soon as I saw the questions we will cover in class each day, I was really excited to explore more and look forward to the experiences and lessons we will all learn together!

Like I said before, Penn State has always been my dream. Here is a picture of my older sisters and I (looking our finest) at one of my first football weekends circa 2000.

Also, for any of you non-communications majors out there, here’s an interesting (and accurate if you are in COMM) BuzzFeed article that will clear up any misconceptions you have about the major.